[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Somehow, I get the feeling that you think a publisher tries to stake
> out a
> piece of market first then design a system around it (thereby being
> forced to
> create a new system if they can't use one on the market already).

Ryan and I have gone around this topic before, but this time I'm going
to side with him: Insofar as a new system is not required for a specific
game, the licensability of the D&D system (either through the D20
trademark license or the OGLed SRD) will benefit both manufacturer and
consumer.

Insofar as a new system is required -- or desired -- for a specific
game, the licensability of the D&D system will have no effect on either
manufacturer or consumer.

For example, if I want to play a STAR WARS game and have no preference
as to system -- well, a D&D-derived system is going to be more valuable
to me than an entirely new system (assuming, of course, that I was happy
and familiar with the D&D system to begin with).

Basically, there are two reasons for developing and/or using a system
other than D&D/D20 for a new game:

1. You want to explore a radically different mechanical concept. (Dice
pool mechanics, diceless systems, card-based resolution, whatever.)
2. You want to develop a game system tailored specifically to the game
world. (BARON MUNCHAUSEN, PUPPETLAND, UNKNOWN ARMIES, etc.)

But if all I want to do is publish (or play) A Neat Idea(TM) -- with a
fairly generic system underlying it -- then I'd be foolish *not* to go
with D20.

I wouldn't mind seeing a really good dice pool system made OGL, either.
Silhouette would be nice (although I doubt you could ever convince DP9
to open source it.) That's the other major system type in the industry
-- and is pretty much entirely incompatible with the D20 system. BID.

Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org

Reply via email to