There's nothing wrong with ponies at all. There's lots of problems wishing for ponies when your parents can't afford one and you have no conception of what it will take to take care of one.
Shadow, who's the one speaking with an insulting tone?
I was speaking from the point of view of someone who runs a business.
Okay, I respect that.
I already said I'd be glad to see some of your ideas Kickstarted. Just so long as you are prepared to see some of them, at best, fail to get funded.
The Free Culture way accepts that.
I don't see anyone censoring you.
I spoke of the prevailing self
-censoring mindest I have experienced in this community, and the seeming impulse to press that self-censoring mindset onto me.
I see people criticizing your ideas and you gratuitously insulting them in return.
It could just as well be said like this:
"I see people insulting your ideas and you gratuitously criticizing them in return." ("Insult" is a loaded word, while "criticize", at least in this community, is not.)
Know what Tesla Motors didn't do? They didn't say you could drive last year's model off the lot for free.
Digital PDF IP has some qualitative and practical differences from an automobile.
Yes, they licensed out their game mechanics, which can't be copyrighted.
Yes, the OSR culture has brought out the distinction that game mechanics can't be copyrighted. The thing is, before the Open Game culture came, hardly anyone would actually try to exercise their right to make game mechanics which compatibly mimicked AD&D, out of fear of a lawsuit from TSR. This fear became a self-censoring reality. Even if self-publishers or third parties could theoretically and legallyl justify making adventures or sourcebooks which were implicitly (but not explicitly) comptable with AD&D2E, it just didn't happen.
It was a clever and generous move.
Yes clever *and* generous. Not only generous. If WotC had not released 3E as an Open Game, the 3e era would not have witnessed such a spectacular renaissance of interest in TRPGs and D&D. I'm no business manager, but I suspect that 3E corebook sales would have been less without Freeport, Necromancer Games, and all the rest of the d20 third party wave--the good, the bad, and the ugly.
They did not put out their intellectual property with an open license, as that would have been suicidal.
The same stark words would've been said by TSR or a TSR aficionado in regard to a suggestion of putting out their AD&D2E game system (intellectual property) with an open license.
And you're going far beyond suggesting that they license out their IP... you're suggesting putting it in the *public domain*. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't have to be to see that those are staggeringly different things. If you don't see the difference, I really don't know what else to say to you.
I see the difference.
'In the same way'? One of these things is not like the others.
Okay, in a similar
way. Public Domain/Free Culture is clearly a step beyond Open Game License. The similarity is using that Open strategy to evoke "un-controlled" (not contracted) third party and self-publishing to fuel sales of the Hasbro-produced basic texts, in this case Worldbooks, not just the Rulebooks.
What mechanism are you suggesting for the release of a product they currently sell at a modest clip into the public domain to increase sales of their current corebooks?
I'm suggesting the mechanism of a ceremonial release of each world's out-of-print IP at the same time as Hasbro/WotC releases the 5E worldbook for that campaign setting.
As I said in the earlier thread, that's the most unequivocably Open mechanism for developing a culture of Open Worlds which anyone (including for-profit enterprises) can contribute to--which has, as far as I know, never been done before. It's new.
Then anyone could publish their own version of the published D&D worlds which have played such a role in the imaginations of our gaming generation. There'd be the Eric Mona's World of Greyhawk, Bruce Heard's World of Mystara
, Monte Cook's Planescape
, and hundreds more. Since Hasbro has perhaps the most skilled FR development team and the most resources (next to Paizo), their 5E worldbooks (which wouldn't be released into the Free Culture Domain until "sixth edition") would serve as basic texts for this blossoming of Open Worlds.
Your question evokes me to suggest this:
I suggest Hasbro try it out on only one D&D World at first. There is one major D&D World which had its own product line, but which is not mentioned in the 5E Basic Rules. Presumably that implies it is the least valued IP.
That world is Birthright. Not a spectacular world. A nice medieval fantasy world, with some cool dominion rules. Has some real world culture parallels: Khinasi (Middle Eastern), Brecht (Central European), Rjurik (Norse), Anuirean (Western European), and Vos (Eastern European).
Has a beautiful map.
I propose that Hasbro/WotC open this guy up as an experimental Free Culture sandbox. Put the Free Culture logo(s) on it. Let it go.
Let any individual or enterprise reprint the Birthright books as is. Or with their own game stats plugged in (Labyrinth Lord, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder). Or mixed with their own world's IP. Since only the continent of Cerilia is fully mapped, the rest of the planet of Aebrynis could look drastically different from different publishers. Each would be an alternate, parallel Aebrynis. Videogames. Novels. Anything.
Release the entire Birthright corpus as Free Culture PDFs: 5 boxed sets, 21 sourcebooks, 5 adventures, and 6 novels. The entire text, proper names, art, and trade dress. Everything except the words "D&D" and few other Product Identity bits (such as "beholder" and "illithid") which are embedded in Birthright books, but which Hasbro wants to hold onto. Even free the few Birthright articles and adventures from DRAGON and DUNGEON magazine too, and as much of the IP of the Birthright video game as is held by Hasbro/WotC.
See how the experiment turns out. If it turns out to be whimper. No harm done. Then I'll admit that Free Culture is not yet a fitting match for the D&D and TRPG culture.
If something interesting happens, then...
Dude. Dial it down, will you?
I'm willing to dial the sharpness down. Here's where I'm coming from: I have experienced that after sharing what I'd like to see happen with D&D, about 90% of the responders are 100% negative and sarcastic (insulting). Someone will go through and respond to nearly everything I suggested, with droll critiques about how each one is impossible. Only a few say something positive or constructive. It's like wading into a room of mopey people. (I used to be more mopey myself.)
And the thing is, I suspect that, for the majority of these product proposals, if they had been announced by Mike Mearls at GENCON as upcoming products, the very same individuals wouldn't bat an eye.
On the contrary, if I'd then (as a fellow aficionado) made a wish list which said: "I want two DM screens, some acrylic chits, spell cards (really?), a Forgotten Realms adventure path, a Return to the Return of the Temple of Elemental Evil
adventure path, and an Elemental Evil splatbook, the same individuals would give a list of snide, sarcastic critiques about how each one is impossible, and that I'm a pony-wishing dreamer to even voice my preference.
Now, that doesn't rile up my feelings--I don't expect everyone to like me--yet that's where my sharp responses come from. Anyway, you remind me to empathize--I remember when I thought sarcasm was a good thing.
Maybe people just, you know, disagree with you?
That's fine. Despite the sharp words, I have some gratitude that even the one-sided critiques help me understand where people are coming from.
Maybe they give actual reasons for their disagreement? Maybe you should address those actual reasons
I have usually addressed the actual reasons of disagreement expressed by each poster.
instead of speculating about their inner mental life?
I'm definitely looking forward to a healthier D&D culture.