Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 2533834" data-attributes="member: 1254">That said, I agree with Monte. I am a gamer first and a business person second. My number 1, total focus is to make a product that is great for gamers--the real players and DMs that play the game. As a result, I dont really spend much time considering opening and closing content, other than to say that if I can open it I generally do. Some products, like the Tome of Horrors, were made specificially to be totally open and to support other publishers. BUT they were only done that way because they also met the overriding goal of making a great product for the players. It is a business, though, and there are lots of good reasons why some content should be closed. Frankly, there are even better reasons for an industry genius like Monte to protect his content than there even is for me. Who is kidding who, no companies are coming to me to make videogames of my conent. Monte, on the other hand, might actually have to consider things like that. But I'm getting off the point.I consider it utterly silly to claim that an email to Monte to use the AU license somehow destroys your "muse" or "mojo" or whatever. If you cant handle that, then there is a very serious question as to whether you can handle professional publishing. You are going to get way more scrutiny and have way more hours of other people climbing up your muse's a$$ than an email asking permission. Try getting that first manuscript back with all the editorial changes. 'Cause unless you are directing, editing, producing and publishing it all yourself, someone's red pen will hit your work and ruin your day. Its just the way it goes. You have to learn to surrender total control. [editorial note: Clark said this with a smile on his face and is not trying to make a personal attack against you --editor]Now that I've gone off on that <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> , I dont mean to say that you shouldnt use "openness" as a litmus test for what you buy. That is as sound a reason as any other--it is personal to you and you are free to have your selection criteria. I personally dont see the value to it, but you are free to value it. BUT please undestand that we as publishers arent sitting out here purposely trying to vex you, the guy who wants openness. I havent yet met a publisher who wouldnt like to sell a few more books. There are lots of reasons people do their legal designations the way they do, and most have nothing to do with evil intent to close content and drive you crazy. Lots of people copy other designations, seeing that they work and wanting to avoid the costs of lawyers for every product. Seriously. I cant tell you how many early products simply copied the way I did the designation in the Creature Collection. And then the way we did it in Relics and Rituals. Slowly, there came to be a sort of "standard" way to do it that just got adopted. I can guarantee you that many people adopted that standard just ebcause it was the standard and not because of some complex analysis. Look, I like the OGL. I like the d20STL. I am a lawyer. I like the IP issues raised by the whole license thing. Most publishers dont have my sick love of intricate legal issues. They use what works. They dont have the legal resources to tread new ground. Or an in house lawyer to defend them if they try something new and get in trouble. I do. So I have tried all sorts of ways to designate content. But I dont think you should hold it against publishers who "follow the pack" and use the standard means of designating content. Just my thoughts <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Oh, and go buy our new Wilderlands Boxed Set. It isnt that open, but that is because it was created pursuant to a license from Judges Guild--an example of yet another good reason why we as publishers cant always make things as open as we would like in all instances.Clark</blockquote>

Verification