What Monte's d20 Best of Should Have...
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Crothian said:
Unfortunatly, not everybody has access to the web nor would everyone check it out if they did. If print and the web were equal, many of the electronic products that are great would quickly have sold thousands of copies as opposed to their current numbers.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Crothian said:
This is true.
Good point. It's from an angle I hadn't considered.
I wonder if Monte would put the effort into that? It'd be a great way to 'prview' the material and see what he's thinking, similiar to his designer notes.
Now e-mail him and tell him that!
Trickstergod
First Post
I think interviews and a compare and contrast and the like are a bit much, but I do believe that, at the least, an introductory paragraph or two about the company, the books the stuff is from, a web-page, and at least the names of the authors should lead in to each entry.
As nice as a compilation is, proper credit should be given where it's due, at least if this is meant, in part, to help keep these companies producing quality material in the future by grabbing them a few more sales.
With that said, I rather wish more multiple author books would specifically mention which section each author worked on in the credits, at least when there's a relatively clear chapter break-down of who did what. I've paid more and more attention to a books authors as of late, and I like to know that, out of a book that has some good writing, some bad writing, just who to associate with what, if possible, to better inform later purchases.
As nice as a compilation is, proper credit should be given where it's due, at least if this is meant, in part, to help keep these companies producing quality material in the future by grabbing them a few more sales.
With that said, I rather wish more multiple author books would specifically mention which section each author worked on in the credits, at least when there's a relatively clear chapter break-down of who did what. I've paid more and more attention to a books authors as of late, and I like to know that, out of a book that has some good writing, some bad writing, just who to associate with what, if possible, to better inform later purchases.
Tav_Behemoth
First Post
Cergorach said:
The Section 15 is a terrible way to attribute work to its authors - there's no way to tell what Section 15 entries correspond to what content, and the Section 15 will, in many cases, have entries for works & authors that do not appear in the current work at all.
At Behemoth3, we created a limited license to get around this, basically saying we encourage you to re-use our Open Game Content, and we also encourage & allow you to use the PI "Behemoth3" and "(book title)" for purposes of saying where the open content comes from.
Monte's also planning to explicitly attribute work to its authors - this is why the submission form is required. Without it, or a limited license, he couldn't say anything about the sources of the content selected as the Year's Best.
I'd like to see at least a short paragraph about the source of each work & its authors, and for more people who re-use OGC to follow this precedent and make the effort to give credit where credit is due.
dpmcalister
Explorer
Monte's Best of MUST include non-fantasy material. Mutants & Masterminds and Spycraft both prove that D&D isn't the be-all and end-all of d20, but I doubt Monte will acknowledge that 
dpmcalister
Explorer
I presume you mean why do I say that I doubt Monte will acknowledge M&M and Spycraft. If so, because they aren't as big sellers as D&D. It's pure economics at the end of the day. Anyone who thinks that Monte is doing this purely for the best of intentions is slightly deluded. Of course, he HAS, no doubt, got good intentions, he's also out to make a buck or two (and why not, he's a businessman after all) and D&D is the big-seller at the moment (compared with M&M and Spycraft, which are good sellers themselves, just not in D&D's league).
