From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rogers
Cadenhead
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 10:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Consolidated Remarks
<< At 08:48 PM 8/20/00 -0400, "Martin L. Shoemaker"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And suppose I should derive from OGC, offer no new OGC at all, and
otherwise
>close my work. Even in this case, I can still contribute to the gaming
>community ...
If everyone does that, where is the OGC material going to come from? >>
If everyone does that, there is no OGC material. So? Either most people
WON'T do that, or OG is a failed concept. But I was pointed out that there
are many kinds of contributions with value to the gaming community. I raised
four very specific examples of value to the community that I know to be
concrete and measurable and deriving from the existence of quality OGC. I
believe my examples remain valid: closed content based on open content can
provide value, and is not necessarily "an effort to derive value from the
open work of others without risking anything valuable of your own."
<< However, as a general principle, if you personally benefit from open
work, you should open your work too, at least in part. >>
You are welcome to believe in that principle, which I endorse in the broad
sense but think is misguided in some specific cases. When it comes to game
rules, I encourage people to do as you say (though there is no concrete
mechanism in OGL to compel it). When it comes to setting and characters, I
encourage people to follow the course that makes them comfortable. And it is
VERY reasonable to foresee products which consist solely of new settings and
characters that make use of the existing rules.
<< Your hypothetical
example of someone who uses OGC content and publishes none doesn't sound
like a contributor to me. The word that springs to mind here is "leech." >>
Then you have chosen to ignore the real, stated economic benefits because
they do not happen to fit your personal philosophy. I think that throwing
insults around because a creator sees things differently than you do is a
good way to stifle the interest of creators everywhere and discourage
EXACTLY the benefits I cited. A creator who makes a quality adventure with
no new rules and no new OGC has done nothing to merit your insults. A little
civil discourse would be appreciated.
<< Maybe I'm wrong to compare
software and roleplaying, but to watch programmers give away millions
while RPGers fret over pennies is hard to view charitably. >>
Your charitable views are your business, and your right. But others do not
see through your personal filters. I still see it as entirely reasonable for
a creator to make a closed setting and characters that are based on OGC, but
provide no new OGC. I still see benefit in these to the gaming community (if
done well). And I see nothing in the OGL that precludes this (which I see as
a positive benefit in the OGL).
Martin
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
