[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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?
Both.
Company X publishes a game in 1980. They love AD&D, but they think that
the attack charts are stupid, so they want to have a "THAC0" style
system. But then they get a note from TSR legal, saying "don't do
that." (Or their lawyer says "don't do that", or the owners herad of
someone who tried and got sued, or whatever.) The end result is, that
Company X has to build or re-build an entire system around "THAC0" to
keep TSR away.
All of the *rest* of that system is uncecessary, and really never should
have been written. *THAT* is what the OGL changes, and what I think is
the best part about it.
> 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.
Yes, they did. And from that tinkering things like Storyteller, GURPS,
and 3e were born... *BUT* a whole lot of BS was born as well... stuff
that really shouldn't have been.
> >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.
No, I'm putting forth the notion that the "let's all make us a game
system!" mindset was a result of TSR's "you can't use our system, so
nyahh!" policy.
And yes, I'm spouting the OGF party line here.
> 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.
Yes... and they very well might have sold better if they *DID* have
access to D&D mechanics.. and might even still be around.
> 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* .
Including some that had darn good potential, but were killed by
inadequete rules.
> >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?
? Sure it is. Someone who wants to make a new game and is no good at
writing rules can use OGL'd rules... or some other "open" ruleset.
> 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).
It might not *eliminate* learning new rules, but it will keep it to a
bare minimum.
Honestly; how many variations of "this is how you resolve a skill" do we
*really* need?
Doug Meerschaert
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
