Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[Wicht]

I meant more of a splat book or core rulebook. Monsters are generally "unique" in that they appear in a specific module for a specific encounter. I want to see some OGC sorcerer bloodlines in a PF Player's Options style book. WotC should have incorporated some 3rd party stuff into 3.5 when they were upgrading the edition in my view of how the OGL failed.

Well, again, the Bestiary is pretty core and it gleans monsters from outside the SRD.

I disagree with the idea that the OGL failed. Rather, I think it more accurate to say that WotC failed in using it properly. (which means I am agreeing with your thought, just not your wording) The OGL is still alive and kicking and the experiment is by no means over.

 

[jmucchiello]

I disagree with the idea that the OGL failed.

I misspoke. I didn't mean to say the OGL failed. I meant that WotC's OGL experiment failed. I stated this more accurately in my earlier post.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, 4e GSL is definitely not the OGL, so much so that most of the 3pp ended their relationships with WoTC by not going 4e. I think others will agree that the GSL is not an "open" license by any means. Licensing has ALWAYS existed, since Judges Guild licensed D&D. But there were always limits, much more like the typical licensing rights. So, no, WoTC is not supporting "open gaming" as a philosophy anymore. And that's the primary chunk of its use.

They support other people making books for 4e with the GSL. In effect, that's what the OGL did for 3e. It's not as open as it could be, but, again, WotC was always reluctant to embrace the OGL. They added psionics and Unearthed Arcana, which was certainly something, but 90% of the books were still closed. I think it's something of a judgement call, but I don't think think WotC really supported "open gaming" as a philosophy, ever. They just saw a way to maybe sell more PHB's and outsource adventure-writing.

The GSL certainly wasn't necessary from WotC, but it was still derived (late and restrictive as it is) as a way to help maybe sell more PHB's and outsource stuff WotC doesn't want to do that there's still demand for. Which was the same strategy that the OGL had from WotC's point of view. It was never a fully embraced philosophy.

If the #2 publisher is Paizo (I thought it was either Games Workshop or White Wolf), then you missed my statement about those "dependent on the 3e edition ruleset". By rights, any ruleset derived from the 3rd Edition has to be OGL--the publishers have no real choice in the matter. And Pathfinder proves to me that the value of the OGL was not based on its openness, but on the relationship to D&D. It's true that the OGL helped Paizo, but Paizo's existance in table top RPGs right now is to continue the game system that WoTC abandoned.

Yes, but certainly the fact that the #2 game in the industry uses OGL extensively means that the thing is hardly a blip or a failure, regardless of the fact that its success is based on an old edition of D&D. Whatever its origins, it's still going quite strong.

And that also ignores several of the other games that have gone OGL that aren't D&D-based. They're minor, but, then, almost every game that's not D&D is pretty minor in this industry.

If the OGL was the great force some people thought, then every major publisher should have adopted it, and converted their systems to it. I suspect economically it doesn't make much sense to use it if you don't have to.

Pfft. That's kind of like saying if Open Source software was a great force, then every major computer manufacturer would have adopted it. Apple and Windows certainly speak against that idea.

I don't think the OGL needs to be omnipresent to be significant. I think being hinted at in the #1 game in the industry (GSL) and being embraced by the #2 game in the industry (OGL) is quite a significant thing for an idea that is essentially radically different from what the standard model of game publishing had been up to that point. It's not going anywhere anytime soon, and I don't know how someone could look at Pathfinder and 4e with a straight face and say that the OGL was a minor blip and a failure and a doomed heresey.

It's here, it works, and it's sticking around for the forseeable future. It's not the second coming of Gutenberg, but it doesn't need to be in order to be a notable presence.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think you're too optimistic with your estimate, assuming the anti-copyright movement doesn't die off as a cultural meme the same way communal living did.

I doubt you'll see it abolished in your lifetime.

I doubt you'll see it abolished. Ever. "Ever" is as big a word as it comes.

The open-source movement and its extension to RPGs through the OGL is not the "anti-copyright" movement. One has a philosophy; the other is based on anarchy and the justification of theft.

There have been significant technological inroads which have, on a practical basis, undermined the distribution models used by some cutural industries in the past to make money.

There has not, however, been a lessening at any time of the laws of copyright. The increase of copyright as a legal regime has increased over the last 30 years worldwide -- it has not decreased. This is an undebatable fact.

 

[xechnao]

The open-source movement and its extension to RPGs through the OGL is not the "anti-copyright" movement. One has a philosophy; the other is based on anarchy and the justification of theft.

... This is an undebatable fact.

Slavery was considered a normal event in economy and society up to 100 years ago.

Copyright is mostly a creditor's financial right. As the economic infrastructures and practices change, copyright could very well go the way of the do-do.

Internet, as a new infrastructure of economy and society has been creating some new data on the field, regarding information. Trade and credit globalization are even much more important and we just stared struggling to understand and take control of it.

What the end result will be on contractual economic practices like copyright? You just never now.

 

[the Jester]

The open-source movement and its extension to RPGs through the OGL is not the "anti-copyright" movement. One has a philosophy; the other is based on anarchy and the justification of theft.

It's not the place for this discussion, but I totally disagree with you here.

 

[ruemere]

[...]
The open-source movement and its extension to RPGs through the OGL is not the "anti-copyright" movement. One has a philosophy; the other is based on anarchy and the justification of theft.
[...]

-1, flamebait.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Maggan]

Pfft. That's kind of like saying if Open Source software was a great force, then every major computer manufacturer would have adopted it. Apple and Windows certainly speak against that idea.

I do believe that Apple has partly adopted open source software, i.e. using and distributing Webkit and the Darwin kernel for OS X. For sure, the majority of Apple's software isn't open source, but they used the model with Wbkit with great success to further their own agenda and profitability.

More info here.

How this would translate to the rpg business is of course difficult to say, but if Paizo continues to adopt 3rd party open content, and maybe lend even more support to OGL repositries like the Grand OGL wiki they could further their own agenda as well as that of open gaming.

If companies like Green Ronin and Malhavoc would start supporting e.g. The Grand OGL wiki, I think that open source gaming would become much, much stronger.

/M

 

[Piratecat]

Hmm.

Remember the halcyon days of post #302? I was clear about not delving back into copyright issues. I'm disappointed the thread has strayed - nah, charged headlong - back in that direction. There is enough of a hijack that I'm not convinced it's worth keeping open.

Thread closed.