On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 7:22 am, Clark Peterson wrote:
> "I could not disagree more. D20 exists to A) support
> a major publisher's product line B)give said publisher
> access to a great (theoretically) wealth of new
> derivative designs without having to spend resources
> getting them. WotC is NOT the great crusader for open
> gaming. They are a corporation that NEEDS to make
> money. We can see that in the D20 v3.0 L."
>
> So then why did Fudge and Fuzion fail? Because no one
I think the point the others were trying to make is that from a commercial
point of view Fudge and Fuzion did fail, but from the point of view of
designing two excellent games that, certainly in the case of Fudge, have been
going for a long, long time (longer than d20) they didn't fail at all. Surely
the whole point of an open game is that its about the quality of the work.
> This whole "evil corporation" argument gets tiresome.
> Its easy to paste the corporate tag on WotC and rally
> sympathy from decidedly non-corporate gamers.
But, from a contrary point of view, the whole "benevolent corporation"
argument gets tiresome. No-one believes for a second that WotC are doing this
purely for the love of gaming. Its a business venture and no amount of
hand-waving can change the fact that, at the end of the day, WotC are driven
by their profit margin. The contribution of (some of) the SRD to the OGL is a
positive gesture, but lets not forget that the more d20 stuff published the
more of its core books WotC sells.
Its not helping the argument to adopt one extreme point of view ("WotC is
totally altruistic) in response to the point of view that "WotC is evil".
--
Ricardo Gladwell
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
