Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4108257" data-attributes="member: 2732">Whether or not those same people would resort to getting illegal copies or not doesn't really matter.&nbsp; What matters from WoTC's perspective is if it benefits them.&nbsp; While a lot of consumers and fans of the OGL like to argue that there were positive effects, the key thing from WoTC is whether or not it fits their bottom line, their marketing strategies, etc.&nbsp; Only they can know whether or not they benefit from it, and the decision is ultimately theirs.True, but from what I've seen, back in the days before 3e, there were several competing games.&nbsp; Regardless of whether or not the OGL exists, it doesn't seem to change the fact that the reason why the &quot;d20 games&quot; are popular is not because of the &quot;open&quot;, but rather that D&amp;D is the game people really want to play and write for.&nbsp; And technically, Mutants and Masterminds, True-20, etc, are significantly different enough for me to consider them different games.&nbsp; In fact, the third-parties involved were smart, they 've differentiated their product enough from D&amp;D to make it viable for fans to get it if they don't choose to use a 4e license.Well, all licenses have that risk.&nbsp; It seems to work for everything such as franchises to role-playing games based on settings.&nbsp; Usually, businessmen can work this out.&nbsp; Other license work that way--you enter into a contract for 10 years, etc.&nbsp; A fast-food franchise is purchased but has to follow rules of quality and pay the fees, or they get there license revoked.&nbsp; Usually, there are protections for the licensee as well.&nbsp; When somebody like Hasbro licenses GI Joe or Transformers to a comic company or a animation studio, they license for x years and have &quot;standards and practices&quot; or a &quot;core bible&quot; to follow.&nbsp; The OGL is a highly unusual license.&nbsp; It was meant to emulate aspects of the GPL, but I personally think it's not a very good license to apply to creative fictional endeavors.Using anybody else's content is always risky.&nbsp; Thus, you have to make a decision if it's worth it or would you rather work with content you yourself created and have total control over.&nbsp; Want the McDonald's name?&nbsp; Pay the fee and follow the rules.&nbsp; Want to publish an Indiana Jones comic, follow Lucasfilm's rules.&nbsp; To be honest, I don't think it would be unilaterally at will.&nbsp; I suspect they'd have guidelines and warnings.&nbsp; If WoTC did revoke willy-nilly people wouldn't use it.&nbsp; However, if they reserved it for people who did things like make the &quot;Nazi Child-molesting Satanist's Happy-Fun supplement&quot; and revoked those who did that, then people would know what would tick them off and simply not write such supplements.&nbsp; If you want total control, make your own restaurant, your own pulp-era adventurer, or your own RPG.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 4108257, member: 2732"] Whether or not those same people would resort to getting illegal copies or not doesn't really matter. What matters from WoTC's perspective is if it benefits them. While a lot of consumers and fans of the OGL like to argue that there were positive effects, the key thing from WoTC is whether or not it fits their bottom line, their marketing strategies, etc. Only they can know whether or not they benefit from it, and the decision is ultimately theirs. True, but from what I've seen, back in the days before 3e, there were several competing games. Regardless of whether or not the OGL exists, it doesn't seem to change the fact that the reason why the "d20 games" are popular is not because of the "open", but rather that D&D is the game people really want to play and write for. And technically, Mutants and Masterminds, True-20, etc, are significantly different enough for me to consider them different games. In fact, the third-parties involved were smart, they 've differentiated their product enough from D&D to make it viable for fans to get it if they don't choose to use a 4e license. Well, all licenses have that risk. It seems to work for everything such as franchises to role-playing games based on settings. Usually, businessmen can work this out. Other license work that way--you enter into a contract for 10 years, etc. A fast-food franchise is purchased but has to follow rules of quality and pay the fees, or they get there license revoked. Usually, there are protections for the licensee as well. When somebody like Hasbro licenses GI Joe or Transformers to a comic company or a animation studio, they license for x years and have "standards and practices" or a "core bible" to follow. The OGL is a highly unusual license. It was meant to emulate aspects of the GPL, but I personally think it's not a very good license to apply to creative fictional endeavors. Using anybody else's content is always risky. Thus, you have to make a decision if it's worth it or would you rather work with content you yourself created and have total control over. Want the McDonald's name? Pay the fee and follow the rules. Want to publish an Indiana Jones comic, follow Lucasfilm's rules. To be honest, I don't think it would be unilaterally at will. I suspect they'd have guidelines and warnings. If WoTC did revoke willy-nilly people wouldn't use it. However, if they reserved it for people who did things like make the "Nazi Child-molesting Satanist's Happy-Fun supplement" and revoked those who did that, then people would know what would tick them off and simply not write such supplements. If you want total control, make your own restaurant, your own pulp-era adventurer, or your own RPG. [/QUOTE]

Verification