On 17 Sep 00, John scribbled a note about Re: [Open_Gaming] PROTEST was "Fina:
ehehehehehehehe..............
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but you seem to be implying that WOTC is influencing Ryan
in the matter of the OGL. Have you ever even considered the
thought that it is the other way around. That Ryan is influencing
WOTC in this matter?
Just want to list a few points.
1) Ryan is a VP at WOTC, in charge of table-top rpg's, IIRC.
2) WOTC would have most likely NOT gone the route of releasing it
core rpg product as OGL if Ryan had not convinced them of a
monetary gain on their part.
3) The OGL benefits everybody involved, both WOTC AND
everybody on this list who wishes to produce products. For without
the d20 SRD, this would be nothing more than an excercise of the
mind.
Your letter had me rolling with laughter. hehehe.... Enough, I am
out of this one (at least for now).....
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > Therefore, to suggest that because I happen to work for Wizards of
> > the Coast, each and every single thing that I do in my private life
> > must therefore be an extension of Wizards of the Coast corporate
> > policy is not only inaccurate, but indeed highly insulting.
>
> Hm. Ryan, you have spoken about Open Gaming as an official
> representative of Wizards of the Coast -- explaining the corporate policy
> of which the OGL is a part. Meanwhile, the OGF website deleted references
> and links to Dominion Games which were once there -- coincidentally around
> the same time as they decided not to go with the WotC-written OGL. There
> is no mention of the other open-license games which predated the WotC
> push. Furthermore, you have judged for yourself that the largest
> other open-source-like game (FUDGE) does not match the Foundations
> criteria which you wrote -- and thus do not support it.
>
> While I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt,
> I think the long list of coincidences between WotC policy and your
> personal judgement is at least grounds for suspicion. As an example,
> you gave an interview with rpg.net where you said:
>
> "We make more revenue and more profit from our core rulebooks than any
> other part of our product lines. [...]
> The logical conclusion says that reducing the "cost" to other people to
> publishing and supporting the core D&D game to zero should eventually
> drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible
> in the market, create customer resistance to the introduction of new
> systems, and the result of all that "support" redirected to the D&D
> game will be to steadily increase the number of people who play D&D,
> thus driving sales of the core books."
>
>
> I personally would feel better if the OGF website would list the
> Foundation's membership and include in this what their affiliations
> are. As far as I understand, at this point in time you are the sole
> member of the OGF. Those who subscribe to the mailing lists may
> express their opinions, but - for example - you have control over
> the OGF website content and have written all of the current text
> about its goals and opinions.
>
> - John
>
> -------------
> For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
>
*************************
********TANSTAAFL********
*************************
Rasyr (Tim Dugger)
E-Mail:
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebPage: http://www.rpghost.com/rasyr/
Last updated: October 6, 1999
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
