[Open_Gaming] Reply to DM

[Githianki]

Okay I believe Ryan believes it :), but does anyone else? TNE is a concept that didn't get wide circulation until recently (in RPG circles).  Do you really think that all those small RPGs came about because people could get to D&D? Or do you believe, as I do, that many were the result of disasifaction with the mechanics of D&D? Remeber I am talking about RPGing in general here, not just fantasy settings.  D&D was great as it existed but I think enough players have monkeyed with the rules or ignored them (to various degrees) to state accurately that it was not the system that people were in love with but the settings, ideas, and concepts. >� There are plenty of systems which exist not only > to cover different genres, but also because many people were dissatisfied > with the mechanics of D&D.� The fact that they had any market success > at all > is because consumers were willing to purchase them; because they > wanted them. >� You can say that people would have rather had each genre in the D&D > system > but that ignores the fact that TSR released many genres (Top Secret, Star > Frontiers, Gamma World, etc.) using the same basic system but other games > continued to be made and bought.� >I'd say that's more due to TSR's poor buisness practices, and the >creative *settings* of the other games, than anything else. ? Not sure what you mean. You are basically putting forth the notion that the entire RPG market was reactive to the decisions of TSR and had no creative impulses of its own. The settings of many non-TSR games were very creative systems and settings and would have come into existence regardless of whether they had access to the D&D mechanics.  If you mean that Star Frontiers, etc. were so uncreative that others were forced to create better settings and had to do so under different rulesets then I think that is pushing it.  Many thought the settings were good but that the mechanics of D&D were unsuited to the type of gameplay that emerges under different settings than fantasy. There are also many RPG genre offerings that predate TSR's match and therefore could not be a reaction to the poor setting choices of TSR. TNE is more about growth of a network and usefulness rather than making decisions about what is useful or not.  In fact only when there are choices excluding one possible use is this necessary.  The marketplace (and lawsuits) weed out games *which don't have a good reason to be different* . If TSR kept others away from its system and the market rewarded that behavior, then we could say that the other systems were unneccessary or harmful.  The fact that TSR went under and that other systems came into being (and continue to exist in some cases) means only that they were and are useful.  Nothing says that their existence is a direct result of TSR choices. >The OGL won't eliminate other systems.� It will eliminate *unncecessary* systems. That is not supportable, at all.  Who is to say that a neccessary system won't exist that isn't part of the OGL? >P.S. Ryan has said that he agrees with you--d20 *isn't* the perfect system. Of course, there *is* not perfect system. But it doesn't matter... all that matters is that everyone can use the *same* system, thus eliminating the trait of learning new rules unecessarily. Oh I know, but I can also tell you with absolute certainty (okay theoretical absolute) that learning new rules is a necessity and that one system won't satisfy anyone but a bare majority.  The OGL in no way limits the creation of alternate systems, but it doesn't help the TNE either because it actually restricts the process by which another system might co-adapt and/or replace the d20 one it protects. (Maybe?...that needs some more thought). -Alex Silva