"Ask Chris Pramas. His entire creation (the city of Freeport), presented
in the three d20 modules he's released is Open Game Content."
Love his stuff but will check back regarding this issue in a couple of
years. I just think the jury is still out on this one and we can't claim
that it works until proven so.
"The brand of D&D is more valuable than the game of D&D."
Exactly. Giving away everything (a name in this instance) is not
necessarily a recipe for economic success. Giving away SOME things can
be. Granted the name has power based on its history of products and
perception that has all built a brand identity but the point remains that
if back when D&D was created they had made the name "open" would it have
had the same identity it holds today? No one knows but I don't think it
would. Open does not always = success .
"Your utopia lasted less than 11 months."
Actually wasn't suggesting it existed. Just pointing out the changing
focus that has led to the concept of Open Gaming.
Basically I am just saying that I think it is inappropriate to suggest (not
by Ryan or any one person but in general but as a concept) that the
activities that go on in this group and on the site are based on the
altruistic concept of sharing materials for the betterment of gaming. I
think acting like that is the basis of the concept gets in the way of truly
understanding what is going on and how to resolve the issues at hand. It
all comes down to who gets credit and ultimately who has the right to
profit from that credit.
At 12:36 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> > "The OGF exists because..."
> > Not what it does but why it became a reality at all.
>
>Oh, that's easy.
>
>TRPGs are a tiny, tiny busines at WotC, being run by a guy known for jumping
>off cliffs and hoping to invent wings on the way down (i.e., me.) It exists
>because I did it and nobody with any authority told me to stop. Nobody told
>me to stop because in general, the experiment is viewed as benign regardless
>of outcome.
>
>One day, I went to the NSI page, and registered the OGF domain names. Then
>a few weeks later, I bought a computer with my own money, installed Red Hat
>Linux on it, put a few basic HTML pages on that computer, and hooked it up
>in the server room of an ISP I happen to have an ownership interest in.
>Viola! www.opengamingfoundation.org, sans WotC oversight or control.
>
> > From all indications it
> > came into being for business reasons (primarily) as supported by
> > WOTC.
>
>I believe in doing well by doing good. As I've said before, my analysis
>indicated that this was a time when doing something really great for the
>community in general was a good strategic business fit for WotC's commercial
>interests.
>
> > Most of the discussion here revolves around WOTC and the SRD
>
>We're still waiting for John Nephew's Open Game version of On the Edge... :)
>
> > The logic is true but is the statement?
>
>Ask Chris Pramas. His entire creation (the city of Freeport), presented in
>the three d20 modules he's released is Open Game Content.
>
> > but it begs the question: if this is true why isn't everything WOTC puts
> > out for D&D open?
>
>Because D&D is the 1 in a 1,000,000 property that actually generated
>multi-million dollar brand equity.
>
>c
>
> > "How can you sell someone a toolbox that they are expected to use to
>create
> > content, but then expect to enforce a restriction on the distribution of
> > that content?"
> >
> > That's just it...WHY are you giving them the toolbox (or should we say
> > development kit)?
>
>Because the original designers in this industry didn't see any other way to
>do what they wanted to do with the products they wanted to publish. And
>once the genie is out of the bottle, it's damn hard to stuff him back in.
>Especially 25 years later.
>
> > The original idea was that Joe gamer went home and made
> > games for his group...no threat...no need for legal documents.
>
>Judge's Guild started publishing within one year of D&D's widespread
>commercial avaialabiilty. Your utopia lasted less than 11 months.
>
> > "Example: The 'net is >FULL< of documents and sites where people who had
> > no problems whatsoever using content from various D&D books as the basis
> > for their work attempt to assert a draconian re-distribution authority for
> > the derivative work."
> >
> > But you don't need an OGF, OGL and SRD to stop plagiarism or copyright
> > infringement
>
>You misunderstand. I don't want to stop people from creating that content.
>I want them to be FORCED to provide the same set of rights they receive from
>us to anyone to whom they distribute derivative material based on our work.
>In other words, I want to make sure that people can't take stuff WotC paid
>to develop, add a few bells and whistles, then start claiming that >OTHER
>PEOPLE< can't do the same thing to those bells and whistles. You should
>allow others to do unto you what you have done unto others.
>
>Ryan
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ogf-l mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
