At 07:04 PM 1/17/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/17/03 5:47:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If they are tied to no mechanical system, they have no effect on game. Once I can determine the effect on my character the text has, it is a game mechanic and must be OGC.
Actually, I very much disagree with this. You could definitely write up "thumbnail" sketches of what spell effects are that are tied to NO mechanical system. So I think that's an overarching claim that OGC will always end up embedded into "thumbnail" descriptions of characters, spells, etc.<<As a customer, I would find that version most annoying. Basically you've written every sentence twice: "affects a number of people including the caster" vs. "affects WIS/2 people". No matter how good your editing, something OGL will end up in a story element or the story element and game elements will conflict under certain circumstances. >>
If one did a "real language" paragraph and a "gamespeak" paragraph, the "real language" paragraph could be entirely PI.Which is exactly the case I responded to. And you wouldn't have to make the "real language paragraph PI, just don't declare it OGC.
When did I say not to use descriptive text. All I'm saying is intermingle them. Declare proper nouns as PI and just let people copy your material otherwise. Is this really so bad?<<And those who prefer flavor will probably get annoyed a system that's flavorless and is reduced down entirely to numbers. I think this point represents an interesting point of view, but it has nothing to do with the per se licensing legalities of the approach.From an economic view, you are showing me the EXACT fluff/crunch ratio of the book. This may not be such a good thing for some people. Those who favor crunch, over time, will get annoyed at the story element sections. >>
If you bought a book were the level of writing rose and fell depending on whether it was the "author's" or text the author borrowed, would you ever buy such a book again? Or would you seek out the original writer's work and spend your money there?<<His skill at crafting the written word. Outside of the OGL, you and I could right about news events in the public domain. If you are better than I am at writing, then even if we review exactly the same facts, your story may be more interesting, thoughtful, or insightful than mine. Authors who take pride in their craft may, on some occasions, choose to protect the fruits of their labor.From my 100% OGC advocate point of view, I have to ask, what have you really "protected" by keeping the story element out of my hands? >>
Whether that is always economically advantageous depends on the quality of writing, its distinctiveness, and the nature of the target audience.If you copy my OGC verbatim, I am honored that you didn't feel you could write it better than I did. I am credited in you OGL. If you steel enough of my OGC, I'll start putting your book on my resume. :-)
I would much prefer to send you a email and say, "I want to refer to your book in my book, could you send me an official 'I can use your trademark' note.:" Having received your permission, I will then just put the spell name in my book and say look it up in your book. By PIing the spell name, I have to ask for two licenses, one for the PI and one for the book trademark. And I have to include your PI in my PI statement so no one else uses your PI and wouldn't it be easier for me to just copy the spell into my book and rename it. Now I don't have to direct customers to your works, I just list you in the OGL without any indication of what I used from the book. You get nothing. I waste space duplicating the spell. My customer looks at the spell and says "I'm mad I had to pay for this spell I already have." Nobody benefits.<<MostPeople are doing this an _awful_ lot in the industry from what I've seen. They PI the spell names, any flavor text, and/or verbatim expression and open up the underlying mechanics of the spell in question.annoying is that you PIed the name of the spell. Makes it completely useless from my perspective. >>
I can't say that this is not useless to you. I'm not you and wouldn't dare to question your assessment. But I find such things to be hardly uncommon in the industry.
I like to think my way is much better than what is currently being done. And if we don't bitch about it to our fellow publishers they'll never change.
No, That's why I said to include it in the d20 logo license as well. You have to use the most recent one if you use the logo.<<I don't have the OGL in front of me right now. But are people legally obliged to use the most current version of the OGL?Personally, I think Wizards can still fix this. They just have to add a clause to the d20 license that clarifies what clearly means and says your OGC declaration cannot include an phrase that basically means "all content derived from OGC is OGC." Once that circulated for a while, they could then update the OGL itself. The beauty of this is they don't have to polute the OGL until they know what will work. Of course, this assumes that they care. >>
Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
