Lizard wrote:
> At 07:27 AM 9/7/00 -0500, Justin Bacon wrote:
> >That being said, I know *exactly* how to write a game using only the D20
> >trademark license which will stand completely independent of the PHB.
> >(And, no, I'm not going to tell you how to do it.) Even with that being
> >true, however, I still suspect that my game will fuel sales of the PHB
> >(if it were ever to fall into the hands of someone who wasn't already
> >familiar with D&D).
> >
> Can anyone explain why the idea of 'helping WOTC sell more PHBs' is
> apparently so morally repugnant, if the method of doing so also lines the
> outside developers pockets as well?
Just in case there's any confusion: The fact that I've found a couple of
loopholes in the D20 license as it stands, is nothing more than an
intellectual curiousity (although one of them is allowing me to do a project
I was already planning to do in a far better, and clever, manner). I find
nothing "morally repugnant" about fueling sales of the PHB -- after all, the
sales of the PHB are what's going to be fueling *my* sales. WotC gives me
customers, I give WotC customers -- who's losing out, exactly? I think the
whole concept of the D20 trademark license is really fantastic and I have
several plans/hopes for developing D20 products over the next few months.
In fact, I find the D20 license far more interesting (at the moment, anyway)
than the OGL in many ways.
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
