Hi all,
Just a question about why this seems to be a common tactic used by most publishers. I've bought several add-ons/adventures for DnD that include OGC, and also add their own OGC in the process. This is great I thought. However my gripe is that a number of people seem to do the following Name: Gary's new monster Stat block: .... Description .... Then release everything as OGC but PI the name. Now that is in my mind useless. If I wished to reuse that monster I would need to simply give it a new name. So I could still reuse all their work just not with that name. How does doing that benefit the original author? Wouldn't they be better saying that the name is OGC, and everything else is PI (unless of cause the stat block is derivative and has to be OGC). That way when I decide to reuse their contents, I could say in my adventure or whatever, the players open the door to discover five Gary's new monsters. Which if the players needed to find specific details they would have to buy the "New monsters and stuff" book. Wouldn't this latter method be more in line with the way OGC was meant to help publishers. Just like the way it will help WotC by allowing people to reuse things but state requires players handbook. I just don't see how the first method benefits the original publisher in selling more copies. The only benefit of the first method is providing a new type of monster, which would have a different name in every single add on adventure it was used in. Anyhow, just a general gripe, I may be wrong their may be some real benefit to the publishers using the first, but I'd think the 2nd method would be more beneficial. Gary. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
