Re: [Open_Gaming] Reply to DM

[Githianki]

Sorry I am lost now. I agreed totally with Keith's post 12/20/00 1:44:15 Vanilla Ice Cream :). DM- Do you think that we would have the variety of systems we have today (good ones or bad), if OD&D had been opened up for licensing? Original bit: ME> Many games exist because at some point the market demanded it. RYAN>I disagree. >Many games exist because the company that controlled the most popular system >aggressively tried to stymie any attempt to use it without a license, and >they didn't grant licenses.� And once that pattern was established, it >became the norm, so that the market continued to divide and subdivide, with >each publisher staking out a portion of the rules continuum and then >defending it against encroachment. >The current RPG market is a direct result of the >unnatural< actions of TSR, >then most of the companies that followed it, not the natural actions of the >desires of consumers being fulfilled by unrestrained providers. I meant "many games" in the broad sense of all RPGs, not "many specific games" as in D&D "clones". Ryan's response in turn seems to cover the existence of all other RPG games (as evidenced by the earlier references to the market and shelf space, etc.).  Perhaps he only meant fantasy but I think he was refering to the base systems (entire market) not the genres, especially in light of d20's multi-genrerality (word?). Ryan's overall theme was that marketplace diversity wouldn't have happened, as well as be a bad thing, if D&D had been more open to licensing. He was saying that the fragmentation of the RPG market would not have existed (if D& D were more open) .  I don't think Ryan meant just the bad "unneccessary" systems wouldn't have existed though they are a part of it. Githianki to DM- >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. DM- >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. You also said: "I think that there are *very* valid reasons for other game systems--for example, AD&D had no rules for ships, and was comic-book style in its HP.�" Putting it together it sounds like either you have changed opinions or maybe you think that creativity was spurred as a result of TSR's denial of access.   Since Ryan implies that the overall results of TSR's actions were a bad thing I think you might be  riding both sides of the fence.  The action being bad but the result being good?   I would submit that the creativity would have happened anyway and thus a diverse market was inevitable. Do you agree? -Alex Silva