<< I haven't insulted anyone on this list, aside from your hypothetical
publisher. >>
Conceded. But any insult rankles me, even when it's not aimed at me. If I
seem harsh in defending someone who doesn't exist, my apologies. But I do
find the insult offensive, and would hope to discourage it BEFORE it has an
actual target.
<< The more I hear about him, the less I like. I won't be buying any of his
games. >>
That's your right. I probably wouldn't, either, because I want to take D20
into new genres where I MUST make new rules and thus will want to contribute
OGC. Work based on D20-the-fantasy-game does me little good.
But would you really not buy an award-winning adventure book (getting a
little ridiculous here to make a point) because it contained no new OGC? And
then you really would buy it if it added OGC tiddlywinks rules? You really
see less value to the gaming community in really great closed content than
you see in really lousy open content? (I understand if your answer is "Yes."
I will watch a superhero movie -- even a really, really bad superhero
movie -- any chance I get, even though I almost never see the film that wins
the Oscar for best picture. Personal taste is often not rational.)
<< Personally, I think some of us are doing publishers a favor by using the
term "leech" in an abstract manner aimed at no one in particular. You
should know that some people have certain expectations of publishers who
use open gaming content (even if you think we're tree-hugging commie
nimrods). It's better to hash the topic out now while we all are figuring
out where we stand on the subject of open game content, rather than doing it
later with a real publisher in the crosshairs. >>
Agreed entirely. I think we're getting somewhere now, and GREATLY APPRECIATE
how you have brought this to a point where we can discuss. I cannot stress
enough how much I respect you for this. Now here's my position in this
hashing out:
I know full well that there will be those in the gaming community who will
throw around terms like "leech" (and worse) because a creator does not
conform to their particular view of what OG means. They are part of the
audience, and their opinions will be among the vast sea of opinions that
ultimately decide what is successful OGC. I have no intention to try to
change those opinions (unless accidentally through the brilliance of my
games).
And I am very well aware that you have ideological reasons for disapproving
of the conduct of the publisher I described. I do NOT dispute your right to
publicly disapprove. I do NOT dispute your right to your ideology in this
regard, even though I disagree with it vehemently. I do not even say that
yours should not become the dominant -- even triumphant -- ideology of Open
Gaming. You will lose me if it does, but should still have an active OG
movement without me. You'll likely never notice I'm gone.
But I feel that the method you choose to express your disapproval -- "leech"
and other insults -- has the potential to be MORE damaging to OG than does
your ideology itself. Why? Because such behavior drives away a whole range
of potentially valuable creators. I am sorry, but it is usually only
insecure people who change their behavior to comply with the orthodoxy and
avoid being insulted. Secure, confident people -- often the best creators,
in fact -- will ignore the insults, and may even see the insults as
indicative of a level of immaturity in the speaker. If these insults are
prevalent enough, they may see these as a measure of the immaturity of the
movement itself. And they may decide that they don't need to be associated
with immaturity (i.e., unprofessionalism), and may move on to other
concerns.
Now the creators have to be thick-skinned and realistic. They cannot expect
to change immaturity in the community as a whole. But we as OGC creators --
forgive me if you don't see yourself as a creator; but I tend to assume that
everyone on this list is either a creator or a hopeful -- are in effect
their peers. If WE come across as immature and unprofessional, we shall
drive them away. Your ideology defines that as a good thing. My ideology --
for reasons I have stated -- defines that as a bad thing. And while we
differ on our ideologies, I hope that you can see that I am trying to
prevent a bad thing (as I perceive it) because I want to see OG survive.
So that is why, when you bring in "leech" and some of the other hostile
slang and attitudes from the more zealous parts of the open source movement,
I see it as a potential threat to Open Gaming itself. I urge you to express
your disapproval, because our opinions at this formative stage will shape
what OG becomes. But I urge you to consider your word choice better: the
insults may help you win the battle (by driving away those who do not share
your ideology) but lose the war (by driving away valuable creators). You
will serve your ideology better by explaining your position than by
insulting the positions of others.
<< I just hope that as you start working with open content, you realize
how much value there is in making some of your own content available to
this community. >>
Absolutely! I hope everyone does this who reasonably can. But I hope their
peers do not insult them when they do not.
Martin
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
