You reap what you sow - GSL.

[Fifth Element]

What I'm saying is that a guy who produces a lot of effectively closed content that can't be wiki'd telling guys who released 100% open content they're Not Doing it Right for not being enthusiastic about having their stuff wiki'd is not arguing from a empathetic position. If he'd come at it from the perspective of someone who'd opened up and posted content and had data and evidence of his convictions, then I think publishers would have been more receptive -- and that telling people who at least believe that equates to a serious business risk pretty much demands this.

But we don't know the details of how any of it occurred. It is possible (though it seems rather unlikely) that he did say "Monte, we should open this up more" to which Monte responded "Keep typing, monkey!". We just don't know, and therefore to judge him based solely on your perceptions of what might have happened is wholly unfair.

 

[eyebeams]

But we don't know the details of how any of it occurred. It is possible (though it seems rather unlikely) that he did say "Monte, we should open this up more" to which Monte responded "Keep typing, monkey!". We just don't know, and therefore to judge him based solely on your perceptions of what might have happened is wholly unfair.

When you believe in something, you're supposed to *do* something besides talk. Inaction does matter, and it's fair to point it out.

Even so, that doesn't mean Mike did anything wrong. A lack of high ground =/= being lower than everyone else.

 

[jdrakeh]

What I'm saying is that a guy who produces a lot of effectively closed content that can't be wiki'd. . .

I think what other folks are saying is that one can't fairly hold the designer accountable for decisions made by the people he works for. For me, being fair means holding the people who made the decisions (or most likely made the decisions) accountable for those decisions, rather than excusing them completely and laying blame at the feet of the designer (who most likely did not make the decisions in question). I think that blaming Mearls for the lack of OGC in products published by Malhavoc Press or WotC is like blaming you, personally, for the foibles of all WoD products.

Incidentally, Mike Mearls was pretty heavily involved with promotion of the OGL and OGC material as a fan and consumer circa 2000. He (along with Clinton Nixon and others) published a free online OGC fanzine, and did quite a bit of championing here and on other forums (notably Gamign Outpost). Those old fanzines and forum discussions serve as a pretty good window into his personal stance on OGC.

Marketing takes cues from creative output, and the degree to which it moves from brain to printed product isn't easy to describe, but it's not the "writing to order" many people imagine it is.

Oh, I know. I've heard stories.

 

[Mark Chance]

I think what other folks are saying is that one can't fairly hold the designer accountable for decisions made by the people he works for.

Hear, hear. Back when I did a bit of freelancing for FFG's Legends & Lairs, Dragonstar, and Dawnforge, never once did anyone at FFG ever ask me, "Hey, Mark. Out of the stuff you wrote for us, which parts do you want to be OGC?"

 

[eyebeams]

I think what other folks are saying is that you can't fairly hold the designer accountable for decisions made by the people he works for.

Of course not. But you can hold him *responsible* for his *response* to those decisions. See, it makes sense linguistically!

For me, being fair means holding the people who made the decisions (or most likely made the decisions) accountable for those decisions, rather than excusing them completely and laying blame at the feet of the designer (who most likely did not make the decisions in question).

Nah, if your name's on something you should reconcile it with your public statements. It is incumbent on you to do so, especially when you make the kind of proposal he did.

I think that blaming Mearls for the lack of OGC in products published by Malhavoc Press or WotC is like blaming you, personally, for the foibles of all WoD products.

If I didn't say that Pimp and Gypsies sucked, you could certainly take me to task for my political statements while I worked for the company.

 

[eyebeams]

Hear, hear. Back when I did a bit of freelancing for FFG's Legends & Lairs, Dragonstar, and Dawnforge, never once did anyone at FFG ever ask me, "Hey, Mark. Out of the stuff you wrote for us, which parts do you want to be OGC?"

And if you had no effectively open content and told me I should let my stuff be wiki'd, I wouldn't think you had a leg to stand on, either.

 

[Psion]

Smells like fanboi nonsense to me, Fifth. I seriously doubt that if Mike had said "But I want it to be all OGC!" than Monte would have stopped him. He's not exactly known for his obsessively grasping ways, now, is he?

AFAIAC, that doesn't really matter. Submitting material as OGC, or not, is entirely up to the contributor. No slight there.

Contributing OGC, which is de facto telling the public at large "you can use this stuff", and then calling people out for taking them up on their offer, is what is objectionable.

 

[Mark Chance]

And if you had no effectively open content and told me I should let me stuff be wiki'd, I wouldn't think you had a leg to stand on, either.

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. Perhaps a longer time between typing a message and hitting "Submit Reply" is in order?

 

[jdrakeh]

Of course not. But you can hold him *responsible* for his *response* to those decisions. See, it makes sense linguistically!

What response to those decisions? AFAICT, the only "response" that Mike Mearls ever had to those decisions was continuing to work for companies that pay the bills despite their practice of not opening up much (or any) content for re-use. That seems like a pretty reasonable way to respond to those decisions to me. He's a game designer, not Che Guevara. Were you expecting him to take up arms or something?

 

[jdrakeh]

Contributing OGC, which is de facto telling the public at large "you can use this stuff", and then calling people out for taking them up on their offer, is what is objectionable.

Also, this