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: 1493361" data-attributes="member: 6398">No, it's one of the things the OGL was originally intended to do. You may want to go back the the beginning of this thread and take some notes; for instance, dispite my personal disliking of AC as a game designer, I've never villified him in this thread.  At most, I indicated that his opinion is not an official statement by way of WotC. And, yes, I do feel his opinion is irrelevant.  That his "voice" holds weight to anyone comes from the misconception that Open Gaming is a publsiher-only playground, which is patently false.  Sure, anyone is free to try to make a buck or two through the OGL, but in the end, the OGL does not owe them a living wage.  Only the quality of their material, from design to editing, layout and graphics, will deliver that. WotC has proven this with the SRD and the Core Rulebooks. That's a good thing... And I'm saying that the concept of courtesy is widely varied.  Is it *right* to release something as OGC and then complain when it actually gets treated like OGC? No, you must deal with the fact that it is the OGL, not myself or anyone else, that is against your stance.  1b is a clear example of it.  (Which, of course, would be why you and JohnRTroy never seem to want to discuss matters of the OGL itself but rather voice forth some unwritten morality play that has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.) Oh, then you accept the fact that "Public Display" includes web pages? Giving away RPG stuff for free?  Certainly not.  The OGL does not allow that. It does, however, permit the open and free exchange of Open Gaming Content. Note the tone of Andy's post.  Then click the link to the GR boards and read the tone of Chris Pramas' post.  Then give yourself 5 minutes to consider not why Andy's been villified (by individuals other than myself) but why Chris hasn't been? Which is a good thing.  However, if I'm transcribing Insanity, Taint, Legendary Weapons, and Honor (all of which, btw, I already had via other sources so I didn't need to buy UA for them, yet I bought it anyway) and someone says, "I'd like to see an Unearthed Arcana SRD, who's in?", I'm going to volunteer the components I'm already determined to transcribe. Plain and simple as that. And you anology is flawed because the person driving 5 mph over the speed limit is breaking the law; spirit of not, the person's getting a ticket.  Give the Judge the "spirit of the law" speech, if you want, but I don't think it will get you anywhere. Well, other than perhaps Contempt charges... No, because I would have been a fool to agree to a contract that was not air-tight or I didn't agree to (which, consequently, would limit you to RPG material).  And like I pointed out far earlier in this thread: Every publisher knows that material they release as OGC can easily end up on a website the very next day.  They accept that possibility by accepting the license. Sure, as long as it's understood that distributing OGC != breaking the law. Agreed, but rather besides the point.  However, it is interesting to note that the PH, DMG, MM, MotP, and ELH all have price tags, too. No, what I mean is that values, ethics, and morality are subjective from the point of the individual.  What you feel is morally right may not be the same as what I view as morally right.  That is why this debate is at a deadlock: Your stance is based entirely on your own personal views of the matter, which are obviously opposed by different personal views. But then again, the OGL doesn't support your views, it supports mine. And I was being facecious.  Your point? To which I still don't think it is.  I don't think 4E will be closed content, and if it is, it will be a mistake on WotC's part. I've yet to read of one publisher complaining about another publisher's re-use of their material.  Which, considering that complaining about such re-use would definately be against the "spirit" of the OGL, I doubt it will ever happen. Because the Contributor has no right under the OGL to say no and I see no reason to relinquish my right to use OGC because some publisher's having a bad hair day and doesn't feel like saying yes. No.  In fact, it wouldn't be bad for us if WotC rolled over and died.  Another purpose of the OGL was to allow the game to continue on even if D&D vanished, as nearly happened when TSR tanked.  The future of D&D was uncertain.  Whether or not 3E would be a success was uncertain.  So, while WotC retains control of the "brand name", the game itself is no longer subject to their fate or choices. Possible?  Yes.  But considering the fact that so many opponents to the OGL are in WotC already, who's to say it wasn't already a possibility? Don't care.  If management will allow their personal views of the OGL cloud their perception of the facts, than WotC gets exactly what they deserve for hiring people that are against the primary driving force behind a product's marketing model.</blockquote>

Verification