Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
I really dislike parsing posts like this but you've intermixed some subjects that were meant for other people in this thread and have nothing to do with me or my quote.
WotC has stepped away from the Open Gaming Movement. The Open Gaming Movement is not run by a single entity and has no ability to exclude anyone or any publisher.
Yes, irrelevant to the discussion I was having, so I do not know why you bring it up as part of a response to a quote by me. Let's leave it aside for the time being.
You predilection to discuss the Open Gaming Movement in the past tense shows a bias with which I am not in agreement. Development has happened, is happening and will continue to happen in the community of publishers and individuals who wish to continue being a part of the Open Gaming Movement. The use of the SRD as a basis for so much other development is merely a sign that WotC was a huge contributor of some very excellent material when it was a part of the Open Gaming Movement. It is a shame that they have chosen to step away but, again, that is their choice. No hard feelings.
The approach already exists and will continue to exist. It is sometimes nebulous and harder to recognize because it is not as clearly delineated as a corporate structure. Groups can certainly work together but sometimes the participants are not in direct contact with one another. That is part of what makes it so open.
That shows a lack of vision, IMO, and seems to denote an interest in disenfranchising other publishers from the Open Gaming Movement. I hope that is not the case. The truth of the matter is that, as we have both stated above, the community that makes up the Open Gaming Movement is comprised of consumers, consumer-designers, and publish-designers (who also are consumers, sometimes the biggest consumers). For those who wish to move beyond tinkering with rules and invest more of themselves, both time and even some financial backing into the effort, there is both risk and potential reward. Beyond 3.0e, WotC did this with 3.5e, UA, and slightly in MM2. There is no conflict of interest in risking a bit more and hoping to make some money from those efforts. The community knows that publishers are some of the largest contributors of OGC and will continue to be so. The community rewards those efforts. Sometimes those efforts are one-shots and other times they are sustained campaigns.
I think that the Open Gaming Movement is beyond such impositions. I think it will grow on its own and in directions that cannot predicted. I think the inability for individuals or publishers, no matter their size, to solely steer the Open Gaming Movement is one of its primary strengths. I think what you have is an idea for a group of folks to get together and be a concerted part of the Open Gaming Movement but I think it would be very limiting and counter to the ideals of the movement to restrict it in the fashion you seem to be proposing.
mearls said:WotC is part of a potential open gaming movement, for reasons outlined in my original post. If for some reason one could reasonably describe an open movement as specifically excluding any publisher, or any subset of publishers, then the movement has failed.
WotC has stepped away from the Open Gaming Movement. The Open Gaming Movement is not run by a single entity and has no ability to exclude anyone or any publisher.
mearls said:The GSL is a system license designed to allow publishers to profit by producing D&D compatible products. Its benefits and drawbacks are irrelevant to open source development. It occupies the same space as the d20 license. The d20 license was also irrelevant to open source development.
Yes, irrelevant to the discussion I was having, so I do not know why you bring it up as part of a response to a quote by me. Let's leave it aside for the time being.
mearls said:The OGL, in theory, was designed to allow for open source style development, as Ryan talked about in the links above. That didn't happen, though plenty of good designs did use the SRD as their basis.
You predilection to discuss the Open Gaming Movement in the past tense shows a bias with which I am not in agreement. Development has happened, is happening and will continue to happen in the community of publishers and individuals who wish to continue being a part of the Open Gaming Movement. The use of the SRD as a basis for so much other development is merely a sign that WotC was a huge contributor of some very excellent material when it was a part of the Open Gaming Movement. It is a shame that they have chosen to step away but, again, that is their choice. No hard feelings.
mearls said:Regardless of 4e's relationship (or lack thereof) to the OGL, an open source approach to design can help gaming as a whole for reasons I outlined above, such as by promoting a culture of design, discussion, and invention.
The approach already exists and will continue to exist. It is sometimes nebulous and harder to recognize because it is not as clearly delineated as a corporate structure. Groups can certainly work together but sometimes the participants are not in direct contact with one another. That is part of what makes it so open.
mearls said:My contention is that the economic and social benefits of open gaming development - making money by publishing a game, the prestige of pointing to a published book with your material in it - are at best short term benefits to specific subsets of the community.
That shows a lack of vision, IMO, and seems to denote an interest in disenfranchising other publishers from the Open Gaming Movement. I hope that is not the case. The truth of the matter is that, as we have both stated above, the community that makes up the Open Gaming Movement is comprised of consumers, consumer-designers, and publish-designers (who also are consumers, sometimes the biggest consumers). For those who wish to move beyond tinkering with rules and invest more of themselves, both time and even some financial backing into the effort, there is both risk and potential reward. Beyond 3.0e, WotC did this with 3.5e, UA, and slightly in MM2. There is no conflict of interest in risking a bit more and hoping to make some money from those efforts. The community knows that publishers are some of the largest contributors of OGC and will continue to be so. The community rewards those efforts. Sometimes those efforts are one-shots and other times they are sustained campaigns.
mearls said:Cultivating a culture of design via open source methods has the potential for great payoffs by creating an environment of study and learning. The actual games produced by or tinkered with by such a group are irrelevant compared to the *process* of tinkering, creating, and learning.
I think that the Open Gaming Movement is beyond such impositions. I think it will grow on its own and in directions that cannot predicted. I think the inability for individuals or publishers, no matter their size, to solely steer the Open Gaming Movement is one of its primary strengths. I think what you have is an idea for a group of folks to get together and be a concerted part of the Open Gaming Movement but I think it would be very limiting and counter to the ideals of the movement to restrict it in the fashion you seem to be proposing.