I think that what's come clear from all of this discussion about CC is that
the OGL is not the be-all end-all of Open Gaming. Open Gaming as a concept,
not as a specific practice.
The fact is, as Mr. Weick generously points out, that just because a company
makes something PI doesn't mean they're going to hold it tight and refuse to
let anyone play with it. They just want to have control over who does what
with it. Keeping some stuff closed is the way this is done.
Open Gaming can be expressed in an attitude of openess, not just through
specific licenses. It's this sort of attitude that will build a community in
Open Gaming. White Wolf's attitude is clearly the sort that the industry
needs.
> ----------
> From: Steve Wieck
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 10:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] CC - a possible interpretation of strategy
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for the analysis. As usual in these matters you're pretty accurate,
> but I should clarify our outlook on this a bit.
>
> Our decisions on OG vs. PI content for CC (don't ya just love how all
> these
> anocronyms have already sprouted) were based on 1) Publishing under the
> draft version of the license and not knowing yet what parameters WOTC
> would
> use on their own material in regards to OG vs. PI and 2) A marketing
> strategy somewhat similar to what you lay out below since this same
> strategy
> would seem to be employed by WOTC and presumably many OG publishers to
> come.
>
> In regards to 1), our thought is that since WOTC is starting this thing,
> we'll follow their lead. If the final version of the d20 SRD comes out and
> allows people to use "Mind Flayer" and "Beholder" then we will follow suit
> with opening up CC monsters to OG usage. While publishing under the draft
> version though, it is necessary to be more conservative, since you can
> never
> take back permission once granted in these cases. So once WOTC finalizes
> the
> "rules of the game" we'll be happy to modify CC's OG vs. PI distinctions
> in
> future printings of CC.
>
> In regards to 2), if WOTC is keeping Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms PI, why
> on earth shouldn't we be entitled to keep all elements of Scarred Lands as
> PI? The philosophy behind OG, IMO, is to keep the rules open but still
> allow
> people to hold on to some measure of proprietary intellectual property. I
> don't think keeping setting elements PI runs at all contrary to OG
> philosophy.
>
> In the meantime, anyone who would like to use a CC monster in any OG book
> need only e-mail me to get permission.
>
> > It's an interesting business choice, and it's one that makes
> considerable
> > sense if you are one of the largest game companies and have built in
> > advantage in terms of marketing and familiarity -- you can grab what a
> > larger company, WotC, is giving away, without really having to pay it
> > forward to other publishers (who are your competitors).
> >
>
> Large is such a relative term. After the sales of 3e, it should be
> painfully
> clear there's only ONE large company in rpgs!
>
>
> Regards,
> Steve Wieck
> White Wolf
>
>
> -------------
> For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
>
>
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
