Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1492969" data-attributes="member: 6398">Yet aren't we seeing that already?  How many forms of "magical location" rules have you seen?  How about firearms?  How many Mass Combat Systems are currently available? It's safe to say that it's failed that purpose. Mind pointing out where, other than AC's irrelevant opinion, this is stated? Actually, my work is protected just as much as everyone else's: Fictional/artistic elements and group identification remain outside of the OGC unless I declare it otherwise.  If a product is put out that has it's only value in the OGC it contains, that is the choice of the publisher to do that.  But their choice should not have any influence on what occurs to the material once declared OGC. Read Section 1b of the license again: "Public Display" is included within the definition of distribution.  Posting something on a website is a "public display". If anything's against the "spirit" of the OGL, it's trying to pretend certain terms were included on accident and thus using them is exploitive. In short: Redistributing OGC in the form of a public display (which is the topic here, right?) is not against the law and, I would argue, is part of the "spirit" of the OGL.  Driving 5 mph over the speed limit, no matter how safe you think it may be, is still breaking the law.  Stop trying to paint these two things with the same brush. No, you are comparing an illegal act (speeding) to a legal act (re-distribution of Open Game Content) and using a subjective opinion rather than fact to smooth over the fact that the comparison is poorly thought out. Don't you think WotC thereby has an obligation to state their intended purpose so people can make an informed choice rather than leaving us in a vacuum?  The fact that UA has an OGL in it makes UA different from any of their other books.  So are they releasing a UA SRD or not?  We don't know.  Therefore, any decisions we make are in absence of their input. I would gladly hear such input from Wizards, but that input needs to be from someone speaking as a representative authorized to speak out on the issue. Hey, for someone that likes to back morality theories with subjective ideals, you shouldn't complain if your inability to use correct terminology is pointed out. Which may or may not be a viable means for them to do so. If the material is at all derivitive (and 95% of the rules I've seen released under the OGL are just that), it cannot be released as non-OGC.  Therefore, to retain their rules as Closed Content, they will have to be creating rules components that in no way interact, influence, or are influenced by anything already OGC. It's unneccessary and muddies the water.  For instance, if I'm reproducing material from Necropolis and Necromancer contacts me and asks that I stop, am I going to suddenly get some big, nasty reputation because I don't feel obligated to do so?  If Necromancer complains about me, will I get the mud flung at me, or will Necromancer get mud flung at them for trying to get me to stop doing what I'm legally entitled to do? (Not that I expect this kind of treatment from Necromancer; it was just the first book I saw on my shelf when I was digging for an example.) To which, what you call "courtesy" is, in my opinion, little more than using subjective ethics to add conditions to OGC re-use which is forbidden per Section 2 of the OGL. Possibly.  Possibly not.  Without the conditions of the new licensing being known, we could only speculate.  However, I doubt severely that d20 will fade into obscurity.  4E would have to have vastly superior mechanics to even be a threat to Open Gaming. Of course, one might ask: If ENWorld is a minority, than why would a small group within that minority compiling their personal transcriptions from UA into a single document that big of a deal?  Either we're relevant or we're not; and if we're not, why are you wasting your time debating this topic?</blockquote>

Verification