While I think the idea of having everything open is noble I don't think it
is realistic UNLESS your goal is to produce one of the open worlds we
talked about.
However, the market for RPGs are consumers, not suppliers. Sure 90% of the
gamers out there have dreams of publishing but the average purchaser isn't
going to care about any of this. If it is cool and is fun to play they'll
buy it. Closed/Open. It won't matter.
"If you have to ask permission to use something, it detracts from the reuse
considerably, in my opinion."
By the competition yes. By the consumer. no. I played AD&D for
years. Nothing was "open". But I got a heck of a lot of reuse out of the
MM. I don't make any claims to being a great game designer but the product
I am working on has taken me years of blood sweat and tears. I have no
intention of letting anyone out there happily create products for my
product (or using disected bits of my materials) that may be substandard
and thus detract from the overall value of my product.
"I think the company missed an opportunity "
For what? To let other people make products for their game and get nothing
for it? Most modules I've seen include stats for the monsters, even basic
ones, which eliminates the theory that someone would have to buy the
CC. If you like Scarred Lands and you like the CC send a sample of your
work to them and publish under their name. The only reason not to is if
you don't want to share any profits you make with them, in which case why
would WW want to give you access to their materials???
I'm just sick of people putting down those that have busted A**, invested
huge amounts of money and come out with a quality product, just because the
person who has succeeded won't give them their product for free. Give me a
break. Write your own stuff.
At 12:38 PM 10/17/2000, you wrote:
>At 07:39 AM 10/17/00 -0700, Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm pretty sure that Steve is intending to post to the
>>list saying that it will be real easy to get
>>permission to use CC monster names for any products
>>you might be considering making.
>
>If you have to ask permission to use something, it detracts from the reuse
>considerably, in my opinion. If White Wolf is hoping to see monsters from
>the Creature Collection adopted in modules and settings from other D20
>developers, closing the names works against that goal.
>
>>Wait a minute? You arent actually claiming that the
>>first company to put out a hard-backed 200+ page book
>>full of open content monsters doesnt get Open Gaming,
>>are you?
>
>It depends on what White Wolf is trying to accomplish. If its only goal
>in open gaming is to sell a bunch of books -- nothing wrong with that --
>then the CC will probably do that, no matter how much of it is closed.
>However, I think the company missed an opportunity by closing all of
>the monster names. I would have been much more interested in the
>book if some monsters were entirely open.
>
>Rogers Cadenhead
>E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Web: http://www.prefect.com
>
>-------------
>For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
