Boy! I go to work for 9 measley hours and you guys
write 60 messages without giving me a chance to catch up. :-) I have
seriously lost track of who is arguing exactly what points, now. That seems
to suggest that we are honing in on something, and that's great.
This post is sort of a clearing house for my responses
to some of what's come my way.
Especially early on in the 60 messages (like I'm
doing ancient literature research), there is a mood to the messages I don't
like at all ...
Mathew Gray wrote:
In addition, when Martin notes a product which could totally be viable (anIf this is in response to my post, then I maintain that I have been misunderstood. First, as has been said elsewhere, I did not say "unimaginative." I did not apply the title of "leech" to any real person. I was speaking in reference to a previous point.
adventure book) he gets nothing but a response which summed up is:
"capitalism is wrong, this person is an unimaginitive leech" . . .
I said:
Yes, someone who does what you're saying would be a "leech."
Granted, I should have said: "is likely to be regarded as a leech." I have further indicated that if a product (deemed "leechy" or not) still manages to sell well in the marketplace, then it will rise above "leechhood." That is fine. It has been approved by the consumers in the marketplace, and that is a success. If the product benefits the gaming community (which it could do just by succeeding in the marketplace), it will probably escape serious disapproval by the OGF community.Hopefully, consumers would recognize that and not buy his or her product.
Individual parties in the OGF community are still authorized to think whatever they want about any product, though. That's their right.
The OGF community and the gaming community are not identical. The OGF community will be a mixture of developers and consumers. It is my hope that, with the OGL and through OGC, it will be a very communicative social group. The idea that this organization will not look highly on a product which only leeches has been proven. We've all read the proof already. That "scorn," however much any party might regard it as unfounded, illogical, or idealistic, will be a real, possible consequence of releasing any product into a vocal marketplace like ours. How much it affects actual activity in the marketplace is the subject for another debate. How much it must affect continuing developers and authors is up to the individual developer and author.
OPINION:
If a product does nothing but leech, then I have to admit that I hope it fails commercially. That is my opinion. A product which does nothing but leech is not in violation of the OGL. It is not "wrong." In my opinion, if it benefits the gaming community but not the OGF community, it is not leeching. If the OGL fails as a result, though, I am likely to change my mind. It will be an emotional decision, not a rational one, because I'll be upset to see the OGL fail and, really, I'm a big baby. :-)
Next, I certainly did not say Capitalism is "wrong."
Rhetoric:
Capitalism has the capacity to reflect the wishes
of the individual consumer and channel those wishes into the market in
tangible, affective ways. It also has the capacity to crush and destroy
producers and consumers. Those are the rules, but they are also unpleasant.
Capitalism is a fine system, but it is not a perfect machine. No such machine
exists.
(Well ... I do think WWII aircraft are pretty keen.)
Meaning:
Honestly, your best bet is not to attach me to any
major systems, parties, or ideologies. I am unlikely to ever agree completely
with any one. I like Capitalism well enough, but whether I like it or not
really isn't important. It's what I've got. If something better came along,
I'd use that.
Concession Stand:
I have a point to concede. I'm acually thrilled
to do it, because it's a good point. Regardless of each our individual
goals for the OGL and our products involving it, one of the stated goals
behind the formation of the OGL has been the area of distribution. So,
I agree where I did not before:
A product which includes previously-released OGC
without releasing any new OGC can do the OGF and the gaming community a
service through distribution. If I release OGC in my book, and somebody
else puts in their book with no new OGC, but their book reaches even two
people that my book would not have reached, then I have still benefitted
from their book. It is in the OGL already, since my name must be credited
with my previous OGC. I had clearly not thought that point through.
There will be products out as a result of the OGL
which are ... undesirable. Products that will suck. Those products, which
utilize OGC, but add nothing beneficial at all (Open or Closed, Here or
There, Statistic or Setting) are truly the leeches. It is up to the consumer
audience to disapprove of those products. But of course, we as consumers
do that all the time. I think the OGL has a real chance to succeed.
I'm going to wait awhile before I post again, I think.
I've made my points, and I have to let them get interpreted or misinterpreted
as they will. In the meantime, I'll let you all sort more things out, learn
from you, and rethink my position.
But, in the future, please reference *who* you are
summarizing. If the quoted post above is not in reference to my message,
a lot of this has been for nothing. Either way, I don't like to be summarized.
Quote me to death, address my language and my semantics because those are
genuine topics of debate, but be aware that rhetoric -- as a part of language
-- is important when I'm trying to communicate. Summarizing can miss key
points.
It's a failing, sure, but it's my failing.
thanks much,
will
