This topic actually interests me a great deal too. I'm an administrator
for a web-site that does a great deal of community world-development. It
currently uses published game worlds from among a selection of games, but
the OGL has sparked my interest in using the site for the creation and
development of an OGL d20 setting. And yes, I've run into the same snags in
thinking that you have, where the strength of the idea lies in a large base
of developer/players, but at the same time runs the risk of becoming
directionless and confusing.
--Jason Levine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 7:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Open_Gaming] discussing an Open World License
>
>
> Howdy,
>
> I'd like to revisit the discussion of group world creation
> projects and
> how to make them compatible with the spirit of Open Gaming yet
> maintain the
> continuity of the world. (Except this time I'll just leave Dunan out of
> things... I'm learning.)
>
> Group world creation cannot be "open" in the same way that a set of rules
> can. I think we all understand why. However, if a group does
> not restrict
> membership then there is _nothing_ keeping the work from being "freely
> copied, modified and distributed." Additionally, all material "freely"
> distributed within the community could be forced to remain that way.
>
> That is in the spirit of Open Gaming. It is different because "Open" is
> limited to within a community, but that problem is completely negated by
> making said community 100% Open.
>
> I also agree that how that information transfers from the Open World
> Community to the Gaming community is very important.
>
> That is why I think rules for the Leadership of such Open World
> Communities
> should be made part of the Open World License.
>
> If the person or group of people acting as a filter between the
> Open World
> Community and the Gaming Community were restricted by a pro-Open
> set of laws,
> then we could significantly minimize their effect on the Content created
> within their Open World Community. In addition, these leaders
> could be bound
> to the structure of a nonprofit organization or distribute the
> Content for
> free.
>
> If you don't like working with others or occasionally bowing to
> the requests
> of a justified leadership, then don't join an Open World Community. This
> idea is for people who _want_ to see what a group of people can
> accomplish
> for the gaming community without losing continuity.
>
> I've met a lot of amazing people online these past few months and
> because of
> them I truly think it's a mistake to turn away from group world
> creation.
>
> I also realize that this does not have to be a part of the Open Gaming
> Movement, but it should. If it does, it will expand the concept
> of "Open" to
> connote "the sharing of ideas in the Gaming Community" not just
> "the sharing
> of Game Rules" .
>
> Regards,
> Maggie
> -------------
> For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
>
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
