----- Original Message ----- From: "John Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 9:39 AM Subject: [Ogf-l] Practical Test of Openness (was OGC Designation (Rant))
> Can anyone answer this? I think this is important. If > OGC is never actually used, then its theoretical openness is > irrelevant. I don't think this is a good test of the "openness" of any given source of OGC. There are a couple major reasons, in my experience, why third-party publishers aren't using more OGC from other publishers. First, new content is more appealing to the customer than re-published content from another source. I judge that my customers don't want to see the same feats and prestige classes in Seafarer's Handbook that they got in Seas of Blood. Second, I don't want to reference (without reprinting) another company's OGC, because I don't want to assume that my customer either owns or will purchase that source. I've avoided referencing our own books for the same reason (though I know AEG, at least, has done this with mini modules that use material from Evil). The SRD works as a base of OGC because publishers can be perfectly happy marketing their products only to those who own the core rulebooks. Third-party publishers will typically not be able to establish their products (or their OGC) as such a standard. Greg FFG _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
