Quote from: JamesVHmm, I've read the product identity license, and the only thing that seems really restrictive to me is the "rated R" clause, but it doesn't bother me. What else about the license bothers you, 'cause I am curious.

How about this:

2. Further, the text of your work (as well as any maps or
artwork required for use of the work) must be entirely Open
Game Content;

You write an awesome adventure for BFRPG and either illustrate it or pay someone to illustrate it and...your entire work is open game content!  That means anyone can copy it word for word and do whatever they want with it.  Worse still, it means all your artwork is free for anyone to use for anything they want.

This should effectively make no one in their right mind interesting in producing a BFRP adventure...which makes the game useless, since, as I've already stated, you could just use the much more polished Basic D&D for anything else besides publishing adventures online (and you can even do that with little problem and the proper disclaimers if you don't plan on selling it.  In fact being able to sell a BFRPG product like you can with the OSRIC would be the only thing to make BFRPG worth the time IMHO.)

I think you're looking at this wrong, grubman.

I know you played D&D back in the day, when it was still a zany avenue for creativity instead of mindlessly slogging through fifty-page stat blocks and looking for high-level feat combos. When every group had their own house rules because they had to, and wanted to.

If you just look at Basic Fantasy as Sol using the OGL to give you his D&D house rules in print, it's all good. You'd play it because you were at Sol's table, and you might play something a little different at your table, and the two of you might borrow some tricks from each other, and the great oral tradition of D&D, the only real cultural practice of note this hobby has yet produced, would go on.

That's all it is. He is playing D&D, just like my friend who allowed penguin and alu-demon PCs was playing D&D. It's bigger than all of us. The OGL turns out to let us share that formally now, as opposed to the informal practice that held up for two decades strongly and still holds up today.

Quote from: grubmanHow about this:

2. Further, the text of your work (as well as any maps or
artwork required for use of the work) must be entirely Open
Game Content;

You write an awesome adventure for BFRPG and either illustrate it or pay someone to illustrate it and...your entire work is open game content!  That means anyone can copy it word for word and do whatever they want with it.  Worse still, it means all your artwork is free for anyone to use for anything they want.

This should effectively make no one in their right mind interesting in producing a BFRP adventure...which makes the game useless, since, as I've already stated, you could just use the much more polished Basic D&D for anything else besides publishing adventures online (and you can even do that with little problem and the proper disclaimers if you don't plan on selling it.  In fact being able to sell a BFRPG product like you can with the OSRIC would be the only thing to make BFRPG worth the time IMHO.)

That's standard procedutre for GPL software, and they've been doing things that way for what, 30 years?

I think that BF's license is more in the spirit of open content than Wizard's license, which was produced with entirely commercial considerations in mind.

I also think it's a good moral high ground to take when you're talking about sometihng that's essentially just a houseruled version of someone else's game.

So, umm, yeah.  Kinda joining the rest in wondering what the pissedness is all about.

Quote from: mhensleyIt's definitely not as bad as basing your whole company on it like Troll Lords does with Castles & Crusades.

You can't compare BFRPG to C&C.  C&C is a print product with international distribution and a full product line.  It has the support and contribution of Gary Gygax.  It is a refinement of AD&D 1st edition that is not only compatible with the OGL but also implements an entirely new system (the siege engine).

While everyone may not love it, it fills a large niche, and does it in the right way.  It doesn't simply take AD&D as is and rewrite it.

Quote from: J ArcaneThat's standard procedutre for GPL software, and they've been doing things that way for what, 30 years?

I think that BF's license is more in the spirit of open content than Wizard's license, which was produced with entirely commercial considerations in mind.

I also think it's a good moral high ground to take when you're talking about sometihng that's essentially just a houseruled version of someone else's game.

So, umm, yeah.  Kinda joining the rest in wondering what the pissedness is all about.

Um...you must not be a writer or an artist?

Quote from: grubmanUm...you must not be a writer or an artist?

So you're presuming to speak for the attitudes of all writers and artists now?

Are you familiar with Creative Commons?

Quote from: J ArcaneSo you're presuming to speak for the attitudes of all writers and artists now?

:rolleyes: nevermind

Quote from: J ArcaneAre you familiar with Creative Commons?

I am and, as a license, it's extremely vague and nebulous, effectively allowing the user to make it as closed or open as he or she wants. While the flexibility is nice for the individual offering the license, it also means that one can't claim the license is more about open content than the OGL is (which is much more specific when it comes to terms and conditions). That said, it is much more about satisfying the needs of the individual offering the license (by virtue of its undefined terms) than the OGL is.

Quote from: grubman*snip re: all open content*
This should effectively make no one in their right mind interesting in producing a BFRP adventure...which makes the game useless, since, as I've already stated, you could just use the much more polished Basic D&D for anything else besides publishing adventures online (and you can even do that with little problem and the proper disclaimers if you don't plan on selling it.  In fact being able to sell a BFRPG product like you can with the OSRIC would be the only thing to make BFRPG worth the time IMHO.)

I dig, and I guess it's an obstacle if you wanted to make a product for profit, but I gotta say that I don't think that's Sol's intent with the product. I think what Calithena's said is more in line. Even better let's take it straight from the horse's mouth:

Quote from: basicfantasy.orgWhat Does It Cost?

Nothing. You can download the PDF files or the original OpenDocument (i.e. OpenOffice.org) files from the downloads page at no charge. Or, you can purchase a print copy from my storefront at Lulu.com, where I have published the rules at my cost. That's right... I don't make a single penny of profit from the sale of the printed copies.

I'm a believer in sharing. Some have expressed the opinion that I'm a fool not to profit from these rules, or the supplements or modules; but I have a job already, and it pays my bills. I don't believe there's enough demand for this game to make it worth the effort of selling. But more than that, I'm committed to sharing. If I profit from the game, I enrich myself (cash) and a few who purchase (enjoyment). But I give it away, and I thus enrich many (myself, with a warm glow of generosity, and many others with the enjoyment of playing it).

If someone wants to grab a usually cheap copy of red-box D&D from ebay, that's cool. If not there's a slightly more familiar version (for the d20 crowd anyways) out now, that's free for the taking as a PDF, or even available in print for a nominal cost.

Regardless of one's opinions, I think it's a win-win.

Quote from: JamesVI dig, and I guess it's an obstacle if you wanted to make a product for profit.

It's also an obstacle if you won't want someone else to steal your writing or artwork for a totally unrelated product that you don't endorse, or for one they are making a profit off of.

But the topic is going off in a lot of directions unrelated to the original topic (which is fine), and I feel like it's making me look like a bit of a dweeb with some festering unfounded  hate for BFRPG.  IMHO It's simply an interesting situation that prompted the discussion, Why play a game that is simply an almost exact duplicate of a game that is already extremely accessible and more popular (how many millions of copies of Basic D&D are floating around out there?)?  I thought it was a bit strange, a few agree with me, several others don't.  Oh well, this has become one of those threads where the more time I try to express my opinions, the further I spiral away from what I was originally getting at.:deflated:

Quote from: jdrakehI am and, as a license, it's extremely vague and nebulous, effectively allowing the user to make it as closed or open as he or she wants. While the flexibility is nice for the individual offering the license, it also means that one can't claim the license is more about open content than the OGL is (which is much more specific when it comes to terms and conditions). That said, it is much more about satisfying the needs of the individual offering the license (by virtue of its undefined terms) than the OGL is.

My point is, there's plenty of people besides just Sol who have similar feelings on how they distribute their creative works and how or what economic gain they recieve from them.

Quote from: grubmanIt's also an obstacle if you won't want someone else to steal your writing or artwork for a totally unrelated product that you don't endorse, or for one they are making a profit off of.

But the topic is going off in a lot of directions unrelated to the original topic (which is fine), and I feel like it's making me look like a bit of a dweeb with some festering unfounded  hate for BFRPG.  IMHO It's simply an interesting situation that prompted the discussion, Why play a game that is simply an almost exact duplicate of a game that is already extremely accessible and more popular (how many millions of copies of Basic D&D are floating around out there?)?  I thought it was a bit strange, a few agree with me, several others don't.  Oh well, this has become one of those threads where the more time I try to express my opinions, the further I spiral away from what I was originally getting at.:deflated:

QuoteIt's also an obstacle if you won't want someone else to steal your writing or artwork for a totally unrelated product that you don't endorse, or for one they are making a profit off of.

Umm, no they couldn't.  Do all portions of your brain connect with each other?

You just got done complaining that you couldn't make money on the product, and now you're complaining that someone else is going to take yourr stuff and make money on the product, despite them all being under the same license.

You're not even making any sense at this point.  It's no wonder at all that people have taken you for irrational.

Quote from: grubmanIt doesn't simply take AD&D as is and rewrite it.

Bullshit.  C&C is just another game that's houseruled D&D.  It's probably around 90% unoriginal material.

Quote from: J ArcaneUmm, no they couldn't.  Do all portions of your brain connect with each other?

You just got done complaining that you couldn't make money on the product, and now you're complaining that someone else is going to take yourr stuff and make money on the product, despite them all being under the same license.

You're not even making any sense at this point.  It's no wonder at all that people have taken you for irrational.

I think you need to re-read what I've said.  I'm not "complaining" about anything, I'm simply pointing out facts about the way the OGL additions effect any works created using the DFRPG system.

It's not that I'm not making sense, it's that you aren't reading, and are putting words into my mouth.

Out of curiosity, are there any even semi-reliable sources for the number of copies of Basic D&D there ARE floating around out there? Are there millions?

Sorry, it's a tangent, but I'm intrigued.

- Q