[Open_Gaming] Reply to Rasyr

[Githianki]

I clarified some of your objections in my reply to Clark but one or two things stood out I would like to address separately. >From the consumer viewpoint: I go buy� game X that says it is >compatible with D&D (game X is the above hypothetical product). I >get home and find that the game uses a whoel different magic >system, a different skill/combat resolution system, and a different >character creation method. The only thing that is the same is the >feats and how they are acquired. Now should this product be >allowed to say it is compatible with D&D (or even d20?). Taking the larger issues of compatibility claims in general: 1) the market rule is buyer beware.  The OGL restrictions aren't a consumer protection, they are there to protect publishers from having people dilute their trademarks and infringe on their copyrights.  Furthermore, a claim of compatibility is just that, a claim.  It is not a defacto statement of truth nor does it imply a promise that must be met to the consumer.  There are laws for fraud, etc. which cover all sorts of scenaios like this, and computer software providers avoid lots of it with EULAs.   >Sorry, but IMHO this sounds a lot like sour grapes because you >cannot have everything you want exactly. This is because you have miscontrued my post as a personal objection to the OGL instead of a argument put forth for debate to test the strength of the case for using the OGL instead of sticking with normal copyright and trademark laws.  So far the case has rested a great deal on the safe harbor from the threat of lawsuits.  I am trying to probe whether such lawsuits are legal, not whether they should be carried out, or whether the OGL does or does not provide such a safe harbor (though that does tie in as a result).  A concrete opinion on this point goes a long way to supporting the use of the OGL, beyond it being the method by which d20 is going to be released. >Sorry, but your whole attitude seems just a little naive at times. >WOTC is a company. As such, they are in business to make >money. If Ryan had not convinced them that there was a way for >them to make money off this idea, then there would be no OGL, >and no SRD and d2STL.... >For other games, the companies that produce them would have to >develop their own OGL. Or create an SRD for their system and >place that under the OGL, while creating their own STL for their >game.� Sorry if I get offended by that characterization but many seem able to respond to posts on this board (even ones that seem very opposed for whatever reason to the OGL) without resorting to putting down the poster.  Many of your arguments against what I said, while well taken, also seem to show that you misunderstood what I was getting at.  That could be my fault or yours.   In any event, The OGL may have existed eventually without the money beacuse my uunderstanding has been that Ryan believes in the concepts personally.   Much of the Open Gaming Foundation is his personal work not a result of the quest for money.  Wizards may not have adopted the OGL without the money but there is no telling where it may have ended up anyway. This also brings up the issue of applicability.  The OGL is being put forth for all companies to use, not just Wizards.  If as you say, the OGL exists soley to make Wizards money and no one else, then it will die. The whole point is that it should exist to serve everyone, not just Wizards.  I have nothing against Wizards and no sour grapes (maybe one or two :)) but that doesn't mean I or anyone else will just line up willy-nilly and follow their lead wherever they want to take us. >The concept of the OGL works. The question is when are other companies going to adopt it for their own systems........ I agree with reservations.  I would especially like to hear from SJG games since they don't feel that adventures are a profitable area of work.  There are a zillion settings but pre-made adventures are a rarity.  Time is a commodity too. -Alex Silva BTW, what is that TANSFL... thingo mean?