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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1493342" data-attributes="member: 812">Explain to me how redistributing OGC (I assume that's what you meant) on a website is different from giving away RPG stuff for free.Who has "villified" any publisher on this thread? I certainly called into question Andy's opinion that redistributing OGC is "petty", but by no means did I intend to attack Andy himself. If I came across in that fashion, I apologize.There's been plenty of people who disagree with Andy's position, but I don't see how that is "villifying" him. All the disagreements I've read have been very clear legal arguments, devoid of name-calling or emotionally-loaded terminology. nikolai's initial posts of disagreement seemed a little heated, but he/she specifically posted later saying that no slur against Andy was at all intended. So I would be surprised if he came into this discussion and said he felt villified.Misunderstood, on his own against the forces of Open Gaming run amok, maybe, but villified? Well, maybe.So you think it's okay to break the law if in your opinion, the law doesn't mean what it says. That's interesting. Try that in court in some time, let me know how you do.Describe one bad consequence of this. I can't see how it would be bad at all. Bad for WotC, maybe, but who else? Maybe people who want 4e to enjoy the same broad user base and support that 3e enjoys, I guess.I mean, game systems aren't like software. They don't go out of date, they don't become obsolete. 3e will always be as good and as useful as it is right now. What hurts games over time is the drop in support materials. The OGL helps to ensure that the support network for games released under it cannot be degraded by any company ceasing to use it. If WotC releases 4e without using the OGL, it will become a competing system to 3e, and I would think they'd have to spend a very large amount of money to compete successfully with a system that is so easy to support. I find it difficult to imagine that a small industry like RPG paper-and-pen publishing could justify such a risky and expensive campaign.I still haven't seen any of the supporters of the "non-sleazy" interpretation come up with a "non-sleazy" way to handle Bendris Noulg's super-module problem. Anyone?Those still opposing the idea of using the OGL as it is written seem to have a few arguments:If somebody asks you to do something (like, "Don't redistribute this book"), it's nice if you can do it.-- I agree. And if someone asks, I will make an effort. WotC has not asked anyone not to redistribute UA. Until they do, the idea that anyone ought to refrain from redistributing it is pure speculation. By using the OGL to release it, they have explicitly told people that it's okay for them to redistribute it. That's what the OGL says, so presumably that's what WotC is saying.If OGC gets redistributed, book sales in the industry will fall-- I haven't seen any data to support this, but Joe B did chime in and say that he felt mad redistribution of his books would hurt his sales.If sales in the industry fall due to OGC redistribution, D&D 4e will be closed-- Nobody has demonstrated a bad consequence to this speculation, so I don't consider it an issue.</blockquote>

Verification