>Wait a minute. I feel like we're having that discussion again about why
>there's isn't more free water available in the ocean. The SRD is
> >packed< with stuff that you can use to either create your own content
>or mesh seamlessly with other people's content (including WotCs).
> >packed< with stuff that you can use to either create your own content
>or mesh seamlessly with other people's content (including WotCs).
Not at all. The ocean is >greatly< appreciated, as are your efforts that have made it available.
I'm wondering if this is what WotC actually wants. It's about the >intent<. As you effectively point out, if somebody publishes a "Slayer's Guide a Illithiad", with a completely different creature that is "statblock-compatible", and the community takes to it, then you get a very disparate view in the D20 community of what an Illithiad is.
In the spirit of the "Netbooks", there is currently some reason to perhaps create a free, published work that releases, as open content, pictures, background, social structure etc, for every creature currently in the MM. I don't think that anybody really wants that, but for many D20 publishers it would be a legally sound approach to use something like this. As it stands, they (by and large), can't even create any artwork that has creatures resemembling pictures from the MM.
It's not just a "handful" of monsters. Do WotC effectively want closed content on what every creature looks like (there are *no* pictures in the SRD)? If they do, then fine. If, however, they actually >want< publishers to be able to create adventures based on what the players see and read about monsters in the monster manual, there's a problem. We sit at a table and play out these games in our heads. I don't think that there's any question that the pictures provided in the MM are a very powerful and often necessary visualization tool.
Look at it this way: Did WotC publish the MM because they thought that DMs would by and large go away and design all their own adventures, or was there an expectation that lots of D20 publishers would publish adventures for DMs based on the MM, giving the MM it's full value?
Does WotC really want the copyright to closed content built on the SRD, for a "handful" of creatures. If so, fine. What I personally read into it is that WotC management need to be assured that there isn't sufficient information in the SRD to dilute the marketability of the MM - and fair enough. Personally, I'm grateful that they let it go as far as they did.
I just wonder if a licensing mechanic that somehow allowed publishers to use the visual and "roleplaying" content (without diluting the marketing value of the MM), would be in everyone's interest. I can, however, see that it wouldn't be easy to find such a mechanic.
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
