> Alexander P. Macris
I love a good rant - sometimes it is just the thing to get the tension out
of your system. But you started out with a flawed primary assumption:
> Everyone with experience in the game industry knows
> that supplements drive revenues, and so an open source
> model makes sense for WOTC. If everyone plays D20,
> demand for supplements that use D20 goes up.
WotC came to exactly the opposite conclusion.
You should read Ryan's analysis of the gaming industry - "The most
dangerous column in gaming" on the WotC site is a good start, "The theory of
Network Externalities" is another. He created d20 to drive the sale of the
CORE books, not the supplements. Supplements are low-margin, low-volume
products that sap the life out of the product line.
> The fact that D&D3E is a product makes me think that
> the actual D20SRD, to be released under the OGL, is
> going to be a much smaller product than I previously
> imagined--one that does not include the spell lists,
> magic items, monstrous bestiaries, and other familiar
> data from D&D.
That is not what Ryan has stated up til this point, and he's got a pretty
good record so far (except for the schedule, but that ALWAYS slips).
The only spells that are expected to be missing/modified are those with
specific personalities associated with them. For example, the 'Bigby' or
'Tenser' spells. I suspect that many of the more unique monsters will also
be left out, while most of the standard ones will be placed in the SRD.
Both spells and monsters will have greatly abbreviated text.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
