# OGC Wiki?



## Khuxan (Dec 4, 2005)

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has considered making a Wiki for OGC - both published and otherwise.

...

That seem's like an awfully short post, but that's all there is to it, I think  :\


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 4, 2005)

Mike Mearls proposed this a while back and it was discussed at length before being abandoned for two primary reasons: 

1. A large number of publishers, despite releasing content as OGC, vocally opposed people collecting that content and making it available to the public in one, convenient, place (no, I am _not_ exaggerating). In other words, a lot of publishers didn't really have their hearts in the right place when it came to releasing OGC, apparently (i.e., they were cool with calling it OGC, but aren't too hot about people actually using it in that capacity).

2. Several people (myself included) noted that making sure the wiki content OGL was up to date (i.e., contained an all-inclusive Section 15 and Copyright section) would effectively be a full time job. Somebody would have to check the wiki and (likely) update its attached copy of the OGL to reflect submitted content on a daily basis. Doing so would be a colossal PITA. 

I liked the idea. In fact, having recently toyed with the idea of running an _entirely_ OGC campaign, I _really_ liked the idea - but in the end, I agreed that it would ruffle a lot of the wrong feathers and be very hard to maintain where license issues are concerned.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Similar ideas were raised in the past, but pretty much all amounted to nothing for basically the same reasons jdrakeh detailed. These include a massive collection of OGC in a mega-SRD, a secretive site to collect and relsease OGC for publishers only, a combined project to extract OGC from various (or all) sources, and so on.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 4, 2005)

*OGC wiki*

So the short answer would be: it is possible, but nobody has the balls or the time to do it because it would require a lot of investments on the parts of its investigators. 

Now... who dares? Please dare.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> So the short answer would be: it is possible, but nobody has the balls or the time to do it because it would require a lot of investments on the parts of its investigators.
> 
> Now... who dares? Please dare.



You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

It isn't a matter of "balls", necessarily. There is the issue of having to possibly face legal action, yes. But for the most part I think the deterrant is the time and effort loss, and not wanting to hurt people who say they will be hurt.

I wonder if it would be possible to arrange for a Chinese server. I believe their protection of copyrights is not very stringent, to put it mildly. (But I could be confusing thigns with patent laws.)


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 4, 2005)

Thanks for the feedback. My tentative idea was that every piece of OGC would have to be tagged "This material is believed to be Open Game Content by the individual submitting it. Until such a claim has been verified, this content should not be treated as Open Game Content". Then someone else would have to come along and verify it was Open Content before it would be officially 'Open Content'

For example, a procedure:
"1.  Check to make sure what you're adding is, in fact, Open Game Content.
2. Post the Open Game Content where you see fit
3. Add a note to the Open Game Content saying "This material is believed to be Open Game Content by the individual submitting it. Until such a claim has been verified, this content should not be treated as Open Game Content"
4. Add the copyright notice (Section 15 of the Open Game License included with the product) to the site's Open Game License"

I'm not sure, but I don't think publishers are as protective of their OGC as they used to be. For example, my 2001 copy of the Book of Beasts (Eden Publishing) is really stingy with their OC... and my 2005(?) copy of Tome of Horrors II is really generous with OC, and all that's happened to them is they got a bit of free advertising with the Screaming Skull PnM. No one made a cheap version of ToHII so they could capitalise on Greene's hard work, because ultimately it's easier to churn out your old stuff.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Let me ask this.

Why do you want an OGC Wiki?


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I'm not sure, but I don't think publishers are as protective of their OGC as they used to be. For example, my 2001 copy of the Book of Beasts (Eden Publishing) is really stingy with their OC... and my 2005(?) copy of Tome of Horrors II is really generous with OC, and all that's happened to them is they got a bit of free advertising with the Screaming Skull PnM. No one made a cheap version of ToHII so they could capitalise on Greene's hard work, because ultimately it's easier to churn out your old stuff.




It depends on the publisher. Time of release has almost nothing to do with it.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Thanks for the feedback. My tentative idea was that every piece of OGC would have to be tagged "This material is believed to be Open Game Content by the individual submitting it. Until such a claim has been verified, this content should not be treated as Open Game Content". Then someone else would have to come along and verify it was Open Content before it would be officially 'Open Content'
> 
> For example, a procedure:
> "1.  Check to make sure what you're adding is, in fact, Open Game Content.
> ...



You can't publish any copyrighted work on a wiki or anywhere else. If you don't release the material as OGC using the owner's permission under the OGL, you can't release it at all. 

Releasing it as OGC with Section 15 and all but then adding "it should not be treated as OGC"  just adds confusion, you are still releasing it as OGC and are simply recommending others not trust you. This is IMO worse than simply releasing it as OGC and saying on your frontpage that all efforts are made to ensure content is pure OGC, but the user beware.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> You can't publish any copyrighted work on a wiki or anywhere else. If you don't release the material as OGC using the owner's permission under the OGL, you can't release it at all.




Exactly. Posting material with wishy-washy, weak disclaimers of "I think this is legal!" provides no protection from lawsuits. If the person running such a site is not 100% certain that the material is OGC then why is it even being posted?


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Let me ask this.
> 
> Why do you want an OGC Wiki?



That is an excellent question, and I've been spending the last ten minutes contemplating it. So although I'm not its inteded recipient, I'll give my answer.

My main wish from an online resource is for it to serve my tabletop campaign. I want to be able to point the players to a URL and say "See there? That's the description of the realm. See that page? Those are the Action Point rules we'll use." 
A second goal is for this to be legal, as doing crime to play the game leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, detracting from my enjoyment. Even posting an FR storyhour on these forums is likely a copyright violation or at least fishy enough that one could, in theory, be sued over it. I'd like to engage in gaming without partaking in criminal activity, thank you.
Thirdly, I want to make my stuff public. It's an exhibitionist, emotional desire to show off. Even if my stuff isn't exactly stellar, it is mine and I like to share and show it. 

These are my goals. I never said they are realistic.

An OGC wiki allows one to browse a wide range of OGC in an easily-used digital format. You can point people to pages in it so they can read a class, or feat, or whatever. You can pick and choose bits of rules and copy-paste to create a house rules document. It can serve my game.
It does so legally. Anything I take off the wiki - rules, a setting, an adventure, anything at all - I can freely quote, republish on my site, comment on, change, edit, and so on. Legally. Fairly.
And it allows me to publish my stuff in a nihilistic frenzy, and browse though other people's stuff when the mood strikes me.

Which is why I'm inclined to support such projects.

I'm not at all saying that I'm going to support this wiki. Both as a matter of generally being lazy and busy, and as there are compelling arguments against setting up such a wiki. But this post isn't about that, it's about why I want an OGC wiki, not why I don't want one.


----------



## dpmcalister (Dec 4, 2005)

Just because it's OGC doesn't mean it should be free. I think that's where people get confused. An OGC Wiki is, in effect, giving away hours of work that you would otherwise have to pay for. Personally, I don't agree that an OGC Wiki is needed, although I would love for the publishers to put together a package whereby you could pick up the electronic version of a dead-tree book you've bought at a reasonable price (I know some do, but I'd like to see it as standard).


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

dpmcalister said:
			
		

> Just because it's OGC doesn't mean it should be free.




Exactly. By making all of this material available for free it:

1. Devalues the work.
2. Ensures that the amount of OGC released in the future will drop to almost nothing.


----------



## Vascant (Dec 4, 2005)

*chuckles* Phil, I honestly think you are taking the wrong approach here..

Try this..

Go ahead and do it, don't talk about it.. Just do it..

*waits 10 days*

The idea dies as people realize the work involved.

This happened with the NPC Wiki thing, people are naturally lazy.  As soon as a few of them realized they could just get NPC Designer and never need the place it lost its appeal.  One thing you can bank on, people will be lazy and in the end, what little does get done will serve as an a free ad to your work and products.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Let me ask this.
> Why do you want an OGC Wiki?




First of all, I agree with everything Yair said.  I want an OGC repository (wiki or not) to
a- have easy, electronic access to OGC I already own, thus reducing the amount of time I have to spend scanning or cutting & pasting from a pdf (or a text copy of said pdf).  Note that this is something I already do -- an OGC repository would make it easier.  The Hypertext d20 SRD is a godsend.
b- allow my players access to OGC material of use in my tabletop game.



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> Exactly. By making all of this material available for free it:
> 1. Devalues the work.




I'm not quite sure what to make of this.  I don't think you're saying that something free is of less intrinsic value than something with a monetary cost; the most valuable piece of OGC is also the one that's been free since the beginning - the SRD.
It's unclear if you mean devalued in a monetary sense (ie, free OGC is stealing from the publishers), or an intrinsic sense (ie, free OGC is crap).

The argument could be made that OGC made available for free devalues the author/publisher, since no return comes to them...but this is true of any reused OGC.  

Finally, since it's forbidden to indicate compatibility and product names are usually PI, any free OGC will have a hard time contaminating its source material, particularly with a large Section 15.



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> 2. Ensures that the amount of OGC released in the future will drop to almost nothing.




Any publisher that quits releasing OGC will, by definition, have quit using the OGL, the SRD, and the d20 license.  They'll be writing for, or creating, an entirely different game system than the one this website is dedicated to, and probably the one they built their company on.  So, yeah...good luck with that.  They'll be replaced by someone better able to take advantage of the changing market.

They can attempt to cripple OGC, but that has two negatives for a dubious positive.  Crippling OGC in an attempt to prevent legal reuse establishes an adversarial relationship with the consumer, and doesn't prevent said reuse.  That which is crippled can be uncrippled.  Certain items must be OGC.  Failure to mark them as such courts legal action, not to mention hypocrisy.

I believe consumer knowledge about the OGL is only going to rise.  "Amateur" OGL-compliant campaign websites are going to rise.  Those websites, which will become increasingly sophisticated as technology progresses, are a publisher's best friend.  The people that run them are educated, intelligent, and proficient in internet use.  They are hubs in their local gaming community, with connections to people who aren't aware of the OGL or online publishers.  They are the people publishers should be courting, not threatening.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> They can attempt to cripple OGC, but that has two negatives for a dubious positive.




So far I haven't seen a single company lose sales because of conflicting, confusing, and restrictive OGC declaration.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

dpmcalister said:
			
		

> Just because it's OGC doesn't mean it should be free. I think that's where people get confused. An OGC Wiki is, in effect, giving away hours of work that you would otherwise have to pay for.



What you mean, is: 







> An OGC Wiki is, in effect, giving away hours of work that you would otherwise *be paid* for.



That happens everytime someone reuses OGC.  If WotC includes your OGC in their collection, you don't get a dime of it, NOR does is the perceived value of your OGC increased through exposure.  You'll just be an entry or three (or thirty, in Phil's case) in their Section 15.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> So far I haven't seen a single company lose sales because of conflicting, confusing, and restrictive OGC declaration.




Companies have lost my sales because of conflicting, confusing, and/or restrictive OGC declarations.

Do you think OGC declarations have become MORE or LESS clear since the OGL was introduced?


----------



## The Lost Muse (Dec 4, 2005)

I was under the impression that if someone so desired, they could take the Open Content from one product, whether that is the SRD or another work, and use it in their own product so long as they included the proper information in Section 15.  

Whether or not they charge for that product is not covered by the provisions of the Open Game Licence - if I wanted to I could take all the feats that are open content from each d20 or OGL book I have, make a *.pdf of it or post it on a website, and give it away for free so long as I made sure that information was in there.

I will say that it's important to actually BUY products, becuase without supporting publishers there will be nothing new, but it is possible to set up a project such as this while remaining perfectly legal.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Timmundo said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that if someone so desired, they could take the Open Content from one product, whether that is the SRD or another work, and use it in their own product so long as they included the proper information in Section 15.




Yes, this is allowed. The problem I've encountered is publishers just using OGC without crediting it* or, even worse, making up names for my products and not using the actual names.


* There are actually now products on the ENWorld gamestore that do this. It seriously pisses me off.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Do you think OGC declarations have become MORE or LESS clear since the OGL was introduced?




I think that overall less clear, and more restrictive is the trend -- especially in the past year.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

Vascant said:
			
		

> *chuckles* Phil, I honestly think you are taking the wrong approach here..
> 
> Try this..
> 
> ...




Exactly.

Stop asking about it and do it.
Of course you need to make certain you met every requirement every step of the way.  And IANAL but I really think that flagging stuff as "maybe not open" just isn't going to fly.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yes, this is allowed. The problem I've encountered is publishers just using OGC without crediting it* or, even worse, making up names for my products and not using the actual names.
> 
> 
> * There are actually now products on the ENWorld gamestore that do this. It seriously pisses me off.




Wow!

Now that sucks a lot worse than MIKI talks.  Is there nothing you can do about it?  I'd imagine it is difficult to get results that are worth the effort.  But sheesh.  

Is my understanding correct that if you don't use OGC correctly under the OGL then it is in effect as if the OGL does not exist and the content is treated as your IP?  (at least pretty close to that).

Does ENWorld gamestore offer any help here?  Seems it would be real easy to drop non-compliant product from the list.  That should get the publishers attention.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yes, this is allowed. The problem I've encountered is publishers just using OGC without crediting it* or, even worse, making up names for my products and not using the actual names.
> 
> * There are actually now products on the ENWorld gamestore that do this. It seriously pisses me off.



Wow.  That'd piss me off something fierce too.  Are the same products sold at RPGNow? 



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> I think that overall less clear, and more restrictive is the trend -- especially in the past year.



Interesting.  I was under the opposite impression, but I'm a biased observer.  If a company has a history of unclear OGC, or I hear that a product is unclear, I don't buy it.  Maybe that's why I'm spending so much less....

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Roudi (Dec 4, 2005)

ByronD said:
			
		

> Does ENWorld gamestore offer any help here? Seems it would be real easy to drop non-compliant product from the list. That should get the publishers attention.



According to the OGL, any breach of the license is between the publishers involved, and possibly WotC.  None of this is the vendor's business.  Quite frankly, none of this SHOULD be the vendor's business, as no vendor ever agreed to be enforcers of the OGL (or even the d20 STL, or any other license, for that matter).  Consider the fact that the vendor doesn't have to (and shouldn't have to) review each product for license compliance, and also that any infractions of the license are usually brought up by those being infringed upon.  The vendor can only really tell that the situation has been rectified when it hears from the offending publisher.  In both cases, the vendor is relying on information in good faith, and has no way of knowing for sure whether the claims made against the offender are valid, or whether the offender has rectified the situation.

So, it is not the responsibility of a vendor website to adjudicate a dispute between two publishers over license issues.  It would be an even worse situation if one publisher tries to coerce the vendor into taking action against the other.  A licensing dispute is purely between the offender, offendee, their legal representation, and possibly WotC.  That is how it should stay.

That said, I was already under the impression that the offender in Phil's case had made steps to rectify the problems.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> According to the OGL, any breach of the license is between the publishers involved, and possibly WotC.  None of this is the vendor's business.  Quite frankly, none of this SHOULD be the vendor's business, as no vendor ever agreed to be enforcers of the OGL (or even the d20 STL, or any other license, for that matter).  Consider the fact that the vendor doesn't have to (and shouldn't have to) review each product for license compliance, and also that any infractions of the license are usually brought up by those being infringed upon.  The vendor can only really tell that the situation has been rectified when it hears from the offending publisher.  In both cases, the vendor is relying on information in good faith, and has no way of knowing for sure whether the claims made against the offender are valid, or whether the offender has rectified the situation.
> 
> So, it is not the responsibility of a vendor website to adjudicate a dispute between two publishers over license issues.  It would be an even worse situation if one publisher tries to coerce the vendor into taking action against the other.  A licensing dispute is purely between the offender, offendee, their legal representation, and possibly WotC.  That is how it should stay.
> 
> That said, I was already under the impression that the offender in Phil's case had made steps to rectify the problems.




OK, I won't claim to be able to challenge that.  Though it seems a bit odd.

But I didn't demand it anyway.  It seems to me that with ENWorld position in the community they would want to do this of their own free will.

But that is just my opinion.  And I don't claim it to be relevant to any obligation on ENWorld of any sort.  Sorry if I seemed to overstep there.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure what to make of this.  I don't think you're saying that something free is of less intrinsic value than something with a monetary cost; the most valuable piece of OGC is also the one that's been free since the beginning - the SRD.
> It's unclear if you mean devalued in a monetary sense (ie, free OGC is stealing from the publishers), or an intrinsic sense (ie, free OGC is crap).



I believe Phil meant the monetary sense. I doubt he meant the works of Shakespeare, say, have no intrinsic value.



> They can attempt to cripple OGC, but that has two negatives for a dubious positive.  Crippling OGC in an attempt to prevent legal reuse establishes an adversarial relationship with the consumer, and doesn't prevent said reuse.  That which is crippled can be uncrippled.  Certain items must be OGC.  Failure to mark them as such courts legal action, not to mention hypocrisy.



I am afraid I disagree. I do not share your appreciation of informed customers and their importance at all. Sales are and will be based on a customer base that doesn't even know what the OGL is.
Those who become adversarial are a minority in the gaming public that is so small it isn't worth worrying about. I don't purchase Malhavoc products partly due to their crippled OGC, but I don't delude myself it makes a difference.
Copyright law and the OGL are tricky things. If the text is "properly" crippled, I wouldn't boldly try to uncripple it without a lawyer, and even then there are the costs of going to court to bear in mind (even if you are sure you're legally right). 
Regarding material that was supposed to be released as OGC but wasn't, that doesn't mean it's OGC. It means the copyright owner can charge the violator, it doesn't mean we can use it as OGC.
While I am confident, for example, that under the OGL certain items in Iron Heroes should have been OGC that weren't, I am not so vain as to trust my judgment over that of Monte Cook that has been living off the OGL for years and devoted a lot of time to discussing it with peers and actual, you know, lawyers. 

I have no fear that OGL publishers will stop using the OGL and d20 System. That won't happen. WotC's d20 System license changes are far more threatening in this arena than any OGC Wiki will ever be anyways, and if the "decency act" didn't do it nothing will.
What may happen is that more material will be crippled. I am not even sure if that will happen, but it might.
I don't think there is any trend in OGL declerations. Different companies do it differently, and that is all. But I haven't purchased a lot of products in the last year, I could be wrong.


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Does ENWorld gamestore offer any help here? Seems it would be real easy to drop non-compliant product from the list. That should get the publishers attention.



There is an interesting proposal.
I suppose it would be more polite to send an offended email first, and I'm not sure that the hassle is worth it since it isn't likely to produce more sales or contracts.
But the idea of the stores refusing to sell illegal material is interesting. I wonder if a store is liable for the sale of such material? If so, I wonder if a store is liable for the selling of unclearly marked OGC


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> According to the OGL, any breach of the license is between the publishers involved, and possibly WotC.  None of this is the vendor's business.  Quite frankly, none of this SHOULD be the vendor's business, as no vendor ever agreed to be enforcers of the OGL (or even the d20 STL, or any other license, for that matter).  Consider the fact that the vendor doesn't have to (and shouldn't have to) review each product for license compliance, and also that any infractions of the license are usually brought up by those being infringed upon.  The vendor can only really tell that the situation has been rectified when it hears from the offending publisher.  In both cases, the vendor is relying on information in good faith, and has no way of knowing for sure whether the claims made against the offender are valid, or whether the offender has rectified the situation.
> 
> So, it is not the responsibility of a vendor website to adjudicate a dispute between two publishers over license issues.  It would be an even worse situation if one publisher tries to coerce the vendor into taking action against the other.  A licensing dispute is purely between the offender, offendee, their legal representation, and possibly WotC.  That is how it should stay.
> 
> That said, I was already under the impression that the offender in Phil's case had made steps to rectify the problems.



What does the OGL has to do with it? It's the copyright violation that matters.
If I wrote "A Thousand Ways To Say Ooops", and publisher A stole it and sold it through vendor V, I'm sure I could sue the publisher for violating my copyright. I am not sure, but I think if I have a strong case I could at least get a cease-and-desist injunction on the sale of the fraudelant good, if not sue the vendor directly and let him roll on the responsibility to whatever his supplier is. (Why should I care to check it out? He's the one selling my property.)
The OGL only enters into whether it's a copyright violation or not, it cannot impose conditions on sale or lighten legal liability of vendors for copyright infringement if such occurs; that's under copyright and law and beyond the contract.

Not that anyone would sue anyone over any of this.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Wow.  That'd piss me off something fierce too.  Are the same products sold at RPGNow?




Not any more.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I was under the opposite impression, but I'm a biased observer.  If a company has a history of unclear OGC, or I hear that a product is unclear, I don't buy it.  Maybe that's why I'm spending so much less....




It's important to note that you're an exception to the standard customer. For the most part, customers could care less about OGC in a product.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> That said, I was already under the impression that the offender in Phil's case had made steps to rectify the problems.




Well, he _said_ he had dealt with the issue but if you look closely you'll see that he's still using the D20 Future trademark on his products.

And the example I was citing actually didn't even involve this issue -- it's a completely separate mess on top of everything else.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I wonder if a store is liable for the sale of such material? If so, I wonder if a store is liable for the selling of unclearly marked OGC




I don't think they would be. But I could be wrong. I assume stores can get into legal trouble if they sell material they know to be stolen but this question is far outside of anything I've ever dealt with.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> It's important to note that you're an exception to the standard customer. For the most part, customers could care less about OGC in a product.




Yes, I'm an exception.  And to get to anyone in my gaming group, you go through me.

I regularly game with at least 10 people who have no effective knowledge of any RPG publisher outside of WotC, WW, and SJG.  I run an OGC-only game.  Who do you think refers products to these players?  This isn't an exception to the norm -- this IS the norm.  Most groups have one or two "immersed" gamers, and the rest buy WotC.  If you want the rest, you have to woo the ones you see online...like me.

People have gotten smarter and better educated about TV, movies, the internet, digital technology, nutrition, and health care.  Why do you assume people will get stupider about OGC?  Look beyond the next 3 months.  The longer the OGL is utilized and in the public sphere, the more people will become aware of it and it's ramifications.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

> I am afraid I disagree. I do not share your appreciation of informed customers and their importance at all. Sales are and will be based on a customer base that doesn't even know what the OGL is.
> Those who become adversarial are a minority in the gaming public that is so small it isn't worth worrying about.



On the up side, Sony agrees with you 100%.



> I don't purchase Malhavoc products partly due to their crippled OGC, but I don't delude myself it makes a difference.



The most important advertising tactic, bar none, is word of mouth.  Any retailer that tells themselves otherwise is an idiot.  
I plug Green Ronin at my FLGS every chance I get.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

I always love to read this argument because it comes up so frequently and some people will always say the same things...

"I'm being nice with my OGC, but if anyone ever decides to actually USE any of it, I'm going to cut down to the bare minimum, because god forbid my open content actually becomes open."

If Phil is only talking about closing up flavor text and fluff, then I see that as something that should be done in the first place. Crunch sells, and there's no need to reuse fluff. I hope that's the case in phil's argument. If it's the "screw you all, I'm not putting out any more feats or classes because then someone else can use them" then I'm all for someone going out and creating a site like this.

There are already a ton of feats, classes, spell, AND monsters out there. I think we've seen that you can only do so much of something before it gets worn out (How many books on dwarves are there?). But, if I want to create me own SCI-FI product, I shouldn't HAVE to reinvent 10 new classes because it's a giant waste of time...there's already 50 decent ones out there, and I should be able to take the 10 best and use them in my product. Let's say for example that all of the 10 best are Phil's...and I use all 10 and base my product around them...suddenly everyone gets up in arms because I'm using someone else's open content, which is (IMHO) why the OGL was designed.

Personally, I don't think it should be free either. The person/people who would do such an endeavour deserve to be paid the for hard work it is to compile that much OGC and format it correctly, AND have a rock solid section 15. Publishers don't want others to profit on their work, so that's why they don't like this idea much.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Why do you assume people will get stupider about OGC?  Look beyond the next 3 months.




Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought people were stupid when it comes to OGC. I just meant that, for most, it has no impact on their enjoyment of gaming.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Let's say for example that all of the 10 best are Phil's...and I use all 10 and base my product around them...suddenly everyone gets up in arms because I'm using someone else's open content, which is (IMHO) why the OGL was designed.




Actually, as long as you got the Section 15 correct and weren't releasing tons of material for free, I wouldn't be upset at all. Many have used OGC I created in their products and that's fine with me. The only times I have a problem with wholesale use of existing OGC is when it's used improperly (and when it's intentional misuse it seriously upsets me) or when it's dumped online for free (which, as I said, devalues the work*). 

And I suspect that a lot of publishers feel this way about the use of OGC.


* Yes, I am speaking of monetary value. The time put into the creation of OGC has value to the creators and publishers and simply releasing complete works online, for free, makes _me_ think that the individual releasing the material has no respect for the effort that went into the creation of that material.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

Phil, care to comment on your stance of lowering your open content percentages? I'd just like to know which of my above quotes is the stance of Ronin Arts on this.

Will it be closing up flavor text and such, or cutting down on the amount of open crunch?


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Phil, care to comment on your stance of lowering your open content percentages? I'd just like to know which of my above quotes is the stance of Ronin Arts on this.
> 
> Will it be closing up flavor text and such, or cutting down on the amount of open crunch?




I would never close crunch. In my opinion any rules that I've written* -- or may write in the future -- are automatically based on the material found in the SRD. I feel this is true about _any_ rules published by any publisher but I understand that many disagree with my opinion on this subject.

Does that make sense?


* Assuming we're talking about OGL products and not original games, obviously. And even then I've got a history of releasing new systems under the OGL -- see the vsM Engine SRD and logo license.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

I didn't mean closing content that MUST be open, I meant decreasing the number of "must be open" items in a product....like cutting out most of the feats because they're open instead of having a ton of them in the book.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Will it be closing up flavor text and such, or cutting down on the amount of open crunch?



Don't tempt him   

How about "Everything that must be OGC by virtue of the OGL and prior OGC in its Section 15 is OGC. Everything else isn't"? Simple, effective, and no dichotomy needed. He can close off both.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Here's a question for anyone. How would you write your OGC declaration for the following item in order to protect your fluff and open any crunch contained in the description?



*ARCHER’S GREATCOAT*
*Appearance:* This richly crafted greatcoat is deep green in color and hangs down to the wearer’s knees. Thick straps wrap around the coat, fastening with gray metal buckles when the coat is closed. The left arm of the coat is leather while the rest of the garment is made of heavy linen. The entire coat is lined with white fur and is horribly warm to wear in all but the coldest of conditions. Down the left side of the coat are dozens of long pockets, each one of which is designed specifically to hold a single arrow.
*Appraise Information:* DC 16. This greatcoat was specially made two decades ago for the ranger Delphakae, a masterful woodsman that was as well known for his expertise with the bow as he was for his skill at tracking dangerous prey. The fur that was used to line the coat was taken from a winter wolf that Delphakae killed during the Goblinhost Campaign; a brutal goblinoid uprising that almost resulted in the death of thousands of human settlers.
_Value:_ 565 gp (5 gp for the coat, 35 gp for the winter wolf fur, 25 gp for the artistry involved in the manufacture of the coat, and 500 gp for its historical significance).
*Special Rules:* The coat can be used to carry a total of 36 arrows, doing away with the need to carry a quiver. The coat acts as leather armor when worn and provides its wearer with a +2 circumstance bonus to Fortitude saves made to resist the effects of cold weather.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> I didn't mean closing content that MUST be open, I meant decreasing the number of "must be open" items in a product....like cutting out most of the feats because they're open instead of having a ton of them in the book.




Now I understand. It's extremely unlikely that I would so something like this. I _enjoy_ writing feats, spells, classes, and other items that -- and I'm agreeing with you here -- must be open because of their nature.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Here's a question for anyone. How would you write your OGC declaration for the following item in order to protect your fluff and open any crunch contained in the description?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Personally, for a single item such as this, I'd probably not close any of it. It's too small of anything to really worry about really. Sure, there is fluff, but I wouldn't consider any of it enough to really consider closing, and I would probably have just removed all references to the Delphakae and just make it generic. No need to include that information in a description of an item, and it does me no good as a GM.

Anything that's a basic description of what an item, feat, or class does, is purely just to make people know what it is, and I personally feel it should be fairly wide open.

Honestly, why try to close it? So someone can't just take a bunch of items and re-release them free, or as some sort of equipment collection?

If I were to close stuff like that, I'd open up my product name with the requirement that you could use the whole text as 'open' only as long as you credited the source right there.

'From Ronin Arts _12.3 archer's coats_' - Archer's Greatcoat.........yadda yadda....

I'd much RATHER that stuff like that was the case, that you could reuse OGC, but you had to cite the ORIGINAL source of the item directly.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Here's a question for anyone. How would you write your OGC declaration for the following item in order to protect your fluff and open any crunch contained in the description?



"Open Game Content consists of ... including all the names and Appriase DCs of the equipment, as well as their "value" and "special rules" paragraphs."
Of course, IANAL. And I would just release it *all* as OGC, too. I'd only close off entire pages or sections. If I really felt the need to present both OGC and closed content together, I would consider using a coloring scheme like Atlas Games does. (Did. So sad.)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

A question:

Why publish something as OGC at all if you don't want people to republish it?

And a comment:

I'd like to publish a PDF of d20-based document based on a campaign setting I wrote a while back.  I don't care about making money, but I also don't want to pay a lawyer to check my stuff and tell me whether it's kosher per the OGL.  So while people might like my setting and have fun playing in it, they'll probably never see it because I don't want Hasbro or anyone else to sue me for looking at their IP in the wrong way.  The same problem arises with a d20 SRD wiki.  If anything that isn't actually open content gets posted, or if it gets posted in the wrong fashion, someone can be held responsible and sued.  And if I don't think I'm lawyerly enough to satisfy the OGL myself even if I go at it with great care and diligence, I certainly can't imagine that a bunch of random internet entities will be able to satisfy it without infringing on 90% of what they post.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Personally, for a single item such as this, I'd probably not close any of it.




Yes, but now think about a product with 101 different short, single items. If it's all declared as OGC -- which I usually do -- what is to prevent the problem I mentioned earlier? (The entire collection of material being released online for free.)


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Why publish something as OGC at all if you don't want people to republish it?




Because I do want people to have the ability to reuse material. I see it as completely different situations when someone selects an item or two and uses them as treasure in a dungeon than when someone starts posting complete products online for free.

I open material for the use of other publishers, not so that everything can be given away for free. And I think a lot of the other publishers that publish significant amounts of OGC feel the same way. (Though I do wish that at least a few of them would post in these sorts of threads.)


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

I think it boils down to what individuals think about the OGL. Some feel that it is a tool to allow the development of existing material, granting a publisher the ability to not reinvent the wheel and to sometimes even improve on an existing wheel. Others feel that is is a sign that all such material (that declared as OGC) should be completely free to the world.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Why publish something as OGC at all if you don't want people to republish it?



I'm not sure that's what's being argued here.  From what I understand, the intent of the OGL is to open up material for publishers to use and encourage some forms of collaboration, not to create a bunch of freely distributable game material for fans.  It can do that, too, but I'm not sure that was ever the primary intent.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Dec 4, 2005)

And Phil beat me to it...


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> And Phil beat me to it...




Barely.  I'm just happy to see another person agreeing with me.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Because I do want people to have the ability to reuse material. I see it as completely different situations when someone selects an item or two and uses them as treasure in a dungeon than when someone starts posting complete products online for free.
> 
> I open material for the use of other publishers, not so that everything can be given away for free. And I think a lot of the other publishers that publish significant amounts of OGC feel the same way. (Though I do wish that at least a few of them would post in these sorts of threads.)




I completely agree. The OGL is intended for game designers to build on each other's work, to make supplements from different publishers be compatible. The spirit of the license is not for people to take the work one person has done in an attempt to make money, and then give it away for free. While it is legally allowable, it is morally wrong to do such a thing.

Open Gaming Content is meant to foster the gaming community and industry. Giving the stuff away for free might foster the community for a bit, but it'd kill the industry, which would cripple the community.

I might be okay with an OGC wiki that asked permission of the publisher and would in general not publish things less than 2 years old. But as a pdf publisher, a sizeable number of sales still come in for products in the back catalog. Giving away the content for free . . . I dunno. It might spur sales of new products a bit, but I cna't be sure.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's what's being argued here.  From what I understand, the intent of the OGL is to open up material for publishers to use and encourage some forms of collaboration, not to create a bunch of freely distributable game material for fans.  It can do that, too, but I'm not sure that was ever the primary intent.




I have doubts about things like "intent," and its relevency to these sorts of issues.  But putting that aside, the fact is if you publish something as open content, its content can be freely distributed, subject to the conditions in the OGL.  Publishing something under the OGL in this manner is precisely giving permission to republish the open material.  There are provisions included in the OGL to mark certain material as open content and certain material as not open content.  But once it's open, it's open, and that's clearly stated in the terms of the license.

I dunno.  It just seems to me like when I was six and used to play marbles and the other kid, upon losing, quickly says "no keepsies!"  But keepsies was called before we started playing.  Or maybe I'm just rubbed the wrong way by the notion that there's some kind of special privilege that game publishers are supposed to have that us proles don't have, that makes it okay for other publishers to freely plagiarize each others' work with impunity but not okay for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell for a buck, with the inclusion of some neat stuff he saw in this or that OGL sourcebook, or just to put on his website.  If both of these parties are operating by the rules of the OGL, as far as I'm concerned they're operating under its intent.

If they intended some other form of use, they would have put that in the OGL instead of what's in there.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> IWhile it is legally allowable, it is morally wrong to do such a thing.




Unfortunately, a sizable number of people feel that "information should be free." So while a number of us want to protect OGC, by making sure that it is used responsibly, another group wants all of the OGC to be completely free to the world.

I doubt if the two parties will ever agree on the right and wrong way to use the OGL.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yes, but now think about a product with 101 different short, single items. If it's all declared as OGC -- which I usually do -- what is to prevent the problem I mentioned earlier? (The entire collection of material being released online for free.)




1) Have good images of all your items to go with the description, those can't be copied.
2) Don't release such a book. If you're that worried about someone using your OGC in a legal manner, find better ways to release your content. 
3) Put little bits of equipment in relevant books so that collecting your entire content isn't so damn easy.
4) Realize that the 'phil reed' name seems to sell, and hope people buy it anyway. Sure, someday it may get released, but in all honesty...you're probably in the top 5 3rd party publishers out there and going to make your sales dollars up front, so don't worry about devalue later.
5) Screw over the collections people and put out collections of your own. I'm obviously not a fan of the (again IMHO) outrageously overpriced small product market. Put out a book with like 1000 items for only a few bucks, cheap enough that a compilation document wouldn't really be able to compare, even at the retail price of $0.00.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Or maybe I'm just rubbed the wrong way by the notion that there's some kind of special privilege that game publishers are supposed to have that us proles don't have, that makes it okay for other publishers to freely plagiarize each others' work with impunity but not okay for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell for a buck, with the inclusion of some neat stuff he saw in this or that OGL sourcebook, or just to put on his website.




I think a problem with the OGL is that WotC didn't specify that a certain percentage of the OGC in a product must be *original* to that product _and_ released as OGC. If something as simple as this was a part of the OGL I think a lot of the problems would vanish -- then anyone releasing existing OGC for free would also be releasing new OGC, of their own creation, for free. 

And for the record, I've had fans ask if they can use my OGC on their campaign websites and give it to their players and I've always told them to go for it. Again, it boils down to exactly how the OGC is used for me. I know of a few "campaign bibles" that incorporate feats, classes, and spells that I've written and to me that's pretty neat. These weren't created solely to distribute everything to the world for free, they were created for a specific set of players for their campaign. 

If I were really opposed to the responsible reuse of my OGC I would lock the files to prevent copying the text. I don't do this and won't do this.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> 2) Don't release such a book. If you're that worried about someone using your OGC in a legal manner, find better ways to release your content.




So you're telling me that I should stop writing the types of products people want me to write? (Note: I don't believe that's at all what you're saying, I'm just making a point.)

I think the problem boils down to legal use vs. responsible use and, as I said earlier, I don't think the two sides will ever agree on this point.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> *ARCHER’S GREATCOAT*
> *Appearance:* This richly crafted greatcoat is deep green in color and hangs down to the wearer’s knees. Thick straps wrap around the coat, fastening with gray metal buckles when the coat is closed. The left arm of the coat is leather while the rest of the garment is made of heavy linen. The entire coat is lined with white fur and is horribly warm to wear in all but the coldest of conditions. Down the left side of the coat are dozens of long pockets, each one of which is designed specifically to hold a single arrow.
> *Appraise Information:* DC 16. This greatcoat was specially made two decades ago for the ranger Delphakae, a masterful woodsman that was as well known for his expertise with the bow as he was for his skill at tracking dangerous prey. The fur that was used to line the coat was taken from a winter wolf that Delphakae killed during the Goblinhost Campaign; a brutal goblinoid uprising that almost resulted in the death of thousands of human settlers.
> _Value:_ 565 gp (5 gp for the coat, 35 gp for the winter wolf fur, 25 gp for the artistry involved in the manufacture of the coat, and 500 gp for its historical significance).
> *Special Rules:* The coat can be used to carry a total of 36 arrows, doing away with the need to carry a quiver. The coat acts as leather armor when worn and provides its wearer with a +2 circumstance bonus to Fortitude saves made to resist the effects of cold weather.




I'd rename Appearance to Description, eliminate the Appraise section, and switch the placement of the Special Rules and Value sections.  Move the history of the item to Description, and the Appraise DC to the Value section.  That groups the mechanics together, and the value (which is modified by material in the Special Rules section) at the end.  Then write the declaration like this:


> The name of this item is declared Product Identity.  All text in the Description entry is hereby declared closed content.  All game mechanics and text (except PI as designated above) in the Value and Special Rules entries is hereby declared open content.




Leaving it like it is, you're pretty much forced into either "all game mechanics (including item values & modifiers to dice rolls) are OGC, all other text is closed content" or "all descriptive text is closed content, all game mechanics are open content", since both are intermingled in the item description.

It's a very cool item, btw.  Is it from an upcoming product, or an existing one?

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I doubt if the two parties will ever agree on the right and wrong way to use the OGL.




Which is why I don't get involved in these discussions and why I think a lot of publishers don't either.

joe b.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, a sizable number of people feel that "information should be free."




I think I should clarify, since I hold a contrary position here.  Copyright is a good thing.  People should have control over their intellectual property, or else they can't make a living at being creative.  Information should not be free unless the author intends it to be free.  However, the act of publishing a document that has a license that says "this information is free, so long as you abide by the terms of the license," means that the author intends it to be free.  At that point, yeah, I think it should be free.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I think a problem with the OGL is that WotC didn't specify that a certain percentage of the OGC in a product must be *original* to that product _and_ released as OGC. If something as simple as this was a part of the OGL I think a lot of the problems would vanish -- then anyone releasing existing OGC for free would also be releasing new OGC, of their own creation, for free.



Would you consider Monster Geographica a non-legit product? It's a collection of monsters from various OGC sources around (say) the Underdark theme, revised to 3.5e and slightly modified. There is also some original content, let's assume it doesn't meet the required amount.
I consider MG:U one of my best purchases. I have no problem whatsoever with derivative, even unimaginative, works. If it's useful for my games, all is good.

I percieve the OGL's main problem as not stating sufficiently clearly its viral qualities (i.e. what must be OGC), and what counts as "clearly designated" declarations and what doesn't.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Dec 4, 2005)

We can argue about "intent" all day long, and until someone from Wizards of the Coast or Ryan Dancey comes in here and says explicitly, "this is what we intended," we're not going to get anywhere on this.  Mind you, I'm not arguing that folks who are releasing other people's OGC for free are violating the OGL (unless of course they _are_ violating it, which happens); it is, as I said, completely within the bounds of the license.  And I think you miss the point when you argue this way:







			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Or maybe I'm just rubbed the wrong way by the notion that there's some kind of special privilege that game publishers are supposed to have that us proles don't have, that makes it okay for other publishers to freely plagiarize each others' work with impunity but not okay for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell for a buck, with the inclusion of some neat stuff he saw in this or that OGL sourcebook, or just to put on his website.  If both of these parties are operating by the rules of the OGL, as far as I'm concerned they're operating under its intent.



It's perfectly fine for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell, and it's fine for him to put up a website, and he can use OGC per the terms in the OGL; in neither case is it plagiarism.  I've not said otherwise.  As for framing it as a case of the proletarian gamers and some group of bourgeois publishers, I think that's a little bit unfair.  As I see it, if the license is intended for collaboration and not the dissemination of gaming material (and part of the initial purpose was, IIRC what Ryan Dancey has said, to get other companies publishing things that WotC did not find terrifically profitable, such as adventures, which'd fall under collaboration), then someone posting an OGC wiki or some sort of OGC clearing house and publishing the material and work of a bunch of publishers for free is probably violating the spirit of the license, even if not the written rule.  

My opinion.

Nick


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, a sizable number of people feel that "information should be free." So while a number of us want to protect OGC, by making sure that it is used responsibly, another group wants all of the OGC to be completely free to the world.
> 
> I doubt if the two parties will ever agree on the right and wrong way to use the OGL.




Consider me of the 'information for free' contingent. Personally, it's just some added rules to a game that is complete already. You're adding some new bits, but really...is 17 new magical pipe cleaners THAT innovative that we should be paying for it? Sure, if it's included in a book of 1000 other pieces of equipment at a reasonable cost...I can see it.

My personal problem is that it's so easy to be a publisher, every Average joe could do it, and a LARGE portion of average joes DO do it. Too many fisherman, really small pond. I'll do my best not to offend anyone personally, but this is my blanket generalization of the industry:

Some people put out neat stuff. Some people don't. The people who don't are taking sales dollars from those who do. Therefore, to make the same money they made last year, they need to find new ways of doing biz that gains a better profit margin.  Now, those that have been in the business are trying to stay in business, but they're also getting all elitist. Now they consider the whole product (even the OGC) their identity. Even though you can freely use the OGC, nobody wants it to be done unless it's in a manner the original writer approves of. Sorry, it's not your rules...it's OPEN. Open means we can do what we want with it. Light it on fire in the back yard. Flush it down the toilet like the crap it sometimes is. Or even republish it. WotC put out their OGC free. They didn't hide it behind some area where you have to be a publisher first to be allowed to access it, they give it away. We see WotC do it,  so therefore many of us think that open content should be available to the public. Personally, if publishers put out pure text files of just the open content with the PDF they bought, I doubt you'd see massive loss of sales on it because it's just text. And you're worried someone will take it and resell it and take your money. Guess what, it doesn't matter...you'll still make your money.

WotC put out their OGC for FREE. OPEN to the PUBLIC. FRICKIN FREE. Yet the license allows people to copy it and repackage it for profit (and people DID), and guess what...people BOUGHT it. They spent the money, you made the profit...on selling stuff that was free. They even do it out in L.A. with oxygen.

Personally, I think most publishers need to lighten up and go back to doing business. People still are going to buy your products because they like to buy products. Gamers spend willy nilly with their money, even if they come here and post about the high price of products and how they don't like it. Game material is like crack in that manner.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Leaving it like it is, you're pretty much forced into either "all game mechanics (including item values & modifiers to dice rolls) are OGC, all other text is closed content" or "all descriptive text is closed content, all game mechanics are open content", since both are intermingled in the item description.




It's done this way to make the DM's job of describing the item, when it's found, easier. If all of the actual descriptive and history of the item was under one block it wouldn't be as immediately useable. (IMO)




			
				Nellisir said:
			
		

> It's a very cool item, btw.  Is it from an upcoming product, or an existing one?




Thank you. It's from A Dozen Distinctive Articles of Clothing.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think I should clarify, since I hold a contrary position here.  Copyright is a good thing.  People should have control over their intellectual property, or else they can't make a living at being creative.  Information should not be free unless the author intends it to be free.  However, the act of publishing a document that has a license that says "this information is free, so long as you abide by the terms of the license," means that the author intends it to be free.  At that point, yeah, I think it should be free.




I think an arguement assuming using the OGL as meaning "the author intends his stuff to be free" isn't supportable simply by the fact that the only way to get the material to begin with is by paying for it.

If the author intended the product to be free, it would be free. If it is being sold, it is not intended to be free, no matter the various possibilities implied in a license.

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> While it is legally allowable, it is morally wrong to do such a thing.




In your opinion, why is the OGL set up to clearly permit morally wrong activity?

While I agree 100% with publishers statements about how how a wiki would impact them and what there reposnse would be, I find claims that it is morally wrong to be pretty shallow.  It doesn't have anything to do with "all information is free".  It has everything to do with *this specific information* has been voluntarily declared open and freely useable in any manner that anyone wants so long as they comply with the OGL.

If you don't like it, that is fine.  But that doesn't even begin to touch on making it immoral.  If you don't want your stuff to be available for free, don't make OGC.  You're going to lose some built in market if you do that.  It is a choice you have to make.  

Anyway, the OGL was not made to encourage 3rd party publishers to build off of each other.  That is a secondary benefit and a selling point, no doubt.  But that isn't the purpose that made it happen.  It was made to cultivate the market for selling D&D products from WotC.  A wiki would probably play directly into that goal.

I don't want to see a wiki because it would have a negative impact on new product for my games.

But there would be nothing at all immoral about it.

Just as the fans, 2nd tier re-publishers MUST comply fully with the OGL, so must the original publishers.  If someone release OGC and then tries to pressure other into not beign allowed their rights under the OGL, that comes cloer to being immoral than freely releasing OGC in an OGL-compliant manner.

It is a two way street with cost and value both.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Would you consider Monster Geographica a non-legit product?




Absolutely not. There was a lot more work put into that product than just "here's a bunch of existing OGC!" Also, they didn't just collect everything and release it online for free -- they actually place a value on both the OGC they built from and the work they put into the project.

I think this sort of work, that actually builds on existing material, is what the OGL was written for.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> The spirit of the license is not for people to take the work one person has done in an attempt to make money, and then give it away for free.




Wait...so "[t]he spirit of the license is to take the work one person has done in an attempt to make money, and then..." sell it without giving that person a dime?

I don't think publishers really object to "free" OGC. I think they object to uncontrolled distribution of OGC.  Money is simply the most common form of control.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I think a problem with the OGL is that WotC didn't specify that a certain percentage of the OGC in a product must be *original* to that product _and_ released as OGC. If something as simple as this was a part of the OGL I think a lot of the problems would vanish -- then anyone releasing existing OGC for free would also be releasing new OGC, of their own creation, for free.




This would be a very satisfactory solution.  If I were using someone else's OGC, I'd certainly be using it in addition to my own contributions.  Not because to do otherwise would be morally wrong, but because to do otherwise would be impolite, and a waste of my effort, since there's no chance that I'd make any money at it, and I have better things to do with my time than not make money.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I think an arguement assuming using the OGL as meaning "the author intends his stuff to be free" isn't supportable simply by the fact that the only way to get the material to begin with is by paying for it.
> 
> If the author intended the product to be free, it would be free. If it is being sold, it is not intended to be free, no matter the various possibilities implied in a license.
> 
> joe b.




True.

But any OGC is still voluntarily established as OPEN and the author's intent is secondary and moot.  If the author really understands what they have done, then they underatnd that they have elected to make it free and they simply intend to try to sell it despite that.  If they don't understand, then that is their fault.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> So you're telling me that I should stop writing the types of products people want me to write? (Note: I don't believe that's at all what you're saying, I'm just making a point.)
> 
> I think the problem boils down to legal use vs. responsible use and, as I said earlier, I don't think the two sides will ever agree on this point.




Sure. Stop writing books with only 17 items in it. People may want it, but if you're THAT worried about the compilation, you are the only one that can decide if you'll make your minimum profit before it gets disseminated for free. If you don't meet that goal, don't write the product.

As much as you're saying that 'people want you to write it,' that's NOT what your business model is. Your business is in it to MAKE MONEY from those who want your work. If it wasn't, then write the book for nothing. You won't do that, because you're in a business to make money. You make a nice statement about people wanting you to write, and you're being the good guy buy doing it, but again....if you aren't getting anything out of it...you're not doing it. Sadly, many gamers see a line like that and think how great it is that you're really doing it for them, when it's really just a good PR statement. (No offense intended, honestly, I'm just pointing out basic economics to some who may not realize it).


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

Phil, what do you have to say about one of my above solutions about opening up more in return for an inline plug when inserting ogc?


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's what's being argued here.  From what I understand, the intent of the OGL is to open up material for publishers to use and encourage some forms of collaboration, not to create a bunch of freely distributable game material for fans.  It can do that, too, but I'm not sure that was ever the primary intent.




If the WotC lawyers didn't realize the implications, though, then they're .... not that smart. I realized them the first time I read it, and I'm not a lawyer.  So, while it might not have been the primary intent, I think it was a secondary one.

The primary intent was, and is, to support the D&D brand's market position with as little cost to WotC as possible.  I suspect it's doing -that- just fine.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> You're adding some new bits, but really...is 17 new magical pipe cleaners THAT innovative that we should be paying for it?




Innovation isn't the key, here, it's value. If _you_ see no value in it when it's sold as a product how does it suddenly become valuable to you when it's free? The product has value, maybe your sense of the product's value is lower than the publisher's, but by dumping it online for free it loses its value. And if enough people feel as you do, that the product's price exceeds its actual value, then the market will force the publisher to change his pricing and/or product strategy.


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 4, 2005)

Phil, for what it's worth, you know that I completely agree with and share your position.

The reason I don't participate in these threads is because it's just the same arguments about how the material should be free, and how if we didn't want it to be free, we shouldn't have used the OGL, etc. etc., from the same people, pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.

There is no way to convince them, so I don't bother.   My blood pressure thanks me.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Phil, what do you have to say about one of my above solutions about opening up more in return for an inline plug when inserting ogc?




I think I'd want to see a few years of people using the OGL, as it currently exists, correctly before I'd be open to trying something like that. It's definitely a good idea but a large number of people have exhibited (again and again) that they either don't understand the OGL or feel they can break it as often as they wish. Adding more rules to a license that's already being misused wouldn't help the problem.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> It's done this way to make the DM's job of describing the item, when it's found, easier. If all of the actual descriptive and history of the item was under one block it wouldn't be as immediately useable. (IMO)



Ah, good point.  Personally, I'd go with something like "product item name PI, proper names of all people, characters, events, and locations closed (or PI), all else OGC", but that doesn't wall off the description, it just puts holes in it.



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> Thank you. It's from A Dozen Distinctive Articles of Clothing.



No problem.  I'll check it out.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> If the WotC lawyers didn't realize the implications, though, then they're .... not that smart. I realized them the first time I read it, and I'm not a lawyer.  So, while it might not have been the primary intent, I think it was a secondary one.



I can't argue with you there, although I'd guess that what happened was that they didn't expect people to propose large scale projects like OGC wikis.

Actually, more likely, too — it occurs to me that, since all their OGC is in the license and everything else they've published is only released according to their own marketing plans and ideas, they probably aren't too concerned.  The vast majority of WotC's IP doesn't fall under the OGC, and the stuff that did and that they found valuable (mind flayers, for one), they pulled out of it.  

Nick


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> In your opinion, why is the OGL set up to clearly permit morally wrong activity?
> 
> While I agree 100% with publishers statements about how how a wiki would impact them and what there reposnse would be, I find claims that it is morally wrong to be pretty shallow.  It doesn't have anything to do with "all information is free".  It has everything to do with *this specific information* has been voluntarily declared open and freely useable in any manner that anyone wants so long as they comply with the OGL.
> 
> If you don't like it, that is fine.  But that doesn't even begin to touch on making it immoral.  If you don't want your stuff to be available for free, don't make OGC.  You're going to lose some built in market if you do that.  It is a choice you have to make.




I agree. However here's a point to consider.

I want other people to be able to use my stuff in their books, but I don't want someone to rip my whole book off and repackage it for sale or put it up for free at a publically accessable site.

My choice as a publisher, and I believe almost every publisher who uses the OGL and puts out a lot of material is this—

1. Be mean to the majority of people (publishers, customers who want more OGC to support their hobby) by having a vicious IP claim and absolutely minimum OGC declaration. This mean I'm being, effectively, a "leech" publisher by using other's free stuff (the SRD) to make money while trying to make sure no one else can really use my stuff.

2. Be open in my declarations and run the risk of having my work devalued by being put up for free, but add to the community benfit for everyone using/playing the OGL/OGL games. In otherwords, be nice to those to made material I could use and be nice to those who may want to use my material in the future

Most publishers chose #2 right now simply because there isn't anything really making being #2 less fiscally viable than being #1. As soon as being a #2 publisher means that your stuff gets sucked up and released for free, almost all publishers will become #1 publishers. This means that, basically, *everyone* gets to be a jerk.

I don't like that, I that's why I don't support a massive public source of OGC. It will result in #1 style publishing more than #2.

And I like being nice to others and being treated nicely by others.

It's not immoral, but it is irresponsible because by using the OGL to it's "full extent" you're basically guaranteeing that there's going to be much less OGC in the future.

joe b.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Sadly, many gamers see a line like that and think how great it is that you're really doing it for them, when it's really just a good PR statement. (No offense intended, honestly, I'm just pointing out basic economics to some who may not realize it).




You may think it's simple PR and that I don't mean it but if I was _only_ doing this for the money I would have completely stopped writing fantasy material several, several months ago.

It is possible to both care about your audience (and I feel blessed to have such a large, loyal audience*) and write game material for a living.


* Again, you likely see that as another PR spin. I don't. And I think a lot of individuals that have e-mailed me with questions, praise, complaints, and simple comments would agree with me.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> And I think you miss the point when you argue this way:It's perfectly fine for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell, and it's fine for him to put up a website, and he can use OGC per the terms in the OGL; in neither case is it plagiarism.  I've not said otherwise.  As for framing it as a case of the proletarian gamers and some group of bourgeois publishers, I think that's a little bit unfair.  As I see it, if the license is intended for collaboration and not the dissemination of gaming material (and part of the initial purpose was, IIRC what Ryan Dancey has said, to get other companies publishing things that WotC did not find terrifically profitable, such as adventures, which'd fall under collaboration), then someone posting an OGC wiki or some sort of OGC clearing house and publishing the material and work of a bunch of publishers for free is probably violating the spirit of the license, even if not the written rule.



AFAIK, there's nothing stopping someone from publishing an adventure or sourcebook and keeping the whole thing closed except for the parts specifically demanded by the license.  If the license was understood mostly as a casual outsourcing mechanism for WotC to allow for products that they themselves aren't interested in producing, nobody would publish their work as open content.  It would all be closed content, safe behind the legal bulwarks of the license, and the author could control dissemination of the work.  

If the main concern is control of intellectual property, the OGL covers it already.  But as Mr. Reed mentioned, there's also the community collaboration aspect of the license.  WotC provides the bedrock on which the system is built, and other publishers are free to write closed products, or to throw their open material out there for use.  However, it's a binary relationship.  Something's either open or closed, and there's no grey area (despite attempts to create one like Malhavoc's early IP-minefield techniques).  But that's been the case for five years, going on six.  It's been enough time to get used to the situation.

For the record, I don't think Mr. Reed needs to be producing 1000 items a book.  If 17 magical pipe cleaners does the job, 17 are enough.  If they're 17 crappy pipe cleaners, then perhaps something more is required.  If they're 17 extra-special amazing pipe cleaners, that's a good book.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> The reason I don't participate in these threads is because . . .




My vote goes to:

You're smarter than me.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Phil, for what it's worth, you know that I completely agree with and share your position.
> 
> The reason I don't participate in these threads is because it's just the same arguments about how the material should be free, and how if we didn't want it to be free, we shouldn't have used the OGL, etc. etc., from the same people, pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.
> 
> There is no way to convince them, so I don't bother.   My blood pressure thanks me.




With all due respect Gareth, I doubt you have the slightest idea of the intentions of the document either. Posting insults towards other posters is rude. If you think that you are somehow better than some of the posters who are not publishers, I welcome you to explain how you know so much more than the rest of us lowly consumers that gives you the right to have such an elitist attitude towards your own consumers.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> 1. Be mean to the majority of people (publishers, customers who want more OGC to support their hobby) by having a vicious IP claim and absolutely minimum OGC declaration. This mean I'm being, effectively, a "leech" publisher by using other's free stuff (the SRD) to make money while trying to make sure no one else can really use my stuff.
> 
> 2. Be open in my declarations and run the risk of having my work devalued by being put up for free, but add to the community benfit for everyone using/playing the OGL/OGL games. In otherwords, be nice to those to made material I could use and be nice to those who may want to use my material in the future



3. Release as option #1, but with a note saying you are willing to release the SAME WORK with a different OGC decleration to interested publisheers, for free. Nothing in the OGL means you can't rerelease with a different decleration, if both declerations are legit.
Just saying that if you really want to use the OGL to let other publishers (and not just anybody) use your work, there are ways to do that.

And I completely agree with you on why an OGC Wiki isn't generally a good idea.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I think an arguement assuming using the OGL as meaning "the author intends his stuff to be free" isn't supportable simply by the fact that the only way to get the material to begin with is by paying for it.
> 
> If the author intended the product to be free, it would be free. If it is being sold, it is not intended to be free, no matter the various possibilities implied in a license.
> 
> joe b.




The product isn't free.  But the information contained in the product is freely distributable.  That's an important difference.  It's the difference between stealing a book of Shakespeare or buying the book and then copying out and distributing the works of Shakespeare (which are in the public domain).  The first is illegal and probably morally wrong.  The second is legal, and I can't imagine finding fault for someone distributing public domain material.

If the author declares something to be freely distributable, it's freely distributable.  A d20 publisher is unlikely to declare his product freely distributable, but he might declare it of parts of the prose or rules.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> True.
> 
> But any OGC is still voluntarily established as OPEN and the author's intent is secondary and moot.  If the author really understands what they have done, then they underatnd that they have elected to make it free and they simply intend to try to sell it despite that.  If they don't understand, then that is their fault.




No. I have elected to give others a choice in whether or not they will make the material free, I have *never* elected material to be free unless I make it free.

OGC != Free

OGC = You get to decide if you want to make other people's stuff they would like to get paid for for free.

joe b.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> You may think it's simple PR and that I don't mean it but if I was _only_ doing this for the money I would have completely stopped writing fantasy material several, several months ago.
> 
> It is possible to both care about your audience (and I feel blessed to have such a large, loyal audience*) and write game material for a living.
> 
> ...




Ok, I apologize for that one. What I meant was that you're not doing it only for the 'love of the game' as so many athletes say when making 10 million dollar salaries. If you were doing it ONLY for that, you'd just put good stuff out for nothing. 

But the fact still stands that if you can't make money on it, you don't do it. Basic business. You can't operate at a loss and still have a house and a car. 

I am sure you do consider your audience when putting stuff out, it's a good business principle. The way you stated it seemed very PR (I just got done watching Bull Durham where they were discussing all the good media quotes to say that make you look like you're playing baseball for the love of the game).


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> It's not immoral, but it is irresponsible because by using the OGL to it's "full extent" you're basically guaranteeing that there's going to be much less OGC in the future.




As usual, Joe and I agree.

Here's something for everyone that wants "all OGC to be free."

Necromancer Games published the Tome of Horrors in 2002. An excellent, valuable tool packed with OGC. Many, many publishers and DMs have used the material. They followed that with Tome of Horrors II and, again, packed it with OGC. 

Would the Tome of Horrors II have included so much OGC if the material from the first had been released online for free? My vote is no.

They'll soon be releasing Tome of Horrors III. My guess is that once again it will be packed with a lot of OGC. Do you (by _you_ I'm not talking to any specific person) want to kill the chance of Tome of Horrors III including a lot of OGC by releasing the first two volumes online for free?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Phil, for what it's worth, you know that I completely agree with and share your position.
> 
> The reason I don't participate in these threads is because it's just the same arguments about how the material should be free, and how if we didn't want it to be free, we shouldn't have used the OGL, etc. etc., from the same people, pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.
> 
> There is no way to convince them, so I don't bother.   My blood pressure thanks me.




Nobody's claiming the material should be free.  They're claiming it is free, because it was made free.  And I think that if the license was communicated to the publishers in any way other than "if you make your material open content, it can be freely distributed without your permission," then the publishers were misled.  Lots of us proles here on the boards saw that bit right away.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> AFAIK, there's nothing stopping someone from publishing an adventure or sourcebook and keeping the whole thing closed except for the parts specifically demanded by the license.



Many publishers do just that. From the (very good!) _Dungeon Crawl Classics#14: Interludes_ adventure - "Subject to the product identity designated above, all creature and NPC statistic blocks are designated as Open Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or other open content sources." 
The sad thing is this is actually a relatively _clear_ designation....


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> No. I have elected to give others a choice in whether or not they will make the material free, I have *never* elected material to be free unless I make it free.
> 
> OGC != Free
> 
> ...




The problem is when you as a publisher object to someone else's legal right to make your content free. Not saying it SHOULD be, and I think other feel the same way...but you're so worried about it becoming free, that you are in essence trying to add (purely implied) restrictions on your open content.

I don't see why this argument comes up all the time because regardless of how we all feel about what is right and wrong, it comes down to what is legal according to the license.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Ok, I apologize for that one. What I meant was that you're not doing it only for the 'love of the game' as so many athletes say when making 10 million dollar salaries. If you were doing it ONLY for that, you'd just put good stuff out for nothing.




Yeah, but I'm not making anywhere near $10 million.  When someone working in the game industry says they're doing this because they love games, there's an excellent chance that they're telling you the truth. The skills necessary to create good product can be applied to almost any publishing effort (I used to work in the ag industry and spent several years designing ads for tractors and such -- if all I cared about was money I could go back to that and have a job with one phone call).


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Many publishers do just that. From the (very good!) _Dungeon Crawl Classics#14: Interludes_ adventure - "Subject to the product identity designated above, all creature and NPC statistic blocks are designated as Open Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or other open content sources."
> The sad thing is this is actually a relatively _clear_ designation....




I still don't get why publishers opt to 'open' things that are not required to be open. If you're concerned about your flavor text being reproduced, then by all means close it. As a consumer, and maybe someday publisher, I could care less about your text.

The fact that someone released the tools to allow publishers to create open crunch and make a profit on it is somehow ok, but when others want to make that publisher's content available they are against it. This aint WotC. They're the only ones above the license.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> My choice as a publisher, and I believe almost every publisher who uses the OGL and puts out a lot of material is this—
> 
> 1. Be mean to the majority of people (publishers, customers who want more OGC to support their hobby) by having a vicious IP claim and absolutely minimum OGC declaration. This mean I'm being, effectively, a "leech" publisher by using other's free stuff (the SRD) to make money while trying to make sure no one else can really use my stuff.
> 
> 2. Be open in my declarations and run the risk of having my work devalued by being put up for free, but add to the community benfit for everyone using/playing the OGL/OGL games. In otherwords, be nice to those to made material I could use and be nice to those who may want to use my material in the future




It seems to me that there's a #3 available: make some of the material open content and other material not.  If you publish a book of 17 magical pipe cleaners, make 5 of them open content.  If they show up somewhere else, even in a free internet location, there are still 12 that you have the rights to, as well as a nice PDF presumably with illustrations and layout and stuff.  And if the republishers are following the license, there will be a footnote referencing those 5 to your book of 17.  Even if they muck that up, if I mention a magical pipe cleaner on these boards, there's a pretty good chance that Joe Poster will appear to inform me that there are 17 magical pipe cleaners in your book, and that the one I'm talking about originally came from there.  I know that I find most of my small-press (meaning non-WotC) d20 publication info through the grapevine on message boards anyway...


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> I don't see why this argument comes up all the time because regardless of how we all feel about what is right and wrong, it comes down to what is legal according to the license.




Because, for me, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I have personal standards and values that I will not sacrifice, no matter how "legal" I would be.

Example: Mastering Iron Heroes includes a very cool set of rules on zones. I'd like to do something with those but the OGC declaration does not open those rules. Now many have argued that they fall under the "based on SRD" clause and are free to use. I will not, though, because it is obvious to me that Monte Cook did not intend them to be open or available to others.

This is me showing respect to Monte's decision to not open the rules for zones.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I'm not making anywhere near $10 million.  When someone working in the game industry says they're doing this because they love games, there's an excellent chance that they're telling you the truth. The skills necessary to create good product can be applied to almost any publishing effort (I used to work in the ag industry and spent several years designing ads for tractors and such -- if all I cared about was money I could go back to that and have a job with one phone call).



Phil, I have no doubt that you love the game. And no doubt that most publishers love the game. Love is not money, and you cannot buy a house with love. You certainly have the right to do what you do, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are mistaken.

However, when someone else wants to do the same thing, they have the right as well, and if they don't need the money and can do it all for free, so be it.

I still think that good publishers with decent product will continue to sell decent product regardless of any ogc wiki project.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> The problem is when you as a publisher object to someone else's legal right to make your content free.




I'm not ojecting to someone's legal right. I'm telling them that if they do so on a large scale, their "right" will become less and less as the creators of OGC will make less and less OGC.



> I don't see why this argument comes up all the time because regardless of how we all feel about what is right and wrong, it comes down to what is legal according to the license.




Because behaving legally isn't the issue. Behaving in a manner that is beneficial to customers and publishers is the real issue here.

All of us publishers know that we have made our material "Open." That means somecould make it "Free." However, that's not really to the benefit of everyone as much as being a bit more responsible with "Open" material. Because the liscense doesn't make anything FREE it makes things OPEN. What people decided to do with that OPENness once I've put it out there is up to them.

joe b.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> And if the republishers are following the license, there will be a footnote referencing those 5 to your book of 17.




Unfortunately, that's a pretty big if. I had a recent problem with a publisher reusing some of my OGC and changing the names of my products in the Section 15. Anyone looking for my products will never find them because they'll never find products with _those_ names.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I agree. However here's a point to consider.
> 
> I want other people to be able to use my stuff in their books, but I don't want someone to rip my whole book off and repackage it for sale or put it up for free at a publically accessable site.
> 
> ...




The only thing I disagree with is you description under #1.
There are people who use cripple content (spells with closed names, etc...)  And that may somewhat suck to some people.  I certainly don't like it.  But I don't think it is at all "mean".  If you as a publisher are using the OGL correctly and anyone else who re-uses the material also does so, then there should not be any great debate beyond that.

If #2 is people that are choosing to go beyond the requirements of the OGL, then fine.  But they do it of their own free will.  You don't need to talk me out of re-using stuff.  I buy a lot and I don't infringe on any of it.  I'm just talking about the overall market reality.

I agree with you 100% regarding the negative impact on publishers would have.  My gripe is when publishers start attacking others for using OGC in an authorized way.  And calling immoral meets that criteria to me.  

I agree with you that it would impact you in a way you don't want.
Can you agree with me that this does not make it unacceptable or immoral?

Anyway, I don't want it to happen.  And I still strongly predict that it will not happen any time soon.  It would take a lot of both tedious and concientious work to do it correctly.  I persoanlly don't believe that anyone who has the real ability to do it right would ever find it to be worth their time.

That's why these threads always start out with someone asking when someone ELSE will start producing this free stuff for them.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Because, for me, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I have personal standards and values that I will not sacrifice, no matter how "legal" I would be.
> 
> Example: Mastering Iron Heroes includes a very cool set of rules on zones. I'd like to do something with those but the OGC declaration does not open those rules. Now many have argued that they fall under the "based on SRD" clause and are free to use. I will not, though, because it is obvious to me that Monte Cook did not intend them to be open or available to others.
> 
> This is me showing respect to Monte's decision to not open the rules for zones.




I see it as the foresight to not involve yourself into a legal battle. Monte has made plenty of dubious OGC declarations, and I believe he is probably #1 of the publishers I speak of who are given free tools to go out and create games and make money, yet don't want to play by the same rules and release stuff to others (and this is not an argument on if I want it on the web for free, this qualifies as released to publishers as well).


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there's a #3 available: make some of the material open content and other material not.  If you publish a book of 17 magical pipe cleaners, make 5 of them open content.  If they show up somewhere else, even in a free internet location, there are still 12 that you have the rights to, as well as a nice PDF presumably with illustrations and layout and stuff.  And if the republishers are following the license, there will be a footnote referencing those 5 to your book of 17.  Even if they muck that up, if I mention a magical pipe cleaner on these boards, there's a pretty good chance that Joe Poster will appear to inform me that there are 17 magical pipe cleaners in your book, and that the one I'm talking about originally came from there.  I know that I find most of my small-press (meaning non-WotC) d20 publication info through the grapevine on message boards anyway...




There is that option, however, that's almost just like closing as much as possible because I'm now making other publishers contact me if they want to use one of those that I closed.

That's why me and Phil have such liberal OGC: to benefit those people who want to use it in a product of theirs without having to jump through additional hoops to use it.

That's why I'm a big proponent of the OGL: It's fricken awesome!  I guess, I'd rather rely on the goodwill of others to understand that their behavior has an effect upon my business rather than try and defend myself legally. So far (3 years running) I haven't been burned.

However, I do expect it to happen one day unfortunately. 

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Phil, for what it's worth, you know that I completely agree with and share your position.
> 
> The reason I don't participate in these threads is because it's just the same arguments about how the material should be free, and how if we didn't want it to be free, we shouldn't have used the OGL, etc. etc., from the same people, pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.
> 
> There is no way to convince them, so I don't bother.   My blood pressure thanks me.




There seems to be a pattern with you claiming to know exactly what everyone else understands and declaring a fiat on your magical insider knowledge.

You are wrong.  But there is no way to convince you, so I won't bother.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Because, for me, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I have personal standards and values that I will not sacrifice, no matter how "legal" I would be.
> 
> Example: Mastering Iron Heroes includes a very cool set of rules on zones. I'd like to do something with those but the OGC declaration does not open those rules. Now many have argued that they fall under the "based on SRD" clause and are free to use. I will not, though, because it is obvious to me that Monte Cook did not intend them to be open or available to others.
> 
> This is me showing respect to Monte's decision to not open the rules for zones.




That seems like a different kind of case though.  That sounds like "oops we accidentally opened the material," rather than "well, we decided deliberately to open the material but if you republish it anywhere you're a bad person."  I've been claiming that the main reason why the material is free is because the publisher has deliberately designated it as free with full understanding of the implication of his actions.  "Oops" is not a good counter-argument to that.


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 4, 2005)

In regards to people refering to S15 to see the sources, was there an overwhelming poll on EnWorld in the last couple of weeks that said almost no one refers to them?

I know as I'm building the Expert Player's Guide, one publisher has asked me to have their company mentioned in the press release for it. If I can work that in, I won't use their content. As a moral decision and an courtesy.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I'm not ojecting to someone's legal right. I'm telling them that if they do so on a large scale, their "right" will become less and less as the creators of OGC will make less and less OGC.
> 
> ..snip...
> joe b.




Is there that much left to do that hasn't already been done 20 times before? There are times when I really think people are writing up stuff JUST to be a publisher and have products out there so they can join the 'BOYS CLUB.' Do we need another variant sorceror? Variant bard?

Spells...come on...there's gotta be about 10,000 of them out there, and with no quality control to determine if they are legit balanced, it's just a giant mess. How can you even look through that many spells to determine which ones your wizard memorizes?

Personally, I think there's enough open content to sustain gaming for another 10 years without any new content created.

I understand the whole "we don't want it to be free" argument. I am in partial agreement there. What I am against is crippling OGC or obscuring OGC for the sake of trying to protect content which is reqired to be open. And I'm against anyone telling me how I have to use your open content. And that's where my argument lies. Too many people are acting like they have a right to determine my use of content.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I agree with you 100% regarding the negative impact on publishers would have.  My gripe is when publishers start attacking others for using OGC in an authorized way.  And calling immoral meets that criteria to me.




Ya. Unfortunately, ripping something off wholesale and putting up for free/sale *IS* and authorized way of using OGC.

Other than that use, I really don't think publishers have any gripes about "morally" using OGC. Just follow the rules and don't rip it all.



> I agree with you that it would impact you in a way you don't want.
> Can you agree with me that this does not make it unacceptable or immoral?




With the caveat above, sure. I really do *want[b/] people to use my OGC. I just want them to use it in a way that means I'll be able and willing to make more OGC for them to use. 




			That's why these threads always start out with someone asking when someone ELSE will start producing this free stuff for them.  

Click to expand...



Heh, human nature, eh?  I'm not a big fan of the wiki idea for customers because I really do think it would do more bad than good in the long run for both the customers and the publishers.

joe b.*


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that's a pretty big if. I had a recent problem with a publisher reusing some of my OGC and changing the names of my products in the Section 15. Anyone looking for my products will never find them because they'll never find products with _those_ names.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that the publisher is in violation of the OGL, and therefore in violation of copyright law?  If the answer is yes, then I agree that they should not have violated the OGL.  They should have correctly satisfied the requirements of the license regarding the section 15.  But that's a legal issue, and doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand, which is whether it is right or wrong to legally redistribute OGL material.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That sounds like "oops we accidentally opened the material," rather than "well, we decided deliberately to open the material but if you republish it anywhere you're a bad person."




Not what I meant. Monte isn't the one saying the material is open, it's other people. According to Monte (I assume, because he was the publisher), the zone rules are not open. Now I happen to feel that they should be (because they're obviously based on the SRD), but if he wants them closed then I can respect that.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Because, for me, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I have personal standards and values that I will not sacrifice, no matter how "legal" I would be.
> 
> Example: Mastering Iron Heroes includes a very cool set of rules on zones. I'd like to do something with those but the OGC declaration does not open those rules. Now many have argued that they fall under the "based on SRD" clause and are free to use. I will not, though, because it is obvious to me that Monte Cook did not intend them to be open or available to others.
> 
> This is me showing respect to Monte's decision to not open the rules for zones.



The thing is that Monte decided not to open the section, while you decided to open them but would like to limit this to publishers only. I am sorry, but the license says that what's open is open. Monte is free to choose not to open stuff and I can understand not "punishing" him for inadvertably publishing material he didn't intend to, but no one is free to both release and not release stuff using the license.

Perhpas it wouldn't suprise anyone, but I must admit I was tempted to purchase Iron Heroes for the sole purpose of trying to extract its tangeld OGC and publish it. A moment's perusal infromed me the designated content was so miniscule it wouldn't be worth the enormous effort and legal risk. [Any comments regarding it are from memory only, as I didn't purchase it, so - IIRC.]


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that the publisher is in violation of the OGL, and therefore in violation of copyright law?




Yes. But this is nothing new.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Is there that much left to do that hasn't already been done 20 times before? There are times when I really think people are writing up stuff JUST to be a publisher and have products out there so they can join the 'BOYS CLUB.' Do we need another variant sorceror? Variant bard?




I don't really think so, but people like new things, even if I'm not the one buying them.



> I understand the whole "we don't want it to be free" argument. I am in partial agreement there. What I am against is crippling OGC or obscuring OGC for the sake of trying to protect content which is reqired to be open. And I'm against anyone telling me how I have to use your open content. And that's where my argument lies. Too many people are acting like they have a right to determine my use of content.




I'm completely against crippling OGC as well. But i that's the only type of OGC you'll see if someone really *does* make a massive site of free OGC material. I think every publisher would start crippling OGC because "it's my living, it's how I make money for food."

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Ya. Unfortunately, ripping something off wholesale and putting up for free/sale *IS* and authorized way of using OGC.




Sorry, I sincerly can not tell if you are being sarcastic here or not.  



> Other than that use, I really don't think publishers have any gripes about "morally" using OGC. Just follow the rules and don't rip it all.




It has already been called immoral in this thread.  
And legally and morally the correct last sentence should just be "Just follow the rules."  As long as "all" only refers to actual OGC, the last part doesn't fit.
If you want to change the conversation to what you (and I) may prefer, then that is a different matter.



> With the caveat above, sure. I really do *want[b/] people to use my OGC. I just want them to use it in a way that means I'll be able and willing to make more OGC for them to use. *



*

As do I.  But I really don't see letting either side exceed the allowance of the OGL as a good thing.




			Heh, human nature, eh?  I'm not a big fan of the wiki idea for customers because I really do think it would do more bad than good in the long run for both the customers and the publishers.
		
Click to expand...



Certainly.*


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Not what I meant. Monte isn't the one saying the material is open, it's other people. According to Monte (I assume, because he was the publisher), the zone rules are not open. Now I happen to feel that they should be (because they're obviously based on the SRD), but if he wants them closed then I can respect that.




But that's an even stronger case than "oops".  As far as the publisher is concerned, the material is closed.  He might well be right, if the case ever goes to court.  The legality of the situation is in question, and I think that invalidates it as an example case for a discussion about open content that was deliberately rendered open.  I'm not talking about anything here except content, like your own OGC, which was deliberately rendered open, and which is legally unambiguous with respect to that designation.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> while you decided to open them but would like to limit this to publishers only.




No, what I've opened is opened. What I am saying is that I would like people to be responsible when using that open material. For example, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to buy the new Tome of Horrors PDF from DTRPG ($10) and then extract all of the OGC and sell it for $5. According to the license this is legal, though.

Maybe it's just that I want people to respect me and my work in the same way that I respect others and their work. Is that wrong of me?


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

Anyone who wants to discuss this real time, I'm in the #d20modern channel on the EN world chat server (chat.psionics.net).

I personally invite joe and phil (phil even moreso) because I would enjoy discussing this directly with them.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> In your opinion, why is the OGL set up to clearly permit morally wrong activity?




Laws can allow for immoral things because the people writing the laws feel the benefits of flexible interpretation outweighed the unlikely risks of abuse. For instance, free speech is protected in the United States Bill of Rights. Sure, I can use my protected free speech to tell the whole world that Tom Cruise is having problems in his marriage, or that he's really embarrassed about that new growth he has on his left butt cheek. However, in doing so I'm acting somewhat immorally, taking advantage of someone else. It's a fine line on a slippery slope coated with turtle wax, but it's something to look out for.

I put the majority of my books out as Open Content because I want other publishers to be able to use any rules they like in their own books. I want to foster the gaming industry, so that rather than three people creating redundant rules, they can pick what they think is best and use that.

It is not so much me saying "Everyone use this free" as it is me saying, "Well, US Copyright law is a mudpool of complications and difficulty, so the OGL is a pretty good solution. I just hope people don't sabotage the whole effort of enhancing the art of game creation by using the OGL to hand out all our work to people for free."

Without the OGL, collaborating and using rules created by others would be a pain in the ass, and fraught with risk of getting into legal issues. So yeah, I use the OGL because it's the best thing available. If there was a license that could manage to clearly state the letter of the law to match the spirit of "use this to help produce quality gaming products," I'd use that instead.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That's why these threads always start out with someone asking when someone ELSE will start producing this free stuff for them.



That's a brilliant observation.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Not what I meant. Monte isn't the one saying the material is open, it's other people. According to Monte (I assume, because he was the publisher), the zone rules are not open. Now I happen to feel that they should be (because they're obviously based on the SRD), but if he wants them closed then I can respect that.




I haven't purchased this product, so I can not comment on it.

But if any publisher based stuff on the SRD and then tried to call it closed, then they don't have any complaint coming when people turn around and misuse the OGL on them.
I'm not sayign two wrongs make a right.  I'm just saying I won't loose any sleep.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The legality of the situation is in question, and I think that invalidates it as an example case for a discussion about open content that was deliberately rendered open.




For me it isn't at all about the legality. It's about respect and responsibility.

I am not at all denying that an OGL Wiki, if the license was followed correctly, would be perfectly legal. I am saying that it would be disrespectful to the creators and publishers involved and an irresponsible use of the OGL.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yes. But this is nothing new.




Okay, so then the problem is with people who don't follow the license, and not people who do.  But that's a legal issue and not a moral one.

Assuming that people are following the license, and that the publisher designated the content as open knowing the implications of that act, where does the ethical trouble enter the situation?  Why shouldn't people be able to say, "if you didn't want it to be redistributed, why did you make it open?"  The purpose of making content open is to make it redistributable.  There is no other reason to do so.  It is, within the terms of the license, throwing your ideas on the table for other people to use.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Sorry, I sincerly can not tell if you are being sarcastic here or not.




I'm serious. Although I don't like it even though I have agreed to the possiblity, ripping OGC wholesale and putting it up for free is legal. 



> It has already been called immoral in this thread.
> And legally and morally the correct last sentence should just be "Just follow the rules."  As long as "all" only refers to actual OGC, the last part doesn't fit.




The end bit is my personal opinion, not legal opinon.  

joe b.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> That's why these threads always start out with someone asking when someone ELSE will start producing this free stuff for them.




Well, the last time I remember this happening (and I might have missed some threads), it was over whether someone was going to distill Unearthed Arcana into an SRD.  And someone did, over at d20srd.org.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> "if you didn't want it to be redistributed, why did you make it open?"  The purpose of making content open is to make it redistributable.  There is no other reason to do so.  It is, within the terms of the license, throwing your ideas on the table for other people to use.




For me the answer is, "Because I didn't have the choice to exclude Free distribution and wholesale distribution while including the other types I want to see thrive and grow." I had to take the bad with the good to use the liscense. I did so because I think there is more good than bad.

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Laws can allow for immoral things because the people writing the laws feel the benefits of flexible interpretation outweighed the unlikely risks of abuse. For instance, free speech is protected in the United States Bill of Rights. Sure, I can use my protected free speech to tell the whole world that Tom Cruise is having problems in his marriage, or that he's really embarrassed about that new growth he has on his left butt cheek. However, in doing so I'm acting somewhat immorally, taking advantage of someone else. It's a fine line on a slippery slope coated with turtle wax, but it's something to look out for.
> 
> I put the majority of my books out as Open Content because I want other publishers to be able to use any rules they like in their own books. I want to foster the gaming industry, so that rather than three people creating redundant rules, they can pick what they think is best and use that.
> 
> ...





Shrug
You are imposing a narrow view on the OGL that isn't there.  

Your generalized discussion of free speech doesn't really speak to the matter at hand.

And the spirit of the OGL is to help WotC sell product.
If you want your own OGL that actually meets the spirit you are calling for, then make your own.  But you won't have access to the SRD.

Nothing you said shows that using voluntary OGC in a compliant manner is immoral.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I want other people to be able to use my stuff in their books, but I don't want someone to rip my whole book off and repackage it for sale or put it up for free at a publically accessable site.
> 
> (snip)




Heh. Joe Browning pretty much said what I wanted to say.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't people be able to say, "if you didn't want it to be redistributed, why did you make it open?"  The purpose of making content open is to make it redistributable.




Again. It is not that I don't want the OGC I create to be used. It's that I want it to be used responsibly.

Anyone watching but not participating that understands what I mean -- yes, you! -- please post. My hand is getting tired.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> My hand is getting tired.




Try using both to type. It really improves productivity. I imagine you could put out twice your normal number of products if you typed with both hands.   

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I'm serious. Although I don't like it even though I have agreed to the possiblity, ripping OGC wholesale and putting it up for free is legal.




Cool. Then you and I agree.  
Obviously I don't share your personal motivation.
But I see that you are able to separate that from an emotional response to the situation.
I REALLY respect that.
So much so that I just bought Beast Builder.   



> The end bit is my personal opinion, not legal opinon.
> 
> joe b.




Of course.  Me too.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> For me it isn't at all about the legality. It's about respect and responsibility.
> 
> I am not at all denying that an OGL Wiki, if the license was followed correctly, would be perfectly legal. I am saying that it would be disrespectful to the creators and publishers involved and an irresponsible use of the OGL.




Okay, boiling it down to this, I just disagree.  The creators and publishers have given permission to use their work in this manner.  Whether it would be advisable or responsible to do so is another issue.  As others have pointed out, it would probably cause a decrease in the quality and quantity of d20 material.  It simply for reasons of the logistics of maintaining it and the consequences of its existence would not be a good idea to create a d20 wiki.  But it wouldn't be an affront to the publishers that created the open content used.  If they take offence, they didn't understand the agreement that the OGL demands of them.


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Try using both to type. It really improves productivity. I imagine you could put out twice your normal number of products if you typed with both hands.
> 
> joe b.




I think Phil was meaning in regards to his CTS.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Try using both to type. It really improves productivity. I imagine you could put out twice your normal number of products if you typed with both hands.   .




I knew I was doing something wrong.  Watch out, world! Two hands it is!


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Okay, boiling it down to this, I just disagree.  The creators and publishers have given permission to use their work in this manner.  Whether it would be advisable or responsible to do so is another issue.  As others have pointed out, it would probably cause a decrease in the quality and quantity of d20 material.  It simply for reasons of the logistics of maintaining it and the consequences of its existence would not be a good idea to create a d20 wiki.  But it wouldn't be an affront to the publishers that created the open content used.  If they take offence, they didn't understand the agreement that the OGL demands of them.




So you're saying that you do not respect the work of those producing OGC and feel their work has no value and should be online for free? Because -- to me -- that's what it feels like you are saying.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I want other people to be able to use my stuff in their books, but I don't want someone to rip my whole book off and repackage it for sale or put it up for free at a publically accessable site.






			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Heh. Joe Browning pretty much said what I wanted to say.




Wanting something is fine.  Saying it is immoral when you don't get it is another.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> ...pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.




How it was communicated is irrelevant.  What it says is relevant.  I can tell you I'm sending you a hundred bucks, but if I send Monopoly money, the bank won't care what I "communicated" to you.

And the license was intended to drive money into WotC's pocket.  That's the nitty-gritty of it.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> No, what I've opened is opened. What I am saying is that I would like people to be responsible when using that open material. For example, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to buy the new Tome of Horrors PDF from DTRPG ($10) and then extract all of the OGC and sell it for $5. According to the license this is legal, though.
> 
> Maybe it's just that I want people to respect me and my work in the same way that I respect others and their work. Is that wrong of me?



Alright, I agree. While the cases are different, I can see why "you can do it, but it isn't nice" is  a valid argument. 
Both cases rely on the publisher's expectations. Monte expects the zone rules to be closed, and we respect that. The Tome of Horror is expected not to be ripped off and sold, and we respect that.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Okay, boiling it down to this, I just disagree.  The creators and publishers have given permission to use their work in this manner.  Whether it would be advisable or responsible to do so is another issue.  As others have pointed out, it would probably cause a decrease in the quality and quantity of d20 material.  It simply for reasons of the logistics of maintaining it and the consequences of its existence would not be a good idea to create a d20 wiki.  But it wouldn't be an affront to the publishers that created the open content used.  If they take offence, they didn't understand the agreement that the OGL demands of them.




shrug

yep, that is pretty much it.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Cool. Then you and I agree.
> Obviously I don't share your personal motivation.
> But I see that you are able to separate that from an emotional response to the situation.
> I REALLY respect that.




How I think things should work and how they do work are rarely congruent. 



> So much so that I just bought Beast Builder.




That cracks me up. Thanks! 

joe b.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 4, 2005)

> You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?




Fair enough, Yair. I think it is all about ressource management, even though no one is in charge of it. 

Plainly said, I don't have the time and do my part for the d20 community, and I think most of us here do their part as well. So it takes just one guy to do the deed. Who will? Not I. But somebody will, I'm sure of it.


----------



## HinterWelt (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> So you're saying that you do not respect the work of those producing OGC and feel their work has no value and should be online for free? Because -- to me -- that's what it feels like you are saying.




Phil,
I honestly have never understood this. I have done OGL on three of my books. I EXPECT that people will reprint it (entirely or in parts) and it is part of my plan. I do not understand publihsers who object to this. If you don't want it to happen, then use a different license or publish closed material. No direspect meant here, just trying to wrap my head around the argument.

Bill


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> For me the answer is, "Because I didn't have the choice to exclude Free distribution and wholesale distribution while including the other types I want to see thrive and grow." I had to take the bad with the good to use the liscense. I did so because I think there is more good than bad.
> 
> joe b.




Right.  And you did so willingly and with knowledge of the consequences of your actions.  If you have given permission for the material to be used in a particular way, and it gets used in this way, you have no cause for complaint.  You arranged for that situation to come to pass.  As they say, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones.  Sure, democracy has its bad points, but one would hardly call supporters of democracy immoral because of that.  

The OGL is the best system we have for this sort of distribution.  You might not like all the consequences of the license, but they were there before you started publishing (except, perhaps, for the mind flayer bits).  Presumably, you saw the flaws and decided to publish under the OGL anyway.  In that case, you agreed to a certain flawed set of rules and have no right to call foul on people who are also playing by the same flawed set of rules.  Reserve the venom for people who break the rules, like the publisher who failed to credit Mr. Reed.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 4, 2005)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Fair enough, Yair. I think it is all about ressource management, even though no one is in charge of it.
> 
> Plainly said, I don't have the time and do my part for the d20 community, and I think most of us here do their part as well. So it takes just one guy to do the deed. Who will? Not I. But somebody will, I'm sure of it.




There is also the chance that it could easily get sabotaged and forced to be taken down.  It doesn't take much for someoing to mess up the OGL declorations of a few entries or just put in false info to get the things taken down.  There are thousands of d20 books with all sorts of open content in them, and its impossible for most people to even be aware if its done right.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> I do not understand publihsers who object to this. If you don't want it to happen, then use a different license or publish closed material. No direspect meant here, just trying to wrap my head around the argument.




Basically I can choose to be extremely restrictive with OGC or open with OGC. I choose to be open, and have made clear that I expect people to act responsibly with that OGC. I am not at all saying that someone couldn't take any amount of OGC and release it online for free, just that I feel that would be irresponsible.

I can also choose to include special instructions on how to contact me to request to use closed material (which I have done a few times) but that's frustrating for everyone involved.

I'm trusting the community to treat OGC with respect. Obviously, I'm an idiot.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

...


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I'm trusting the community to treat OGC with respect. Obviously, I'm an idiot.




You trusted the wrong group of people. We want, want, want, free, free, free...yet we'll blow $100 on a dungeon then come here and complain about it.

Gamers are odd folks.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> Phil,
> I honestly have never understood this. I have done OGL on three of my books. I EXPECT that people will reprint it (entirely or in parts) and it is part of my plan. I do not understand publihsers who object to this. If you don't want it to happen, then use a different license or publish closed material. No direspect meant here, just trying to wrap my head around the argument.
> 
> Bill



While I agree in principle that using a closed license or publishing some closed content would be wiser, that doesn't mean I would want to take advantage of a publisher's... ehm... like of foresight against them. I could, yes, but I wouldn't want to. No more than I would like to punish someone for inadvetedly publishing material as OGC in an "oops" case. 
Now, that only goes so far. I wouldn't publish the Tome of Horrors extract the day after it was released. I might not be opposed to publishing it in a few months, perhaps under some greater project. It's very liquid. But the publisher's wishes do carry weight with me even if they are not backed up by laws to uphold them.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Right.  And you did so willingly and with knowledge of the consequences of your actions.  If you have given permission for the material to be used in a particular way, and it gets used in this way, you have no cause for complaint.




Just because I agree doesn't mean I give away my right to complain.  I agreed with certain parts and disagreed with others. Unfortunately that means, legally, I agree with them all. However, legally agreeing to something doesn't mean I support that something 100%.



> As they say, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones.  Sure, democracy has its bad points, but one would hardly call supporters of democracy immoral because of that.




Yep. I "voted" for the OGL. That doesn't mean I support all the possible outcomes of the license without right to complain. It just means I can't *sue* someone I disagree with. 



> In that case, you agreed to a certain flawed set of rules and have no right to call foul on people who are also playing by the same flawed set of rules.  Reserve the venom for people who break the rules, like the publisher who failed to credit Mr. Reed.




I don't have any venom for anyone. And I even won't have venom once someone rips all my OGC to make a quick buck or to put it up for free so other people can not pay me for my work. I won't have any venom. What I *will* have is a lot less OGC in the future. It's that point I'm trying to make to those who believe that open means "the author intends his products to be free."

I don't intend my products to be free, I intend them to be open. If they become free they will do so against my express wishes as the OGL I agreed to is only concerned with the  "opening" of material, not the monatary value of the material. The only products I intend to be free are those I *make* free of purchasing price.

However regardless of my opinions/desires, if done according to the license, they will become free in a legal manner.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So much so that I just bought Beast Builder.




I'm sure you'll notice that Beast Builder is 224 pages. All of the text is open content.  I really believe in the OGL and I believe in making things as open as possible.

joe b.


----------



## HinterWelt (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Basically I can choose to be extremely restrictive with OGC or open with OGC. I choose to be open, and have made clear that I expect people to act responsibly with that OGC. I am not at all saying that someone couldn't take any amount of OGC and release it online for free, just that I feel that would be irresponsible.
> 
> I can also choose to include special instructions on how to contact me to request to use closed material (which I have done a few times) but that's frustrating for everyone involved.
> 
> I'm trusting the community to treat OGC with respect. Obviously, I'm an idiot.




Phil,
I would not call you an idiot in any manner. To be honest, I respect your stand on this subject, I just have never fully understood it. I apporach the OGL as a means to an end. I use on the SRD. I appreciate that the spirit of the OGL, at least on the surface, was for reuse and improvement of existing OGL to make the materail better with each iteration. I could live with people reprinting the three books I have written. I don't know how well they would sell but it was a price for allowing open content. I am not saying you should do a dance but it is to be planned for, understood, and if you dislike that route, use a different license or make your own.

Nothing but respect for you Phil,
Bill


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 4, 2005)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by philreed
> > So you're saying that you do not respect the work of those producing OGC and feel their work has no value and should be online for free? Because -- to me -- that's what it feels like you are saying.
> 
> 
> ...




The argument is that _reusing_ OGC is fine. You are developing intellectually upon that which has been put out for that purpose.

_Giving away_ OGC is what the problem is. If you simply copy something and give it away for free, you are not contributing to the discourse of game design. All you're doing is making the production of d20 game material no longer a viable business strategy.

I don't think any of the publishers are objecting to people using the OGC they create. What we're opposed to is the idea that people might go against what we perceive is the spirit of the OGL. We think the spirit of the OGL is to help people use Open Content in their products, to add value to the d20 game system. It is against that spirit to simply give away Open Content that someone else is trying to make money on.

It's like this:

"Hertz, I'd like to rent a car."

"Okay."

"Oh, now that I have your car, I'm going to give it away."

"Darn."

And for the record, I realize it's a flawed analogy. But 'darn' is fun to say, especially if you imagine a mopey Hertz clerk. *grin*


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> There is also the chance that it could easily get sabotaged and forced to be taken down.  It doesn't take much for someoing to mess up the OGL declorations of a few entries or just put in false info to get the things taken down.  There are thousands of d20 books with all sorts of open content in them, and its impossible for most people to even be aware if its done right.



I think you are exaggerating. With proper management of editing history and priveleges, infrigments could be kept to a level well below industry standards (which, as Phil testified, isn't high). They can be cured well before the breach period in the OGL, and as such could not be pursued legally.
I do not think subotage will be very easy, if the Wiki's community is vibrant and active.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Again. It is not that I don't want the OGC I create to be used. It's that I want it to be used responsibly.
> 
> Anyone watching but not participating that understands what I mean -- yes, you! -- please post. My hand is getting tired.




Consider me chiming in here. I _want_ people to use my open material. But the simple truth is, people won't pay for something if they can get it for free. That's just human nature. I accept the possibility that any of my open material will be made available for free; that doesn't mean I have to _like_ the possibility.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> It's like this:
> 
> "Hertz, I'd like to rent a car."
> 
> ...




I see it like this:

Me: "Ford, I'd like to buy a car."
Dealer: "Ok."
Me: "Now I'm just going to part it out and sell it off for more than what I paid for it."
Dealer: "Wait. According to your purchaser license you're allowed to, but as a dealer I think this is a crappy deal. Only dealers like *US* should be able to sell cars and car parts, and even then our parts should only be sold by us to other Ford dealers"


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Consider me chiming in here. I _want_ people to use my open material. But the simple truth is, people won't pay for something if they can get it for free. That's just human nature. I accept the possibility that any of my open material will be made available for free; that doesn't mean I have to _like_ the possibility.




Tell that to those who bought the SRD PDFs when they came out.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> So you're saying that you do not respect the work of those producing OGC and feel their work has no value and should be online for free? Because -- to me -- that's what it feels like you are saying.




Of course I'm not saying that.  Their work must have value or else nobody would want to purchase it in the first place, or (more tellingly) use it in another publication.  My respect for their work, if I were to publish something including it, would equal my respect for the work of scientists whose work I respect and make use of in my own work, which is to say I would include appropriate citation.

I think that Monte Cook's Best of d20 is a fabulous book because it highlights some of the best OGC out there, and directs attention toward those publishers using Mr. Cook's own name as a banner to draw that attention.  The work they did deserves respect.  Now, I could buy the Best of d20 and leave it at that, never look at the rest of that publisher's work, open or closed content, and I would think that it would be pretty crazy to call me or Mr. Cook immoral over that situation.  But if I went and bought something from one of those publishers, now that I know the quality work they produce, I would expect to get more than just a text document of open game content.  

I would expect to get a publication that includes both open content and closed content.  Things like illustrations, background, characterizations, along with the standard feats, spells, etc.  Maybe it'll even be on real paper.  But I'm not just buying the text.  I'm buying a product.  There are two reasons why I pay for the work.  First, to reward their efforts and encourage more products I might like.  Second, to pay for the actual product including illustrations and layout, salaries that went into making it, etc.

My impression of open content is that it fulfills two roles:
1. It provides the baseline (SRD) for publishers to create products that are compatible with one another.  This requires no open content beyond the SRD.
2. It allows publishers to add their ideas to the community pot, with the notion that if those ideas are better than the baseline, maybe someday they'll displace the SRD rules as "the way the game is played", or at least become popular variations.  I remember hearing something quite like this stated as part of the original intent of the OGL (for the edification of GMSkarka).  

This second part is purely optional, and if you want to support it, you have to be comfortable with losing control over your ideas, because that's what you agree to by creating open content.  It doesn't make your ideas any less valuable to players, only less valuable as monopolized commodities.  

So in response to your question, no, I'm not saying I have no respect for their work.  But I do think that if they deliberately relinquish control over their intellectual property, they should think about why they're doing it and what effect it will have on their ability to sell it.  It's no longer entirely theirs, and they lose a lot of say in what happens to it.  But they knew that going into the business.

And while I'm at it, what's the difference between:
1. Mr. A publishes 25% open content book X.  Mr. B transcribes open content from book X and puts it on internet for free.  Mr. A makes no money from this arrangement.
2. Mr. A publishes 25% open content book X.  Mr. C transcribes open content from book X and sells it as a PDF, making a profit.  Mr. A makes no money from this arrangement.

You seem to be saying that 2 is okay, but 1 isn't.  That seems odd to me.  I would have thought you'd have a bigger beef with Mr. C, who makes money on Mr. A's work than with Mr. B, who doesn't.  In the latter case, people have to pay for the content, but they're paying Mr. C, not Mr. A.  Why should Mr. A care whether Mr. C is getting paid?


----------



## mearls (Dec 4, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Mike Mearls proposed this a while back and it was discussed at length before being abandoned for two primary reasons:




The concept has been by no means abandoned.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Consider me chiming in here. I _want_ people to use my open material. But the simple truth is, people won't pay for something if they can get it for free. That's just human nature. I accept the possibility that any of my open material will be made available for free; that doesn't mean I have to _like_ the possibility.




Um...isn't the whole point of Creative Mountain Games that people will pay for material that they could get for free elsewhere?


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> I see it like this:
> 
> Me: "Ford, I'd like to buy a car."
> Dealer: "Ok."
> ...





See, what's starting to irritate me is your implication that publishers view themselves as elitist, or as part of a boy's club or something. There's no "us" and "them." If you want to put the stuff you need up on your site for your players, or produce a book that uses stuff necessary for that book, go ahead. That's what the OGL is intended for, as I see it.

What I don't want to see is people abusing generosity.

How about this?

"All you can eat, huh? Twenty-four hour buffet, huh? Well, I guess I'm never leaving."
*The patron then proceeds to take platefuls of food to the bathroom, and dumps them into the toilet, flushing them away.*


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

OK.  
*Adventures*:  Adventures are usually poor sources of OGC.  It may be clearly marked, but it's so specific (7th level half-fiend medusa stat block with a 23 intelligence) it's rarely useful.

*Monster Geographica*: I think Monster Geographica is actually a good argument for an OGC repository, and here's why.  The value of MG isn't in the new content.  It's in the presentation.  It's the same reason WotC's Spell Compendium is popular.

An OGC repository isn't going to take Phil Reed's products and post them under "Phil Reed" or "Ronin Arts".  It'll post the archer's greatcloak under "Equipment:Clothing", potions under "Magic Items: Potions"; and so on.  It's not "reposting" "your book"; it's reposting OGC content from your book.  There's a difference, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

You guys (and I mean almost everyone) have a disconnect about "responsible use".  One side says "responsible use" is reusing OGC in a manner that preserves the saleable qualities of the original product.  The other says "responsible use" is reusing OGC according to the terms of the license.  The problem is that one is almost completely subjective, while the other is objective.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Tell that to those who bought the SRD PDFs when they came out.




 :\ 

_Most_ people will not buy something if they can get it for free. The percentage who will are, frankly, of insufficient number to greatly impact the direction of this discussion one way or the other.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> The concept has been by no means abandoned.



Where is the raised eyebrow smily when you need it?


----------



## HinterWelt (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> The argument is that _reusing_ OGC is fine. You are developing intellectually upon that which has been put out for that purpose.
> 
> _Giving away_ OGC is what the problem is. If you simply copy something and give it away for free, you are not contributing to the discourse of game design. All you're doing is making the production of d20 game material no longer a viable business strategy.
> 
> ...





Well, my point really has been argued out earlier in the thread so I will try to be brief. I publish material under the OGL. I read the the OGL and the first thing that popped into my head was that if I published under the OGL all my material (that I declare open) could be released for free. In the end, I accepted it as possible but also made my lawyer (I paid him to) read through and familiarize himself with the OGL so when someone screws up I can come down like a hammer. Am I looking forward to that? No, but I am prepared and it is in the plan.

As I said to Phil, I respect people who have high standards but you need to be realistic as well. If you are that concerned about your IP being released for free, don;t make it open content or make your own license.

Just my opinions of course, YMMV,
Bill


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> And while I'm at it, what's the difference between:
> 1. Mr. A publishes 25% open content book X.  Mr. B transcribes open content from book X and puts it on internet for free.  Mr. A makes no money from this arrangement.
> 2. Mr. A publishes 25% open content book X.  Mr. C transcribes open content from book X and sells it as a PDF, making a profit.  Mr. A makes no money from this arrangement.
> 
> You seem to be saying that 2 is okay, but 1 isn't.  That seems odd to me.  I would have thought you'd have a bigger beef with Mr. C, who makes money on Mr. A's work than with Mr. B, who doesn't.  In the latter case, people have to pay for the content, but they're paying Mr. C, not Mr. A.  Why should Mr. A care whether Mr. C is getting paid?




#2 is preferred, in my opinion.

Please note the post earlier where I said that I wish WotC would have made one of the terms of the OGL that no more than 50% of the OGC in a product could be reprinted and 50% must be new material. I feel publishers that do nothing but collect and resell OGC without adding new material -- almost always at a reduced price -- are not using the material responsibly.

The one time I created an SRD-based product I added an appendix of all new material _and_ released that new material for free.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> :\
> 
> _Most_ people will not buy something if they can get it for free. The percentage who will are, frankly, of insufficient number to greatly impact the direction of this discussion one way or the other.



Hmm. Most people will not buy something if they can _legally_ get it for free at a reasonable price. If they feel the price is unjustified or they can legally get it for free, then they will not pay for it.
That's my experience, at least.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> How about this?
> 
> "All you can eat, huh? Twenty-four hour buffet, huh? Well, I guess I'm never leaving."
> *The patron then proceeds to take platefuls of food to the bathroom, and dumps them into the toilet, flushing them away.*




The all-you-can eat sushi restaurant near my place has a policy regarding uneaten food: you pay extra.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> Nothing but respect for you Phil,




Thank you.


----------



## HinterWelt (Dec 4, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> :\
> 
> _Most_ people will not buy something if they can get it for free. The percentage who will are, frankly, of insufficient number to greatly impact the direction of this discussion one way or the other.




Interesting. Our books are available for free in HTML format on our site. It has, if anything, improved our sales. People are able to look and then decide if it is worth it to buy.

I could be wrong and it has cost us hundreds of units in terms of sales. 

Bill


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 4, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Hmm. Most people will not buy something if they can _legally_ get it for free at a reasonable price. If they feel the price is unjustified or they can legally get it for free, then they will not pay for it.
> That's my experience, at least.




Absolutely. I sort of assumed the "legal" aspect. Pirated copies are a whole different ball of wax, and not a direction this thread needs to take.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 4, 2005)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> Interesting. Our books are available for free in HTML format on our site. It has, if anything, improves our sales. People are able to look and then decide if it is worth it to buy.
> 
> I could be wrong and it has cost us hundreds of units in terms of sales.
> 
> Bill




The _entire_ book is available in HTML?   

I have no idea how to explain that, then. I can't imagine buying a PDF of a book I could get for free in HTML, not when there are so many other things I want to purchase.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> #2 is preferred, in my opinion.
> 
> Please note the post earlier where I said that I wish WotC would have made one of the terms of the OGL that no more than 50% of the OGC in a product could be reprinted and 50% must be new material.




I do recall.  And I agreed, since that modification to the OGL would satisfy us both, you as a publisher and me as a gamer and maybe-someday-casual-publisher.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> See, what's starting to irritate me is your implication that publishers view themselves as elitist, or as part of a boy's club or something. There's no "us" and "them." If you want to put the stuff you need up on your site for your players, or produce a book that uses stuff necessary for that book, go ahead. That's what the OGL is intended for, as I see it.
> 
> What I don't want to see is people abusing generosity.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry that it irritates you, but it is no implication. None at all. It's been discussed in meta. I've discussed it in many threads. The attitude has been provided right in this thread, although the specific person never came back to explain himself. 

Your argument of the buffet is flawed, in that OGC wholesalers or free content providers are not disposing of massive amounts of your product. Sure, it may not be in the best interest of the publisher who's product is being used, but it's not a physical entity where you lose money EACH and every time the content is used. If I take and download your PDF 20 times and delete them all forever, I'm not deleting your inventory which costs money. And it's not 'gone' so that the next person in line doesn't get any because I deleted it. You're mixing apples and oranges to make a point.

At best, I'm taking your food and walking it outside and giving it to someone in line so they don't have to pay. The difference is in the contract...by going to a buffet and purchasing a meal it is a meal only for myself. OGC is the magical meal and the OGL says "go ahead, feed everyone. feed the homeless too." I'm not saying it isn't wrong (I'm also not saying it isn't right either), I'm just saying that people are trying to force outside constraints on the license, not by legal means, but by claiming that the buffet table will be cut from 20 items to 2 items if you eat more than I want you to.


----------



## mearls (Dec 4, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Where is the raised eyebrow smily when you need it?




*chuckle*

The only things preventing a wiki that contains a variety of OGC are barriers of time and effort. Discussing it is a waste of time. Most people don't understand open source and how it is supposed to work. I suggest "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" as a good starting point. Try googling it - O'Reilly publishes a dead tree version, and I'm 90% certain there is a creative commons version floating out there somewhere.

Some people see open source as a threat, others don't. I don't, mainly because the PHB. MM, and DMG have been available online for free since 2000. An OGC repository won't make piracy any more common, nor would it make DMs any more likely to simply email PDFs to their players. I seriously doubt that a wiki could marshall a fraction of the resources needed to continually funnel new releases into its holding on anything shorter than a scope in months or even years.

The real issue, AFAICT, is whether such a repository would breed better game mechanics. That remains to be seen.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> *Monster Geographica*: I think Monster Geographica is actually a good argument for an OGC repository, and here's why.  The value of MG isn't in the new content.  It's in the presentation.  It's the same reason WotC's Spell Compendium is popular.




Not to negate your point, but there is quite a bit of "new" material in the Monster Geographica Series. We usually update around 80-100 creatures from 3.0 rules to 3.5. This is, obviously, not the same as new monsters, but it is a process and does often result in new OGC material different than the original source.



> An OGC repository isn't going to take Phil Reed's products and post them under "Phil Reed" or "Ronin Arts".  It'll post the archer's greatcloak under "Equipment:Clothing", potions under "Magic Items: Potions"; and so on.  It's not "reposting" "your book"; it's reposting OGC content from your book.  There's a difference, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.




It would depend on how it was set up. Theoretically there's no reason why a book such a Beast Builder (100% OGC) *couldn't* be placed up in one big download as well as an online searchable file. And the things this could happen to are the things that have provided the most OGC, ironically enough.



> You guys (and I mean almost everyone) have a disconnect about "responsible use".  One side says "responsible use" is reusing OGC in a manner that preserves the saleable qualities of the original product.  The other says "responsible use" is reusing OGC according to the terms of the license.  The problem is that one is almost completely subjective, while the other is objective.




To me responsibility is independent of law so you can use a law responsibly or irresponsibly depending upon circumstances. What we're discussing isn't the law, it's the use of the law.

joe b.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

HinterWelt said:
			
		

> Interesting. Our books are available for free in HTML format on our site. It has, if anything, improved our sales. People are able to look and then decide if it is worth it to buy.
> 
> I could be wrong and it has cost us hundreds of units in terms of sales.
> 
> Bill




Sweet.  I'm going to check that out when I have some time later.  Instead of posting in this thread all afternoon I was supposed to be reading up on biotechnology...   

/me runs off to get some work done!


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The _entire_ book is available in HTML?
> 
> I have no idea how to explain that, then. I can't imagine buying a PDF of a book I could get for free in HTML, not when there are so many other things I want to purchase.




I believe Bill's referring to customers purchasing the dead-tree copy, but I'll let Bill chime in with the info.

joe b.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> See, what's starting to irritate me is your implication that publishers view themselves as elitist, or as part of a boy's club or something. There's no "us" and "them." If you want to put the stuff you need up on your site for your players, or produce a book that uses stuff necessary for that book, go ahead. That's what the OGL is intended for, as I see it.




Um, that might go back to statements like this:


			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I don't think any of the publishers are objecting to people using the OGC they create. What *we're opposed* to is the idea that people might go against what *we perceive* is the spirit of the OGL. *We think*...







			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> What I don't want to see is people abusing generosity.
> How about this?
> "All you can eat, huh? Twenty-four hour buffet, huh? Well, I guess I'm never leaving."
> *The patron then proceeds to take platefuls of food to the bathroom, and dumps them into the toilet, flushing them away.*




It's more like *the patron then proceeds to take doggy bags of food outside and hands them out to passerbys.*, except that restaurants generally have a "you pay for one person to eat" rule, which may or may not be embedded in law.  The OGL does not have that rule.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 4, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I believe Bill's referring to customers purchasing the dead-tree copy, but I'll let Bill chime in with the info.
> 
> joe b.




Ah. If so, that would make a lot more sense. I definitely prefer hard copy to electronic, for any book I'm planning to use with any frequency.

Since my _publishing_ experience (as opposed to writing and development) is limited to PDF, however, that would also make the example irrelevent to my own angle on the discussion.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Ah. If so, that would make a lot more sense. I definitely prefer hard copy to electronic, for any book I'm planning to use with any frequency.
> 
> Since my _publishing_ experience (as opposed to writing and development) is limited to PDF, however, that would also make the example irrelevent to my own angle on the discussion.




Nope. It's up there. In HTML, although alot of it is yellow text on white background, so it is 'crippled' a bit.

I still think it's awesome that he does that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Nope. It's up there. In HTML, although alot of it is yellow text on white background, so it is 'crippled' a bit.
> 
> I still think it's awesome that he does that.




No, that's not what I meant. I know it's up there in HTML format.

The question is, was he claiming that the HTML copy increased sales of _PDF works_, or _print works_?

That's the issue I may be confused about.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

Ahh, too many posts coming in too fast, I can't keep up with all the subconversations.

My bad.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 4, 2005)

Okay, one last, hopefully more constructive, post.

What if: a wiki were established that had user privileges.  Not your wikipedia-style "anyone can edit" wiki.  And that wiki contained posts by writers containing their own OGC, and nobody else's.  And it becomes a kind of Mega Best Of d20 Online Repository where you could set up your own little corner of the wiki and put any of your OGC material on it, linking to other stuff you liked elsewhere on the wiki, making reference to the publication in which your OGC originally appeared, if anywhere.  

Publishers could pay for space in an online store (something like the ENWorld storefront, or perhaps actually the ENWorld storefront, while we're speaking hypothetically), so that there would be a direct connection between the open content and the publication without needing a section 15.

Products could be posted in their entireity, or in bits and pieces, highlighting the "good parts" as seen by the publisher.  Have a rating system.  Have a cross-referencing system to show when OGC from one publisher appears in a product by another, and each product in the storefront has links to all the pages of open content available on the wiki, no matter who wrote them?

This, it seems, would be more manageable, although it would require moderation.  It would also satisfy publishers who want to get their OGC out there, but want more control over how it's presented and how it is associated with their documents.

Just an idea, anyway.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Ahh, too many posts coming in too fast, I can't keep up with all the subconversations.



This is the fastest growing thread I ever participated in. I feel like I'm in a chat.


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Just an idea, anyway.




I like this idea because it places some controls on the material and involves the authors and publishers.


----------



## Yair (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Okay, one last, hopefully more constructive, post.
> 
> What if: a wiki were established that had user privileges.  Not your wikipedia-style "anyone can edit" wiki.  And that wiki contained posts by writers containing their own OGC, and nobody else's. ...



I don't think anyone would mind such a wiki, and I mean it literally - no one will be very much interested in it unless it became really popular, and it wouldn't be popular unless pretty much everyone that's anyone participated in it, so no one will give it the time of mind.
Also, managing the crossrefencing and other bits would be extremely difficult.

I have to agree with Mearls.


> The only things preventing a wiki that contains a variety of OGC are barriers of time and effort. Discussing it is a waste of time.



But it's such a _fun_ waste of time...


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Okay, one last, hopefully more constructive, post.
> 
> What if: a wiki were established that had user privileges.  Not your wikipedia-style "anyone can edit" wiki.  And that wiki contained posts by writers containing their own OGC, and nobody else's.  And it becomes a kind of Mega Best Of d20 Online Repository where you could set up your own little corner of the wiki and put any of your OGC material on it, linking to other stuff you liked elsewhere on the wiki, making reference to the publication in which your OGC originally appeared, if anywhere.
> 
> ...




see, the great part about this is...it's voluntary. so those who want to horde away their OGC will just not contribute, and eventually it will fall apart due to lack of information. Phil obviously doesn't want his stuff given away free, so I wouldn't see him rushing to post all his stuff up there. Neither will Monte, because it's painfully obvious he protects as much content as possible. Without larger publishers like that, it's worthless.


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 4, 2005)

Add me to the list of people who could care less how much content a game company opens or closes. If I can use it, I'll buy it. 

Add me to the list of people who would still buy from a publisher who starts closing more and more of his content because of projects like this (projects that never seem to get off the ground, but nevertheless...)

I can only see projects like this either forcing publishers out of business, or resulting in more and more closed content (and I wouldn't blame them for doing it either).


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Phil obviously doesn't want his stuff given away free, so I wouldn't see him rushing to post all his stuff up there.




I wouldn't put _all_ of my stuff up there but I would definitely add to such a Wiki. For example, I would add the supplementary spell component rules that I wrote and two or three examples. Then the two products with the 200+ other supplementary spell components I've written would be linked to from the page with the rules and examples.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I wouldn't put _all_ of my stuff up there but I would definitely add to such a Wiki. For example, I would add the supplementary spell component rules that I wrote and two or three examples. Then the two products with the 200+ other supplementary spell components I've written would be linked to from the page with the rules and examples.




See, it's already not the great OGC collection the name implies. It's 'some' of the ogc that's not as cool as the other OGC that you want 'protected.'

This is why voluntary publisher input on this will fail miserably.


----------



## HinterWelt (Dec 4, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The _entire_ book is available in HTML?
> 
> I have no idea how to explain that, then. I can't imagine buying a PDF of a book I could get for free in HTML, not when there are so many other things I want to purchase.




Well, yes, the entire BOOKS (I am working on Roma, my bad there). I have had customers who could not look over the book at theirt LGS due to shrink wrapping/no LGS or many other bizarre conditions including one store that kept Roma under the counter as explicit material. I have the HTML versions as a means for people to see if they want to buy our books. Makes sense to me. I have had in-print and PDF sales influenced simply because I am so open with our products. I have sent comp copies of the PDFs, in fact, and in only two cases has it turned out to be no sale.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your point. There are people wout there who want a free lunch. Those are not my customers. They do not matter. 

Bill

Just a quick edit, the above sounded a bit snarky to me and I just wanted to say, I would rather have a person happy with their purchase than their money in my pocket and the customer regretting their purchase.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 4, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone would mind such a wiki, and I mean it literally - no one will be very much interested in it unless it became really popular, and it wouldn't be popular unless pretty much everyone that's anyone participated in it, so no one will give it the time of mind.
> Also, managing the crossrefencing and other bits would be extremely difficult.
> 
> I have to agree with Mearls.
> ...




Ditto.  It wouldn't be an OGC repository, it'd be a preview gallery.  And most publishers wouldn't bother.  The points been repeatedly made, there's not point in a publisher extracting OGC from themselves.  It costs money with no return.


----------



## HinterWelt (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Nope. It's up there. In HTML, although alot of it is yellow text on white background, so it is 'crippled' a bit.
> 
> I still think it's awesome that he does that.




So very sorry. That is not the way it is supposed to be. I have fixed it and it should be working correctly. My big bad. Also, that was only the Tales of Gaea HTML. Shades and Neb should be working fine.

Thanks,
Bill


----------



## philreed (Dec 4, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> See, it's already not the great OGC collection the name implies. It's 'some' of the ogc that's not as cool as the other OGC that you want 'protected.'
> 
> This is why voluntary publisher input on this will fail miserably.




You completely missed my point. The rules would be there. It's just the individual components that would not be there (after two or three that would be included as examples).

What you're telling me is that you want ALL material for free. Not just rules and systems, but ALL of it. For free.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 4, 2005)

I'm not even saying it has to be free. I'd debate paying for such a resource. I've debated putting one together myself.

I'm saying that posting only 'previews' of your OGC doesn't make it a valid 'complete OGC collection' that it is billed to be. I wouldn't be interested at all if I knew that publishers were going to add only the bits and pieces they don't care about being free if they weren't going to put together the complete OGC collection. Instead it becomes only another preview page which I can get at rpgnow and ENGS.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 5, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> I'm not even saying it has to be free. I'd debate paying for such a resource. I've debated putting one together myself.
> 
> I'm saying that posting only 'previews' of your OGC doesn't make it a valid 'complete OGC collection' that it is billed to be. I wouldn't be interested at all if I knew that publishers were going to add only the bits and pieces they don't care about being free if they weren't going to put together the complete OGC collection. Instead it becomes only another preview page which I can get at rpgnow and ENGS.




I actually hadn't figured it would be complete.  I figured it would be a place for people to show off.  On the one hand you'd have publishers putting up some of their favourite work with two purposes: to show how good it is so you'll buy their books, and to draw attention to stuff that they would genuinely like other people to use in their products, because they think it's good enough to be popular...which seems to be the two reasons why people tried to get their stuff into The Best of d20.  On the other hand you'd have the non-professional crowd just putting up neat stuff like monsters and spells they wrote because there's somewhere online to put it.  Think how many entries that are archived in this very website, and think how much of a pain in the ass it would be to search through and find interesting things.  A wiki would make that easier.


----------



## Sledge (Dec 5, 2005)

Phil I'm not going to comment on ethics of copyright etc etc.  I've said my peace in these threads in the past.
However your suggestion to have publishers putting out their rules frameworks in a wiki sort of environment is very appealing.  What would you need to start doing this?  I'm sure there are many rule ideas and frameworks out there that would benefit from this.


----------



## Yair (Dec 5, 2005)

I would like to note that such a site/wiki really has little to do with the OGL. Publishers can very well put stuff in it that is closed, it's just a window to their goods and need not be confined to OGC.


----------



## jmucchiello (Dec 5, 2005)

I'm late to the party but I'd like to add a few comments and hopefully rest Phil's aching wrist. 

I agree with Phil and Joe GB (and forgotten others I'm sure). An OGC Wiki or other collection would reduce the amount of future OGC. This isn't a threat (We're gonna take our ball and go home), it is the logical means to remain in business in the face of a shifting market.

Currently the OGL allows anyone and everyone to reuse the material released as OGC. We know this. It is a risk. Some publishers avoid the risk and they obfuscate and cripple their OGC declaration making it impossible for easy legitimate use of their content. Other publishers take the risk and release easy to reuse content.

The risk is that someone will deficate in their nest and cause the current model of openness to be less desirable to publishers. I think the best analogy is the prisoner's dilemna. Two people commit a crime. The police have no admissable evidence but know they have the two criminals. The crime has a 25 year mandatory sentence on conviction. They go to suspect 1 and say, if you turn state's evidence on suspect 2 and plea guilty to a lessor charge, you'll only serve 5 years in prison. They make the identical offer to suspect 2. If neither suspect takes the deal, they both walk free. But can they take that chance? If suspect 2 turns on suspect 1, he serves a shorter sentence. So instead of a guarenteed 5 years and out, he's taking 50/50 odds on 25 years or 0 years.

Once a large repository of OGC develops, the risk taking publishers stand to lose sales. In the face of a shifting market they will either turn to a less friend declaration of OGC or they will go out of business. In either case, the amount of future OGC goes down.

Yes, you can take any of my products, copy the text into a new document and republish it. I can't stop you. It would hurt my sales though and my ability to maintain my 100% OGC stance would be jepardized by it.

Yes, I entered into OGL publishing fully aware of the risk I was taking. This was not a surprise I discovered after publishing for a while. I entered with eyes wide open.

No, using the prisoner's dilemna as an example does NOT mean I believe that OGC reusers are in anyway criminals. Theoretically, if suspects 1 and 2 are best buds who look out for one another, they'll walk when the police are required to let them go. I take the chance that you are all stand-up gamers who will walk rather than taking the sure-thing that benefits you most at the expense of your fellow gamers.

No, specific examples of Monte Cook's OGC declarations are not really relevant to this discussion.

And finally, whether or not you agree information wants to be free, freeing OGC just because one can will cause change in the availability of future OGC.

Did I miss any angles? We make our OGC declaration based on an optimistic view of how gamers will treat the work we've done. Once that optimism becomes unfounded, there will be a shift in how future works treat OGC.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 5, 2005)

I never expected this thread to grow into a monster! I appreciate HinterWelt chiming in, but I've revised my solution:

1. We construct a communal OGC wiki, but we limit it to registered, responsible users. 
2. We only upload OGC that is a. four years old or older, b. given away for free or c. uploaded by the publisher itself.

At their discretion, publishers or authors could also add a tag to their work saying "This material written by John Travolta, published by Reality, Inc." This is normally not permitted by the OGL, *except with the copyright holder's permission*. I think, however, it'd be free advertising.




			
				HinterWelt said:
			
		

> So very sorry. That is not the way it is supposed to be. I have fixed it and it should be working correctly. My big bad. Also, that was only the Tales of Gaea HTML. Shades and Neb should be working fine.




   

You accidentally limited the free content you gave away! You tyrant! That's too funny


----------



## Yair (Dec 5, 2005)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I never expected this thread to grow into a monster! I appreciate HinterWelt chiming in, but I've revised my solution:
> 
> 1. We construct a communal OGC wiki, but we limit it to registered, responsible users.
> 2. We only upload OGC that is a. four years old or older, b. given away for free or c. uploaded by the publisher itself.
> ...



:nods: A more sensible plan. I bet you will still get flack from publishers that don't want their 4-year-old OGC published (evergreen products and all), but I'm not inclined to agree with them.
I would personally like to add a "d) is so crippled that releasing it into the open will serve the community and publishers". But that would take you into very murky legal water.
How do you intend to fight accusations of breach and legal actions against the site/you?
Where do you intend to set up the wiki, and with what program? Who will maintain it technically? I believe the best solution would be setting up a dedicater server with MediaWiki installed, but that costs money, a significant amount of money, as well as some know-how.

Since you are going with a member-only editing policy, I recommend setting up an "In Production" section which only members can see so people could comment on the material and compliance with the OGL and OGC designation before it is published.

No offense, but I've seen a fair number of such attempts go nowhere. I wouldn't believe someone can succesfully pull it off until they, well, do.

Yair


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 5, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I would personally like to add a "d) is so crippled that releasing it into the open will serve the community and publishers". But that would take you into very murky legal water.




Not at all - the stuff would still be OGC, so we'd be legally entitled to do such a thing, we'd just be in murky moral water.



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> How do you intend to fight accusations of breach and legal actions against the site/you?




Mmm, I know you shouldn't take anything for granted, but has _any_ d20 publisher in the last five years been sued? I'm sure even the most tyrannical and protective of publishers would accept a removal of the contencious (Sp?) material as sufficient.



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> Where do you intend to set up the wiki, and with what program? Who will maintain it technically? I believe the best solution would be setting up a dedicater server with MediaWiki installed, but that costs money, a significant amount of money, as well as some know-how.
> 
> Since you are going with a member-only editing policy, I recommend setting up an "In Production" section which only members can see so people could comment on the material and compliance with the OGL and OGC designation before it is published.
> 
> No offense, but I've seen a fair number of such attempts go nowhere. I wouldn't believe someone can succesfully pull it off until they, well, do.




Yeah, I haven't really thought that far forward. Funds = $0.00, so any advice would be appreciated. My only thought is Wikispaces, since it's free and (somewhat) intuitive.

Advice?


----------



## Yair (Dec 5, 2005)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Not at all - the stuff would still be OGC, so we'd be legally entitled to do such a thing, we'd just be in murky moral water.



Murky legal waters too. Take for example the token mechanics of Iron Heroes. Monte Cook clearly maintains he has the right to reserve them as closed content even though they interact heavily with clearly SRD (and derived) mechanics. Others claim that they Use the SRD (and other OGC), and hence must be OGC, and indeed are OGC as they are covered by his blanket "... and everything else that must be OGC" statement in his designation. Regardless of who is right, the issue is by no means clear and cut and defintiely murky.



> Mmm, I know you shouldn't take anything for granted, but has _any_ d20 publisher in the last five years been sued? I'm sure even the most tyrannical and protective of publishers would accept a removal of the contencious (Sp?) material as sufficient.



Fair enough. They MUST allow you to cure a breach by the terms of the OGL. 
That said, especially when putting yourself in an adverserial position as working against the publisher's wishes, I am not at all certain that relying on not being sued is a good strategy.



> Yeah, I haven't really thought that far forward. Funds = $0.00, so any advice would be appreciated. My only thought is Wikispaces, since it's free and (somewhat) intuitive.



Unacceptable. Read the fineprint. 







			
				Wikispaces said:
			
		

> Contributions to www.wikispaces.com are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 License.



You cannot publish with Wikispaces as it relies on a license that is incompatible with the OGL. Nearly any license is, you need a place that doesn't adhere to any particular license.
Frankly, your lack of attention to legal details is worrying for a project that seems to hinge on legalities.

It MAY be possible to convince WikiCities to provide hosting. They use the GNU FDL license, but have shown willingness to allow hosting wikis with other open licenses. I doubt they would like to host such a contested wiki, however. EDIT: On second look, I think WikiCities would not allow member-only editing, which is vital to the programme. 
Pbwiki.com provides un-licensed hosting for free, but the program lacks features that I think will be crucial to this wiki to function properly. You can check it out in my sig, I use it for the Ars Magica wiki I opened.

You get what you pay for. I doubt if you could find a free wiki hosting service that will serve your needs. As I said, a privately funded server with MediaWiki installed is probably the best solution.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 5, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> As I said, a privately funded server with MediaWiki installed is probably the best solution.




And just for kicks, what do servers & associated costs run these days?

Nell.


----------



## dpmcalister (Dec 5, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> And just for kicks, what do servers & associated costs run these days?



I pay £50.20 a year (around $87.30) for php shared-hosting (for Modus Operandi). That includes 350MB of space and 10GB of traffic a month - among a lot of other features.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Because, for me, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I have personal standards and values that I will not sacrifice, no matter how "legal" I would be.
> 
> Example: Mastering Iron Heroes includes a very cool set of rules on zones. I'd like to do something with those but the OGC declaration does not open those rules. Now many have argued that they fall under the "based on SRD" clause and are free to use. I will not, though, because it is obvious to me that Monte Cook did not intend them to be open or available to others.
> 
> This is me showing respect to Monte's decision to not open the rules for zones.




It is also showing tacit approval for an OGC declaration that is either incorrect or deliberately crippled.


----------



## Yair (Dec 5, 2005)

*Cross-posting from related thread*

I was amused to find an OGC Wiki while strolling the web. 
The site does say "DO NOT ADD ANYONE ELSE'S OGC YET!" on the front page, so it is obviously not in working condition. The creator did invest some time into it, but apparently abandoned the project after about a month. It seems the project is meant to house Mearl's work; I suspect he stopped working on it after Mearls did not wildly cooperate.


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, a sizable number of people feel that "information should be free." .




I have no argument that information should be free.

Entertainment (e.g. RPG products) is another issue, however, and should not necessarily be free, imo.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It is also showing tacit approval for an OGC declaration that is either incorrect or deliberately crippled.




Yes, but I'm comfortable doing it this way. While I disagree with the decision to leave those specific rules closed I will honor the decision.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yes, but I'm comfortable doing it this way. While I disagree with the decision to leave those specific rules closed I will honor the decision.




So publishers abusing the OGL = fine

and

non-publishers using OGL as allowed = bad

?????


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 5, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So publishers abusing the OGL = fine
> 
> and
> 
> ...



Now, I know 100% that this is not a quote from a publisher. But it just goes to show that we do see some sort of us vs them philosophy when it comes to pubs and non-pubs. Sure, this is probably taken out of context, but it's how we see it come across.

Rangerwickett, you were looking for an example of where this kind of stuff comes from...so here's my 'example' of the day.'


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So publishers abusing the OGL = fine
> 
> and
> 
> non-publishers using OGL as allowed = bad




I do not consider restrictive OGC declarations to be a form of abuse. Anyone can write their designation of OGC however they wish.

I'll again say: respect and responsibilty. I don't care if it's a publisher, gamer, or alien, but I do care about how the material is used. A publisher that doesn't responsibly use the OGL, or doesn't respect his fellow publishers, doesn't deserve any special treatment in my eyes.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 5, 2005)

Phil, you don't consider intentionally obscuring content abuse? Closing stuff that 'should' be open, also not abuse?

It looks like some guys don't want to play fair, and when that happens nobody steps up to the plate to say 'this is wrong.'

But as soon as a non-publisher type wants to create an OGC wiki with tons of free open content, which is not doing anything against the license itself, a stink is raised by many a publisher?

Personally, I don't think this kind of statement is fair at all. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander as well. In fact, I think that by crippling OGC, they are doing much more of a disservice to the game than someone who wants to release content that is already open.

There's one thing to respect Monte for his work in the industry to help create the game we all love, but by blindly following his bad example it sets a bad precedent for things to come when publisher start closing more and more material that should (by the license anyways) be open.


----------



## Roudi (Dec 5, 2005)

Holy flaming flame wars, Batman!

I think this discussion has gotten _way_ out of hand.  Personally, I'd rather see all of you take the energy you're putting towards this debate and direct it instead at creating something useful, like original material.  And if you _really_ wanted to do the community a service, you could submit that material to a publication that releases it for free (like, say, MODERNIZED).

_Facta non verba_, folks... deeds, not words.  Or, as Ralts would say, _"put up or shut up."_


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I do not consider restrictive OGC declarations to be a form of abuse. Anyone can write their designation of OGC however they wish.
> 
> I'll again say: respect and responsibilty. I don't care if it's a publisher, gamer, or alien, but I do care about how the material is used. A publisher that doesn't responsibly use the OGL, or doesn't respect his fellow publishers, doesn't deserve any special treatment in my eyes.




How is having a WIKI with OGC material abuse?  Provided that all of the OGL is followed, I would think that publishers would be more favorable to the WIKI than having other publishers possibly changing the intent of the OGC material originally published by the author.

To me, the most fair method would to have all of the OGC material on the net with each page having a link back to the origin of the OGC.  The language in the WIKI should be exactly the same as the original OGC with possible sublinks if there had been revisions by the original publisher or others.

Mr Reed indicates that one of his concerns is "how the material is used".  From my understanding, the WIKI would be organized in a fairly standard manner (e.g., by class, prestigue class, race, feats, spells, etc.) and use the original OGC language.  How would this be misuse of the material?

Zelgar


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 5, 2005)

OK, I'll chime in here.

Crippled Content? You're violating the spirit of the liscense, and frankly, you're cheating. You do this, and my estimation of your ethics comes into play. Yes, it was your hard work that did it, but guess what, every single piece of OGC out there is someone's hard work. Crippled Content is like all touchdowns only counting for the home team.

As far as OGC Wiki? Be my guest. With my material, I have no problem with you using the _mechanics_ that I have written. Those are perfectly open. I'd like to be notified, it's only polite, but hey.

See, it's the information that is NOT OGC, the non-mechanics, that really make a purchase for me. I've bought books that weren't even compatible with a system in order to use the non-mechanics in a game.

I have no problem with sheer mechanics.
I do have problems with non-mechanics being placed.

The utility of it cannot be denied. Especially if contact information was included, so I could look up: "d20 Modern>Feats>Firearms" and then see what feats are out there, who made them, and ask for permission for use.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 5, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> OK, I'll chime in here.
> 
> Crippled Content? You're violating the spirit of the liscense, and frankly, you're cheating. You do this, and my estimation of your ethics comes into play. Yes, it was your hard work that did it, but guess what, every single piece of OGC out there is someone's hard work. Crippled Content is like all touchdowns only counting for the home team.
> 
> ...




And non-mechanics should be closed anyways. I mean, the heart of YotZ (IMHO) is the setting text. None of it should be open because it's not a mechanic at all. If you wish to open it up to other publishers with a gentleman's agreement, that would be awesome.

I totally agree with your assesment of crippling OGC. Good to see a publisher who's willing to step forward and tell the truth, even if it's harsh (with Ralts, harsh is the nicest way you're gonna get it anyways!).


----------



## Yair (Dec 5, 2005)

OGC is not limited to mechanics. There are entire settings that are OGC.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 5, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Unacceptable. Read the fineprint. You cannot publish with Wikispaces as it relies on a license that is incompatible with the OGL. Nearly any license is, you need a place that doesn't adhere to any particular license.




Actually, that's not true. You can have a Creative Commons, GNU Free Documentation License or No License Specified.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

Last attempt.

By not simply strip-mining and dumping OGC online we show respect to the creator of the material. I don't care who created the material. You. Me. God. It doesn't matter. In my opinion the creator of the OGC should be the one to decide if it should be released for free or not.

Also, the creator should be the one to say whether or not he feels his material is OGC.

I don't see how I'm saying publishers can do anything and it's okay but fans that do anything are wrong. I'm not intending to make any sort of distinction between average gamers and publishers.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> Holy flaming flame wars, Batman!




Actually, I didn't even think this thread was a flame war.




			
				Roudi said:
			
		

> I think this discussion has gotten _way_ out of hand.  Personally, I'd rather see all of you take the energy you're putting towards this debate and direct it instead at creating something useful, like original material.




There is that, though.  I could have already finished this PDF if I hadn't posted to this thread.


----------



## dpmcalister (Dec 5, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> But as soon as a non-publisher type wants to create an OGC wiki with tons of *free* open content, which is not doing anything against the license itself, a stink is raised by many a publisher?



Emphasis mine.

This is, IMHO, the root of the problem. It's not the fact that the material is, or isn't, OGC, it's the fact that the creators of an OGC Wiki would be making the material available for *free*. Material that other people, for better of worse, have *paid* for. As I said before, just because the material is designated OGC *doesn't* make is free.

If Publisher A wrote Book 1, selling for $5, and Publisher B took the OGC material and put it into Book 2 (without new OGC content) and gave it away, would that be within the the OGL?

This publisher versus non-publisher thing is just clouding the issue (I'm not a publisher - I'm not even a writer (I've got one published credit to my name and that's for, mainly, fluff (98% fluff, 2% crunch!)).


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I could have already finished this PDF if I hadn't posted to this thread.




3 pdfs most likely.


----------



## Yair (Dec 5, 2005)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> 3 pdfs most likely.



Especially now, that he writes with both hands.


			
				Khuxan said:
			
		

> Actually, that's not true. You can have a Creative Commons, GNU Free Documentation License or No License Specified.



In that case, I stand corrected.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Also, the creator should be the one to say whether or not he feels his material is OGC.




They can feel any way they want.  But they can't justify ignoring the requirements of the OGL, regardless of their feelings.



> I don't see how I'm saying publishers can do anything and it's okay but fans that do anything are wrong. I'm not intending to make any sort of distinction between average gamers and publishers.




hmmm.  It seems clear as day to me.  

Maybe this will help clarify:
Obviously you personally would not do this, as you have stated.  But, say someone got their OGC declaration wrong and presented SRD derived (i.e. "must be open") content as IP.  Some other publisher decides to use it anyway because they know (or feel) that it must be open.  Do you have any problem with this publisher letting the requirements of the OGL trump the feeling of the original author?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Actually, I didn't even think this thread was a flame war.




Me neither.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

dpmcalister said:
			
		

> If Publisher A wrote Book 1, selling for $5, and Publisher B took the OGC material and put it into Book 2 (without new OGC content) and gave it away, would that be within the the OGL?



Yes.  It would.  No problem at all from an OGL pov.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Maybe this will help clarify:
> Obviously you personally would not do this, as you have stated.  But, say someone got their OGC declaration wrong and presented SRD derived (i.e. "must be open") content as IP.  Some other publisher decides to use it anyway because they know (or feel) that it must be open.  Do you have any problem with this publisher letting the requirements of the OGL trump the feeling of the original author?




It's not what I would do but as long the use was responsible I wouldn't get too worried about it -- that's something for the two publishers to work out between themselves.


----------



## dpmcalister (Dec 5, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yes.  It would.  No problem at all from an OGL pov.



Hmm... I was under the impression that you couldn't just republish someone else's OGC material without first adding new OGC material. Perhaps I have misread things...


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> It's not what I would do but as long the use was responsible I wouldn't get too worried about it -- that's something for the two publishers to work out between themselves.



Why do you say that?
I understand the value of publishers being polite and working together in the use of OGC.
But there is no requirement there.
Publisher B can use Publisher A's open stuff without saying a word to Publisher A if they so choose.  (always assuming correct OGL implementation).

Assume Publisher X is using product from two other products.  In neither case does he contact the source author.  He takes perfectly typical and correctly declared OGC from product A.  He takes material from product B that is declared as IP, but was incorrectly declared and is actually material which the OGL requires must have been open.
Is there a big difference to you?
Should Publisher X be allowed to ignore Publisher B's OGL misuse?
or Should Publisher B be allowed to get away with misusing the OGL?




I guess I also don't find mauch value in the word responsible because it means different things to different people.  It either is OGL compliant or not.  That means something.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

dpmcalister said:
			
		

> Hmm... I was under the impression that you couldn't just republish someone else's OGC material without first adding new OGC material. Perhaps I have misread things...




I wish it did work this way, but it doesn't. If this was the case then the countless SRD collections wouldn't be available (at least, not without the addition of new material).


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

dpmcalister said:
			
		

> Hmm... I was under the impression that you couldn't just republish someone else's OGC material without first adding new OGC material. Perhaps I have misread things...




Perhaps you are thinking of the D20 license?
It did not actually require new stuff either (I believe), but it did add additional requirements and there was some confusion early on in the distinction between the OGL and the D20 License.

dunno

I don't really recall the D20 particulars.


----------



## tensen (Dec 5, 2005)

If someone wants to be really useful...
besides arguing over what would go in an OGC archive and what it would do to publishers... a straight forward listing of what OGC is out there would be extremely amazing and useful.  
Probably a whole heck of a lot less time consuming, and the search engine would be very very useful.  Especially in finding products that cover some topic you want to use.

Even listing say:

Item: Zones
Type: Rules
Publisher: Malhavoc
Writer: Monte Cook (unconfirmed)
Product: Iron...
Status: Contested OGC

Item: Jimbob's Magic Pipe  (okay I didn't get around to grabbing an actual item name)
Type: Item
Publisher: Ronin Arts
Writer: Michael Hammes
Product: Forbidden Arcana: Magical Pipes and Tobaccos
Status: OGC


----------



## tensen (Dec 5, 2005)

dpmcalister said:
			
		

> Hmm... I was under the impression that you couldn't just republish someone else's OGC material without first adding new OGC material. Perhaps I have misread things...




its what people get wrong regularly.
It isn't 5% new OGC.. it is 5% OGC.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

tensen said:
			
		

> its what people get wrong regularly.
> It isn't 5% new OGC.. it is 5% OGC.




Even that is D20L, not OGL.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Why do you say that?
> I understand the value of publishers being polite and working together in the use of OGC.
> But there is no requirement there.
> Publisher B can use Publisher A's open stuff without saying a word to Publisher A if they so choose.  (always assuming correct OGL implementation).




Would you rather have publishers respect each other and attempt to, if not work together, at least be civil to each other or would you rather they go completely ruthless and attempt to undermine each other?


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 5, 2005)

dpmcalister said:
			
		

> Hmm... I was under the impression that you couldn't just republish someone else's OGC material without first adding new OGC material. Perhaps I have misread things...




I have a question out of interest - if a wiki were created, and say Phil's Archer's Greatcoat got placed in there, does the OGL S15 have to be next to the said item? I mean, if there's a blanket OGL S15 as a link on the site, how is anybody going to know where the Greatcoat comes from? And, if so, how is that going to stop sales? I don't think the OGL statement has to be right next to the product. As long as it's loosely organised like in a wiki mixing material from loads of publishers, no reader is going to know where the material comes from. Just an observation.

Pinotage


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Would you rather have publishers respect each other and attempt to, if not work together, at least be civil to each other or would you rather they go completely ruthless and attempt to undermine each other?




I'd rather they respect each other.

Thus clearly, I'd support Publisher X using Publisher B's material because using OGC is fine and falsely claiming OGC as IP is ruthless, uncivil, disrespectful and undermines open gaming.

And that is all beside the point because my preference is not relevant to what some brand new publisher is 100% allowed to start doing tomorrow within the OGL.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Dec 5, 2005)

Sometimes it is not necessarily the legality of using the OGC content but the business ethics behind it.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I have a question out of interest - if a wiki were created, and say Phil's Archer's Greatcoat got placed in there, does the OGL S15 have to be next to the said item? I mean, if there's a blanket OGL S15 as a link on the site, how is anybody going to know where the Greatcoat comes from? And, if so, how is that going to stop sales? I don't think the OGL statement has to be right next to the product. As long as it's loosely organised like in a wiki mixing material from loads of publishers, no reader is going to know where the material comes from. Just an observation.




Each entry would need it's own Section 15.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

never mind


----------



## Yair (Dec 5, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> ..., how is that going to stop sales? ... As long as it's loosely organised like in a wiki mixing material from loads of publishers, no reader is going to know where the material comes from. Just an observation..



No reader is going to know where it comes from, which is why it WILL stop sales. At least if a reader would know where it came from, he would have the option of going to the source.
Edit: Although each section/entry could have its own Section 15. Still I think the net effect will be loss of sales from extracted materials.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And that is all beside the point because my preference is not relevant to what some brand new publisher is 100% allowed to start doing tomorrow within the OGL.




As a community, though, we can guide behaviour and usage of the OGL. An OGL Wiki --  regularly updated, packed with tons of existing material, and heavily used by gamers -- would send out the signal that this sort of behavior is approved by the community.

Kind of like how allowing people to use illegal PDFs at your game table approves that sort of behavior.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:
			
		

> Sometimes it is not necessarily the legality of using the OGC content but the business ethics behind it.



so?

You can add "and FATDRAGONGAMES thinks it is not ethical" to everything I posted.  It doesn't change the issue.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Each entry would need it's own Section 15.




Wouldn't it be easier to have a separate Section 15 for each source, therefore everything (e.g., class, PC, feat, spell, item) that would be from the source would have the same link?

Zelgar


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be easier to have a separate Section 15 for each source, therefore everything (e.g., class, PC, feat, spell, item) that would be from the source would have the same link?
> 
> Zelgar




Possibly. I think it would be easier to have a Section 15 with each entry. 

One Section 15 for the entire site would make the entire site essentially unusable -- imagine buying a 64-page book with a 20-page Section 15.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 5, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> No reader is going to know where it comes from, which is why it WILL stop sales. At least if a reader would know where it came from, he would have the option of going to the source.




Possibly. Thanks. Phil mentioned each entry would require its own section 15, so that answer's my question.

Pinotage


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Possibly. Thanks. Phil mentioned each entry would require its own section 15, so that answer's my question.
> 
> Pinotage




It could legally be done with one Section 15 for the entire site but I think that would make the site unusable.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> As a community, though, we can guide behaviour and usage of the OGL. An OGL Wiki --  regularly updated, packed with tons of existing material, and heavily used by gamers -- would send out the signal that this sort of behavior is approved by the community.
> 
> Kind of like how allowing people to use illegal PDFs at your game table approves that sort of behavior.




Agreed.

Of course if it was heavily used then the signal of approval would be correct.

I'm certainly not asking you to approve of any of this.  But you have endorsed the possibilty when you put the OGL on a product.

I think you are dodging my cipple OGC / bogus IP question.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think you are dodging my cipple OGC / bogus IP question.




Not dodging, thinking through.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> It could legally be done with one Section 15 for the entire site but I think that would make the site unusable.




Ah. OK. Thanks. One could argue the result of that both ways, I suppose. With one section 15, as Yair points out if would decrease sales since there's no direct link to source, but on the other hand, no direct link to source could mean that the gamer who actually buys products would see something he liked in the wiki and then search for products that expanded on that idea, hence increasing sales. I think, however, that there are more gamers in the first instance that haven't even heard of most pdf publishers that would just use the wiki as a source of material.

Pinotage


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 5, 2005)

dpmcalister said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine.
> 
> This is, IMHO, the root of the problem. It's not the fact that the material is, or isn't, OGC, it's the fact that the creators of an OGC Wiki would be making the material available for *free*. Material that other people, for better of worse, have *paid* for. As I said before, just because the material is designated OGC *doesn't* make is free.
> 
> ...




Agreed. The OP was talking about a free resource, which sparked this debate. That's also where i draw the line between publisher and non-publisher. If you're not doing this as a business, then you're not a publisher, you're a hobbyist. Now, there are grey areas in that...I am fully aware...but when *I* talk about the difference between pub/non-pub, that's what I use to make my distinction.

I'm very confused that Phil would rather someone rip his OGC and make money off it than someone who just puts it out there for free...I'd rather nobody make money of my stuff but me, at least when presented in large quantities. I would have no problem someone using a few bits here and there, but when you take my entire product, then sell it as the same thing, I would have a problem with that MORE than the guy who just puts it out for everyone.

And I don't think that OGC must be free because it's open. I think that anyone has the right to MAKE it free if they so choose, because they have that option granted by the OGL. Morality aside, I'm very surprised that nobody has done this yet. I've thought about it myself but ditched due to lack of time (read: too lazy to do the work).

I do support the possibility of OGC being free much like the way open source and linux works.  You can get it all free, if you want to go to the store and buy it...all the more power to you. Guys who write awesome programs and open the source really DO do it for the love of the game. All they want is a little credit line that says that they did it.

Personally, I think one of my earlier suggestions would be the best way to approach OGC in that you HAVE to reference where it comes from right in the product. What is sad to me is the fact that publishers keep such tight knits on the products, that you can't even VOLUNTARILY say "I got this from 13 magical pipe cleaners by Ronin Arts." I am not allowed to say where I got it, the source is just a line in sec 15 that says some of my work may have been taken from that, or even derived from that, I just can't tell you what parts are derived from that, even though you might find that book useful because my stuff is really based ON that book.

Plus, once you cite something like A&A, your section 15 just goes right down the crapper because you have 100 or more books listed in it.

Question to publishers in the thread:
If I specifically asked to say "This came from XXX by Company YYY" to give you a big plug, would you let me do it? (By "I" and "me" I really mean...any other publisher, as I am not one)


----------



## Yair (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> It could legally be done with one Section 15 for the entire site but I think that would make the site unusable.



The question is what an "entry" is. The entire Unearthed Arcana content could be put under a single Section 15, and so could a single feat. 
Different sources should have different section 15s. I'm not sure how best to arrange it.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 5, 2005)

If there was a Section 15 per book, I think it would be a lot easier to reference the original material as well as preventing abuse of the OGL.

If you had updated material (e.g., Feat 1 is updated to 1b, then Feat 1 would refer to the original book, while feat 1b would refer to both the original book or feat and the new book)

Zelgar


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> I'm very confused that Phil would rather someone rip his OGC and make money off it than someone who just puts it out there for free...




I'm fairly certain I already stated that I feel anyone just reusing someone else's OGC -- and adding nothing to it -- is not using the OGL responsibly. I've also stated that this sort of use does not devalue the work -- only when it is released for free does the material lose value.


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 5, 2005)

On a related note:

Online Encyclopedia Tightens Rules


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I'm fairly certain I already stated that I feel anyone just reusing someone else's OGC -- and adding nothing to it -- is not using the OGL responsibly. I've also stated that this sort of use does not devalue the work -- only when it is released for free does the material lose value.



You did. But when someone asked which situation you preferred, you chose someone making money on your hard earned work. I would think that instead of making the value of your content $0, that someone else taking your content and making money would value it at a negative cost because that sale could have been your product tied to you.

I know you said it, I'm just confused as to WHY.


----------



## philreed (Dec 5, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> I know you said it, I'm just confused as to WHY.




Let's say that you go out and buy a few products tomorrow. In a few weeks you find that material from those products online, completely free (and legal). Will you think twice before buying more products? I think that for most people the answer is yes.

At least if it's reused in a commercial product the OGC still has value.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Would you rather have publishers respect each other and attempt to, if not work together, at least be civil to each other or would you rather they go completely ruthless and attempt to undermine each other?



I'm not sure that invoking the law of the excluded middle is warranted here.  They could also be casually indifferent to each other.  It's not a case of A and NOT A, where A is mutual respect and NOT A is publisher wars.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 5, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Let's say that you go out and buy a few products tomorrow. In a few weeks you find that material from those products online, completely free (and legal). Will you think twice before buying more products? I think that for most people the answer is yes.
> 
> At least if it's reused in a commercial product the OGC still has value.




I own a copy of Unearthed Arcana.  It is also available online.  I have shed no tears over having bought it, and I'm not going to check to make sure my future WotC purchases aren't composed of open content.  I'm also not upset at having purchased the DMG, MM, and PHB, all of which I could get mostly complete from the SRD.  I haven't bought the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which is in the SRD, mostly because psionics doesn't come up in my games that often.  My threshold for purchasing a book is the point where a player asks me more than once per game to look something up for him in a PDF or SRD, because I'm the only one at the table with a laptop.  I hate that.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Let's say that you go out and buy a few products tomorrow. In a few weeks you find that material from those products online, completely free (and legal). Will you think twice before buying more products? I think that for most people the answer is yes.
> 
> At least if it's reused in a commercial product the OGC still has value.



point taken.

although if I just bought something, then I buy something else and I see the same content, i feel like my value went down because i paid twice for the same stuff.

I still see your point.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 6, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> If there was a Section 15 per book, I think it would be a lot easier to reference the original material as well as preventing abuse of the OGL.
> 
> If you had updated material (e.g., Feat 1 is updated to 1b, then Feat 1 would refer to the original book, while feat 1b would refer to both the original book or feat and the new book)
> 
> Zelgar




I think a single S.15 for the site is better.

1 - It's simpler.  If you have a different license for each source, what happens when you combine entries?  What happens when you enter something from Publisher B, and the S.15 is 30 entries long?
2 - A direct OGC to source link is more likely to erode sales of the source than one in which the source cannot be directly identified.  The originating source may not want to be identified for that reason.
3 - The more sources you enter into a single license, the fewer need to be entered as you accumulate material; you don't need to repeat sources( otherwise you would have 20 pages acknowledging the SRD alone).  Size/page count isn't a constraint on the internet, and it might even act as a restraint on new products derived from *that * OGC repository.
4 - Authors & or publishers could grant permission (non-transferrable) to identify their *original* OGC, and/or link to their sales or personal sites.
5 - The size of the S.15, and many of Phil's personal business concerns, could be controlled by not taking OGC from products under, say, 30 pages long.  Stick with the meaty stuff, in other words.[/list]
6 - One OGL per source still is no guarantee that the source can be identified.
7 - Repeat material is...not helpful.  If feat "Cross Your Fingers" has multiple versions, then the "best" one should be up, not every version.  For this alone there will probably need to be some sort of general oversight, and not a simple grand melee.  Otherwise every twerp in the world will be nerfing/unnerfing/nerfing/unnerfing _haste_.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 6, 2005)

Incidently, I think an OGC repository should have a zero- story element policy, regardless of the OGC declaration (possibly excepting deities.  It'd be nice to have an OGC pantheon).  That preserves at least some of the "original" sources value.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Dec 6, 2005)

I completely agree with philreed (and others) that while the OGC Wiki would (if properly section 15-ed) be legal, but that it would be pretty rude.

For those of you who seem to think that it would not be immoral in the least, allow me to put it this way...

Several Publishers have clearly stated that this sort of use of OGC would hurt their feelings.  It is immoral to willfully hurt another's feelings.  For instance, it is perfectly legal for you (generic you, of course) to say, "I think that Michael Silverbane is a jerk-wad!"  But Morrus' dear old granny would whop you with her purse for doing so...  Because it is rude.  Rude rude rude.

Try not to be rude.

Later
silver


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2005)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> I completely agree with philreed (and others) that while the OGC Wiki would (if properly section 15-ed) be legal, but that it would be pretty rude.
> 
> For those of you who seem to think that it would not be immoral in the least, allow me to put it this way...
> 
> ...





A) Mr. Silverbane publishes a document authorizing me to call him a jerk-wad
B) There is some mystical reason that calling him a jerk-wad has actual worth

Change those two critical things and maybe the analogy will stop being completely flawed.

Or

Mr Silverbane uses the OGL to his benefit.  Mr Silverbane then turns around and attempts to pressure others into giving up their rights under the very OGL which has benefited Mr Silverbane.  That would be rude.  Mr Silverbane should not be rude.


----------



## Conaill (Dec 6, 2005)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> Several Publishers have clearly stated that this sort of use of OGC would hurt their feelings.



Perhaps more importantly: several publishers have clearly stated that they feel this sort of use of OGC would _hurt their bottom line_, and that they would probably have to stop publishing OGC - or stop publishing altogether.

Much as I would love to have a free source of OGL material, I don't think this should happen at the expense of the publishers. Best solution IMHO is to restrict this to material from publishers who have explicitly given their blessing. If we can set it up in such a way that everybody profits from it - publishers included - I'm sure everybody else will eventually fall in line as well. Of course, this does mean that you need to have strict control over which material gets added (which you probably need to maintain all the OGL legalities anyway), so pehaps a Wiki isn't the best vehicle for this...


----------



## danzig138 (Dec 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Again. It is not that I don't want the OGC I create to be used. It's that I want it to be used responsibly.
> 
> Anyone watching but not participating that understands what I mean -- yes, you! -- please post. My hand is getting tired.



If it makes you feel any better, I do understand what you're saying, and I don't think it's an unreasonable stance. I'm undecided on this whole mass OCG release issue. I've seen good points on both sides. It's a bit of a shame that this seems to frequently become a "moral/immoral" issue, since morals, yeah, those spark agreements frequently.


----------



## danzig138 (Dec 6, 2005)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> It is immoral to willfully hurt another's feelings.



No it isn't. Willfully hurting another's feelings isn't necessarily depraved or wrong. If my friend starts smoking crack, and I say "Hey, Bob, smoking crack is stupid and you're pretty stupid for doing it" knowing that it will probably hurt his feelings, doesn't mean it was immoral of me to do so. It means he's stupid for smoking crack and someone needs to tell him so. 

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say it sucks that people try to turn this into an issue about morals. You might think intentionally hurting another's feeling is wrong. I don't. And I know for a fact that my morals are the correct ones.


----------



## Yair (Dec 6, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Incidently, I think an OGC repository should have a zero- story element policy, regardless of the OGC declaration (possibly excepting deities.  It'd be nice to have an OGC pantheon).  That preserves at least some of the "original" sources value.
> 
> Cheers
> Nell.



I'm suprirsed. 
I want a more comprehensive resource, but not at the cost of hurting the publishers. I would generally support the inclusion of story-element OGC if a) the publisher went out of buisness, or b) the content is meant for free distribution (such as an OGC shared construction of a world), or c) with the publisher's consent.
(I'll add fluff always. A class ain't worth much without it's fluff.)
I would also add altered OGC content much more willingly. For example, I would add my variations on the pantheon of the Murchad's Legacy Campaign Setting - it's certainly based on the setting's information, but I altered it and I think I did some things better and want to show off.
I wouldn't add the entire campaign setting. If someone wants to use it, they can buy it from the publisher. (Well, unless the publisher says he wants it added, of course.)


----------



## Yair (Dec 6, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> 5 - The size of the S.15, and many of Phil's personal business concerns, could be controlled by not taking OGC from products under, say, 30 pages long.  Stick with the meaty stuff, in other words.
> 7 - Repeat material is...not helpful.  If feat "Cross Your Fingers" has multiple versions, then the "best" one should be up, not every version.  For this alone there will probably need to be some sort of general oversight, and not a simple grand melee.  Otherwise every twerp in the world will be nerfing/unnerfing/nerfing/unnerfing _haste_.



You raise some good points. Perhaps a single Section 15 is better.
I don't agree with the above two, however. There is little point, I think, in restricting the page count. While that may alleviate Phil's personal concerns, it really has little bearing on the broader issue. I certainly think an OGC compilation would be remiss in not including material from small, esoteric, sources. A free repository should take care in choosing sources so it will not diminish further OGC output or reward stringy OGC declerations, but size doesn't really enter into it.
And regarding repeat material, there are no universal solutions. A system of Variants with scoring would be most productive, I think, allowing the most popular variant to be presented within the main text and others to be linked to it.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 6, 2005)

THe last time this topic made the rounds, I asked a question that got mostly ignored in the kerfuffle.  So, I'd like to ask it again.  The last time, I was told that there is very little (read almost no) cross polination between d20 publishers.  There is a minor amount, but, very few and far between.

If that's true, then what difference would it make if d20 publishers started getting more proprietory?  If no one is using other people's material anyway, who cares if it's open or closed?

Is this a false assumption on my part that there is very little cross polination between publishers?  Granted, in the other thread, I proposed that publishers actually get their act together and add to the SRD to make cross polination easier, but, then again, I got called a thieving peon for having the temerity to suggest that a larger SRD would help everyone.


----------



## philreed (Dec 6, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> . . . I was told that there is very little (read almost no) cross polination between d20 publishers.  There is a minor amount, but, very few and far between.




To put it simply, some publishers work better together than other publishers do. Additionally, some publishers use existing OGC -- building on, improving on, and adding to -- while others would rather plot their own course. There is no right or wrong side to this since everyone is free to do as they wish.

I wouldn't call the amount of cooperation and OGC use minor, though. I would just say that the degree to which this is done depends completely on the individual publisher.

(Man, that was a horrible post. Sorry.)


----------



## Yair (Dec 6, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> THe last time this topic made the rounds, I asked a question that got mostly ignored in the kerfuffle.  So, I'd like to ask it again.  The last time, I was told that there is very little (read almost no) cross polination between d20 publishers.  There is a minor amount, but, very few and far between.
> 
> If that's true, then what difference would it make if d20 publishers started getting more proprietory?  If no one is using other people's material anyway, who cares if it's open or closed?
> 
> Is this a false assumption on my part that there is very little cross polination between publishers?  Granted, in the other thread, I proposed that publishers actually get their act together and add to the SRD to make cross polination easier, but, then again, I got called a thieving peon for having the temerity to suggest that a larger SRD would help everyone.



Firstly, little cross polination doesn't mean none. Works like Monster Geographica do take from other's OGC, and would be sorely missed.
More to the point, the people who care to create an OGC Wiki are generally the sort of people who care about things being OGC even if they are not publishers. Let me put it this way: why create a legal OGC site anyways? Why not create a regular fan site and disregard the law? You can put lots and lots of content there. And you're pretty much guerenteed not to get sued; there are sites showing WotC material, p2p networks trafficking its goods, and so on.
The point of having free OGC is that you are free to use and browse it - it doesn't cost you money or great effort, you can do so publicly and legally, without any hussle or trouble.
If the material is open, you can use it with impunity. You want more and better quality OGC to be released so you will have more to play with without legal and other restraints. The degree of cross polination really has nothing to do with that.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 6, 2005)

I can understand some reluctance from authors/publishers of having a OGC Wiki, but I can also see some benefits.  If the Wiki existed, the users would probably find many sources of information that would benefit their game.  From my experience, most gamers prefer having a hard copy of the information instead of an electric one, which may result in actually boosting sales of rpg products.

In fact, users may find several sources that have expanded a OGC rule-set that they like better than their existing one that they never knew existed.  Additionally, some authors may discover that many of their ideas have already been developed and may be able to better use their talents to expand on existing OGC versus "reinventing the wheel".

Zelgar


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 6, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I would generally support the inclusion of story-element OGC if a) the publisher went out of buisness, or b) the content is meant for free distribution (such as an OGC shared construction of a world), or c) with the publisher's consent.
> (I'll add fluff always. A class ain't worth much without it's fluff.)




There's certainly room for compromise.  "A" concerns me only because I've seen several defunct publishers sell or hand off their catalog to other publishers -- so while the "original" publisher is out of business, the products are still in the retail pipeline.  Related to that is the question of discontinued lines; for example, AEG has ended d20 support for Rokugan and Swashbuckling Adventures, but isn't out of business and could, in theory, revive those at any time.  One could argue that free release of the material in those lines will a) spark interest and revive sales, or b) drive sales of the remaining products down.

"B" and "C" are valid.



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> There is little point, I think, in restricting the page count. While that may alleviate Phil's personal concerns, it really has little bearing on the broader issue. I certainly think an OGC compilation would be remiss in not including material from small, esoteric, sources. A free repository should take care in choosing sources so it will not diminish further OGC output or reward stringy OGC declerations, but size doesn't really enter into it.




The only advantages to avoiding smaller products are a)not penalizing pdf publishers that specialize in small products, and b) keeping the size of the S.15 down.  The Ronin Arts catalog alone is, what, 200-300 items?

Incidently, the S.15 doesn't have to printed in its normal bullet list appearance.  You could compress the section by taking out line breaks and leaving a star or bullet between entries.



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> And regarding repeat material, there are no universal solutions. A system of Variants with scoring would be most productive, I think, allowing the most popular variant to be presented within the main text and others to be linked to it.



This is probably going to be the most difficult thing to address.  When is a "variant" sufficiently varied to stand on its own?  Everyone has a different appreciation of game balance and game flavor (I'm high fantasy/high magic myself).  Can a system be devised and instituted that a) maintains and improves entries to meet a consistent baseline power level, and b) preserves quality variations?

I still don't want to do this (absolute lack of technical knowledge, for one thing), but it's an increasingly intriguing challenge (can you plot a course that presents as much OGC as possible, preserves the perceived value of the original source, and creates a quality product?).

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Henry (Dec 6, 2005)

Quick sidetrack: So far, the mods have been scanning this monster thread, and I want to thank everyone inthe past two or three pages for keeping courtesy towards one another, despite that such a thread have gone down in the past.

The reason I've been ambivalent about it is BECAUSE it's more a moral and courtesy issue than a legal one; each side has so many reasons for for it, all good, and I really can't take a stance that I'd feel solid with. If I HAD to (say, if I were an avid collector of OGC or a publisher), I'd probably rather it didn't happen, because in the end the hostile feelings generated community-wide may more than offset the added value of a communal source of OGC for gamers and publishers. If you can live without something, and this something is liable to cause trouble anyway just by having it, my philosophy says it's not worth it, just like someone holding down two or three jobs just so they can own a boat or car that's beyond their normal means.


----------



## philreed (Dec 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Quick sidetrack: So far, the mods have been scanning this monster thread, and I want to thank everyone inthe past two or three pages for keeping courtesy towards one another, despite that such a thread have gone down in the past.




I agree. I had expected this to rapidly devolve into a flame war but it's been quite civil.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> The reason I've been ambivalent about it is BECAUSE it's more a moral and courtesy issue than a legal one; each side has so many reasons for for it, all good, and I really can't take a stance that I'd feel solid with. If I HAD to (say, if I were an avid collector of OGC or a publisher), I'd probably rather it didn't happen, because in the end the hostile feelings generated community-wide may more than offset the added value of a communal source of OGC for gamers and publishers. If you can live without something, and this something is liable to cause trouble anyway just by having it, my philosophy says it's not worth it, just like someone holding down two or three jobs just so they can own a boat or car that's beyond their normal means.




I don't think anybody could reasonably dispute that.

But us agreeing that it would be better if no one did this has no bearing on the freedom of someone else to choose to do so.  And I really believe that it is important that the true open nature of the License be retained and fully respected, even though that includes some downsides to publishers.

And I still say it doesn't matter.  Nobody with the knowledge and diligence to do this correctly is sitting around with nothing better to do with their time.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Perhaps more importantly: several publishers have clearly stated that they feel this sort of use of OGC would _hurt their bottom line_, and that they would probably have to stop stop publishing OGC - or stop publishing altogether.




This is the part of the argument that seems compelling to me.  The problem with an OGC wiki is the practical consequences of its existence.  If an OGC wiki pushes Phil Reed out of business, because nobody wants to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free, it will reduce the quantity and quality of d20 material.

Of course, I'm not convinced that an OGC wiki will have this effect, but I'm also skeptical concerning the likelihood that anyone will ever stick their neck out to put together such a project.  Too much trouble for no reward.

However, I disagree with the notion that a wiki isn't a good vehicle for this kind of project, even with tight controls.  You might be getting confused by the way most wikis are open and editable by anyone.  But a wiki is simply a document sharing environment that is simpler to use than HTML.  It's designed for collaborative writing, which is essentially what this would be.


----------



## gamecat (Dec 6, 2005)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> I completely agree with philreed (and others) that while the OGC Wiki would (if properly section 15-ed) be legal, but that it would be pretty rude.
> 
> For those of you who seem to think that it would not be immoral in the least, allow me to put it this way...
> 
> ...



But publishers are seemingly allowed to reproduce _other_ publisher's OGC in their own products. 

Looks like we'd be cutting in on Monte Reed's "The Best of OGC ][: Cut and Paste Hackjob".

Rude rude rude.

If I'm not wrong, I saw at least two publishers (CMG, http://www.enworld.org/shop/index.php?do=product&productid=389&source=Publisher Recent Malhavoc http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_YBd20_2004 ) produce some regurgitated OGC book.

Monte's site goes on to state 







			
				www.montecook.com said:
			
		

> The sheer volume of d20 System products -- many with small print runs and low profiles-makes it impossible for a person to find out about them all, let alone read them all. That's why this collection of The Year's Best d20 game material is great for roleplayers who want the cream of what the industry has to offer.




If a publisher can reproduce other's OGC _FOR PROFIT_ then I say onward to the wiki.


----------



## Yair (Dec 6, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> The only advantages to avoiding smaller products are a)not penalizing pdf publishers that specialize in small products, and b) keeping the size of the S.15 down.  The Ronin Arts catalog alone is, what, 200-300 items?



The question is - who does the repository serve? If it is meant to be an online resource for homebrewers only, there is no need to limit the size of the Section 15. A huge Section 15 will make it difficult to use the material in a non-digital format, so publishers may want to actually buy each other's work if they want to use it (*gasp!*), but for the wiki's end user the size of the Section 15 simply doesn't matter.



> Incidently, the S.15 doesn't have to printed in its normal bullet list appearance.  You could compress the section by taking out line breaks and leaving a star or bullet between entries.



I'm not at all clear on what's needed in the Section 15. Can I change the order? Can I use bullet points or stars? If the original has some emphasis (indentation, bold), should I maintain it?
I just don't know.



> This is probably going to be the most difficult thing to address.  When is a "variant" sufficiently varied to stand on its own?  Everyone has a different appreciation of game balance and game flavor (I'm high fantasy/high magic myself).  Can a system be devised and instituted that a) maintains and improves entries to meet a consistent baseline power level, and b) preserves quality variations?



True, this is inherently very difficult.



> I still don't want to do this (absolute lack of technical knowledge, for one thing), but it's an increasingly intriguing challenge (can you plot a course that presents as much OGC as possible, preserves the perceived value of the original source, and creates a quality product?).



It is an interesting conundrum.
It is trivial that you can publish any original content, or anything with the publisher's support, and publishing free content is nearly as obvious. Going anywhere beyond that is sure to alienate some people.
Personally, I would add old content (over 4 or 5 years old) and crippled content ("freeing" it into a usable format). I realize OGC can have commercial value for decades, but I feel that for a D&D/d20-based RPG 4 to 5 years is a good place to draw the line. The addition of crippled OGC is both out of spite (to "punish" those who I feel abuse the OGL), and practicality (I simply can't Use crippled OGC, to use it I need to make an open version of the material).

Ensuring quality is even more difficult. A large part of quality is presenting a cohesive tight package and throwing out the rest; obviously problematic. 
I was thinking on a voting system based site, with categories based on type of contribution (campaign setting, magic system variant, and so on). But might not work well for a wiki.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 6, 2005)

As another poster pointed out, my product line, if the non-mechanics were taken out, wouldn't be a very big line. And that's the point. You don't buy the material *just* for the mechanics, and to assume that it is the only reason people purchase your material is actually somewhat insulting to the majority of gamers out there.

When you get right down to it, there's nothing that has been produced that a GM couldn't build on his own. The tools are there, examples are there, there's even step by step instructions on how to build everything from PrC's, weapons, magic items, spells, monsters, EVERYTHING!

When I bought various books, I did *not* purchase them for the mechanics. I purchased them for setting, fluff text, and details that are not considered OGC. After all, what is FR, Greyhawk, Shattered Lands, Year of the Zombie, Firefly, but just a handful of mechanics and a LOT of setting data? Pull all the PI setting data, and what do you have? Not a whole lot, when you get right down to it.

As for the Section 15, that's fairly simple to handle. A "variable form" that pops up, and insert the publisher name, the origin book, the date, and the author. One section 15 form, with the variable being buried in the data for the feat, weapon, vehicle, whatever.

As for cross pollination, no, you don't see much of it, but make no mistake, it's out there. I've asked for, and gotten permission, to be allowed to reprint Monte Cook's venom rules, I've been allowed to do a module for d20 Modern that crossed RPGObjects popular Blood & Guts line with my own just starting line, I've gotten permission from ENPublishing, Wizards of the Coast, The Game Mechanics, Ronin Arts, Green Ronin. Sure, it wasn't the whole book, often one or two small tidbits, but it is cross pollination. It's there, it's just not that blatant.

I look at the OGC Wiki like this...

It will happen. No matter what the majority of the publishers clamor. With "Crippled Content" being unethical at best, downright against the OGL at worst, the more publishers that move to it will not only alienate thier fan base, but other publishers.

Since it WILL happen, eventually, I'd rather be a supporter of it, and be able to control what goes into it from my writing, rather than it just being added.

On the format, I would want to see ALL flavor text/non-mechanics data pulled from an item going in. Just straight mechanics and nothing else.

No maps. No fluff text. No character names. No non-mechanics information at all.

[Feat name]
[Benifit]
[Special]

That's it.

With the presentation handled correctly (The item being looked up, with the section 15 at the bottom relating to that item, and the banner for the company that produced the item at the top, along with author name and publication of origin underneath the banner) it would not only generate interest, but clearly and definately show who the work belongs to, who came up with it, and where it is available.

Seeing the different ones, say, Paladin classes, also allows a browser to decide which versions of Paladins he likes better. And a book about Paladin classes is going to have much more desired data than just some variant Core Classes and some PrC's, it'll have non-OGC information out the wazoo, and that will allow the browser to also decide which one he wants.

Face it, the person who just goes there to get data, bare bones mechanics data, is more likely to get the PDF from a P2P network than to shell out $7.50 for it. They aren't the ones the site would be built for.


----------



## Yair (Dec 6, 2005)

gamecat said:
			
		

> But publishers are seemingly allowed to reproduce _other_ publisher's OGC in their own products.
> 
> Looks like we'd be cutting in on Monte Reed's "The Best of OGC ][: Cut and Paste Hackjob".
> 
> ...



It's not that simple.
Yes, Monte released "The Best of d20". That was out of offerings contributed to him for this purpose. No one's saying that if the publisher wishes his material to be published somewhere it still shouldn't be.
You may find Monte, or some other publisher, using some material from another's OGC. You will not, however, find them selling the OGC extract of Tome of Horrors, for example - although they could, and for cheaper, and at very low costs to produce.
Don't you see the difference between building on someone's work, and devaluing his work?


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 6, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> As another poster pointed out, my product line, if the non-mechanics were taken out, wouldn't be a very big line. And that's the point. You don't buy the material *just* for the mechanics, and to assume that it is the only reason people purchase your material is actually somewhat insulting to the majority of gamers out there.
> 
> When you get right down to it, there's nothing that has been produced that a GM couldn't build on his own. The tools are there, examples are there, there's even step by step instructions on how to build everything from PrC's, weapons, magic items, spells, monsters, EVERYTHING!
> 
> ...




This is a wise man, who's opinion I respect. The only problem with this is the fact that some companies (LPJ, Ronin Arts, Adamant) are hinging their business model on short OGC material. Sure, the Pulp d20 class gareth puts out is 100% open and you could use the flavor text if you want to, in THAT case all you really want is the class. And if you get it for free without the flavor, why buy the original?

The thing I would 'hope' that a wiki like this would do is encourage publishers back to the sourcebook business model and let go the single item (or collection of 13 items) PDFs. IMHO, they are very expensive for little content, and clog your hard drive with 100 pdfs to find something.

If I could forsee that action coming from a wiki resource, I'd put the effort in myself.


----------



## philreed (Dec 6, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> The thing I would 'hope' that a wiki like this would do is encourage publishers back to the sourcebook business model and let go the single item (or collection of 13 items) PDFs. IMHO, they are very expensive for little content, and clog your hard drive with 100 pdfs to find something.




Keep in mind that I wouldn't do these products if people didn't want them. The focus may have changed but the product type is still in demand.

What you're effectively saying is that because _you_ don't like this type of product it's okay if an OGC Wiki would kill sales of this type of product.


----------



## Yair (Dec 6, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> On the format, I would want to see ALL flavor text/non-mechanics data pulled from an item going in. Just straight mechanics and nothing else.
> 
> No maps. No fluff text. No character names. No non-mechanics information at all.



Seperating mechanics from fluff is just crippling the content. It can't be done. Some fluff must be retained as OGC for the designation to be clear and the mechanics meaningful.
I'll have zero tolerance to removing such fluff. Blotting out that an item is a cloak, for example, leaving just it's enhancements mechanics. You just can't use the item in a game without this information.
I'm also very attracted to publishing fluff OGC, much more than crunch OGC. I agree it must be handled with more care.

I think as long as print books are so much more usable than electronic products the wiki will have only a negligable effect on any large product. And as long as it is arranged as a wiki, and not as a full fledged fancy pdf format, it will have little effect on large pdf sales too.
Nellisir was right, size does matter.


----------



## Henry (Dec 6, 2005)

gamecat said:
			
		

> Looks like we'd be cutting in on Monte Reed's "The Best of OGC ][: Cut and Paste Hackjob".
> 
> Rude rude rude.




I agree - the above did sound a little rude.  Seriously, I can understand if you don't like what someone did with a product, but epithets are being a little unfair to the product.



> If I'm not wrong, I saw at least two publishers... produce some regurgitated OGC book.




In both cases, IMO, the work was more than regurgitation of someone's work; in Creative Mountain's case, there was a significant amount of work in his PDF's (I should know - I bought those beautifully-formatted-and-crosslinked suckers rather than sifting through mountains of RTF documents for what I want!) Now, you've got Andargor's free HTML and HLP, you've got www.d20srd.org, etc. but when his/Anna dobritt's offering first came out, there wasn't anything equivalent available. (If I recall correctly, Anna started the project but didn't do any updating to it after the initial offering, and Mark took the ball and ran with it, but he could tell you history better than I).

In Monte's Year's Best d20, he both made a bit of pocket for himself, AND exposed a lot of unknown d20 publishers to the limelight with their consent. Like it or not, his name on the cover automatically ensured that the publishers included would be looked at by twice the size of their normal audience.

While you may claim it's hypocritical, I don't see the correlation, myself, and personally I think it's a bit unfair to say it. 

One expansion to Phil's and Monte's positions: I can see what they'/re referring to, and I would have to agree that if a product were released for pay, there would be far fewer offerings available than through a fan-sponsored free Wiki. Once someone is making something publishable for pay, it's a whole different ballgame in terms of production value, efficiency, and respect for peer publishers' efforts - it's human nature and business nature.


----------



## philreed (Dec 6, 2005)

gamecat said:
			
		

> But publishers are seemingly allowed to reproduce _other_ publisher's OGC in their own products.
> 
> Looks like we'd be cutting in on Monte Reed's "The Best of OGC ][: Cut and Paste Hackjob".
> 
> Rude rude rude.




Please do not post about things that you know nothing about. I do not appreciate your attempt at humor and your failure to even know of my products, while implying that I do nothing but sell other publishers' OGC, is offensive.

I would rather see this thread remain civil and posts like that are most certainly not necessary.


----------



## Henry (Dec 6, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Seperating mechanics from fluff is just crippling the content. It can't be done.




In some cases (Monte Cook's spells, for example) it can't be helped. A new name would have to be introduced for every spell, because while the spell's mechanics are OGC, the names are not.

"Wellspring of Soul's Light" would have to become "God's Ticked off ", or some such.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 6, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Seperating mechanics from fluff is just crippling the content. It can't be done. Some fluff must be retained as OGC for the designation to be clear and the mechanics meaningful.



I guess our definitions of fluff vary.

Example:


			
				Book of Splananah said:
			
		

> *Cloak of Divine*
> _And lo, did the painted one raise his hands, calling forth to the power of Milinko, and then laid his hands upon the beggar's head. A light surrounded them both, and when it faded, the beggars sores were healed, but he was forever marked with the sigil of the God._
> 
> The Cloak of the Divine first appeared in 452 DCE, in the hands of the High Priest of the Cult of Milinko The Painted God. Upon the death of the High Priest, it was used as a form of badge of office to allow the various High Priests to have a visible symbol of thier authority. From each High Priest can another power to the Cloak of the Divine, from the humble ability to create food and water, to the power of bringing the dead to life.
> ...



Is how it appears in the book. In the Wiki it would appear as...


			
				OGC Wiki said:
			
		

> *Cloak of the Divine*
> *Author:* Tim Willard *Source:* ENWorld Forums
> Appearing as a simple wool cloak with a fur liner and the symbol of Milinko embroidered on the edges, the cloak is warm and comfortable to all who wear it. Those who wear the cloak are immune to energy, level, or ability drain, the effects of normal weather, are kept warm and comfortable, and the pain of wounds is dulled (natural healing is tripled)
> Armor Class Deflection Bonus +3
> ...



Big difference.



> I'll have zero tolerance to removing such fluff. Blotting out that an item is a cloak, for example, leaving just it's enhancements mechanics. You just can't use the item in a game without this information.



There's a lot of information that you don't need that an author or publisher doesn't actually need to put forward as OGC. Doing that, you run the risk of losing the rights to primary character, locations, etc. Most publishers are not willing to do that, and expecting them to do that is the same as expecting a movie writer to just give away the characters and locations of a TV or movie.

You may have zero tolerance for removing such fluff, but I'd have zero tolerance for some of my major characters being used by whoever wants to, without any type of oversight.

Larry Niven used to allow people to use the Kzin. He doesn't any more, and with good reason.


> I'm also very attracted to publishing fluff OGC, much more than crunch OGC. I agree it must be handled with more care.



 Cool, then we're on the same page.



> I think as long as print books are so much more usable than electronic products the wiki will have only a negligable effect on any large product. And as long as it is arranged as a wiki, and not as a full fledged fancy pdf format, it will have little effect on large pdf sales too.
> Nellisir was right, size does matter.



I'm also looking at emerging technology. With the Blackberry network gaining speed, devices becoming smaller, it won't be long until a small touchpad could be linked with your home PDF repository, allowing you to quickly and easily looking at your PDF's during a game.

If handled correctly, an OGC Wiki will help the game keep moving, and if we allow ourselves to fall behind on the tech curve, ignore emerging technology and trends, we're asking for big trouble.

For additional consideration, what if, tied to the OGC Wiki, was an OGC setting? Much like that tongue in cheek Wiki-Setting found on Penny Arcade (I think, I might be mistaken) involving ambulatory furniture, it could easily added to and expanded on, and might actually be an interesting project.



			
				Philreed said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that I wouldn't do these products if people didn't want them. The focus may have changed but the product type is still in demand.
> 
> What you're effectively saying is that because you don't like this type of product it's okay if an OGC Wiki would kill sales of this type of product.



I've read your work, Phil, and refuse to believe that your products can be distilled down to just a few blurbs. I sincerly doubt that you'd lose business, and believe you would have more purchases. Looking at the items themselves would probably interest people in the product as a whole, if nothing else, out of curiosity of what else is in there that wasn't allowed to be inputted to the Wiki.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 6, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> As another poster pointed out, my product line, if the non-mechanics were taken out, wouldn't be a very big line. And that's the point. You don't buy the material *just* for the mechanics, and to assume that it is the only reason people purchase your material is actually somewhat insulting to the majority of gamers out there.




Actually, I find that comment more than somewhat insulting to me. I'm very good at mechanics design, and I am rewarded for it with customer loyalty.

If the mechanics aren't important, there'd be no need for the OGL/SRD. Nor would we see the phrase "broken" used quite as often as we do in reference to so many products. Publishers gain customer loyalty with clean, efficient, balanced mechanics design; and publishers lose customers with sloppy, confusing, and broken design.

Mechanics _do_ matter. To a _lot_ of gamers. To suggest otherwise is just silly.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 6, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Actually, I find that comment more than somewhat insulting to me.



Wow. So all you do is provide mechanics? No interesting background, no decent fluff? You book is nothing but 100% mechanics, with nothing else to offer?

I think you sell yourself short.


> I'm very good at mechanics design, and I am rewarded for it with customer loyalty.



Yeah, nobody wants a book filled with busted mechanics. But I'm willing to believe you also have good text besides

Long Sword +2, keen.

Yes, your monster mechanics are probably excellent, but what about appearance, the way the interact, their society, thier diet, etc?

I'd be willing to bet it's BOTH that attracts your customers, not just nice clean mechanics.



> If the mechanics aren't important, there'd be no need for the OGL/SRD. Nor would we see the phrase "broken" used quite as often as we do in reference to so many products. Publishers gain customer loyalty with clean, efficient, balanced mechanics design; and publishers lose customers with sloppy, confusing, and broken design.



I quite agree.



> Mechanics _do_ matter. To a _lot_ of gamers. To suggest otherwise is just silly.



But they aren't the end all be all of the book. Acting like they are frankly baffles me.

I mean, if you want to be insulted by it, are considering I'm saying that mechanics are worthless and only junk, feel free to look me up on YIM and we'll scream at each other there. I'm not insulting you or your ability to do mechanics, but I sincerely doubt that your mechanical skills are the only reason your have a loyal customer base.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Please do not post about things that you know nothing about. I do not appreciate your attempt at humor and your failure to even know of my products, while implying that I do nothing but sell other publishers' OGC, is offensive.
> 
> I would rather see this thread remain civil and posts like that are most certainly not necessary.




seconded


----------



## BryonD (Dec 6, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Wow. So all you do is provide mechanics? No interesting background, no decent fluff? You book is nothing but 100% mechanics, with nothing else to offer?
> 
> I think you sell yourself short.
> 
> ...




I think you are wrong.

I won't begin to claim to speak for the masses.  Hell, sometimes I feel like the lone voice in the wilderness    but I really disagree.

I know first hand that Wulf is capable of awesome fluff.
But Grim Tales really is an AWESOME CRUNCH book.  It is a pure building kit for making anything you want out of.  And that it does such an excellent job of this is why I like it so much.  

Paying for fluff in a book is, to me, paying someone else to play the game for me.
Long Sword, +2 Keen for me please.  I'll do the rest myself.  That is what I call "fun".


----------



## gamecat (Dec 6, 2005)

Ahem. Perhaps I'm not eloquent or knowledgeable enough here.

The "Best of OGC ][" comment was hyperbole - it seems okay from the outside looking in - to republish someone else's OGC.

Wouldn't the OGC wiki promote the original source of the OGC? I think it would anyway, now that I think about it. I can prepare for games from the SRD. Does that mean I prefer to? Absolutely not. I'm much happier to use my PHB - its got all manner of pretty pictures, and more meaningful fluff text.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 6, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Wow. So all you do is provide mechanics? No interesting background, no decent fluff? You book is nothing but 100% mechanics, with nothing else to offer?




Grim Tales doesn't need to offer anything else. I assume you have not been exposed to the product.

Sure, I have a certain "voice" when it comes to my writing, and I certainly wouldn't call it dry-- but no, no fluff.



> I sincerely doubt that your mechanical skills are the only reason your have a loyal customer base.




That's not the only reason I have a loyal customer base, no. I also have a loyal customer base just from... let's just call it "outreach and accessibility."

But there's no fluff in Grim Tales, nor in any of the mechanics-oriented material I produce. I _can_ write fluff, it's just something I don't really enjoy, and I'd rather outsource it on those occasions that I feel the product needs it.

It's just not true that any GM can come up with good crunch. I am learning things all the time from other designers (even casual ones here on ENworld) who come up with innovative ways to do things that I would never have thought to try.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that I wouldn't do these products if people didn't want them. The focus may have changed but the product type is still in demand.
> 
> What you're effectively saying is that because _you_ don't like this type of product it's okay if an OGC Wiki would kill sales of this type of product.



If it would cause a change in product focus to something I am more interested in, absolutlely.

Phil, you write some decent stuff, or at least have writers that produce decent stuff. I would love nothing more than to have your books. I don't like the format, or the cost, so I don't buy them, although I want them. I don't go scouring P2P networks for them.

If an OGC wiki caused you to put out a bigger book with all your magic items, then I am all for it. If an OGC wiki caused you to put out a book with 25 starship deck plans in one magical file that flowed together like Jameson's and Guiness, I'm all for it.

So yeah, if it gets me what I want, then I think it would be good. I'm a gamer, I'm in this for ME. It's not my duty to support things that I don't want to. I am under no obligation to make a living for you. If doing this gets me my games, in my format, at my price, why not?

Obviously some people thought the same way when they started with the small PDF thing. They made their sacrifices to get the product they wanted. The sacrificed a little extra money for the exact product they wanted.


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 6, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> If an OGC wiki caused you to put out a book with 25 starship deck plans in one magical file that flowed together like Jameson's and Guiness, I'm all for it.




Both Forbidden Arcana and DM's Directory of Demiplanes where excellent large books that never found an audience...or at least an audience they deserved.

I can understand why Phil doesn't make large books.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 6, 2005)

gamecat said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the OGC wiki promote the original source of the OGC? I think it would anyway, now that I think about it. I can prepare for games from the SRD. Does that mean I prefer to? Absolutely not. I'm much happier to use my PHB - its got all manner of pretty pictures, and more meaningful fluff text.



Depends on how it's laid out. You can't legally reference the product the content came from without explicit permission from the publisher. To get that, you'll likely need to allow them to cripple their OGC as stated so that you can't get the info you want in one quick place, but digest in the the fashion that they deem worthy. Plus, if it goes as stated where publishers put their OWN stuff up, they choose what goes up and when. So you might get installments of OGC until the puzzle is put together, or you'll get some of the crappier OGC and they'll keep the 'good stuff' to themselves.
IMHO, the theory of the license is all your 'open content' is open to everyone, but as it seems to be explained here...some is open to all, more is open only to people that will you use it in the manner the publisher sees fits, and ALL is only open to people they want it to be open to. And that is where I see the problems of people attempting to dictate how/when/why their open content can be used, even though the license doesn't require it.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 6, 2005)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> Both Forbidden Arcana and DM's Directory of Demiplanes where excellent large books that never found an audience...or at least an audience they deserved.
> 
> I can understand why Phil doesn't make large books.



I can see why he doesn't make large books ONLY. What I don't like is the subdividing of what used to be a book into 3-5 page blurbs and selling them individually, where the total price of the items is now 2, 3, 5 times the cost (to the consumer) as the whole book used to cost.

Personally, I'd rather see phil hold the individual pieces till a full book is ready, then cut the pieces out and sell both as an option. 1 whole book fully ready for $12, each piece $1.35. That way you have the option to buy it how you want it.

But at this point, my ONLY option is to pay thru the teeth and still have a jumbled mess of PDFs to get what amounts to 1 book. All I want is the option, not saying phil shouldn't put out the individuals for those that want it. Phil takes the advice of those who wanted singles, but I've asked many times for the opposite and I am ignored. I'm not good enough to be a Ronin Arts customer, I guess.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 6, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Grim Tales doesn't need to offer anything else. I assume you have not been exposed to the product.



Actually I have. That's why I said you sell yourself short.

You write excellent products, provide excellent service, are quick to answer questions.

But mechanics are only part of it.



> Sure, I have a certain "voice" when it comes to my writing, and I certainly wouldn't call it dry-- but no, no fluff.



By fluff, in this instance, I am referring to ALL non-mechanics writing.



> That's not the only reason I have a loyal customer base, no. I also have a loyal customer base just from... let's just call it "outreach and accessibility."



Once again, more than just straight mechanics.



> But there's no fluff in Grim Tales, nor in any of the mechanics-oriented material I produce. I _can_ write fluff, it's just something I don't really enjoy, and I'd rather outsource it on those occasions that I feel the product needs it.



I will reiterate: It isn't JUST the straight mechanics in your stuff that makes it good.

I think we're saying the same things, just a bit differently in a lot of cases. We may be using a different intrepetation of the word fluff (I'm using it as anything not straight mechanic) but I have seen your work, and do like it. It's more than simple mechanics, it's far more than that, I really do feel that you're selling yourself short saying it's only your mechanics that give you your loyal customer base.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 6, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I think we're saying the same things, just a bit differently in a lot of cases. We may be using a different intrepetation of the word fluff (I'm using it as anything not straight mechanic) but I have seen your work, and do like it. It's more than simple mechanics, it's far more than that, I really do feel that you're selling yourself short saying it's only your mechanics that give you your loyal customer base.




Well then let's get to the heart of the matter.

If you took all the game mechanics out out of Grim Tales and posted it for free, what do you suppose would be the effect on my sales?


----------



## philreed (Dec 6, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd rather see phil hold the individual pieces till a full book is ready, then cut the pieces out and sell both as an option. 1 whole book fully ready for $12, each piece $1.35. That way you have the option to buy it how you want it.




I have done this in the past.




			
				jezter6 said:
			
		

> But at this point, my ONLY option is to pay thru the teeth and still have a jumbled mess of PDFs to get what amounts to 1 book. All I want is the option, not saying phil shouldn't put out the individuals for those that want it. Phil takes the advice of those who wanted singles, but I've asked many times for the opposite and I am ignored. I'm not good enough to be a Ronin Arts customer, I guess.




No, you have the option of waiting for collections. Ronin Arts does make collections of smaller PDFs -- and on a fairly regular basis.

I use the process that I do because experience has shown me what works best for Ronin Arts as a company and for my continued ability to devote my time to the game industry.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 6, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well then let's get to the heart of the matter.
> 
> If you took all the game mechanics out out of Grim Tales and posted it for free, what do you suppose would be the effect on my sales?



I would imagine you might lose some sales, but the 3rd party market is SO niche and fanboyish that I don't think it would destroy you. Plus, I think it could raise interest in other books like Slavelords (which I've still yet to see in a store  although I want it).

Obviously OGC heavy products will be affected in a proportional manner. Phil's products would be affected in the same way. Same with Gareth.

I think RPGO would survive because they have a very healthy balance of setting/fluff and mechanics.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I have done this in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Collections (by most publishers at least) are usually a collection of PDF's instead of a single document with a standard theme/content. If this is not the case, then I am willing to look more into it.

Second, collections usually don't come out till after 10 or so products come out, which could be 2 or 3 months to have to wait for the material. If I wanted to wait for material, I'd wait till an OGC wiki came out and never buy anything. 

You are doing what works best for you, and I do respect that. I also have the ability to not like the fact. People here complain about WotC and prices and distribution model all the time, and the world hasn't fallen apart for them, so I wouldn't worry about my criticism of your model.


----------



## philreed (Dec 6, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Collections (by most publishers at least) are usually a collection of PDF's instead of a single document with a standard theme/content. If this is not the case, then I am willing to look more into it.




I've done both. For example, I'll soon be starting on the *Future: Datastream* collection. This will be a (I think, haven't put it together yet) 176-page product that collects everything that was sent to Datastream subscribers in 2005. This will be available in PDF and print (and subscribers will get the chance to order a limited hardcover version at cost).


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 6, 2005)

Color me interested.


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 6, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Color me interested.




There done.

Woo Woo, at cost hardcover to go with my Forbidden Arcana HC.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 6, 2005)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> There done.
> 
> Woo Woo, at cost hardcover to go with my Forbidden Arcana HC.




Now all we need to do it tie Bret to a chair so he can finish enough Behind the Spells pdf to release a compilation of those in pdf.    That I'd buy, but the short pdfs are just too many and too short.

Pinotage


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 6, 2005)

Or a subscription...

Dancing lights is waiting to be activated now.


----------



## philreed (Dec 6, 2005)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> Or a subscription...




We're finalizing subscription plans for the series.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> We're finalizing subscription plans for the series.




Hmm. I think I'd still prefer a 150 page pdf to 50 4 page pdfs which is rather unmanagable. I bought Magic Missile to see if I liked the idea, but I think I'll wait before buying any others to see if a compilation comes out.

Pinotage


----------



## philreed (Dec 6, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Hmm. I think I'd still prefer a 150 page pdf to 50 4 page pdfs which is rather unmanagable. I bought Magic Missile to see if I liked the idea, but I think I'll wait before buying any others to see if a compilation comes out.




Bret and I have discussed a hardcover collection if he hits over 50 releases in the series.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Bret and I have discussed a hardcover collection if he hits over 50 releases in the series.




No pdf? Even if I say 'Pretty Please'?   

Shucks. How long will I have to wait for 50 releases - a year? You got to whip that man to work harder, Phil!

Pinotage


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 6, 2005)

The previous strike comment strikes me as the guy standing in the comic book shop outraged that his new favourite comic has been cancelled after he just picked it up in trade paperback.


----------



## Henry (Dec 6, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well then let's get to the heart of the matter.
> 
> If you took all the game mechanics out out of Grim Tales and posted it for free, what do you suppose would be the effect on my sales?




Interestingly enough, your deal with Kirin'Tor may help us find out, by the beginning of next year.  Personally, I can't wait for SRD and Chargen, myself, because this by-hand business is slowing my spread of the GTospel.


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Wow. So all you do is provide mechanics? No interesting background, no decent fluff? You book is nothing but 100% mechanics, with nothing else to offer?




Heh. I know that's false. His recent Grim Tales adventure, _The Seven Saxons_ (link), is dripping with flavor. Just reading the pregen descriptions alone was enough to make me want to run it.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 6, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> The question is - who does the repository serve? If it is meant to be an online resource for homebrewers only, there is no need to limit the size of the Section 15. A huge Section 15 will make it difficult to use the material in a non-digital format, so publishers may want to actually buy each other's work if they want to use it (*gasp!*), but for the wiki's end user the size of the Section 15 simply doesn't matter.




I thought about this.  The problem is, that's a double penalty on publishers.  Not only are they (potentially) losing profit, they have to buy material their customers are getting for free.  I don't think a OGC repository can please everyone, but it can try to serve as many facets of the customer base as possible.  A publisher that benefits from the wiki is more likely to voluntarily feed back into than one that doesn't benefit.



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> I'm not at all clear on what's needed in the Section 15. Can I change the order? Can I use bullet points or stars? If the original has some emphasis (indentation, bold), should I maintain it?
> I just don't know.



A person (or publisher) updating Section 15 of the OGL has to include the copyright information of his work, and the copyright information included in the S.15 of all OGL works he draws from.  That's essentially it.
The "common form" that's evolved places each copyright entry on its own line, in either a bulleted or blank list; each entry is only listed once.  It's often in "reverse" chronological order -- the SRD is listed first, and the current work listed last, but I've seen vice versa, and other variations.  It should be legible, but many (most) publishers have adopted an 8pnt (or smaller) font, at least for that section.

AEG had a habit of placing their copyright information outside the Section 15, but I'm not convinced that was very kosher.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 6, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well then let's get to the heart of the matter.
> 
> If you took all the game mechanics out out of Grim Tales and posted it for free, what do you suppose would be the effect on my sales?



I honestly don't know.

If I could honestly put out the numbers, it would solve a lot of arguement.

I do want to say, up front, before anyone accuses Wulf of being selfish with his works, or unreasonable, I was kindly allowed to use Grim Tales insanity rules for free.

I doubt it would have a major effect on you, Wulf, but I also don't think that publishers should HAVE to participate in the OGC Wiki, and I also believe they should have the option, nay, the RIGHT to have thier material removed from it by request.

If you're not comfortable with it (Which I don't blame you for) then don't participate.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Heh. I know that's false. His recent Grim Tales adventure, _The Seven Saxons_ (link), is dripping with flavor. Just reading the pregen descriptions alone was enough to make me want to run it.



I knew it was false too. I was being overly dramatic and a typical "Raltsian" jackass. Forgot to switch modes from the voice I was writing text in a product in to an appropriate ENWorld voice.

Sorry if I came off a little hard-assed, Wulf.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 6, 2005)

OK, let's do an experiment...

Let's create a setting Wiki.

We'll see how well it does, how many authors are willing to put stuff in from thier own works. We'll see how difficult it is to Section 15 it, as well as who is willing to participate and who isn't.

That will also show how difficult the whole thing will be.

Two rules: You can only contribute your OWN work; everything must be according to the STL.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Heh. I know that's false. His recent Grim Tales adventure, _The Seven Saxons_ (link), is dripping with flavor. Just reading the pregen descriptions alone was enough to make me want to run it.




Written by Destan. But thanks anyway! 

And it's not Open Content, nor is there really any relevant content to cull from Seven Saxons for a wiki project, so it's not relevant to the discussion.

The OGC Wiki will shut down innovations in mechanics-- some of which I am wholly responsible for (Mass Combat, GT Spellcasting, Horror, to name a few I am proud of), some of which I only helped with (the Chi/Rho method of CR/EL/XP developed here at ENworld), and some of which I just tried to improve on (Grim Tales' blend of D&D, d20Modern, and Spycraft).

The primary proponents of the OGC Wiki (I'm not lumping Ralts in here, btw) believe that such innovations in game mechanics *have no compensatory value.*

I object to that on ideological grounds.

But then I am kind of an odd case. I don't rely on this  to pay my bills. I couldn't possibly. (Put me in the "I'd rather make a living..." category.) I can afford to take a position on this one even though I have no real stake in the outcome. I put out about 6 or 7 PDFs last year, and I believe I have grossed about $1000. Seriously. I would estimate my profits at less than $500, once you cut out Excel programmer's fees, artists, and freelance writers. 

Then of course you'd have to subtract from that $500 what I have actually _spent_ at RPGnow, which is not an insignificant amount. I spread the love.

So putting my stuff in an OGC Wiki isn't "putting me out of business", but it's definitely going to cut down on my "gaming funds" and, more importantly, it's just really very definitely pissing on my shoes.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, your deal with Kirin'Tor may help us find out, by the beginning of next year.  Personally, I can't wait for SRD and Chargen, myself, because this by-hand business is slowing my spread of the GTospel.




For the record, I think there is a big difference between print and PDF, in terms of the potential negative impact of an OGC Wiki.

I wouldn't expect a wiki to affect my GT _print_ sales.

I would expect it to annihilate my PDF sales. 

You'll also note that I'm not trying to sell the chargen portions of GT in PDF format, either. I'm giving those away, in a format and utility of my choosing.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Sorry about the multiple posts-- I wanted to do a little relevant research:

On a single day in March (March 4th, GM's Day), I gave away the Gamemastering PDF for free. 

Its ordinary everyday price is a ridiculous $1.95. (I know, I know, I'm gouging.)

On the _single day_ I was giving it away for free, it was downloaded more than twice as much as it has been purchased _over the course of its lifetime._ (EDIT: We're talking a data set in the hundreds, fwiw.)

I consider that a 2-to-1 vote in favor of "FREE," even when the damn thing is only $2 to begin with. 

Two bucks. Too much.

The price of a large Dunkin Donuts coffee (the jet fuel of this game designer, and likely many others...)


I suspect that the impact of the OGC wiki would be even greater than that-- since the Wiki wouldn't be just a one day thing 'advertised' to a fairly limited set of General Forum readers. A few folks saw my GMs day offer. How many more folks would be lured away by an OGC Wiki?


----------



## Conaill (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> On a single day in March (March 4th, GM's Day), I gave away the Gamemastering PDF for free.
> 
> Its ordinary everyday price is a ridiculous $1.95. (I know, I know, I'm gouging.)
> 
> ...



Not entirely unexpected. However, in order to know how that would actually affect your bottom line, we'd also have to look at:

- did the sales of the Gamemastering PDF go down significantly after that day?
- did you see any effect on sales of other Bad Axe products, either during or after GM's day?


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 7, 2005)

OK.  A variable, generated-on-the-spot OGL would solve the S.15 issue (and require a little more coding).

A reminder - you CANNOT indicate compatibility with a product inside the OGL.  You MUST have an independent agreement to do so.  To the best of my knowledge, this includes listing a source and an author.

This whole fluff/crunch thing is why I said "Story Elements" instead of fluff.  And a "cape", for instance, is quite arguably a game mechanic, not a piece of "fluff", insofar as it has defined in-game statistics, much like stunned, nauseated, and longsword.

I think an OGC setting would be cool.  But it should be largely seperate from the OGC (mechanics) repository.  I DO buy products for "fluff" (I own almost every FR product, but use none of it), but I don't buy them for -random- fluff, and most people are going to strip out the proper names and insert their own anyways.

I also buy products for mechanics, btw.  Thus I have the complete d20 Rokugan line, a wonderful source for feats, spells, prestige classes, and an in-game "Action points" mechanic (Void).

Now, I understand why most publishers oppose an OGC repository.  Insofar as they know & believe, it will penalize them in greater measure than it benefits them.  I get that, I understand, and I empathize.  I've got stuff I'd like to make money on.  But money in their pocket is money out of mine.  Their business plan penalizes me.  And the argument that an OGC repository will drive them out of business AND harm the state of OGC in general rests on the assumption that they are more creative and better able to utilize OGC than non-publishers.  After all, if that assumption -weren't- true, making such a large mass of OGC available to the general public would HELP the state of OGC.

The OGL's inspiration came from open-source computer code.  I'm not an expert in that field by any means, but I'm pretty certain that public involvement hasn't hurt all that much, and that people continue to make money off of it.

Heck, I've changed my mind.  I'll support a voluntary/free OGC repository.  Material willingly posted by the author or publisher, or material already available for free, ONLY, with one exception.  Any subsequent product that uses the repository is fair game for OGC extraction in...12 months.  No free rides.

Phil, Wulf, Monte, and the other publishers can put out as much OGC as they want, marked however they want, and it won't be entered, ever.  All they have to do is not use the repository and whatever develops there.

I think it'll start off slow.  There'll be hassles and issues and disagreements.  It'll be behind the curve.  But I'm betting if it catches on and catches up, baby watch out.

Cheers,
Nell.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> In Monte's Year's Best d20, he both made a bit of pocket for himself, AND exposed a lot of unknown d20 publishers to the limelight with their consent. Like it or not, his name on the cover automatically ensured that the publishers included would be looked at by twice the size of their normal audience.



It made me consider getting Denizens of Avadnu, when I saw that half the monsters in Year's Best came from that book. Had it been available as a PDF, they would have had a sale.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The primary proponents of the OGC Wiki (I'm not lumping Ralts in here, btw) believe that such innovations in game mechanics *have no compensatory value.*
> 
> I object to that on ideological grounds.




 
Um, I honestly and with most complete sincerity hope you realize that I'm also not in that lump.

My position is simply that the OGL requires that SRD derived material must be fully open regardless of how great its value may be.  And I well understand that the true value can be significant.

I'm opposed to the wiki idea.  
I just have a bad pet peeve about forcing my opinions on other people.  And just as much so when other people do it.  My strong opinion that it is a really bad idea plays no role in the freedom to do it anyway.

I'm opposed to anything that would cut into your Bad Axe revenues.
I'm opposed to anything that would cut into your production of future product.

I'm really really opposed to pissing on your shoes.

But I just can't make myself be opposed to letting people do what the license says they can do.  sorry.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Do you object to patents on medical drugs?  In sense, it sounds like you're arguing that a pharmacuetical company should be able to hold onto it's patent indefinately, rather than it "going generic".




I would be ashamed to post something so... stupid. Knocked me back on my heels with that one.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> My strong opinion that it is a really bad idea plays no role in the freedom to do it anyway.




Doesn't that simply mirror the exact position of every publisher who has posted to this thread?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Doesn't that simply mirror the exact position of every publisher who has posted to this thread?




No.  I don't believe it does.
There has certainly been a wide spread on the positions taken.

But:
It has been called unethical.  I disagree.
It has been called immoral.  I disagree.
It has been called irresponsible.  I disagree.

In my opinion there have been very thinly veiled suggestions that it would be nearly criminal.
Now, has Phil offered up such a veiled suggest?  No.
Have you? Absolutely not.

But I think others have.  I think there are some who have constructed in their mind a right to protections they simply do not have.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I would be ashamed to post something so... stupid. Knocked me back on my heels with that one.




Hrm.  Just to clarify, that's my comment you are calling stupid?

Never mind.  I removed it, and your quote in my post.  I still think it's a worthwhile analogy, but maybe too dramatic.  The thread isn't served by something that provokes an emotional over an intellectual response.

I think I've been relatively civil in this thread.
Nell.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Hrm.  Just to clarify, that's my comment you are calling stupid?




The ridiculous, blatant straw man?

Yeah, that's the one.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work on my new edition of Grim Tales, the one that cures cancer.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But I think others have.  I think there are some who have constructed in their mind a right to protections they simply do not have.




I don't think any responsible publisher fits that description; certainly none that have posted in this thread (off the top of my head).


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The ridiculous, blatant straw man?
> 
> Yeah, that's the one.
> 
> Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work on my new edition of Grim Tales, the one that cures cancer.




Straw man's down, for reasons stated above.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't think any responsible publisher fits that description; certainly none that have posted in this thread (off the top of my head).




Agreed.  No *responsible* publishers have.


----------



## Kerrick (Dec 7, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Question to publishers in the thread:
> If I specifically asked to say "This came from XXX by Company YYY" to give you a big plug, would you let me do it? (By "I" and "me" I really mean...any other publisher, as I am not one)




Hell yeah I'd let you do it! I'm using a couple of programs (one free, one not) to make NPCs for our books. I intend to put a line or two in the acknowledgements that essentially says "The NPCs in this book were made using X and Y programs. Many thanks to the folks who made them, so as to make my job easier."



			
				Zelgar said:
			
		

> If the Wiki existed, the users would probably find many sources of information that would benefit their game. From my experience, most gamers prefer having a hard copy of the information instead of an electric one, which may result in actually boosting sales of rpg products.




And I would be one of those gamers. Flipping through a book at the table is MUCH faster/easier than scrolling through a document (ease of use of a book vs. computer, etc.) or even a multitude of documents (which is why I plan on buying the Spell Compendium when I can find it). 



> In fact, users may find several sources that have expanded a OGC rule-set that they like better than their existing one that they never knew existed. Additionally, some authors may discover that many of their ideas have already been developed and may be able to better use their talents to expand on existing OGC versus "reinventing the wheel".




Exactly. Say I want to do a book on ley line magic - a new magic system, PrCs, magic items, feats, the whole thing. So I go take a look through the wiki to see what's been done for this already, and I find some really cool things (I know there's been at least one book on ley line magic written). Some of them would fit perfectly in the book, and a few of them were even things I was thinking about, but done better. And there are a few things that I think I could improve/expand on. Wow - I just saved myself some time here. I check out the S15 to see who wrote the better entries, and check out some of their other entries, and find that those are really well-written too - I think I'll go buy a couple of their books while I'm at it.

Yes, this is probably an extreme example, but it's not an impossibility. If I see a bunch of cool stuff that's in one book, I'm more likely to buy that book so as to have them all together in one source, rather than spending my time copying things from a wiki. I know I have way too much free time on my hands, but I've certainly got better ways to spend it.



> Can a system be devised and instituted that a) maintains and improves entries to meet a consistent baseline power level, and b) preserves quality variations?




Sure. There's a panel of judges that does it every year for the Ennies (as far as B is concerned, at least). As for A, I don't think it'd be hard to find some people who would volunteer their time to judge entries worthy and balanced. "Balance," in this case (and IMO) is what works for the majority of campaigns. If you use  a medium-power campaign (pretty much what the core books are) as the baseline for balance, then it wouldn't (shouldn't?) be hard for others who play high- or low-powered campaigns to alter it for their own use. 



			
				WulfRatbane said:
			
		

> The OGC Wiki will shut down innovations in mechanics...




How? Going back to my example (above) about the book on ley line magic... Let's say that I find nothing, except for a few minor entries or I find some entries, but they're not very well done (and obviously included because they're the only things covering that subject). Obviously, this is a niche that can be filled. 

Going to the other extreme... let's say I find a bunch of stuff, and it's so well done that I find no need to improve on it. Why reinvent the wheel? I'm going to find something worth improving on or something that hasn't been done yet. I think that having the "best" material easily accessible will _improve_ innovations in mechanics, because people will stop rehashing the same old crap. Someone made mention of "how many books on dwarves can there be?" and I agree - how many indeed? You may argue that people have a right to put out more books on dwarves, and I wouldn't argue the point - every publisher out there could write a book on dwarves, but it would defeat the purpose. Instead of spending their energies writing new and innovative material, they're all doing the same thing.



> The primary proponents of the OGC Wiki (I'm not lumping Ralts in here, btw) believe that such innovations in game mechanics have no compensatory value.




I think that the OGC wiki is a great idea, and I also believe that they DO have value. 

This (d20) is a community. If we work together, complementing each others' work, everyone benefits. Yes, there are publishers working together, and that's great. We'll never get ALL the publishers to work with each other - there are simply too many differences - and to get a larger percentage of "cross-pollination," to put the love of the hobby before the love of money, would be great, but that also goes against human nature. Me, I would do it. I've actually considered it - Ralts and wrote a book a couple years back that got all kinds of accolades. We started working on a revised version when 3.5 came around, but then we split with our then-publisher and found a new one. The old publisher wouldn't give us permission to re-release the book for 3.5, at which point we strongly considered releasing it for free, completely OGC. Yes, free. A book that is now 200+ pages in Word, that required a couple years' worth of work, free. I would regret it a little, sure - we could make a bit of money off it - but I personally have enough money, and a full-time job besides. I just want to get my name out there. Ralts doesn't care - he's got his YotZ books, which are a full-time job for him. It might still happen, maybe not with this book, but with other things. Who knows...



> But then I am kind of an odd case.




I think you'd be surprised. A lot of publishers do this as a side-job, not as a full-time thing. Unless you're someone like Monte Cook, you simply can't churn out enough product to make a living at it. I'd bet you could count the number of companies who can on two hands. 

As a side topic - I'm sure many of you remember the netbooks that permeated the web (and are still out there) in the days of 2E. How many of you have written one? I have - a couple, in fact. Why? _For the love of the game._ I had a cool idea that I wanted to share with others, with no thought of profit or self-aggrandizement (beyond having my name on the doc). Maybe I'm strange, maybe I'm an idealist, but this is what the OGL should be - a bunch of people working for the betterment of all (and sure, making a little profit on the side isn't a bad thing) by working together or side-by-side in competition to make better products, not a bunch of "islands in the sea" working alone, churning out tired old retreads of the same thing. 

As for my opinion on what I think the wiki should be: I agree with Nell - the best way to do it would be through voluntary submission. Number one, this gets rid of cries of theft; number two, it does away with the clause about referring to a product in the s15 without permission; number three, I think that if publishers see others contributing their work, they might be convinced to do it themselves ("Hmm... that Dancer of the Clouds PrC is kinda cool, but I have a much better version. I think I'll submit mine."). Some people have noted that the main stumbling blocks are time, money, and expertise. Wikipedia isn't run by one person - there are 600 people working it. An OGC wiki wouldn't need nearly that many; it could run on donations (ENworld does server drives just about every year), and there are quite a few talented people who know HTML/XML. No, the main stumbling block is who's willing to take that first step. I'm willing to contribute material - I'd even be willing to edit/format sumbissions - but I have no expertise regarding wikis. Ralts is right - it WILL happen, sooner or later. The topic has come up often enough here and seen enough discussion that it's obvious people consider it important. The question is simply when.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 7, 2005)

Hi,

I think the answer to the OGC Wiki I originally suggested has been shot down, if not unanimously (Sp?) than at least by 51% of people. With that in mind, can I ask publishers and nonpublishers alike if an OGC Wiki built along the following lines would meet with your approval.

1. Only a select group of people would be allowed to submit material.
2. Material submitted could only be OGC and:
    a) given away for free or
    b) more than 4 years old or
    c) unavailable in print OR as an ebook or
    d) posted on the Wiki with the publisher's approval.
3. Each piece of content would have its own Section 15.
4. The material would not mention an author or publisher UNLESS the publisher requested it (that's a part of the OGL, so it's not something we can change)

Thanks for your feedback, you've brought up some interesting ideas and I hope the above list either meets with your approval or can be easily repaired so it meets with your approval.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 7, 2005)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I think the answer to the OGC Wiki I originally suggested has been shot down, if not unanimously (Sp?) than at least by 51% of people. With that in mind, can I ask publishers and nonpublishers alike if an OGC Wiki built along the following lines would meet with your approval.
> 
> ...



I could get behind this if you add one clause.

The author/owner (sometimes not one and the same) of the material asks it be removed, it be removed.

There could be a multitude of reasons for this happening. From the material is undergoing rewrite and rerelease to there is problems with ownership, to the material being contested, to the material about to be rereleased.

If you could add that one clause, which returns power back to the creators, I can get behind this.


----------



## Yair (Dec 7, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I guess our definitions of fluff vary.



I guess.
I am keen on using "story-element" instead of "fluff". 



> You may have zero tolerance for removing such fluff, but I'd have zero tolerance for some of my major characters being used by whoever wants to, without any type of oversight.



But you don't make those characters open content, do you? There is no problem. What's closed isn't open.



> For additional consideration, what if, tied to the OGC Wiki, was an OGC setting? Much like that tongue in cheek Wiki-Setting found on Penny Arcade (I think, I might be mistaken) involving ambulatory furniture, it could easily added to and expanded on, and might actually be an interesting project.



I'm contemplating an OGC setting, actually. I doubt it will ever see fruition, but hey - creating worlds is fun 
I am only aware of two OGC settings (Murchad's Legacy and SpirosBlaak), and I doubt either of their producers would be thrilled at having the setting available for free online.
I'm sure there are others.


			
				Khuxan said:
			
		

> 1. Only a select group of people would be allowed to submit material.
> 2. Material submitted could only be OGC and:
> a) given away for free or
> b) more than 4 years old or
> ...



1) What "select group"? I think the group should be anyone that signs in. Contributers that prove they have no understanding of the OGL or no respect for the Wiki's submission guidelines will be locked out.
2) Well, as it is an OR list, it seems alright. I would again mention my pet peeve - crippled OGC.
I don't expect (c) to come up much these days, and even more in the future.
3) In this case, I hope a good script could be cooked up. Also, I would present it as a link rather than within the text.

Your policy doesn't give guidelines on the treatment of fluff or crunch, I'm not so certain what the policy should be there.
I would tend to also accept a publisher's wishes against his material being on the wiki. However, I would remove it only if the publisher presented a valid reason - such as revising or  republishing it.
It also fails to consider revised materials. Say I enter in my variation on Murchad's Legacy's (ML) religions, and that BiggusGeekus later asks for his ML OGC to be removed. My entry is based on his OGC, but it is modified - should it be removed? Say I enter a recent spell from a book just published, but with considerable revisions, a "broken" but cool spell that I "fixed" - am I not now the "publisher"? If not, how do you treat OGC that is derived from prior (non-SRD) OGC?

Consider also that all these restrictions mean that the wiki may be more palatable to the publishers but will contain less. I predict that sometime after its founding a new wiki will be founded that will incorporate all its materials and add "off limits" material.


----------



## Yair (Dec 7, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Heck, I've changed my mind.  I'll support a voluntary/free OGC repository.  Material willingly posted by the author or publisher, or material already available for free, ONLY, with one exception.  Any subsequent product that uses the repository is fair game for OGC extraction in...12 months.  No free rides.
> 
> Phil, Wulf, Monte, and the other publishers can put out as much OGC as they want, marked however they want, and it won't be entered, ever.  All they have to do is not use the repository and whatever develops there.
> 
> I think it'll start off slow.  There'll be hassles and issues and disagreements.  It'll be behind the curve.  But I'm betting if it catches on and catches up, baby watch out.



It's an interesting suggestion as of itself. A closer resemblance to the Open Source community.
I can see the appeal, but I think there is cause to release some OGC against the publisher's wishes. Just like there is room to remove the patent from drugs after some time, even though the manufacturers would love to have it maintained. And crippled OGC (always that, with me). And there is no point in holding back on other free OGC. And... 
I see merit in both the Open Source Community model and the OGC Wiki model.

Under your Open Source model, you would need to bar derivative materials. Only the person who first came up with Vitality & Wound points, for example, could contribute it or any variant of it to the community.
Then you enter the issue of presenting the same mechanics differently. There is no copyrighting mechanics, and the OGL does not protect from this, but it's a very hard thing to do right legally. Hmm.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 7, 2005)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> wulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not because the technology itself is not good for the creative process, it's that publishers will WILLINGLY stop creating new mechanics because their last bit of mechanics were opened up for free on a wiki. Phil has commented that he would have less OGC available per product if something like this happened. A number of other publishers agreed with him. OGC will be crippled and obscured so that it's difficult to post it.

I've said it, someone else said it...some publishers are putting outside constraints on the license and believe that they can control who uses their OGC and how with this outside pressure of making us all think the market will go south because of an OGC Wiki. The wiki itself won't cause the industry to fold, the poll seemed fairly clear that most people would keep buying things they want to buy, even if some of it is free in the wiki. The publishers themselves will try to bring the market down by creating less innovative content because they don't want their open content to be open. I'm guessing a few will claim that sales have gone so far down they need to double prices to stay in business, product prices will be jacked up to a new all time high even though they have no little OGC in them. Then the zombies will come, eat our brains, and we all roll up new GC (gamer characters) and start the process over again when 4e comes out minus an OGL.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 7, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> It's an interesting suggestion as of itself. A closer resemblance to the Open Source community.
> I can see the appeal, but I think there is cause to release some OGC against the publisher's wishes. Just like there is room to remove the patent from drugs after some time, even though the manufacturers would love to have it maintained. And crippled OGC (always that, with me). And there is no point in holding back on other free OGC. And...
> I see merit in both the Open Source Community model and the OGC Wiki model.




I'm mixed about "fixing" crippled content.  The idea appeals, but more out of spite than any actual value.  Secondly, that material is more likely to provoke a challenge from a publisher than "standard" OGC.  While we might be confident in our legal rights, that doesn't mean I want to be footing the bill for a lawyer if someone decides to push the issue.[/quote]



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> Under your Open Source model, you would need to bar derivative materials. Only the person who first came up with Vitality & Wound points, for example, could contribute it or any variant of it to the community.



We'd have to define what's acceptable and what's not pretty carefully, but there's no reason we couldn't approach publishers about releasing certain mechanics.
Offhand, I'd limit initial submissions to 1) author/owner submitted material based on the SRD or other acceptable sources, 2) OGC material released for free in a distributable format (I'm thinking rtf or pdf; trolling the internet and yanking OGC off of websites is potentially bad press) and based on the SRD or other acceptable sources, 3) material authorized for release by the publisher and based on the SRD or other permitted sources.

It would start off at a disadvantage, but the more publishers we could get to voluntarily sign up, the better off we'd be.  And since it approaches them in a cooperative, rather than adversarial, manner, and they can greenlight specific products (or even product sections), it's possible cooperation could be significant.  Even better if well-regarded authors approach publishers about material they wrote under contract (I'm thinking about Mike Mearls, here).

The only questionmark in my mind right now is for Unearthed Arcana.  I think of UA as an addendum to the SRD, but that's just my view, and it's a bit presumptive to treat WotC's material different from everyone else's.

I'm not fond of allowing publisher "recall", though.  First of all, it's a little bit late, second everything would be legally released, third it'll potentially turn the wiki into a giant preview/testing ground, fourth it'll be a huge, and I mean huge, hassle.
Should material written by someone else (when the material was available), but based on the recalled OGC also be recalled?

"Evil", by AEG, is listed in the S.15 of almost every subsequent product they did.  If AEG gives permission to present OGC from "Evil", and subsequently asks that it be returned to "unauthorized" status, that'd invalidate nearly everything in the AEG line (and most of my stuff).

It's better, and simpler, to have a "no backsies" policy.

It's also important to remember that we wouldn't be asking for special permissions from publishers.  Publishers don't have a right to withhold OGC.  We'd be voluntarily restricting on the OGC we take, and we can reserve the right to rescind or amend that policy.  If we  extract OGC from a source we ordinarily wouldn't, it's within our rights to do so (but that would have to be exercised very cautiously.  I think public & publisher opinion are the keystones of this project).

Gotta go to my paying job now.  20 degrees Farenheit, not counting wind chill, and I'll be outside installing windows.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Well, let me just pump my last few cents into this:

1) I understand (and embrace) the OGL in its entirety.

2) I don't think there's any legal or moral obligation not to make a Wiki.

3) I believe the Wiki will ultimately be counterproductive for the community-- both the publishing community, and the gaming community. I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.

4) I don't exactly see a lot of high-quality, high-content, high-output publishers out clamoring for the Wiki-- despite all the arguments about how useful it will be for us. Ask yourself who is behind the idea, and why. 

5) The very idea of the 'publisher resource' Wiki overlooks a pretty fundamental observation about game designers: _We all think we can do it better than anybody else._ 

Ok, that might be too broad. But understand what drives the creation of new game mechanics. Speaking solely towards _mechanics_ game designers-- who by definition are the only ones for whom the Wiki could hold any promise-- we are problem solvers. 

The observed need for a new or better game mechanic presents a problem for us to solve. 

If the problem is already solved (ie, already exists in the Wiki), we go away.

If the problem isn't already solved, but there is no opportunity for us to 'ply our trade' by solving that problem, we go away.

(Note that we completely exclude a great many talented "fluff" designers from consideration. They don't matter in a discussion of OGC, because they are producing PI. Lucky bastards.)

6) Personally? I'd say the largest portion of proponents are just folks who want something for nothing. Some of them even seem to believe they _deserve_ something for nothing.

7) I use a lot of Open Content. When I need some piece of OGC, I keep my ears open to find out what products might be out there, or even coming, that I can use. 

*And then I go out and I buy that product. *

And if that doesn't sound like a wholly more healthy situation for the RPG industry, then you really need a refresher course in Economics. I don't need to perform a qualitative analysis on my own sales reports to confirm the obvious common wisdom that folks prefer "FREE" to "NOT FREE."

8) I'll worry about the Wiki when it happens.


----------



## Psion (Dec 7, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I am only aware of two OGC settings (Murchad's Legacy and SpirosBlaak)




Add Second World to that list.


----------



## Psion (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> 5) The very idea of the 'publisher resource' Wiki overlooks a pretty fundamental observation about game designers: _We all think we can do it better than anybody else._




Quoted for truth.

I remember when I was first swallowing the concept of the OGL, I pictured a world wherein there would be cross pollination, continual improvement of shared mechanics sets, compatability, and whole bunch of other theoretical consequences on a wide scale.

In hindsight, I was a little naive...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Add Second World to that list.




Freeport?

Bluffside?


----------



## Kerrick (Dec 7, 2005)

> It's not because the technology itself is not good for the creative process, it's that publishers will WILLINGLY stop creating new mechanics because their last bit of mechanics were opened up for free on a wiki. Phil has commented that he would have less OGC available per product if something like this happened. A number of other publishers agreed with him. OGC will be crippled and obscured so that it's difficult to post it.




It reminds me of that old Looney Toons episode - the one with Daffy Duck and the genie. you know the one I'm talking about? Where he gets all the gold, and yells, "Mine mine mine! All mine! You can't have it! Get away get away get away!" It's simple greed - "It's all mine and you can't have it unless I get my cut." Fine - we just won't use your stuff. There's plenty of other things out there that cover the same topic, and might well do it better. 



> 1) What "select group"? I think the group should be anyone that signs in. Contributers that prove they have no understanding of the OGL or no respect for the Wiki's submission guidelines will be locked out.




Exactly. That's a sticking point for me, too - if you start restricting who can contribute, then it ceases to become a true Open Source and becomes a "Boys' Club" like Jezter keeps saying. Leave it open for all to contribute, but screen the entries so only quality material makes it in.



> It's better, and simpler, to have a "no backsies" policy.




But they CAN update their material at any time - revisions, errata, updates, whatever.



> It's also important to remember that we wouldn't be asking for special permissions from publishers. Publishers don't have a right to withhold OGC.




I'm all in favor of the OGC wiki, but something about that statement just strikes me as wrong. I'm not sure what it is... maybe telling publishers what they can and can't do. It's their original material, no matter if it's based on the SRD or someone else's work - they are well within their rights to hold on to it and not ever give it to anyone who doesn't offer fair recompense (I'm not saying it's right or even nice, but it IS their right).



> 4) I don't exactly see a lot of high-quality, high-content, high-output publishers out clamoring for the Wiki-- despite all the arguments about how useful it will be for us. Ask yourself who is behind the idea, and why.




So far, I have only seen a handful of publishers period posting on this thread. I can't speak to past threads, since I never read them, but I wonder how many are reading this but not posting. How do we know what their opinions are? 



> If the problem isn't already solved, but there is no opportunity for us to 'ply our trade' by solving that problem, we go away.




And how, exactly, would that situation come about? The collapse of the RPG market? Do you _really_ think an OGC wiki will do that?



> I remember when I was first swallowing the concept of the OGL, I pictured a world wherein there would be cross pollination, continual improvement of shared mechanics sets, compatability, and whole bunch of other theoretical consequences on a wide scale.
> 
> In hindsight, I was a little naive...




:\


----------



## philreed (Dec 7, 2005)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> So far, I have only seen a handful of publishers period posting on this thread. I can't speak to past threads, since I never read them, but I wonder how many are reading this but not posting. How do we know what their opinions are?




I know what some of them think because I've talked with them about this subject. I do wish more publishers would post to this, though.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, let me just pump my last few cents into this:
> 
> 1) I understand (and embrace) the OGL in its entirety.
> 
> ...



Just a few comments on the above...

Sorry, this is going to be long, but...

1 & 2 It's good to hear that some publishers/authors understand this.

3 - A Wiki could be a blessing or a bane for the rpg industry.  It all depends upon how the industry (RPG-I) views and reacts to it.  If the RPG-I reacts negatively to a Wiki by reducing new OGC material, tring to shut down the Wiki, limit OGC material available to the Wiki, there could be a blacklash like in the 90's when T$R had their draconian policies regarding material on the internet.  If the RPG-I worked with the development of a Wiki, I think many of the potential problems with a wiki could be prevented.  Quality Assurance & Quality Control of the Wiki would likely be better of only OGC and not PI material getting into the Wiki.  Correct linkage in the Wiki of OGC material to the original source for Section 15 (maybe even better than some published sources).  Also, there may even be an increase in some sales of rpg products based upon users wanting an entire copy of the source and not just the OGC material.

It also depends upon how the end users (e.g., gamers) react to having the material in a wiki.  There will be a certain percentage of gamers that will take from the Wiki and not support the RPG-I by not purchasing anything.  Of course, the RPG-I acknowledges that a certain percentage of their profits are lost due to theft of books and p2p.  There are no guarantees that a Wiki will cause an increase or decrease in sales of rpg products, but opposition to a Wiki may cause a decrease in sales because gamers can be spiteful.  By having the Wiki it will expose more people (gamers & the RPG-I) to the OGC material.  How the person reacts to having the OGC material on a Wiki will be entirely up to the individual.

4 - I think most of the people who want an OGC Wiki are gamers and not the RPG-I.  I believe that most gamers have read the OGL and believe that the OGC material should be freely available.  Based upon numerous comments, some in the RPG-I feel that having a Wiki would be detrimental to the industry (e.g., loss of sales, deminishing "value" of OGC).  As I stated in 3 above, the Wiki could be a blessing or a bane to the RPG-I, but fighting the establisment of a Wiki it is more likely to harm the RPG-I (e.g., gamers fight with their pocketbook) than working together with gamers in establishing the Wiki.

5 - I'm not a game designer, but I think the Wiki could be a benefit for some.  By having a wiki, a game designer can see what has already been established by others before him.  This doesn't mean that the concepts the desiginer will be in the OGC as the info may have only been put out as PI, but it's a first step in the process of seeing if the designer has anything to contribute to the RPG-I.  I doubt that any game designer would want to find out when trying to be published (or even worse, after he has been published) that his concepts were already published as OGC or PI.  If a Wiki existed, the designer could evaluate what is in the Wiki, may or may not purchase the source of the OGC, and decide on an outcome prior to spending a lot of time.

6 - As I stated in 4 above, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people who want the Wiki are gamers who think the OGC should be freely available based upon the OGL and its FAQ's.  I think a lot of people in the RPG-I feel threatened by a Wiki because they have an invested interest in the OGC material (e.g., they wrote it, feel a Wiki could threaten sales).  Alternatively, gamers who want a Wiki feel like the RPG-I is not living up to their obligations of the OGL for the OGC by fighting the establishment of the Wiki.

7 - As I said in 3 above, its is unknown what having an OGC Wiki will have on the RPG-I.  Some people will probably purchase the source rpg products because they have seen the OGC in the Wiki, while others may not.  From my experience, gamers are pack-rats.  We collect everything and throw away little.  Even if a Wiki was established, there would still be some gamers who would purchase books that was just a rehash of OGC material.

Additionally, as you indicated, if you find out what the source of the OGC material, you will purchase the book.  I think it can be reasonably said, that some gamers will also purchase the book if they were interested in the material contained within it.  Some sales may be lost if the only thing the gamer saw that was worth his $ was what was the OGC material, but that is the risk the RPG-I must take if they put out material as OGC or expand original OGC material.

8 - I would hate that people would have to "worry" about the creation of a OGC Wiki.  I would like to think that a Wiki could be benefitial to both gamers and the RPG-I, and not think of it as a RPG-I Slaying weapon.

Zelgar


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 7, 2005)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> It reminds me of that old Looney Toons episode - the one with Daffy Duck and the genie. you know the one I'm talking about? Where he gets all the gold, and yells, "Mine mine mine! All mine! You can't have it! Get away get away get away!" It's simple greed - "It's all mine and you can't have it unless I get my cut." Fine - we just won't use your stuff. There's plenty of other things out there that cover the same topic, and might well do it better.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm all in favor of the OGC wiki, but something about that statement just strikes me as wrong. I'm not sure what it is... maybe telling publishers what they can and can't do. It's their original material, no matter if it's based on the SRD or someone else's work - they are well within their rights to hold on to it and not ever give it to anyone who doesn't offer fair recompense (I'm not saying it's right or even nice, but it IS their right).



If I'm not mistaken, the problem with this is that if a writer/publisher stated material was OGC they lose all rights to the material as long as the OGL is followed (e.g., listing in Section 15).  By allowing a writer/publisher to withdraw OGC material they don't want in the Wiki, they are not abiding by their contract of the OGL.  Additionally, if a writer/publisher wanted its OGC material removed, it would prevent other OGC material in the Wiki that was based upon the withdrawn OGC material.  

The OGL stated what should be OGC.  If you used OGC material from another source and expanded on it, the new material should also be OGC.  Some designers/publishers have not lived up to this requirement of the OGL, which has resulted in some gamers resentment.  Until a gaming company is sued over this, it will unfortunately continue and may result in the collapse of new OGC material.

Zelgar


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> 3 - A Wiki could be a blessing or a bane for the rpg industry.  It all depends upon how the industry (RPG-I) views and reacts to it.  If the RPG-I reacts negatively to a Wiki by reducing new OGC material, tring to shut down the Wiki, limit OGC material available to the Wiki, there could be a blacklash like in the 90's when T$R had their draconian policies regarding material on the internet.




This is what some publishers note about threads such as this. Odd, that a publisher who released OPEN material who then had someone release that material for FREE would be accused of being draconian by reducing the amount of OGC in future releases.

I'm not saying, you're saying that. I'm simply saying that you're correct in that some people would regard such an action the the light you're portraying.



> 4 - I think most of the people who want an OGC Wiki are gamers and not the RPG-I.  I believe that most gamers have read the OGL and believe that the OGC material should be freely available.




This is because they don't understand the difference between OPEN and FREE. The only OGC released that was intended to be free is the OGC that was released free by the publisher. Every other bit of OGC was released as OPEN.

Someone else can take OPEN and turn it into FREE, but that's obviously not what any creator intended through using the liscense, unless the creator made the OGC FREE to begin with.

People may try to argue otherwise, but intent is clear and obvious. If it was made FREE it was intended to be FREE: if it was only made OPEN it was intended to be OPEN. What the next person down the line does with that OPEN material is up to them. The license gives that power to the next person, it doesn't make anything FREE and it never will. Making something FREE is only an individual's decision and not an expectation/requirement/expected outcome of the license.



> Alternatively, gamers who want a Wiki feel like the RPG-I is not living up to their obligations of the OGL for the OGC by fighting the establishment of the Wiki.




Obligations? The only obligations of the OGL are to follow the license properly. If you're referring to something else, you should be more clear. If you're referring to the "desire people have to get stuff others created and opened under the OGL for free and how people think those creators aren't being nice by preferring to be paid instead of working for free" you need to state that.



> 8 - I would hate that people would have to "worry" about the creation of a OGC Wiki.  I would like to think that a Wiki could be benefitial to both gamers and the RPG-I, and not think of it as a RPG-I Slaying weapon.




I don't worry about an OGC Wiki because I know what it would result in.... less OGC, greater acrimony between the creators of OGC and the users of the material, and more than likely reduced sales for certain products at least.

I'm glad you're trying to think of workable possiblities which would please everyone, but it's not a win-win situation and probably will never be. Making something FREE that was not created FREE fiscally devalues the worth of the the work and material. Eventually, one wonders if anyone would be terribly willing to pay for any electronic medium OGC once they've been inculturated in the use and belief that OGC material is and should be FREE.

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This is because they don't understand the difference between OPEN and FREE. The only OGC released that was intended to be free is the OGC that was released free by the publisher. Every other bit of OGC was released as OPEN.
> 
> Someone else can take OPEN and turn it into FREE, but that's obviously not what any creator intended through using the liscense, unless the creator made the OGC FREE to begin with.
> 
> People may try to argue otherwise, but intent is clear and obvious. If it was made FREE it was intended to be FREE: if it was only made OPEN it was intended to be OPEN. What the next person down the line does with that OPEN material is up to them. The license gives that power to the next person, it doesn't make anything FREE and it never will. Making something FREE is only an individual's decision and not an expectation/requirement/expected outcome of the license.



I think that is kinda a red herring arguement.

Yes, it is 100% true.  I think people do not understand the difference between OGC and public domain material.  Some do not understand that, unlike public domain, the publisher retains 100% ownership of all of their material regardless of its status as either open or IP.  All the OGL grants is the priviledge to re-publish OGC.  And this is a big important difference and truly understanding it may sway some people'e perspective.

But it is ultimately irrelevant.  As you said, the OGL gives the power to the next person.
When an author puts the OGL on something, then their intent with regard to OGC is no more meaningful than anyone else who correctly uses the license.  It can even be less meaningful.  Ultimately, whoever elects to publish the material in the LEAST restrictive manner is the one whose intent trumps everyone else.

Obviously, you have clearly acknowledged this.  So I'm not trying to argue that.  But I think this point is significant and pretty much makes your point about author's intent go away.



> Obligations? The only obligations of the OGL are to follow the license properly. If you're referring to something else, you should be more clear.



Now there you are 100% correct.  
I agree that >50% of the pro wiki crowd simply wants someone else to do the work and give the results to them.  There is nothing redeemable in that position.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 7, 2005)

> Say I want to do a book on ley line magic - a new magic system, PrCs, magic items, feats, the whole thing. So I go take a look through the wiki to see what's been done for this already, and I find some really cool things (I know there's been at least one book on ley line magic written). Some of them would fit perfectly in the book, and a few of them were even things I was thinking about, but done better. And there are a few things that I think I could improve/expand on. Wow - I just saved myself some time here. I check out the S15 to see who wrote the better entries, and check out some of their other entries, and find that those are really well-written too - I think I'll go buy a couple of their books while I'm at it.




This is the entire concept of the OGC put into practice. An OGCWiki is not only a good idea, the concept of Open Gaming was *invented* for such a thing. 

The idea that only some elite cabal of the published and writing can have a say leaves a bad taste in my mouth. OGC was made, largely, as a benefit to the consumers -- so that we wouldn't have to have seven different systems for psionics and thirteen different ways to to ley line magic and twenty-and-a-half mass combat systems and a half-dozen airship design systems. Thus, it means the best of the best floats to the surface and is supported by democratic means. The best system for X will get support.

The publishing community has thus far stauchly resisted any attempt to actually use it that way. In part, this is modeled on WotC, who do their own things while only giving occasional nods to the OGC. So rather than use any source but the SRD for their game design, most companies think they can do it better, while mentioning the boogeyman of "devaluing" lurking in the closet. The first is an issue of pride, while the second is an issue of fear. Free material is in no way devalued, despite mentions to the contrary. The mechanics might be free, but the way it's presented -- the book, the binding, the art, the setting, the imagination and use of these things is not. People don't pay for water, they pay for water bottled up and presented in dynamic designs with promise of French moutain springs in them. The gaming community is stuck paying for mechanics when they should be paying for setting, for flavor, for fluff. 

IMHO, it's really a matter of time. We're in transition, right now. People still want to publish like the old companies did, only now with the ability to use d20 mechanics without paying for them. Someday, we'll see the occasion when you can't just publish a collection of feats and PrC's in a pdf and have people pay for them. The industry can fall as people are bloated with rules-glut, or they can change and adapt. Don't sell people rules. Sell people a game. Use the best of the rules others have designed, throw your own in there, dress it up in pretty art with a big pagecount and have the consumer enjoy.

Perhaps there's another problem with the simple sample size -- the gaming community isn't that big, after all. The industry needs to buck this trend of following in WotC's footsteps and embrace everything it can do -- which includes getting rules material for free.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The gaming community is stuck paying for mechanics when they should be paying for setting, for flavor, for fluff.




::SHUDDER::


THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS THEE!!!!!

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS THEE!!!!!


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 7, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This is because they don't understand the difference between OPEN and FREE. The only OGC released that was intended to be free is the OGC that was released free by the publisher. Every other bit of OGC was released as OPEN.
> 
> Someone else can take OPEN and turn it into FREE, but that's obviously not what any creator intended through using the liscense, unless the creator made the OGC FREE to begin with.



I know others who have stated that this should be free. I am definately not opposed to the idea, but I would pay for a subscription to the wiki at the right price.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> It reminds me of that old Looney Toons episode - the one with Daffy Duck and the genie. you know the one I'm talking about? Where he gets all the gold, and yells, "Mine mine mine! All mine! You can't have it! Get away get away get away!" It's simple greed - "It's all mine and you can't have it unless I get my cut." Fine - we just won't use your stuff. There's plenty of other things out there that cover the same topic, and might well do it better.



Sure, that works for the first guy to do it, maybe the second, but after 30 publishers do it, then you have no more contributions. A wiki with 'some but not all' defeats the purpose for me. If I can only get a litle here and a little there, why would I need this great database of OGC?

As for this:



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I'm all in favor of the OGC wiki, but something about that statement just strikes me as wrong. I'm not sure what it is... maybe telling publishers what they can and can't do. It's their original material, no matter if it's based on the SRD or someone else's work - they are well within their rights to hold on to it and not ever give it to anyone who doesn't offer fair recompense (I'm not saying it's right or even nice, but it IS their right).



See, it's almost the same as them telling us what WE can an can't do with their OGC, except they're telling us what to do 'morally' and for the 'good of the industry' as we're telling them, according to the license, you can't legally do that. They are not within their rights to hold back open content. They ARE within their rights to create less open content as Phil has declared, but at no point can they take back massive amounts of material that is open. That was a permanent decision based on 1) choice to open something they didn't want and 2) requirement of the licence to keep rules derived from the SRD open.

The real question I have in all this: is it the open content (the classes, the feats, the spells) that publishers are scratching to hold on to? Or is it the 'The entire text of this product is 100% ogc' that is starting to worry people because setting and fluff were released under the license instead of protected as PI?

I have no problem even NOT having flavor text of backgrounds, settings, whatever left out of such a project, even if it is open content. It just doesn't feel right for how *I* see an OGC wiki.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 7, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This is what some publishers note about threads such as this. Odd, that a publisher who released OPEN material who then had someone release that material for FREE would be accused of being draconian by reducing the amount of OGC in future releases.
> 
> I'm not saying, you're saying that. I'm simply saying that you're correct in that some people would regard such an action the the light you're portraying.
> 
> ...




Just got back from lunch, and I believe that the whole Open vs Free issue was addressed by WotC in the Open Game Definition FAQ  which states:

Q: So an Open Game really is "free" as in beer?

A: To the extent that any person can distribute a copy of an Open Game without being required to pay a fee or royalty, or to charge a fee or royalty. 

It is important to note, however, that a publisher may be able to add value to an Open Game in the form of non-Open Game material that enhances the Open Game content, provide various support services, or enhance the Open Game in other ways that will allow that publisher to charge for an Open Game, and cause people to be willing to pay for the Open Game material voluntarily.

Q: Can I require that recipients of my Open Game distribute copies without charge?

A: No. A limitation on charging a fee is incompatible with the freedom to distribute an Open Game. The choice to charge a fee must be the decision of the publisher, not the content creator.

Unless I am mistaken, this means that as soon as something becomes Open it becomes free.

Zelgar


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The gaming community is stuck paying for mechanics when they should be paying for setting, for flavor, for fluff.




There you go devaluing game mechanics again.

Let's put it in terms people can understand a little better.

What's Iron Heroes?

Is it a setting? Is it flavor? Is it fluff?

Or is it mechanics?

To what extent do Mike Mearls and Malhavoc Press deserve to be compensated for a wholly new game mechanic that take d20 in a new direction?

How about Mutants and Masterminds? 

Revolutionary game mechanics, or book full of pretty superhero comics?

To what extent do Steve Kenson and Green Ronin deserve to be compensated for wholly new game mechanics that take d20 in a new direction?



> Someday, we'll see the occasion when you can't just publish a collection of feats and PrC's in a pdf and have people pay for them.




Let's pretend for just a moment that that day wasn't actually 2 years ago.

Do you buy PDFs with collections of feats and PrCs in them?

Is it your contention that _nobody_ should be able to buy PDFs with collections of feats and PrCs in them?

Or that nobody should be able to publish them?

Or simply that anybody who publishes them deserves to have their work distributed for free, regardless of whether or not they have actually built a business out of supplying that demand?


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Just got back from lunch, and I believe that the whole Open vs Free issue was addressed by WotC in the Open Game Definition FAQ  which states:
> 
> Q: So an Open Game really is "free" as in beer?
> 
> A: To the extent that any person can distribute a copy of an Open Game without being required to pay a fee or royalty, or to charge a fee or royalty.




Here's the catch. It's "free" in the extent that someone can distribute a copy without paying a fee. That just means that you don't have to pay the creator of OGC a fee to use his OGC in your product. You just have to follow the liscense.

It is important to note, however, that a publisher may be able to add value to an Open Game in the form of non-Open Game material that enhances the Open Game content, provide various support services, or enhance the Open Game in other ways that will allow that publisher to charge for an Open Game, and cause people to be willing to pay for the Open Game material voluntarily.



> Q: Can I require that recipients of my Open Game distribute copies without charge?
> 
> A: No. A limitation on charging a fee is incompatible with the freedom to distribute an Open Game. The choice to charge a fee must be the decision of the publisher, not the content creator.




This is saying that I as a creator of OGC cannot put any restrictions on the re-user of OGC content, be that if they wish to publish it for Free (as in no cost) or for sale.



> Unless I am mistaken, this means that as soon as something becomes Open it becomes free.
> 
> Zelgar




Free as in there are no other restrictions upon the content except those placed upon it by the liscense, but not free as in "no cost." If you want to put OGC that someone else has created out there for no cost, that's a possiblity under the liscense, but that possiblity doesn't mean that everything published under the license "yerns to be free of cost."

It may be a terminology thing for a lot of people. Free as in Open doesn't mean Free as in "no cost." Free can mean as in "no cost" but it doesn't *have* to mean it—it's left up to the publisher of the OPEN material to determine if it will be FREE (as in no cost).

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But it is ultimately irrelevant.  As you said, the OGL gives the power to the next person. When an author puts the OGL on something, then their intent with regard to OGC is no more meaningful than anyone else who correctly uses the license.  It can even be less meaningful.  Ultimately, whoever elects to publish the material in the LEAST restrictive manner is the one whose intent trumps everyone else.
> 
> Obviously, you have clearly acknowledged this.  So I'm not trying to argue that.  But I think this point is significant and pretty much makes your point about author's intent go away.




I'm arguing from a different perspective than I think you may be. Legally you're correct obviously, but if someone believes "Anything published under the OGL license and made OGC means that all OGC should be made available without cost" they have a belief based upon a misunderstanding the license.

The license says specifically nothing about required cost of OGC. That is left up to each individual to determine. The license is about distribution, not value.

If the intent of the OGL and OGC was to create FREE (as in no cost) material, the license would prohibit creators from charging for the material. I believe there are several examples of this in the computing community: creator's who *don't* want their creation to be sold—ie. they intend the material to be free of cost.

To me creative intent is only used to show that the creator of OGC didn't intend for it to be given away free of cost only that they intended to give that option to someone else who follows the same liscense.

Does that make sense? I'm not using authorial intent as a means of limiting the license (that's pointless as I think we agree on that issue) but by using authorial intent to show that OGC doesn't mean "free of cost" it only means OPEN. OPEN means "can be used according to the license."

And at the root: If an author releases OGC for cost under a license that allows someone else to release the same OGC free of cost, releasing the OGC free of cost, while legal under the license, is obviously counter to the will of the creator.

If someone *doesn't care* about the creator's intent, this is a moot point. But to say  "what the OGC really wants is to be free of cost" isn't true. It's more like "What *I* really want is for everyone else's OGC to be free of cost so I don't have to pay for it."

Big difference

joe b.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 7, 2005)

I agree that a publisher can charge for a book that contains OGC content.  In fact, the entire book could contain OGC material and still cost me $50 if I am willing to pay for it.

The thing is, however, is that once material becomes OGC, I am not required to pay for its use (e.g., as if I would include it in my book) provided I follow the requirements of the OGL (e.g., listing the source in Section 15).  AFAIK, I would not even have to own a copy of the original source to include the OGC in a book or web page that I created because the OGC could of been found in a 5th generation reference.

The only "cost" for OGC is following the OGL.  Once a publisher has established OGC, they have lost any fee for it if people do not purchase the source material that contained the OGC and the later sources follow the OGL and include a reference in Section 15.  If this is incorrect, please provide references to support your stance.

Zelgar


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> The thing is, however, is that once material becomes OGC, I am not required to pay for its use (e.g., as if I would include it in my book) provided I follow the requirements of the OGL (e.g., listing the source in Section 15).  AFAIK, I would not even have to own a copy of the original source to include the OGC in a book or web page that I created because the OGC could of been found in a 5th generation reference.




You're correct. You don't have to own the orginal source. The license is very clear that you are free to distribute and don't have to pay for any "rights" to distribute.



> The only "cost" for OGC is following the OGL.  Once a publisher has established OGC, they have lost any fee for it if people do not purchase the source material that contained the OGC and the later sources follow the OGL and include a reference in Section 15.  If this is incorrect, please provide references to support your stance.
> 
> Zelgar




Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. I thought you were arguing that by the nature of the OGL and OGC that OGC "yearns to be free of cost." In other words OGC *should* be free of cost by nature of the license. Your comment



> Unless I am mistaken, this means that as soon as something becomes Open it becomes free.




led me to believe this. As soon as something becomes OPEN is becomes "free to distribute" not "free of cost." Your above paragraph doesn't seem much like that so I think I may have misunderstood.

It may be a terminology thing.

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I'm arguing from a different perspective than I think you may be.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> If the intent of the OGL and OGC was to create FREE (as in no cost) material, the license would prohibit creators from charging for the material.




Yep, I think we have slightly different POV.

Would you say this sentence: "If the intent of the OGL and OGC was to prohibit FREE (as in no cost) material, the license would require publishers charge for the material." counters your position?  I do not.  And I don't think your position does any better of countering the pro-wiki side.

I don't think that there is any intent to create free material or to prohibit free material.  Free material and intent of the OGL don't really belong in the same reasoning.

It is simply irrelevant to the arguement.  Nothing in my position is even related to what the intent of the OGL is.  The intent of the OGL supports neither side.  If anything, the OGL was designed with eyes wide open knowing it would permit free redistribution.  So, if anything, that sways a tiny bit against you.

But it doesn't matter.  The OGL's intention doesn't offer you any aid and your own intention is moot in regard to material you have already released.



Anyway, IMO, the intent of the OGL is very simple: Help sell WotC D&D product.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

jgbrowning added said:
			
		

> And at the root: If an author releases OGC for cost under a license that allows someone else to release the same OGC free of cost, releasing the OGC free of cost, while legal under the license, is obviously counter to the will of the creator.
> 
> If someone *doesn't care* about the creator's intent, this is a moot point. But to say  "what the OGC really wants is to be free of cost" isn't true. It's more like "What *I* really want is for everyone else's OGC to be free of cost so I don't have to pay for it."
> 
> ...




OK, I agree with you here.  Funny that we both posted saying that your intention was "moot" at the exact same time.  

I've never said that OGC wants to be free.  And I've already agreed that the majority of the pro-wiki side just want to rationalize free stuff.  I find that pathetic.  I get pissed off at people sticking their hand and and saying "gimmie". 

But no matter what your opinion may be, the majority of the people who agree with you are idiots.


----------



## Pramas (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, let me just pump my last few cents into this:
> 
> 3) I believe the Wiki will ultimately be counterproductive for the community-- both the publishing community, and the gaming community. I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.
> 
> ...




Wulf makes many good points, but I think these are the key ones. 

I'd just like to add that what's being talked about has serious potential to damage people's livelihoods. It's easy to be cavalier about such things when it's not your salary or your mortgage payments on the line. Sure, we got into this industry because we love gaming, but it's also the way we make a living. We don't work our asses off for substandard wages so we can see the fruits of our labor given away for free on the internet. Information may want to be free, but my family also wants to eat. So there you go.

I'm sure this will make Phil happy and I'm just as sure I'll regret saying anything.


----------



## jmucchiello (Dec 7, 2005)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> So far, I have only seen a handful of publishers period posting on this thread. I can't speak to past threads, since I never read them, but I wonder how many are reading this but not posting. How do we know what their opinions are?



We can speak of past threads. There is not a publisher that I'm aware of that has said a public repository of OGC would be a good thing for publishers or publishing.

Of course, should a publisher say he's behind a public OGC repository, I suspect someone would immediately release that publisher's OGC onto a public repository and that perhaps is holding back any publishers leaning on the other side of the fence. But if there were someone fully behind such a repository, I don't see why they wouldn't say so. (Aside from not having seen this thread.  )


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 7, 2005)

Joe, you didn't totally misunderstood what I was saying.

I agree that OPEN means "free to distribute", but I believe it also can mean "free of cost".  Once something becomes OGC, provided that I can quote all of the OGC material correctly and follow all of the requirements of the OGL, I can distribute the material in any method (e.g., in a book, on a web page - Wiki) at any cost (e.g., free or $X).

I think some people would think that it would be unethical/illegal to publish OGC that was created by someone else if they did not own the original source (or the source where they found the material), but that is not a requirement of the OGL.

I think that this is why some game designers, publishers, and others in the Role Playing Industry are so adamant about not having an OGC Wiki.  Even though they volunteered their material as OGC, they do not want it freely distributed (i.e., in a Wiki) to the public.  

Zelgar


----------



## Conaill (Dec 7, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> The real question I have in all this: is it the open content (the classes, the feats, the spells) that publishers are scratching to hold on to? Or is it the 'The entire text of this product is 100% ogc' that is starting to worry people because setting and fluff were released under the license instead of protected as PI?



It's not really a matter of "scratching to hold on to" their content, or greedily sitting on a pile of stuff and not letting anyone else get their grubby hands on it.

The publishers are merely worried that by releasing this material for free, people will stop *buying* their products, and they'll be forced out of business. It's that simple.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 7, 2005)

Has anyone thought of only using material that has been out for 6 months or more?  Let the publishers get some sales of items for a half of year before it would be added to the Wiki


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yep, I think we have slightly different POV.
> 
> Would you say this sentence: "If the intent of the OGL and OGC was to prohibit FREE (as in no cost) material, the license would require publishers charge for the material." counters your position?  I do not.  And I don't think your position does any better of countering the pro-wiki side.
> 
> I don't think that there is any intent to create free material or to prohibit free material.  Free material and intent of the OGL don't really belong in the same reasoning.




Which is why I was talking about creator intent, and not OGL intent. I think we both agree that the OGL has no intent in any fashion concerning value, only distribution, which is why I think no one can claim "OGC yearns to be free of cost" or conversely "OGC yearns to be with cost."

However, I can say "If you use my OGC and make it FREE, when I have already made it for cost, you are obviously doing somthing that I as a creator didn't want done." Just because the license allows you the ability to do it doesn't mean the license is pro or against making OGC FREE of cost. The license gives the legal authority to do so against the wishes of the creator because the license is independent of matters of valuation. And every creator signed on with the liscense, so they know it's a possiblity. But it doesn't mean that it's what they want to happen, so don't use a false justification such as "OGC yearns to be free" as an excuse for turning someone's for pay work into something for free.



> Anyway, IMO, the intent of the OGL is very simple: Help sell WotC D&D product.




Of course. 

joe b.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I'm sure this will make Phil happy and I'm just as sure I'll regret saying anything.




No, Chris, it's important for you to mention it, because some folks around here seem to think that innovative mechanics specifically like those found in Mutants and Masterminds will somehow _just ing write themselves,_ and that the RPG publishing community can get on with the "serious business" of providing flavorful fluff for the "savvy" consumer.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Joe, you didn't totally misunderstood what I was saying.
> 
> I agree that OPEN means "free to distribute", but I believe it also can mean "free of cost".




It can mean that but the license doesn't support or resist such a reading. However, almost every creator of OGC resists such a meaning by releasing OGC for cost and not free of cost.



> Once something becomes OGC, provided that I can quote all of the OGC material correctly and follow all of the requirements of the OGL, I can distribute the material in any method (e.g., in a book, on a web page - Wiki) at any cost (e.g., free or $X).




Yep.



> I think some people would think that it would be unethical/illegal to publish OGC that was created by someone else if they did not own the original source (or the source where they found the material), but that is not a requirement of the OGL.




Unethical not in action, but in result is what I think a lot of people think.



> I think that this is why some game designers, publishers, and others in the Role Playing Industry are so adamant about not having an OGC Wiki.  Even though they volunteered their material as OGC, they do not want it freely distributed (i.e., in a Wiki) to the public.




It's notthe freely distributed bit, it's the free of cost bit that most people don't like. If you had a Wiki that was charging for access, there'd be a lot less concern because you are showing that the material you're distributing has worth and more importantly *you're protecting the worth of other people's OGC*.

Hell, if you wanted to set up a wiki of OGC material (pay publishers a small fee as a show of good faith that isn't required under the OGL) and then charge for access, you'd have more support than a free of cost wiki.

If you give it away, you're saying to everyone who uses it that the material contained herein has no fiscal worth. Devaluing the value of a product in someone's head is a very insidious thing. Once people get used to getting something for free they find it harder and harder to pay for something similiar. This means less produced which is basicaly counter to the concept of an open community by reducing the desire for openness as opposed to creating a greater desire for openness in the very people who create the material to begin with.

joe b.


----------



## Yair (Dec 7, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Has anyone thought of only using material that has been out for 6 months or more?  Let the publishers get some sales of items for a half of year before it would be added to the Wiki



Actually, the most "dangerous" suggestion currently on discussion is a *4 year* waiting period, and the one picking up speed is a volunteer-only policy (only original content, no copying from any derived source except the SRD without the publisher's say-so).

People aren't as bull-headed as some would have you think. No one wants to cut down the amount of produced OGC, that's counterproductive.


			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, Chris, it's important for you to mention it, because some folks around here seem to think that innovative mechanics specifically like those found in Mutants and Masterminds will somehow _just ing write themselves,_ and that the RPG publishing community can get on with the "serious business" of providing flavorful fluff for the "savvy" consumer.



Very well put.

The more I think about it, the more I like Nellisir's "Open Source Community" model. It is just so unproblematic, that there isn't any objecting to it.
Only original SRD- and self-referencing content, from the original publishers. Let the Free content grow on its on, unconnected to the commercialy produced content, until it becomes so good and large that it will surpass it in quality and usability.
Well, that's the theory.


----------



## Conaill (Dec 7, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> We can speak of past threads. There is not a publisher that I'm aware of that has said a public repository of OGC would be a good thing for publishers or publishing.
> 
> Of course, should a publisher say he's behind a public OGC repository, I suspect someone would immediately release that publisher's OGC onto a public repository and that perhaps is holding back any publishers leaning on the other side of the fence. But if there were someone fully behind such a repository, I don't see why they wouldn't say so. (Aside from not having seen this thread.  )



Actually, IIRC there were one or two authors who said they would support such a move (if implemented carefully and with publishers concerns in mind), and would be willing to donate part of their content.

You have to keep in mind that below the tier of "big" publishers who are actually trying to make soem money in this business (or at least to break even), there are a fairly large number of people who would just like to create material and see it used by other people. For those at least, an open OGC repository would be a welcome development.

I'm guessing that's not who you had in mind when you said "publishers" though, and this starts to look an awful look like a Netbook repository, with all the quality issues attached to that...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Unethical not in action, but in result is what I think a lot of people think.




Personally I would put it at *unwise*.



> Hell, if you wanted to set up a wiki of OGC material (pay publishers a small fee as a show of good faith that isn't required under the OGL) and then charge for access, you'd have more support than a free of cost wiki.




Particularly unwise considering that even a "for pay" Wiki is just an easily-accessible electronic amalgam waiting to be copied and distributed free of charge by the "Your greedy capitalist business plan penalizes me!" crowd.

I'm not joining in the ethical/unethical, legal/illegal chorus here. It's just flat out _unwise. _

I know what the license says. I know what the license can do. So I don't support any position that pretends to be anything short of the worst possible-- but completely legal-- ultimate result.


----------



## Yair (Dec 7, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> this starts to look an awful look like a Netbook repository, with all the quality issues attached to that...



By its nature an OGC Wiki will have a WORSE quality than a Netbook, generally speaking, as it doesn't even really allow for rankings like those used in the Feats Netbook for example. If the Wiki is open to all to edit and use, it will have a lot of poor entries.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Personally I would put it at *unwise*.




I just think it will have effects counter to desired.



> Particularly unwise considering that even a "for pay" Wiki is just an easily-accessible electronic amalgam waiting to be copied and distributed free of charge by the "Your greedy capitalist business plan penalizes me!" crowd.




I hadn't thought about that. Hrm.. Proves that I can be as unwise as the rest of 'em. 

joe b.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 7, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Proves that I can be as unwise as the rest of 'em.




I thought your trip to Nepal was supposed to fix that.

What, you got all the way there, and the guru was OUT?


----------



## Crothian (Dec 7, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Actually, the most "dangerous" suggestion currently on discussion is a *4 year* waiting period, and the one picking up speed is a volunteer-only policy (only original content, no copying from any derived source except the SRD without the publisher's say-so).




Why is 4-year waiting period dangerious?


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I thought your trip to Nepal was supposed to fix that.
> 
> What, you got all the way there, and the guru was OUT?




He just asked for some new shoes and a bottle of asprin. And he smiled a lot.

Didn't say a damn thing else I understood. 

joe b.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 7, 2005)

Wulf: I tried to PM you, but apparently I can't send PM's anymore for some reason...

Anyway, I hope you don't feel that I think that innovative or excellent written, clean mechanics just write themselves, because that was definately not the point I was trying to make, and I wouldn't want you to misconstrue what I was saying.



Look, as far as a Wiki goes, the only way WRITERS are going to be happy is if they get to control what of thier works is inserted.

See, what is ignored by a lot of people is one critical thing...

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Which is why I was talking about creator intent, and not OGL intent. I think we both agree that the OGL has no intent in any fashion concerning value, only distribution, which is why I think no one can claim "OGC yearns to be free of cost" or conversely "OGC yearns to be with cost."
> 
> However, I can say "If you use my OGC and make it FREE, when I have already made it for cost, you are obviously doing somthing that I as a creator didn't want done." Just because the license allows you the ability to do it doesn't mean the license is pro or against making OGC FREE of cost. The license gives the legal authority to do so against the wishes of the creator because the license is independent of matters of valuation. And every creator signed on with the liscense, so they know it's a possiblity. But it doesn't mean that it's what they want to happen, so don't use a false justification such as "OGC yearns to be free" as an excuse for turning someone's for pay work into something for free.
> 
> ...





Cool.  I'm not using that justification and I have a low opinion of those that are.


----------



## Yair (Dec 7, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Why is 4-year waiting period dangerious?



Most dangerous as in the most possibly harmful to the industry; it is less dangerous than the 6-months period you suggested in the sense that it will likely lead to less loss of income.


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 7, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.




Exactly.

And another thing-- One of the things that bothers me the most about subjects like this is that it brings to the fore something that I've noticed over the past decade in the business:  Gaming is one of the few entertainment media where a disturbingly large percentage of the audience seems to actively _resent_ those who produce the material they enjoy.

I've seen it pop up here and there in other "geek media" (comics, for example), but never with the frequency and vehemence that I've seen among gamers.   It's this twisted sort of love/hate thing....love the material, hate those who make it.  Often manifested as the view that we somehow "play games for a living" and don't deserve to be paid for what we do....or that they "could keep gaming without the industry," which seems to be a view that those who professionally produce the entertainment products they use are somehow superfluous to the process.

It's frustrating.


----------



## Yair (Dec 7, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> And another thing-- One of the things that bothers me the most about subjects like this is that it brings to the fore something that I've noticed over the past decade in the business:  Gaming is one of the few entertainment media where a disturbingly large percentage of the audience seems to actively _resent_ those who produce the material they enjoy.



That is strange.
But then, it's much less strange than "information wants to be free". Speaking as a physicist, information wants to get degraded, if it wants anything at all...



> Often manifested as the view that we somehow "play games for a living" and don't deserve to be paid for what we do....or that they "could keep gaming without the industry,"



Of course we could game without the industry. It will just be poorer gaming.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.




If only everyone agreed on what they "should" do.

If only "should" were ultimately relevant.

Do you define your behavior purely based on what others think you should and should not do?


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 7, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> If only everyone agreed on what they "should" do.
> 
> If only "should" were ultimately relevant.
> 
> Do you define your behavior purely based on what others think you should and should not do?



Yup. Otherwise, there's plenty of people who wouldn't be pulling air past thier teeth.

I could do it, doesn't mean that I should do it.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> The more I think about it, the more I like Nellisir's "Open Source Community" model. It is just so unproblematic, that there isn't any objecting to it.




One notices the "voices of the publishers" have been ignoring it.

Most of the ones posting here won't like it, though.

Reframed slightly, this is about competition to a monopoly.  It's in the monopoly's best interests to suppress any competition, no matter how slight. 

The irony is, it's not really about creating Open Game Content.  The monopoly is on distribution.  I suspect the overall OGC created by the gamer community outweighs published material by several orders of magnitude, but that output has no viable means of broad distribution.  A successful OGC repository, particularly a open-source, independent-design one, would create a broad distribution channel for design competition to the monopoly.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I'd just like to add that what's being talked about has serious potential to damage people's livelihoods. It's easy to be cavalier about such things when it's not your salary or your mortgage payments on the line. Sure, we got into this industry because we love gaming, but it's also the way we make a living. We don't work our asses off for substandard wages so we can see the fruits of our labor given away for free on the internet. Information may want to be free, but my family also wants to eat. So there you go.




I'm glad you could drop by.  If you're willing, could you address the idea of the "open-source" repository I detailed?  Your statement above, as written, doesn't apply to it.

I can repost the outline, if you like.

Thanks,
Nell.
Eagerly awaiting the Advanced Race Codex.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> One notices the "voices of the publishers" have been ignoring it.
> 
> Most of the ones posting here won't like it, though.
> 
> ...



How is the current method a monopoly?

Anyone can register with RPGNow and the EN Game Store.

Anyone can create a d20 gaming supplement, or even an OGL game, for that matter.

The OGC created by the gamer community has the same viable method of distribution that all of used.

RPGNow.
DrivethruRPG.
and now, EN Game Store.

There's books to help beginning publishers, many companys, authors, layout designers, etc, all offer advice and assistance.

There's no monopoly. Current publishers aren't some monolithic organization with a lock on the entire market.

That's a broad, unfair portriat that we are all out to crush the "poor little guy" when we all started like that, and I know for a fact that some of the bigger names have helped out people, many of whom put out only 1 or 2 books before moving on to other things.



What many people dislike about the OGC Wiki is the idea that it doesn't matter what we want, our work will end up there within days or hours of us publishing it, without even the ability to ask for it to be removed.

It's part of the "gentleman's agreement" currently in place. If I was to ask, say, Wulf, to remove the mechanics I came up with for mitigating the damage of thrown AAA batteries against jelly-folk from his Big Book of Semi-Solid Creatures, I believe he would, just as if he asked me to remove the mechanics for determining the effects on a player who stuck his face into frozen plasma for my Big Book of Idiotic Actions, I would. Neither of us would make an issue of the fact that the other choose to ask us to remove thier mechanics.


I could get behind the OGC Wiki, IF I retained the right to say: "Pull that." and the people running the Wiki would comply. It's only fair.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

I'm going to make a quick personal note.

No, actually, I'm not.  While it would feel good, it's ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.

Nell.


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> There's no monopoly. Current publishers aren't some monolithic organization with a lock on the entire market.




But...but....we're eeeeeeeevilllllll!

We're "The Man" trying to "keep a brutha down".....or something.

Come on, man, get with the program!

As Lucy Van Pelt tells us:  "It's run by a Big Eastern Syndicate, you know..."


----------



## ukgpublishing (Dec 8, 2005)

Well this is a nice long thread, and not having enough time to read through the entirety to see if this has been brought up, I figure hell I'll post it anyway   

Now I am not a lawyer, I wish I was, more money. But reading both the Open Gaming License and the GNU Free Documentation License, I seriously believe that an OGL wiki would be illegal under both licenses.

Why?

Well lets read the OGL (or at least the pertinent section)

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. _*No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.*_

However, reading the GNU license we see:

2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the _*license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies*_, and that you _*add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License*_.

So clearly we see that the GNU license is adding terms to the OGL, and the OGL is adding terms to the GNU license. Activities which BOTH licenses prohibit.

Now as I say I am not a lawyer, but on that basis alone I would certainly consult one before i even dipped my toes in the act of creating such a wiki.

Thats all the excitement I can contain for one evening after reading legalise documents.

TTFN


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> RPGNow.
> DrivethruRPG.
> and now, EN Game Store.




The cost to register at RPGNow is around $40, I think?
The EN Game Store is $99 ($20 for Pick n' Mix only?), a price set, in part, *as a barrier* to new publishers.



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> There's no monopoly. Current publishers aren't some monolithic organization with a lock on the entire market.



There's a lock on distribution.
I don't want to get sidetracked, so I'm going to be brief.  I'll be happy to expand if necessary; feel free to send me an email.

A monopoly doesn't care about people -joining- it.  Heck, it loves it.  That's the current situation.  You pay your fee, and get into publishers club.  I don't know DrivethruRPG or the EN Game Store's policy, but I'm pretty certain RPGnow has restrictions on free product (yes, I understand why.  that's not the point).

Someone who only has a feat, or wants to distribute a free product, has no viable wide distribution channel.  A successful repository would give them one.

The crux of the matter is distribution.  I have a huge library of OGL/d20 products (bought and paid for, every one).  I could legally scan every one and put the OGC online, but no one would care *as long as I wasn't or couldn't distribute it*.



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I could get behind the OGC Wiki, IF I retained the right to say: "Pull that." and the people running the Wiki would comply. It's only fair.




Same question to you as to Mr. Pramas.  What about the "Open-Source Community"-inspired concept/repository?  You WOULD retain the right to say "pull that" -- in fact, without your express consent, it would NEVER be posted at all.  All it'd ask is that if you benefit from that repository, the product that benefits is fed back in, after 12-18 months (ok, I don't remember what I initially posted).

Sincerely,
Nell.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

On a note, regarding PDF publishers holding a monopoly...

Please, go to the Publisher's Forum on this very board, and look around. You'll find instructions how to do everything, from shoestring budgets to methods for those who have 2-3K to drop down.

If you want to get into publishing, if you want to get published, it's really not that difficult, and there are many publishers right here, on these forums, who will take a look at a submission that you give them.

Even if it's rejected, they'll tell you why, and often tell you how to improve your work.

Once that is done, you simply go to RPGNow and apply. It's a fairly simple process that even a drunken, flamethrower packing, kettle stirring chimp like me can handle.


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 8, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Someone who only has a feat, or wants to distribute a free product, has no viable wide distribution channel.  A successful repository would give them one.




www.d20projects.com

THis is a messageboard site devoted to people personal development that they wish to freely share with others.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> On a note, regarding PDF publishers holding a monopoly...
> 
> Please, go to the Publisher's Forum on this very board, and look around. You'll find instructions how to do everything, from shoestring budgets to methods for those who have 2-3K to drop down.
> 
> ...




Also, RPGNow has a couple of great books on publishing/e-publishing.

Personally, I'm not on some moronic vendetta against publishers.  I've had my article in Dragon.  I own the RPGNow books.  I majored in creative writing.  Any reasons why I'm not "a publisher" or "a published author" lie solely in the realm of my own responsibility.

And this damned thread, for sucking away so much time this week.  I was going to write the Great American d20 Accessory tonight!!

 
Nell.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> The cost to register at RPGNow is around $40, I think?



Ummm, not exactly.


			
				RPGNow said:
			
		

> The basic package
> 
> You sign up as a vendor - details below.
> You upload your products in PDF or some other electronic form to our secured server, along with descriptions and cover thumbnail graphics. They appear as part of the searchable online catalogue. (We expect all products to adhere to certain basic quality standards to protect the reputation of the site - you'll get guidelines when you sign up.)
> ...



Now, you have to purchase a certian package, that's the $40, and believe me, for new publishers, that package you get is more than worth it. The PDF guide is excellent, as is the d20 Publishers guide.

I own both of them, and I paid more than $40 for them.



> The EN Game Store is $99 ($20 for Pick n' Mix only?), a price set, in part, *as a barrier* to new publishers.



I have a slight contention to that.

The $99 pays for the publishers using the bandwidth, as well as built in advertising, hosting, and many other things.

Feel free to peruse how much your very own e-shop will cost you. Including paypal and credit card acceptance. Find a printer who is willing to do print on demand with you for the cost that RPGNow offers.

Seriously, man, you act like everyone involved is deliberately trying to keep people out, setting stuff up as a barrier.

I'll tell you what, I'll put my money where my mouth is.

Any of you want to get published, and think you've got the skills, email a sample of your work, show me what you've got, and I'll publish it. When your sales get to $40, you can transfer it over to RPGNow, or $99 for ENWShop, and you can start your own business.

Barriers? Not hardly. Sure, $40 can be tough to come up with, hell, I don't have $40 right now, but it isn't intended as a barrier, and I think you'd be surprised by the people who are willing to help out someone just starting.




> There's a lock on distribution.



I got in. Anyone can.


> I don't want to get sidetracked, so I'm going to be brief.  I'll be happy to expand if necessary; feel free to send me an email.



We can take this section to the Publishing forum if you want.



> A monopoly doesn't care about people -joining- it.  Heck, it loves it.  That's the current situation.  You pay your fee, and get into publishers club.  I don't know DrivethruRPG or the EN Game Store's policy, but I'm pretty certain RPGnow has restrictions on free product (yes, I understand why.  that's not the point).



The restriction is: "We won't host it. You can have it here, but the download must come from your own source."
That's it.



> Someone who only has a feat, or wants to distribute a free product, has no viable wide distribution channel.  A successful repository would give them one.



What about ENWorld?



> The crux of the matter is distribution.  I have a huge library of OGL/d20 products (bought and paid for, every one).  I could legally scan every one and put the OGC online, but no one would care *as long as I wasn't or couldn't distribute it*.



I have a collection of CD's, DVD's, and paperbacks. I can scan/rip them, and nobody really cares as long as I don't distribute.


> Same question to you as to Mr. Pramas.  What about the "Open-Source Community"-inspired concept/repository?  You WOULD retain the right to say "pull that" -- in fact, without your express consent, it would NEVER be posted at all.  All it'd ask is that if you benefit from that repository, the product that benefits is fed back in, after 12-18 months (ok, I don't remember what I initially posted).
> 
> Sincerely,
> Nell.



It would depend on the exact wording, and honestly, my various publishers. The publishing section of my tiny little company is only for pet projects that nobody wants to pick up.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Yup. Otherwise, there's plenty of people who wouldn't be pulling air past thier teeth.
> 
> I could do it, doesn't mean that I should do it.





Ok so we've got murder covered.  check.
Are you now suggested that this extrapolates to all other aspects of life?
See, murder is pretty much a gimmie.
Your going to need to splain to me how you deal with situations where one group says you should do one thing and one group says you shouldn't.

Such as, say, one group saying you shouldn't freely distribute OGC and another saying you should.

There are people out there that, if they had this wiki, when told to take it down would look you in the eye and say: "I could do it, doesn't mean I should do it."
How do you get past your own words?
And how do you live up to your own words when the requirements contradict each other?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> But...but....we're eeeeeeeevilllllll!
> 
> We're "The Man" trying to "keep a brutha down".....or something.
> 
> ...




Actually, I sincerly feel for you on this one.

You make something that has a quality that other people desire.
In the minds of many people, it is a sad truth that the need to negotiate with you to fulfill their want instantly qualifies you as "evil" or "the man" or something equally absurd.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Ok so we've got murder covered.  check.
> Are you now suggested that this extrapolates to all other aspects of life?
> See, murder is pretty much a gimmie.
> Your going to need to splain to me how you deal with situations where one group says you should do one thing and one group says you shouldn't.



By going with what the law says, or what group I trust more, or which will damage me in the least.



> Such as, say, one group saying you shouldn't freely distribute OGC and another saying you should.



I look evenly at both sides, and try to decide which one has the best points, which ones are talking from altruism and not greed, which side has the most to lose and which side has the most to gain.


> There are people out there that, if they had this wiki, when told to take it down would look you in the eye and say: "I could do it, doesn't mean I should do it."



True, very true.

It's plain and simple, I find other methods.


> How do you get past your own words?
> And how do you live up to your own words when the requirements contradict each other?



Simply.

I watch both sides, and decide when, and if, I choose to support, remain silent, or be against a topic.

Earlier, I was leaning toward an OGC Wiki.

Now, I'm leaning against.

Here's a good question for you...

Why should *I* support an OGC Wiki?

Brass Tacks? What's in it for me?


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Now, you have to purchase a certian package, that's the $40, and believe me, for new publishers, that package you get is more than worth it. The PDF guide is excellent, as is the d20 Publishers guide.
> I own both of them, and I paid more than $40 for them.




Yep.  I have them too.  Good stuff.



> I got in. Anyone can.



Oh god.  I give up.  You win.  



> I have a collection of CD's, DVD's, and paperbacks. I can scan/rip them, and nobody really cares as long as I don't distribute.



Well, that's illegal.  Distributing OGC is legal.



> It would depend on the exact wording, and honestly, my various publishers. The publishing section of my tiny little company is only for pet projects that nobody wants to pick up.



What wording would you like to see?  PLEASE!

I'm trying to find a middle ground here, and all anyone can say is "you're going to steal my stuff".  And I say, "No, I won't steal your stuff", and everyone says "you're going to steal my stuff".

Nell.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm trying to find a middle ground here, and all anyone can say is "you're going to steal my stuff".  And I say, "No, I won't steal your stuff", and everyone says "you're going to steal my stuff".
> 
> Nell.




I admit that I'm confused as to what your goals are. You may have stated them earlier but I lost them. If you could repeat what you want to do (with some concrete examples) and why you want to do them perhaps there's a way to find a middle ground.

joe b.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> \Oh god.  I give up.  You win.



Don't give up. Something earned without effort has no value. Seriously, man, I got in, and I'm mean, nasty, and drunk more than 1/4 of the time.


> What wording would you like to see?  PLEASE!



I want to see the EXACT terms. I want to be able to have mechanics snatched down if I'm reworking it for a new book.

I'm more than willing for a middle ground.

I believe that an OGC Wiki will happen, no matter what either side wants.



> I'm trying to find a middle ground here, and all anyone can say is "you're going to steal my stuff".  And I say, "No, I won't steal your stuff", and everyone says "you're going to steal my stuff".
> 
> Nell.



Read over my posts again, nieghbor. I keep repeating: "It will happen, we need to agree on it before the matter is just taken from our hands." to sum it all up.

I am completely AGAINST forcing publishers to give away mechanics that oftentimes have taken months of careful work to create.

I'm completely AGAINST taking away IP or copyright.

I'm for sharing and cross pollinization of work. I'm for an easily accessable resource for both gamers and publishers.

I understand BOTH sides of this arguement, BOTH sides have merits and points.

We need to civilly sit down and discuss this before it gets like the RIAA/MP3 full body combat.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

Don't forget, I've been a LONG proponent of the "D20 Free Download Library" to the point where there was a knock down drag down fight about it in a forum that resulted in a lot of people angry at each other.

I'm still an advocate of it.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Here's a good question for you...
> 
> Why should *I* support an OGC Wiki?
> 
> Brass Tacks? What's in it for me?



In my opinion, you should not support it.
I'm not asking you to.
I'm against it.



BUT
The OGL allows it and my opinion, your opinion, anybody's moral platitudes aside, anyone who wants to do it may and anyone who has put the OGL on a product they put out has given tacit approval of them doing so.

You SHOULD be opposed to the wiki but you also SHOULD be in favor of expecting ALL parties to fully respect the OGL completely.  Thus, if someone does a wiki you SHOULD think poorly of it while fully respecting and acknowledging their priviledge to do so.

Those are all SHOULDs.  I don't see any basis for you to feel awfully compelled by my SHOULDs.  I'd hope you choose to.  But that is all.

However, in this case, my shoulds are defined by the rules of the OGL, without emotional or subjective distortion.  The rules will trump the distortions in the end.

But it is all academic because the "something for nothing crowd" will keep waiting for someone else to hand the free product over.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I admit that I'm confused as to what your goals are. You may have stated them earlier but I lost them. If you could repeat what you want to do (with some concrete examples) and why you want to do them perhaps there's a way to find a middle ground.




Goal: To create a public repository of Open Game Content that improves, enriches, and increases the pool of OGC content to the benefit and increase of RPG gamers and the RPG industry.

Belief: That the free interchange of ideas, criticism, and experience, facilitated by convenience and minimal financial cost (you have to own a computer and access to the internet), is the best method available for developing a robust, balanced, flexible, and enjoyable RPG game/mechanics, and multiple variants thereof.

Examples: Grim n' Gritty Rules, WotC's Spell Compendium (contents  evolved & balanced in part through internet feedback & discourse).

*NOT * beliefs: That writers shouldn't get paid, that I'm not entitled to free merchandise just because it's OGC.  Anyone who thinks I'm stealing stuff can reimburse me the $1,550.05 I've spent at RPGNow (and that's not the only online game store I shop at).

I'm sorry if that's rough; I hope it suffices.  I have to run now.

Sincerely,
Nell.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 8, 2005)

It wasn't asked for, but here's my copy of Nellisir's latest post:

Goal: I'd like to see an OGC repository as complete as possible with as much content as allowed by law (and within the ability of those involved creating the site) organized in a manner that allows me to lookup certain rules when I need them.

What I don't want to see: Crippled content. Some sort of 'preview' OGC that only has meaning if you have to buy it somewhere else. There's a preview page at all the PDF sites out there, and I can preview most books at the store, so I don't need another preview page. 

A 3000 page document I have to download and sift through to find anything.

3000 1 page documents that I have to download and sift through to find anything.

Beliefs: It is the right of anyone to have this content. If I have to pay for it, so be it. But I'm not going to pay for previews or crippled content.

 I believe the original publisher should be respected, but should not have absolute control of what they want to post and what they want to keep hidden. I'm afraid that if you can choose what to post, you'll only post less innovative content and hide juicy bits.

Publishers should come to some sort of license with the site to allow them to post the name of the product and even link to a purchase page on ENGS/RPGnow/DTRPG. That way publishers benefit if someone likes 1 feat from a book, they may go out and buy it. It won't happen 100%, but I bet it happens more than 0%.

NON-beliefs: Everyone should get to download all the free content they want. I want a resource that helps me find stuff, I'm not in this like a pokemon card collector. I don't need to catch em all, but I do want them all there in case I do want them. 

We should destroy publisher business by posting the content immediately, therefore reducing possible sales. I will still buy stuff, and so will others. I just want a single place I can go to find stuff instead of searching my hard drive to remember what publisher or book a certain feat happens to be in. I don't think 4 years is appropriate, but 6 months seems fair to me.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> In my opinion, you should not support it.
> I'm not asking you to.
> I'm against it.
> 
> ...



Thank you for cutting through all the , and just laying it out.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

Oh, and for any of you who want to get into the publishing business, but feel that you are being kept out by a barrier, please refer to this...



> *General - EN World GameStore - "Good Faith" Signup for Startup Publishers!*
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...




Straight from Morrus.

See, you can get in, the same way I did, and the same way many of us did. If you choose to go for it, all the luck in the world, nieghbor.

BTW-This isn't getting in a pissing contest with Nellsir, but rather, just providing a public service reminder for those of you who might not have known.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I want to see the EXACT terms.



I can't do that.  I'm one guy.  I know squat about computers.  I take medicine for Attention Deficit Disorder.  The EXACT terms would have to be hammered out between the people who make it happen.
And, I'm tired.  Tomorrow night I have a game.  Friday I'm out of town.  Maybe Saturday or Sunday I'll whip up exact provisional terms.



> I want to be able to have mechanics snatched down if I'm reworking it for a new book.



That's one thing I can't figure out how to make work.  Lets say you give the OGC Repository permission to post your _Walk Like An Egyptian_ feat.  A month later, Yair comes along and likes it, but thinks the dodge bonus is too high, and posts the _Walk Like An Etruscan_ feat.  Three months after that, Phil, who loves us all, thinks _Walk Like An Etruscan_ would work great in his "_A Hundred And One Funky Walks_" collection, that he's posting in the repository because he's gone insane.

Then you decide to pull _Walk Like An Egyptian_.  With _Walk Like An Egyptian_ unauthorized, _Walk Like An Etruscan_ and "_A Hundred And One Funky Walks_ have to be pulled, and anything that was built off of those.  It becomes a mess.  Anyone's work becomes liable to be removed at any time because of somebody's whim.  It just doesn't work.  It's not fair to the people who built on your work in good faith.  

Permission would have to work just like declaring OGC - once it's declared, it's irrevocable.  It's the only way anyone utilizing the repository can work with confidence.



> I am completely AGAINST forcing publishers to give away mechanics that oftentimes have taken months of careful work to create.



Agreed, for purposes of this repository.



> I'm completely AGAINST taking away IP or copyright.



Absolutely, 100%, utterly agree.  EVERYTHING I have, am, or ever will propose is fully legal, in accordance with the OGL, and retains an owners copyrights and control insofar as they retain them under the OGL.



> We need to civilly sit down and discuss this before it gets like the RIAA/MP3 full body combat.



I'm trying.

I'm wiped; my head hurts; it'll be colder tomorrow; and I'll be working outside.
G'night all.
Nell.


----------



## Conaill (Dec 8, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> That's one thing I can't figure out how to make work.  Lets say you give the OGC Repository permission to post your _Walk Like An Egyptian_ feat.  A month later, Yair comes along and likes it, but thinks the dodge bonus is too high, and posts the _Walk Like An Etruscan_ feat.  Three months after that, Phil, who loves us all, thinks _Walk Like An Etruscan_ would work great in his "_A Hundred And One Funky Walks_" collection, that he's posting in the repository because he's gone insane.
> 
> Then you decide to pull _Walk Like An Egyptian_.  With _Walk Like An Egyptian_ unauthorized, _Walk Like An Etruscan_ and "_A Hundred And One Funky Walks_ have to be pulled, and anything that was built off of those.



No, not really.

_Walk Like An Egyptian_ would still be OGC, so _Walk Like An Etruscan_ and _A Hundred And One Funky Walks_ would still be 100% legal. Ralts just withdrew his permission to post _Walk Like An Egyptian_ in the repository, but he has no right to tell other authors what to do with the work derived from that.

Anyone who volunteers his work to be posted in the repository should do so in full knowledge that others may reuse this work in their own OGC - over which the original author will have no control whatsoever (other than expecting to be listed in section 15 etc.) 

For that matter, once the OGC has been posted in the repository, anyone could copy it from the repository and post it elsewhere, share it among friends, even distribute it through P2P networks - all legally. So withdrawing the original OGC from the repository doesn't necessarily mean it will no longer be available online *somewhere*.


----------



## Yair (Dec 8, 2005)

ukgpublishing said:
			
		

> Now I am not a lawyer, I wish I was, more money. But reading both the Open Gaming License and the GNU Free Documentation License, I seriously believe that an OGL wiki would be illegal under both licenses.
> 
> Why?
> ...
> ...



No one is proposing to post OGC under the GNU FDL. The intention is to use only the OGL. Any references to the Open Source Community or such are for analogy only.


----------



## Yair (Dec 8, 2005)

*Nellisir's Open Source Model Proposal: Concrete Guidelines; REVISED*

As it seems Nellisir is busy, let me try to explain (what I understood as) his proposal.

The idea is to mimic the Open Source code model.
We set up a Free Content Repository (FCR). The contributions are limited to 
The SRD.
Material released for free by its creators, that is derived *only* from FCR content.
Content whose creator endorsed releasing into the FCR, which is derived only from FCR content.
_Possibly_ other definitive works where these are already available for free online, such the Unearthed Arcana content. This article we are not sure about (both me and Nellisir).
Any content that Uses FCR content, i.e. that lists the FCR in its Section 15, but not extending to parts thereof derived from non-FCR content, and only after an 18 months grace period.
The FCR is viral. If you choose to Use content from the FCR, you are consenting to your derived content being extracted into the FCR. If you don't like it, don't use the FCR content.
It has a strict no-backsies policy - once released into the FCR, the material is FREE.

Comments?


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> As it seems Nellisir is busy, let me try to explain (what I understood as) his proposal.
> 
> The idea is to mimic the Open Source code model.
> We set up a Free Content Repository (FCR). The contributions are limited to
> ...



Then I'm against it.

Since all it basically says is: "Anything you come up with, we'll post here whenever we feel like it, and there's nothing you can do."

I vote no.


----------



## Yair (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Since all it basically says is: "Anything you come up with, we'll post here whenever we feel like it, and there's nothing you can do."



HOW did you get from what I posted to THAT?
The closest thing it say is "Anything that you come up with THAT IS BASED ON WHAT'S HERE, we'll post here whether you like it or not". 
It specifically says "Anything that you come up with THAT IS NOT BASED ON FREE CONTENT, we will NOT post here".
The only part where it says that "we'll post here whenever we feel like it, and there's nothing you can do [about it]" is when it alludes to using the OGL.


----------



## Roudi (Dec 8, 2005)

Something I'd like to point out.



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> We set up a Free Content Repository (FCR). The contributions are limited to
> 1. The SRD...
> 5. Any content that Uses FCR content, but not extending to parts thereof derived from non-FCR content.



Since the SRD is part of your FCR to begin with, then according to statement 5, anything  derived from the SRD is fair game.  Considering that all open content derives from the SRD (you will not find an OGL section 15 that does not cite one or both SRDs), then no open content falls under the category of "non-FCR content."

So I understand Ralts when he says this:


			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> all it basically says is: "Anything you come up with, we'll post here whenever we feel like it, and there's nothing you can do."



According to your five terms, it *is* basically what you said.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I'd just like to add that what's being talked about has serious potential to damage people's livelihoods. It's easy to be cavalier about such things when it's not your salary or your mortgage payments on the line.




What I find frustrating are the number of people that feel as if I owe them the OGC and if I object to my work being given away to the world then I'm obviously anti-OGL and just taking advantage of everyone. It's as if they feel that I should feel lucky to get to spend my days working on gaming material.

It becomes even more frustrating when these same people tell me that I'm just in the game industry for the money. If there's that much money to be made around here I must be an idiot because I haven't stumbled across it yet.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> _Possibly_ other definitive works where these are already available for free online, such the Unearthed Arcana content.




But then you run into the situation where someone posts a chunk of OGC online and BAM there it is, already available free online.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> Something I'd like to point out.
> Since the SRD is part of your FCR to begin with, then according to statement 5, anything  derived from the SRD is fair game.  Considering that all open content derives from the SRD (you will not find an OGL section 15 that does not cite one or both SRDs), then no open content falls under the category of "non-FCR content."
> 
> So I understand Ralts when he says this:
> ...




#5 would only apply if your S.15 includes the phrase *Free Content Repository: [material], copyright 2006, [copyright holder]*

The parts of the SRD that are contributed into the FCR become FCR-content, just like the parts of the SRD that are in the Hypertext SRD have become "Hypertext SRD-content".  The original SRD still stands.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> But then you run into the situation where someone posts a chunk of OGC online and BAM there it is, already available free online.




The FCR would take content that was {released on the internet by the copyright owner for free and with the intent that said content be distributed}.

My intent is that this would exclude campaign websites and house rules documents, as well as what you mention above.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

The biggest risk of an OGC Wiki is that copyrighted, not-open material will find its way onto the site. What happens when this non-OGC material is used by someone else? How long would it take before, like a virus, illegal material spreads throughout products and the industry?

Multiple attempts at stripping the OGC from Unearthed Arcana has, if only one thing, shown me that many people do not grasp even the basics of the OGL.

I do not have any confidence that an OGC Wiki would remain legal for long. And if publishers do not have confidence in the site then we're again back to:

This site will have a negative impact on publishers which will lead to a negative impact on the OGC community.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Then I'm against it.
> Since all it basically says is: "Anything you come up with, we'll post here whenever we feel like it, and there's nothing you can do."
> I vote no.




Yair left out my window of time.

Here's how it works.  You do everything exactly as you do now.  Nothing changes.  You and the FCR exist, side by side, never touching, forever, amen.

OR, one day, you use something from the FCR.  By virtue of the OGL, you have to include in your S.15 a phrase something like *Free Content Repository: [material], copyright 2006, [copyright holder]*.

The FCR doesn't mandate that, the OGL does.

I recommended a 12-18 month grace period PER INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT counting from the release .  AFTER that period has expired, a product that has derived from the FCR, and is so tagged in the S.15, automatically becomes "authorized" to be entered into the FCR.

"product" in all cases refers to OGC.

It's only fair.  If you benefit from the FCR, you should add something in.  If you disagree with that, then you're saying that you should get something for nothing.  

Furthermore, it's not an additional restriction on the OGL -- you are free to sell content from the FCR.  It's all normal OGC.  And we're not requiring that you grant special rights.  The OGL already grants anyone the right to extract OGC at any time.

Does that clarify things?


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> The biggest risk of an OGC Wiki is that copyrighted, not-open material will find its way onto the site. What happens when this non-OGC material is used by someone else? How long would it take before, like a virus, illegal material spreads throughout products and the industry?




Isn't this true of any OGC?  There are multiple websites out there with flawed OGLs and PI material; any of that could, "like a virus" spread illegal material throughout the industry.  There are PUBLISHERS out there like that.

The answer, insofar as the FCR is concerned, would be strict control and policing of the material.  That's all anyone can do.

Your comment boils down to "I don't trust you", or, "I trust you to screw things up", and that just sucks.  I can't argue with that.  You'll assume anything I say is a lie.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> What I find frustrating are the number of people that feel as if I owe them the OGC and if I object to my work being given away to the world then I'm obviously anti-OGL and just taking advantage of everyone. It's as if they feel that I should feel lucky to get to spend my days working on gaming material.



First and foremost, I do not believe that as a game designer or publisher you owe anyone OGC.  The requirements of OGC is established by the OGL.  It is up to the game designer or publisher to make the decision to open up any additional material as OGC.  If you do decide to make material OGC, then you need to be aware of the consequences.

It seems like part of the problem is the amount of OGC or new OGC that is required in publications.  The OGL does not indicate any minimum OGC must be included in a document.  Based upon several comments, it seemed like approximately 20% of the material needed to be OGC.  Is this a requirement of d20 license?  Also, isn't part of the problem with the percentage of OGC is that it does not define how much of the OGC needs to be "new"?

I think it would be a disservice to the gaming community if game designers or publishers start limiting the new OGC in their product because they did not want people to be able to freely distribute the material, weather or not a Wiki is ever developed.  I think some game developers or publishers have been a little niave or misinformed on what can happen when you make content OGC, but complaining about it after the fact does not help.

Zelgar


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Multiple attempts at stripping the OGC from Unearthed Arcana has, if only one thing, shown me that many people do not grasp even the basics of the OGL.




Have you seen the Unearthed Arcana from www.d20srd.org? Does that violate the OGL? Just curious, as I'm by no means fluent in OGL-speak.

Pinotage


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 8, 2005)

I would think in the fact that it includes Monster Manual II in its section 15, it is violation.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> I think it would be a disservice to the gaming community if game designers or publishers start limiting the new OGC in their product because they did not want people to be able to freely distribute the material, weather or not a Wiki is ever developed.




If someone threatened to seriously damage your paycheck what would you do?


----------



## Citizen Mane (Dec 8, 2005)

Man-Thing said:
			
		

> I would think in the fact that it includes Monster Manual II in its section 15, it is violation.



It depends what content from MMII is in there.  IIRC, Wizards included 2 monsters from Sword & Sorcery's Creature Collection, as a way to showcase the OGL.


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 8, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> as a way to showcase the OGL.




That's right, I forgot all about that.

But, looking it the site, it really brings home the point for me. If I had known all of UA was there I wouldn't have bought it.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> I think it would be a disservice to the gaming community if game designers or publishers start limiting the new OGC in their product because they did not want people to be able to freely distribute the material, weather or not a Wiki is ever developed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would evaluate what I was doing and try to limit the damage.  Unfortunately, for game designers and publishers, if they begin to limit new OGC, they may become criticized by their consumers and lose revenue due to lost sales.  This can become a vicious spiral where less and less OGC is produced and the industry losing sales as a result.

I would not be surprised if the amount of new OGC becomes to decrease because of discussions like an OGC Wiki.  If the decrease is gradual versus abrupt, the effect on the industry is likely to be minimized.

Zelgar


----------



## ukgpublishing (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> If someone threatened to seriously damage your paycheck what would you do?




Probably terminate them with extreme prejudice and hide the bodies in the nearest lime pits


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> I would evaluate what I was doing and try to limit the damage.  Unfortunately, for game designers and publishers, if they begin to limit new OGC, they may become criticized by their consumers and lose revenue due to lost sales.  This can become a vicious spiral where less and less OGC is produced and the industry losing sales as a result.




And here is the sequence of events.

Fans threated in create an OGC Wiki. Publishers state that due to financial reasons this will lead to a radically decreased amount of new OGC. Fans threaten to not buy from publishers that decrease their OGC output.

Publishers, no matter what, are not respected and are treated as evil, hostile corporations out for millions of dollars when they are really small operations that depend on monthly sales for survival.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> And here is the sequence of events.
> 
> Fans threated in create an OGC Wiki. Publishers state that due to financial reasons this will lead to a radically decreased amount of new OGC. Fans threaten to not buy from publishers that decrease their OGC output.
> 
> Publishers, no matter what, are not respected and are treated as evil, hostile corporations out for millions of dollars when they are really small operations that depend on monthly sales for survival.




I respect many a publisher. I respect them based on their actions and their words, and the quality of their work. I respect you because you are a good businessman who's 'made it' in the biz. I respect ralts because I love his work. I respect Chuck Rice because he has given me some of the best products ever made.

I don't respect publishers who want to limit how others use their open content, regardless of if that content is free, paid for, reused, collected in mass, whatever. I respect your right to disagree with some of it, but not when it comes to threatening OGC cuts, calling the correct use of OGL 'immoral', or any of the other derogatory things that has come out of this.

Considering all the bad vibes coming of this, I would not be suprised to see an OGC wiki created TO spite publishers because of the attitudes presented here. It's rude, but I can see it happening.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Considering all the bad vibes coming of this, I would not be suprised to see an OGC wiki created TO spite publishers because of the attitudes presented here. It's rude, but I can see it happening.




Do you not see this as a threat to publishers?

Look at it this way. An OGC Wiki will punish every publisher that has a clear, generous OGC declaration while leaving those with confusing and restrictive OGC declarations relatively safe from harm. Is this your goal?

EDIT: Let me add that the publishers that have taken time to interact in this thread have been those with clear, generous OGC declarations. What does this mean to you?


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 8, 2005)

It will also might lead those with generous and clear OGC declaration, to  make a more confusing and crippled OGC declaration leading to even less collaboration in the system and not more.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

An example from life. 

Green Ronin's Hammer & Helm states: "All text in this product is designated as Open Gaming Content." The product was released in 2002. Does this mean that you (again, not targeted at any individual) feel this material should be on an OGC Wiki? My understanding is that many supporters of the OGC Wiki -- people, I must add, that would in no way be negatively affected by such a Wiki -- feel that the material must be on an OGC Wiki.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Considering all the bad vibes coming of this, I would not be suprised to see an OGC wiki created TO spite publishers because of the attitudes presented here. It's rude, but I can see it happening.




Everything put up for FREE from an OGC source that wasn't FREE (of cost) to begin with is telling the creator how much their opinion is valued: none.

Given that, it's hard to see why any free OGC compilation source isn't spiteful to begin with. Even if 100% legal.

joe b.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

I think that the OGL has always been a threat to designers and publishers.  The problem is that a lot of them never realized the threat until too late.  And if the response to the creation of a OGC Wiki is the elimination or greatly reduced production of new OGC, then I would not be surprised if there is a negative reaction from the gaming community.  

Please note, this is not intended as a threat agaist the game designers or publishers, but I think that they need to consider all aspects of their decisions.

Zelgar


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> I think that the OGL has always been a threat to designers and publishers.  The problem is that a lot of them never realized the threat until too late.  And if the response to the creation of a OGC Wiki is the elimination or greatly reduced production of new OGC, then I would not be surprised if there is a negative reaction from the gaming community.
> 
> Please note, this is not intended as a threat agaist the game designers or publishers, but I think that they need to consider all aspects of their decisions.
> 
> Zelgar




It's not a threat, I think it's truth. If an OGC FREE source becomes available publishers will produce less OGC and then some gamers will have negative feelings towards the publishers because of it.

Great. All that acrimony and worry because someone wants FREE OGC?

This is why, as Wulf stated, it's probably unwise.

Hell, everything I've ever released has been 100% open, but now I'm deciding if I should form new opinions on the matter. I don't like it and am not pleased with it.

joe b.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Everything put up for FREE from an OGC source that wasn't FREE (of cost) to begin with is telling the creator how much their opinion is valued: none.
> 
> Given that, it's hard to see why any free OGC compilation source isn't spiteful to begin with. Even if 100% legal.
> 
> joe b.



Let's look at this in another way.  Book X costs $40 when first printed.  A year later, a PDF version is released online for $20.  Has the value of the material in the book changed?  Ok, now the OGC material is taken from the book and is put in another book or put on a Wiki.  Has the value of the material in the book changed?  What if the entire book was clearly stated as OGC?  Just a few things to think about.

Zelgar


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Let's look at this in another way.  Book X costs $40 when first printed.  A year later, a PDF version is released online for $20.  Has the value of the material in the book changed?  Ok, now the OGC material is taken from the book and is put in another book or put on a Wiki.  Has the value of the material in the book changed?  What if the entire book was clearly stated as OGC?  Just a few things to think about.




As long as a reasonable, fair market price is charged for the OGC then it retains its value. The instant it is free, or available at a substantially decreased price, its value has been reduced to nothing.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

So the PHB, DMG and MM are worthless?

Zelgar


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Let's look at this in another way.  Book X costs $40 when first printed.  A year later, a PDF version is released online for $20.  Has the value of the material in the book changed?  Ok, now the OGC material is taken from the book and is put in another book or put on a Wiki.  Has the value of the material in the book changed?  What if the entire book was clearly stated as OGC?  Just a few things to think about.
> 
> Zelgar




Wait this is a distribution chain issue.

If a Box is $40 in a store, the retailer paid $20 to the distributer, who paid the publisher $10.
If it comes out in pdf for $20, the host store keeps $10, and the publisher gets $10.

The value of the material has not changed. It's just cheaper to a consumer for not going through the distribution chain.

Correct?


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> It's not a threat, I think it's truth. If an OGC FREE source becomes available publishers will produce less OGC and then some gamers will have negative feelings towards the publishers because of it.
> 
> Great. All that acrimony and worry because someone wants FREE OGC?
> 
> ...



I wonder, how many game designers and publishers had seriously considered what happened when they decided to make content OGC?  Did you consider someone taking all of you work and making money without you getting anything in return?  Isn't it better that people could be exposed to your work without your competition making a profit off of it?

Zelgar


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> So the PHB, DMG and MM are worthless?




Tell me why _you_ think the SRD exists.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Let's look at this in another way.  Book X costs $40 when first printed.  A year later, a PDF version is released online for $20.  Has the value of the material in the book changed?  Ok, now the OGC material is taken from the book and is put in another book or put on a Wiki.  Has the value of the material in the book changed?  What if the entire book was clearly stated as OGC?  Just a few things to think about.
> 
> Zelgar




I'm talking about how much someone values the creator's opinion. The creator didn't want it to be FREE.

The only OGC I've created that I wanted to be FREE I've already made FREE. If anyone else decides to legally use the license and make some of my for cost OGC FREE, that's their decision, but it tells me how much they value my opinion. It also tends to let me know how much I should, conversely, value theirs.

This is why Wulf's unwise is such a good word. There's no *need* for the acrimony—there is only the desire to get and give away something for free because it can legally be done that seems to be driving the whole thing.

joe b.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> So the PHB, DMG and MM are worthless?
> 
> Zelgar




I don't own them, I spent that money on other RPG books.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Isn't it better that people could be exposed to your work without your competition making a profit off of it?




No, it isn't. I do not want people to think that my work has no value and should be free _unless_ I specifically release free material of my own creation.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> I wonder, how many game designers and publishers had seriously considered what happened when they decided to make content OGC?




My guess would be Every One of them.



> Did you consider someone taking all of you work and making money without you getting anything in return?




Yes. I trusted others to treat my work with respect and not force me to think about being less generous and trusting of others.



> Isn't it better that people could be exposed to your work without your competition making a profit off of it?
> 
> Zelgar




Nope. I'd rather have another publisher "rip me off" than have my OGC up for FREE. At least the other publisher is protecting the worth of the material, even if he's siphoning off my cash flow. The FREE product is siphoning off cash AND not protecting the worth of the material.

Of course, I'd rather have neither.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

Man-thing said:
			
		

> Wait this is a distribution chain issue.
> 
> If a Box is $40 in a store, the retailer paid $20 to the distributer, who paid the publisher $10.
> If it comes out in pdf for $20, the host store keeps $10, and the publisher gets $10.
> ...




Roughly correct. I try to make my PDFs have the same profit per unit as my printed books. This means I'm usually charging around 50-70% less for the PDF.

joe b.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I'm talking about how much someone values the creator's opinion. The creator didn't want it to be FREE.
> 
> The only OGC I've created that I wanted to be FREE I've already made FREE. If anyone else decides to legally use the license and make some of my for cost OGC FREE, that's their decision, but it tells me how much they value my opinion. It also tends to let me know how much I should, conversely, value theirs.
> 
> ...



If the creator didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC.  It is the creators decision, unless the material was based upon previous OGC material, to make material OGC or PI.

Also, just because somebody post OGC for free does not mean that they do not value the work.  If a game designer or publisher had made some OGC feats that would work with my campaign, I am not devaluing your work if I include them on my campaign website as a list of feats the PC's can take.  It would be legal for me to do so, provided I follow all of the requirements of the OGL.

In fact, if I wanted to expand your OGC and post it on a forum like here on ENWORLD, I would be perfectly within my rights as well.  Gamers are not trying to crucify the game designers and publishers for OGC nor is that the purpose of a OGC Wiki.

Zelgar


----------



## Crothian (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Gamers are not trying to crucify the game designers and publishers for OGC nor is that the purpose of a OGC Wiki.




But in reality it does.  It doesn't matter that intentions might be good, the final product wi8ll have the same effect.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> In fact, if I wanted to expand your OGC and post it on a forum like here on ENWORLD, I would be perfectly within my rights as well.  Gamers are not trying to crucify the game designers and publishers for OGC nor is that the purpose of a OGC Wiki.




Do you feel that the creator of the work deserves to be rewarded for his effort?


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> If a game designer or publisher had made some OGC feats that would work with my campaign, I am not devaluing your work if I include them on my campaign website as a list of feats the PC's can take.




If you respected the work, and wanted to be certain that publisher/author continued to release new products, you would first encourage your players to buy the source product.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> If the creator didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC.




Whoa! I didn't want it to be FREE that's why I charge money for it.

If *Someone else* wants my OGC to be FREE that's their decision. Don't ever, ever confuse what someone else does with what the creator wanted. The creator has already told everyone what they wanted by making their OGC for cost and not FREE.

OGC !=FREE (of cost). The license is only concerned with distribution and makes no statements concerning valuation.



> Also, just because somebody post OGC for free does not mean that they do not value the work. If a game designer or publisher had made some OGC feats that would work with my campaign, I am not devaluing your work if I include them on my campaign website as a list of feats the PC's can take.  It would be legal for me to do so, provided I follow all of the requirements of the OGL.




Of course it would be legal. It would be legally devaluing. The effect would be minimal because you're not trying to distribute the FREE OGC on a large scale. Anytime something that is currently for sale is given away for free, devaluation occurs. The amount of that devaluation varies, obviously.



> In fact, if I wanted to expand your OGC and post it on a forum like here on ENWORLD, I would be perfectly within my rights as well.  Gamers are not trying to crucify the game designers and publishers for OGC nor is that the purpose of a OGC Wiki.
> 
> Zelgar




Gamers may not be trying, but I see the hammer and nails in the background of any attempt to massively distribute FREE OGC. Even if gamers don't. And I'm not the only publisher seeing them.

That should tell the gamers something, eh?

joe b.


----------



## Kerrick (Dec 8, 2005)

> We can speak of past threads. There is not a publisher that I'm aware of that has said a public repository of OGC would be a good thing for publishers or publishing.
> 
> Of course, should a publisher say he's behind a public OGC repository, I suspect someone would immediately release that publisher's OGC onto a public repository and that perhaps is holding back any publishers leaning on the other side of the fence. But if there were someone fully behind such a repository, I don't see why they wouldn't say so. (Aside from not having seen this thread.)




Well then, let me be the first. I'm not technically a publisher, I'm a designer, but I still support the idea of an OGC Wiki. Maybe if I made my (entire) livelihood from it, I might have a different stance, but who knows? I think the only real way to tell would be an experiment - put out a small pdf, leave it up for sale for a month or three (or even immediately), then release the material in a semi-wiki for free and see what happens.



> Has anyone thought of only using material that has been out for 6 months or more? Let the publishers get some sales of items for a half of year before it would be added to the Wiki




It was suggested that only material that was 4 years old be used (among other things), but 4 years puts it well before 3.5's advent. A year sounds reasonable - I would have said the same. I also like Nell's suggestion that anything that uses material from the FRC (or at least states the FRC as a source) becomes "eligible" for entry into the FRC itself after a certain period of time. (But see below).



> OR, one day, you use something from the FCR. By virtue of the OGL, you have to include in your S.15 a phrase something like *Free Content Repository: [material], copyright 2006, [copyright holder]*.




I can see a slight problem in this - say someone takes the Walk Like an Egyptian feat from the FRC,  but he states the original source in the S15 as _101 Funky Walking Feats_ (or whatever that book was called), which was where the feat originally appeared.  Sneaky? Yes. Unethical? Most likely. Legal? Yes. Possible? Most definitely. I'd like to think that writers/publishers are more honest than this, but I"m not that stupid or naive. It's already happened, and it will happen again, until such time as someone gets sued for it.



> > I think some people would think that it would be unethical/illegal to publish OGC that was created by someone else if they did not own the original source (or the source where they found the material), but that is not a requirement of the OGL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, which is why I agree that contribution should be voluntary on the author's part. This eliminates the problem of publishers who don't want their material up for distribution, for whatever reason, losing money and/or becoming embittered about the whole thing. If they want to put up old products for distribution (free or otherwise - see below), that's great. If they want to keep it and charge people for it, that's fine too.



> It's notthe freely distributed bit, it's the free of cost bit that most people don't like. If you had a Wiki that was charging for access, there'd be a lot less concern because you are showing that the material you're distributing has worth and more importantly *you're protecting the worth of other people's OGC.*




I would have thought they'd go the other way for some reason, but yeah, I think this is the way to go. After all, a wiki/server would have operating costs and such. So let's ask: how many of you publishers out there _would_ contribute to a pay-for-access OGC wiki?



> I believe the original publisher should be respected, but should not have absolute control of what they want to post and what they want to keep hidden. I'm afraid that if you can choose what to post, you'll only post less innovative content and hide juicy bits.




You can't have your cake and eat it too. I've stated this before (perhaps a little obtusely), and I'll state it again - if you wrote it, you have some right to dictate how (or if) it is distributed, at least for the first tier (from your hands to someone else's). If I wrote a bunch of material and chose to keep it for the use of myself, my group, and a few select friends, that's my right. It doesn't matter if it's OGC or not. If I choose to put that same material up on my website for free, or sell it (for a reasonable price or not), that's also my right. If I choose to withhold it from an OGC wiki, _that's my right._ Now, if I distribute it (either free or for pay) to someone else, I _lose_ the right to dictate where it goes from there. 

And that's the crux of the matter - publishers are worried that their material will make it up to the site without their approval (or possibly even knowledge) from someone who bought one of their books/pdfs. Hence my position that it should be voluntary. If they only want to submit their less-than-stellar work, so be it - we can't force them to do otherwise. They are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to make their work FREE. They have to make it OPEN so that others can use it, modify it, etc. as stated in the OGL, but FREE? Uh-uh.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Well then, let me be the first. I'm not technically a publisher, I'm a designer, but I still support the idea of an OGC Wiki. Maybe if I made my (entire) livelihood from it, I might have a different stance, but who knows? I think the only real way to tell would be an experiment - put out a small pdf, leave it up for sale for a month or three (or even immediately), then release the material in a semi-wiki for free and see what happens.




Your initial result would be minimal.

However, after training people to go to the Wiki for gaming material, the result would be rather large.

It's a mindspace issue. Once people get used to getting something for free and going someplace to get free stuff they'll go there first. *Especially* since it would be legal (if done properly).



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> You can't have your cake and eat it too. I've stated this before (perhaps a little obtusely), and I'll state it again - if you wrote it, you have some right to dictate how (or if) it is distributed, at least for the first tier (from your hands to someone else's). If I wrote a bunch of material and chose to keep it for the use of myself, my group, and a few select friends, that's my right. It doesn't matter if it's OGC or not. If I choose to put that same material up on my website for free, or sell it (for a reasonable price or not), that's also my right. If I choose to withhold it from an OGC wiki, _that's my right._ Now, if I distribute it (either free or for pay) to someone else, I _lose_ the right to dictate where it goes from there.




None of us are talking rights. We know the OGL.

We're talking cause and effect, politeness, consideration, deference, desire and outcome.

Different than rights.

Just because something is legal that doesn't mean it's free of consequences. There are negative repercusions of a OGCwiki to the publishers which will lead to a negative in the production of OGC materail which will have a negative effect on gamer to publisher relations, which will have negative effect on publisher to gamer relations.

Damn lot of negatives there just to get and give away other peoples OGC for FREE, legally.

joe b.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Dec 8, 2005)

First off, I'm not a huge fan of the Free-all-OGC movement, or else I'd done a bazillion card products by now... if another publisher wants to cooperate, that's cool - but I'm not "stealing" their OGC (although it'd be legal) if all I'm adding is fancy layout.

What might work is a OGC Wiki where the publishers - or anyone who has written his own OGC -  themselves would submit material to the database...




			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Hell, everything I've ever released has been 100% open, but now I'm deciding if I should form new opinions on the matter. I don't like it and am not pleased with it.




I've been waiting for a free version of your MMS:WE for quite some time now, seeing that it's  "100% OGC". Gladly it was never made... though I wonder why. Respect for your work, perhaps?

Or is it because people think it'd be unethical to reprint the whole product? If so, I don't see a difference to the OGC Wiki. Yet some people are considering to do exactly that: reprint the whole MMS:WE.

Strange.




			
				Zelgar said:
			
		

> If the creator didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC. It is the creators decision, unless the material was based upon previous OGC material, to make material OGC or PI.




Let's turn your statement around: If the player didn't want the OGC declarations to be more stingy, they shouldn't have made so much of it available for free at the OGC Wiki.

You're opening a can of worms if you're punishing publishers for being generous with their OGC - "Hey, it was _your_ decision to make all your book OGC, now live with it!"
Chances are, that same publisher will cripple his OGC declaration from now on.


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> If the creator didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC.




....and there you have it, folks.    The wall at which point further debate is useless.  The pro-Wiki folks actually believe this, and, like any matter of Faith, there is no point in debating it.

They've ignored the fact that this will most damage the publishers who are generous with OGC declarations....the very sort of publisher they prefer to those with more complicated and restrictive declarations.      Those of us with 100% open products will have to change our policies, and release product that only opens the minimum of material as required by the license....it's a no brainer:  Publishers who do that are not hurt by the Wiki, and the sales lost to the very few customers to whom such declarations matter are MUCH less than the sales lost to the entirety of your product being made available for free.

What kills me is that they don't see what they're doing.   They'll create the very sort of declarations they despise.   

Of course, I doubt the Wiki will happen, either way---the "give me everything for free" crowd isn't known for their nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic....and make no mistake, organizing this thing, confirming OGL compliance, etc., will be a TON of work.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 8, 2005)

Sorry for jumping onto different points, but I'm trying to understand both sides of the argument better.

What benefit is it to the casual gamer that a publisher declares more OGC? Does it make any difference to Joe Gamer whether it's 25% OGC or 100% OGC? Isn't this just a publisher thing, granting usage rights? What usage rights are important to the casual gamer? Aren't gamers around a table going to share material irrespective of the OGC content? And, if so, why not just cut down on the OGC in any case, but allow privately full use to other publishers interested in building on it?

Pinotage


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

It seems like a lot of people are upset with my quote "If you didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC."  I would like to know how the decision was made to make X% of the resourse OGC?  It seems to me, it would be easy for a publisher to state 100% of my material is OGC just so they didn't have to partition their book from OGC and PI material.  Some may wish others to be able to use portions of their work in their creations, but are adamant if anyone suggest to allowing it to accessible online for free.

Nobody here wants the role playing industry to go under, more restrictive licensing or a reduction in available material.  I believe the only portion of the industry is extremely threated by the Wiki would be online publishers that use or publish content with a high percentage of OGC.  I think the publishers who print material may have some impact, but a lot of people want to have a hard copy and are willing to pay for the privledge.

Zelgar


----------



## Crothian (Dec 8, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> What benefit is it to the casual gamer that a publisher declares more OGC? Does it make any difference to Joe Gamer whether it's 25% OGC or 100% OGC? Isn't this just a publisher thing, granting usage rights? What usage rights are important to the casual gamer? Aren't gamers around a table going to share material irrespective of the OGC content? And, if so, why not just cut down on the OGC in any case, but allow privately full use to other publishers interested in building on it?




THe one advantage, and its one for the most part publishers don't do anyway, is that the rules I like in book A can be used and further developed in Book B.  When this all started 5 years ago I was relaly looking forward to that happening.  And for the most part I'm still waiting for that happen.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> It seems like a lot of people are upset with my quote "If you didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC."  I would like to know how the decision was made to make X% of the resourse OGC?  It seems to me, it would be easy for a publisher to state 100% of my material is OGC just so they didn't have to partition their book from OGC and PI material.  Some may wish others to be able to use portions of their work in their creations, but are adamant if anyone suggest to allowing it to accessible online for free.
> 
> Zelgar



Because they WANT other publishers to be able to use the work within the OGL.
They COULD declare only what must be OGC as OGC and the rest as IP, and then make it clear they will share the IP as well.  But that is a pain and a counter-incentive for others to share the product.  And OGC isn't shared nearly as much as its potential would allow as is.

I think it is a really easy question to answer.

They are allowing options A & B because they don't have a choice to offer one and not the other.  That doesn't begin to mean they are at all eager to have option B selected.  They simply risk it so as to offer option A.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 8, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> They are allowing options A & B because they don't have a choice to offer one and not the other.  That doesn't begin to mean they are at all eager to have option B selected.  They simply risk it so as to offer option A.




You mean a publisher can't declare 25% OGC and then open content 100% to publishers only?

Pinotage


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> You mean a publisher can't declare 25% OGC and then open content 100% to publishers only?
> 
> Pinotage



From my understanding of OGC, PI (Product Identity) and Trademarks from the OGL, they can.  You would need to have permission of the other party to use the non OGC material.

Zelgar


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 8, 2005)

And then you need to identify the other publishers product identity as product identity as well. So if you borrow from two or three publishers who do this you end up with a crippled or confused OGC statement.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Because they WANT other publishers to be able to use the work within the OGL.
> They COULD declare only what must be OGC as OGC and the rest as IP, and then make it clear they will share the IP as well.  But that is a pain and a counter-incentive for others to share the product.  And OGC isn't shared nearly as much as its potential would allow as is.
> 
> I think it is a really easy question to answer.
> ...



 Isn't it true, that it's easier to claim 100% OGC and including all of your sources in Section 15 than separating out the Product Identity (PI)?

Please don't get me wrong, but this entire OGC debate seems like someone donated some sports equipment and then gets mad if the equipment is later given away for free.

Zelgar


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Please don't get me wrong, but this entire OGC debate seems like someone donated some sports equipment and then gets mad if the equipment is later given away for free.




I think it more of someone has a store selling newspapers, you buy a copy and then stand out side the store to read each person the stories they want so they don't need to buy a copy.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Please don't get me wrong, but this entire OGC debate seems like someone donated some sports equipment and then gets mad if the equipment is later given away for free.




No, because in this case the giving away for free actually creates compition for the person trying to sale it.  Once things get declared as OGC doesn't mean they can't be sold nor does it mean it should be free.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> No, because in this case the giving away for free actually creates compition for the person trying to sale it.  Once things get declared as OGC doesn't mean they can't be sold nor does it mean it should be free.



Nor does it mean that OGC cannot be distributed for free.  The creator/publisher has lost all rights to control once he established the material as OGC *and* the OGL is followed.

I also think it is interesting that there are publishers who reprint OGC material.  If this was not profitable, why would they do it?  (Note:  if there was a OGC wiki, the profitability of reprinting OGC may decrease, but a lot of people prefer to have hard copies vs electronic)

Zelgar


----------



## Crothian (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Nor does it mean that OGC cannot be distributed for free.  The creator/publisher has lost all rights to control once he established the material as OGC *and* the OGL is followed.
> 
> I also think it is interesting that there are publishers who reprint OGC material.  If this was not profitable, why would they do it?  (Note:  if there was a OGC wiki, the profitability of reprinting OGC may decrease, but a lot of people prefer to have hard copies vs electronic)




I'm not sure you understand who this is going to hurt.  Wizards will be uneffected by this.  But thelittle publishers that are trying to break into gaming and show what they can do; this will hurt them.  It seems like you don't care about that though.  All you care about is that this is technically legal.  I'm just waiting for a good reason on why the Wiki should be put together.  Becasue it is legal, is not a good reason.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> You mean a publisher can't declare 25% OGC and then open content 100% to publishers only?




Yes, they can. Something people seem to overlook is that OGC is still copyrighted material. I own what I write and if I elect to make only a small % of the material OGC there is nothing preventing me from allowing others -- of my choice -- to use the remaining material as I wish.

And as we've all seen happen many times, I can state that some material is closed even if others disagree with me. It is my choice what I open.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm not sure you understand who this is going to hurt.




I think it has more to do with he doesn't care who it is going to hurt because anyone that doesn't *understand* who this will hurt shouldn't even be involved in this thread.

Far too many people think that the internet gives them permission to talk about things they really don't know anything about. By participating in this thread, in my opinion, he implies that he understands the OGL and the effects an OGC Wiki could have on the publishers and the community.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I think it has more to do with he doesn't care who it is going to hurt because anyone that doesn't *understand* who this will hurt shouldn't even be involved in this thread.




Well, that's why I bring it up,  If he doesn't care I think he needs to say it.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Isn't it true, that it's easier to claim 100% OGC and including all of your sources in Section 15 than separating out the Product Identity (PI)?




It's just as easy for me to write:

"Only game mechanics directly based on material from the SRD is presented as open game content. All text, including names and descriptions, are closed content and may not be used without permission of the publisher."


----------



## Crothian (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Far too many people think that the internet gives them permission to talk about things they really don't know anything about. By participating in this thread, in my opinion, he implies that he understands the OGL and the effects an OGC Wiki could have on the publishers and the community.




I don't think that at all. I think this type of thread and other like it attract people that have no idea what they are talking about and yet they post anyway.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, that's why I bring it up,  If he doesn't care I think he needs to say it.




I agree. For once I'd like to see someone stand up and admit that they don't care about the publishers and authors working in the game industry.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't think that at all. I think this type of thread and other like it attract people that have no idea what they are talking about and yet they post anyway.




Which makes me think it might be time I exercise the ignore feature and put an end to my even seeing this particular individuals posts. I've never used the ignore feature before but in this instance I feel completely justified in considering the option.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yes, they can. Something people seem to overlook is that OGC is still copyrighted material. I own what I write and if I elect to make only a small % of the material OGC there is nothing preventing me from allowing others -- of my choice -- to use the remaining material as I wish.
> 
> And as we've all seen happen many times, I can state that some material is closed even if others disagree with me. It is my choice what I open.




I see. Thanks. People have been suggesting 4 years and older material - do those products, meaning older 3e products still sell well?

Pinotage


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I see. Thanks. People have been suggesting 4 years and older material - do those products, meaning older 3e products still sell well?




Here's where we enter into an area that comes up a lot when people talk about illegal PDFs of older products being okay. Just because something is 1 year, 2 year, or 10 years old doesn't mean that it has no value. There's absolutely no reason for me to think that Green Ronin (going back to my Hammer & Helm example from earlier that appears to have been ignored) can't update the material to 3.5 and rerelease it. Would that material sell as well if the original was already free online?


----------



## schporto (Dec 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't think that at all. I think this type of thread and other like it attract people that have no idea what they are talking about and yet they post anyway.



It also attracts people who would like to learn.  Which I have.  When I first read this I thought COOL, I can get all my stuff for free.  Of course that's what the publishers intended, I mean that's the whole point behind the OGL isn't it.
Now, after following this thread, I see that one heck of a murky area.  I do like seeing the discussion continue.  Peronally my feelings are:
An open game content wiki is legal.
An open game content wiki will have an effect on the game publishing industry.  Not sure the size of that effect, or what that effect would be.
I bought the PHB, MM, DMG knowing they were (mostly) open and available on the web.
I continue to receive a newspaper despite the content in it being available for free online.
I have bought recompilations of stuff that I already had access to.  (Pocket Grimoires)
And this thread has made me think about these concepts more then most things.  Please continue.

Have there been many modules/adventures that use makes extensive use of OGC?  To me I thought the biggest idea behind the OGL was to allow publishers to create generic adventures.
-cpd


----------



## R_kajdi (Dec 8, 2005)

Honestly, does this thing come back to the whole social contract thing? It seems to me a lot of developers are not really aware of what they are doing when they make things OGC or not.

    Basically, if you use the OGL, you've taken from the common pot. At the very least, this is the relevent SRD(s), and can also include other OGC out there. This is not free however. While it doesn't cost dollars, it does cost a "tax" in a minimum amount of OGC that you have to have in the product. Basically, to take from the common pot, you have to leave something back there for other people to use. And just like before with the SRD and OGC that you used, you bascially have no control over this stuff. To complain that someone else has decided to take the stuff you put in the community pot and is using it in a way you don't like is very selfish. Basically everything you put into the community pot is a loss to you. You've given it away as the "price" to use what's currently in there. To take and not expect to have to actually put back is violating the social contract that allowed you to take in the first place. 

    To use an example from another industry, let's look at computer software. The GNU license is in many ways similar to the OGC, though they are not exact congantes. However, the differences in these cases are minimal. The initial Linux implementation is GNU. Think of this as your SRD. If, say, RedHat wants to go out and make a product based on Linux (like they have done in the past) they are free to do so at no dollar cost, but have to realease the code to their program, and have to do so under the same terms as they got their initial code. Sounds fair, right? Okay, now I can turn around, and can give that code away for free. RedHat has exactly zero say in telling me to stop, since they used the same terms to get what they needed to start initially. Am I a bad person, or somehow amoral for doing this? No, this is a common practice in the Open Source software community. 

    Now, let's go back to our initial argument. Developers are crying foul because while they have taken from the community of ideas, they now want to limit how thier payment gets used, because it may cost them something. This is fundamentally flawed, since effectively the argument is that waht was good for the goose is not good for the gander. You were allowed to use what you got in any way you wanted, and were forced to pay back some stuff to the same community of ideas. Now this payment is actully being paid, and you don't like the price. At this point, it honestly has to be "Too bad". If you didn't like the price that had to be paid, you shouldn't have used the license. To think in any other way is incredibly irresponsible.

Raymond K. Crum


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

schporto said:
			
		

> It also attracts people who would like to learn.  Which I have.




This is something I hadn't considered. Thanks for posting this viewpoint.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

R_kajdi said:
			
		

> If you didn't like the price that had to be paid, you shouldn't have used the license.




No, you're wrong. What it looks like is that every single publisher that was generous with their OGC should have used restrictive declarations. After all, if *you* (and this time I mean _you_ in the specific sense) don't care enough about the publishers and the community to understand that OGC is valuable -- and should be treated responsibly -- then there is no reason the publishers should attempt to help build the OGC community.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

R_kajdi said:
			
		

> Honestly, does this thing come back to the whole social contract thing? It seems to me a lot of developers are not really aware of what they are doing when they make things OGC or not.




They are. Given the rest of your post, I don't think you are, however.



> Basically, if you use the OGL, you've taken from the common pot. At the very least, this is the relevent SRD(s), and can also include other OGC out there. This is not free however. While it doesn't cost dollars, it does cost a "tax" in a minimum amount of OGC that you have to have in the product.




There is no "minimum" amount of required OGC in an OGL product. There is no "tax."



> Basically, to take from the common pot, you have to leave something back there for other people to use.




This isn't true.



> And just like before with the SRD and OGC that you used, you bascially have no control over this stuff. To complain that someone else has decided to take the stuff you put in the community pot and is using it in a way you don't like is very selfish. Basically everything you put into the community pot is a loss to you. You've given it away as the "price" to use what's currently in there. To take and not expect to have to actually put back is violating the social contract that allowed you to take in the first place.




Since there is no minimum required the above doesn't follow.



> To use an example from another industry, let's look at computer software. The GNU license is in many ways similar to the OGC, though they are not exact congantes. However, the differences in these cases are minimal. The initial Linux implementation is GNU. Think of this as your SRD. If, say, RedHat wants to go out and make a product based on Linux (like they have done in the past) they are free to do so at no dollar cost, but have to realease the code to their program, and have to do so under the same terms as they got their initial code. Sounds fair, right? Okay, now I can turn around, and can give that code away for free. RedHat has exactly zero say in telling me to stop, since they used the same terms to get what they needed to start initially. Am I a bad person, or somehow amoral for doing this? No, this is a common practice in the Open Source software community.




Yes. This is not the Open Source software community, however. What you describe is *not common practice* in this community. In fact, unlike Open Source software in which the end user benefits from the above practice, the end user will not benefit as less OGC material will be produced.

The people making OGC, unlike the people making Open Source software, are doing so because they're being fiscally rewarded.



> Now, let's go back to our initial argument. Developers are crying foul because while they have taken from the community of ideas, they now want to limit how thier payment gets used, because it may cost them something. This is fundamentally flawed, since effectively the argument is that waht was good for the goose is not good for the gander.




No one has ever been "forced" to add OGC material. I could close every single thing I've ever done and use Phil's  "Only game mechanics directly based on material from the SRD is presented as open game content. All text, including names and descriptions, are closed content and may not be used without permission of the publisher," as my statement.

If every publisher starts doing this, the only new OGC will be coming from non-publishers.



> You were allowed to use what you got in any way you wanted, and were forced to pay back some stuff to the same community of ideas. Now this payment is actully being paid, and you don't like the price. At this point, it honestly has to be "Too bad".
> 
> If you didn't like the price that had to be paid, you shouldn't have used the license. To think in any other way is incredibly irresponsible.




Much of your post and train of thought is based upon a misunderstanding of the license.



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> No, you're wrong. What it looks like is that every single publisher that was generous with their OGC should have used restrictive declarations. After all, if you (and this time I mean you in the specific sense) don't care enough about the publishers and the community to understand that OGC is valuable -- and should be treated responsibly -- then there is no reason the publishers should attempt to help build the OGC community.




Indeed!  It appears that all the publishers who don't want a FREE to the public source of OGC have been incredibly irresponsible by *creating the damn OGC to begin with* that other people now think is supposed to be free of cost because "the license means it can be free of cost."

Oh well. I have been irresponsible in assuming others could be responsible. I guess I should go be responsible by closing as much as possible in my upcoming works and let all the publishers know, "Hey just contact me and I'll let you use whatever you want. I would have made it all open but some people don't respect the fact that I want to get paid for my work."

I imagine this would be the result. A "Cabal" of publishers who allow other publishers to reuse material while prohibiting anything but the very minimum from being OGC.

Is getting stuff for free (of cost) really worth creating such a *"community"*?

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 8, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> Isn't it true, that it's easier to claim 100% OGC and including all of your sources in Section 15 than separating out the Product Identity (PI)?




Probably, but if you think the further effort is not worthwhile then you are mistaken.  I don't believe for one second that a single for profit publisher chooses 100% OGL as a short cut.



> Please don't get me wrong, but this entire OGC debate seems like someone donated some sports equipment and then gets mad if the equipment is later given away for free.
> 
> Zelgar




That's fine.

If you are using the word "donate" then you truly do not understand the topic.
There is no law against that.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Oh well. I have been irresponsible in assuming others could be responsible.




I'm just as guilty as you are. Perhaps it's finally time I joined the ranks of the responsible publishers with restrictive OGC declarations. That appears to be what a large number of people are asking publishers to do.


----------



## jmucchiello (Dec 8, 2005)

R_kajdi said:
			
		

> Honestly, does this thing come back to the whole social contract thing? It seems to me a lot of developers are not really aware of what they are doing when they make things OGC or not.
> 
> Basically, if you use the OGL, you've taken from the common pot. At the very least, this is the relevent SRD(s), and can also include other OGC out there. This is not free however. While it doesn't cost dollars, it does cost a "tax" in a minimum amount of OGC that you have to have in the product. Basically, to take from the common pot, you have to leave something back there for other people to use. And just like before with the SRD and OGC that you used, you bascially have no control over this stuff. To complain that someone else has decided to take the stuff you put in the community pot and is using it in a way you don't like is very selfish. Basically everything you put into the community pot is a loss to you. You've given it away as the "price" to use what's currently in there. To take and not expect to have to actually put back is violating the social contract that allowed you to take in the first place.



Did you even read what we've been posting? We know you CAN make it available for free. We aren't saying you CAN'T do it. We are ASKING you not to.

We are telling you that making it free will cause a reduction in future OGC. If you want the amount of OGC to continue to flow, abide by our REQUEST that OGC not be made freely available in a single repository. If you don't give a flying f***, then do what you want and accept the consequences.

Also, there is no mimimum amount of OGC required by the OGL. You have confused the OGL and d20 licenses.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 8, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> You mean a publisher can't declare 25% OGC and then open content 100% to publishers only?
> 
> Pinotage



Nope, they can not.  
They can make it clear that they will share their IP with others who ask.
Monte frequently does this I believe.

But content is either open or not.  

A lot of content must be OGC by the rules.  The question comes in when you do stuff that doesn't have to be.  Some protect every drop and others offer it up.  Others still are in between.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I'm just as guilty as you are. Perhaps it's finally time I joined the ranks of the responsible publishers with restrictive OGC declarations. That appears to be what a large number of people are asking publishers to do.




Phil, Joe, Wulf, Ralts, et al:

Aside from game mechanics that are SRD derivative content (feats, classes, etc) that are regularly open, what else have you released as OGC that other publishers have actually used? I don't have all the products ever created, so I can't answer it, but because publishers generally ask each other about using content...what have you created that other publishers have actually used outside of the basic mechanics of the game?


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> You have confused the OGL and d20 licenses.




Which is such a simple mistake that whenever I see someone make it I just instantly conclude they have no clue what they're talking about.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yes, they can. Something people seem to overlook is that OGC is still copyrighted material. I own what I write and if I elect to make only a small % of the material OGC there is nothing preventing me from allowing others -- of my choice -- to use the remaining material as I wish.




Well, yeah, but that isn't "open", that is just sharing your IP.  That exsits in the absence of the OGL.



> And as we've all seen happen many times, I can state that some material is closed even if others disagree with me. It is my choice what I open.



It is your choice what you state.  But certain things (SRD-derived) must be open even if you state otherwise.


----------



## philreed (Dec 8, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Aside from game mechanics that are SRD derivative content (feats, classes, etc) that are regularly open, what else have you released as OGC that other publishers have actually used?




First, feats and classes *do not* have to be OGC. Mechanics within feats and classes do, but I can close the names and descriptions if I wish. Nothing beyond text that is directly based on the SRD must be open. That means that in a single sentence, sometimes, only a few terms must be open.

As for what has been used, several items and spells I've created have been used, mecha gadgets, the possessors, and several hazards.


----------



## KaosDevice (Dec 8, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Of course, I doubt the Wiki will happen, either way---the "give me everything for free" crowd isn't known for their nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic....and make no mistake, organizing this thing confirming OGL compliance, etc., will be a TON of work.




I think you have it right there. This all seems to be, largely, argument over something that will never happen anyway. The amount of effort required to mount an operation like an onclusive OGCWiki would be pretty huge, plus hosting costs, etc. Almost a job in and of itself, which is something of an irony for a project that seems solely intended to allow users access to content without paying money.


----------



## Pinotage (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Here's where we enter into an area that comes up a lot when people talk about illegal PDFs of older products being okay. Just because something is 1 year, 2 year, or 10 years old doesn't mean that it has no value. There's absolutely no reason for me to think that Green Ronin (going back to my Hammer & Helm example from earlier that appears to have been ignored) can't update the material to 3.5 and rerelease it. Would that material sell as well if the original was already free online?




Good point, thanks! This is an interesting thread.

Pinotage


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Phil, Joe, Wulf, Ralts, et al:
> 
> Aside from game mechanics that are SRD derivative content (feats, classes, etc) that are regularly open, what else have you released as OGC that other publishers have actually used? I don't have all the products ever created, so I can't answer it, but because publishers generally ask each other about using content...what have you created that other publishers have actually used outside of the basic mechanics of the game?




Wulf's used some of my stuff from MMS:WE in his economics section of Grim Tales, none of which could be considered SRD derivative content. Another publisher used stuff from MMS:WE (or at least I think so, they denied it) in one of their products. Not a lot of publishers have used my stuff. However I have used a significant amount of other's OGC in the creation of the Monster Geographica series as well as Beast Builder.

A lot of the content of our products though is more educational than re-usable since we tend to publish material a little different from the norm (world-building stuff).

joe b.


----------



## R_kajdi (Dec 8, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Did you even read what we've been posting? We know you CAN make it available for free. We aren't saying you CAN'T do it. We are ASKING you not to.
> 
> We are telling you that making it free will cause a reduction in future OGC. If you want the amount of OGC to continue to flow, abide by our REQUEST that OGC not be made freely available in a single repository. If you don't give a flying f***, then do what you want and accept the consequences.
> 
> Also, there is no mimimum amount of OGC required by the OGL. You have confused the OGL and d20 licenses.




    #1. There is a minimum amount. That amount is everything derivative of other OGC you used, which may be a bit more than some of you seem to be letting on. Don't assume I made a mistake when I didn't. You are correct there is minimum by % for d20, but that's a seperate issue. I didn't mention d20 (At least I don't think I did) so I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.

    #2. I'm really confused here. You easily have the ability to secure most of the stuff you want to, but choose not to. Why? If you didn't want someone to use something, you shouldn't have left it open. It's like taking stuff to a swap meet to give away, and then getting angry that people take it. You could have easily chosen to not put your stuff up there to be reused, so there's a big assumption that stuff you put there is stuff you meant to. 

    #3. I really don't understand the logic of asking people not to something within the bounds of a license. I know from the software business, if a company asked someone not to do something that they a) wanted to do, and b) had a license to do, you'd just get laughed out of the room, or told that a renegotiation of the contract was needed. Since this problem is pretty obvious to someone looking at the situation from the outside, I don't see why it wasn't apparent from the inside.

    I'm not actually interested in either using or building such a wiki, (I use WotC stuff for the vast majority of what I game with) but this conversation interested me because of how loosely people expected the rules of the situation to be applied. You took from the common pot, and are now asking others not to do the same. That just seems a bit irresponsible (esp. considering the small amount of extra effort required to hold off the issue in the first place) and hypocritical (You are asking other people to not mine the resources you opened up the way you did to the ones that were available to you) This is more of a thought agrument to me. 

    Raymond K. Crum


----------



## Yair (Dec 8, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> First, feats and classes *do not* have to be OGC. Mechanics within feats and classes do, but I can close the names and descriptions if I wish. Nothing beyond text that is directly based on the SRD must be open. That means that in a single sentence, sometimes, only a few terms must be open.



That's veering off into a discussion of what is and isn't Derivative Material. The mere act of act of describing what a feat means to a player character ("you are lean and skinny...") is, IMO, a derivative work under copyright law, and hence Derivative Material under the OGL. Especially given case law such as awarding full copyrights over a song for it containing a bit of the prosecuter's other song. But IANAL, and ain't prefectly sure of this.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 8, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> That's veering off into a discussion of what is and isn't Derivative Material. The mere act of act of describing what a feat means to a player character ("you are lean and skinny...") is, IMO, a derivative work under copyright law, and hence Derivative Material under the OGL. Especially given case law such as awarding full copyrights over a song for it containing a bit of the prosecuter's other song. But IANAL, and ain't prefectly sure of this.



So, if I put out...

*Walk Like An Egyption*
_Jared struggled through fine, soft sand, the sun beating down on his blistered skin and the dry air raggedly wheezing over chapped and cracked lips. He became aware of the traveller as the man passed him, easily gliding across the clutching sand that pulled Jared knee deep into it's abrasive clutches._
You are able to move across soft sand easily.
*Bonus:* You retain normal movement speeds over soft sand, disregarding movement penalties.
*Special:* This feat does not work on quicksand.

You believe you can the whole thing, including flavour text, because that's the way the SRD shows it?

I'd be willing to nod at:
*Walk Like An Egyption*
*Bonus:* You retain normal movement speeds over soft sand, disregarding movement penalties.
*Special:* This feat does not work on quicksand.

as being OGC whether I want it to or not.

But if you're talking about grabbing characters, locations, names, etc, because they are included, I sincerly and strenously disagree.

The way you are talking, I should be able to freely copy Star Wars and hand it out to whomever wants it because the Homeric Epics are Public Source.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 9, 2005)

I've said my bit; I'm out of this discussion for good.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 9, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Phil, Joe, Wulf, Ralts, et al:
> 
> Aside from game mechanics that are SRD derivative content (feats, classes, etc) that are regularly open, what else have you released as OGC that other publishers have actually used? I don't have all the products ever created, so I can't answer it, but because publishers generally ask each other about using content...what have you created that other publishers have actually used outside of the basic mechanics of the game?



I don't know if any of mine has been used.

Bad Axe Games was nice enough to allow me to use some of thier rules.
RPGObjects was nice enough to allow me usage of some of thier rules.
Monte Cook was nice enough to allow me to reprint some of his work.

Actually, there's a lot more than that.



What I don't like is the idea of: "You wrote using the OGL, so we'll just take it because we want too, and too bad if it took you months of development." that seems to be rapidly propagating.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Dec 9, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> jgbrowning said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really? That's not what I'm reading.

And no, it hasn't been a theme all along.

Want to know how a lot of us got into publishing?

By another publisher saying: "Wow, this stuff is good, have you ever thought of publishing?"

What *I believe* jg was saying is:

If publishers works are going to be placed up thier free, the majority of publishers will pack it in, or drop out, as they won't be able to recoup costs on a simple PDF, and many print publishers will close up as they will realize that the mechanics of any book they create will hit the Wiki within a week.

There won't be any publishers who won't supply totally closed content.


> Why not?  It's not like "non-publishers" create any worthwhile OGC -- it's free, right?  So it has no value.



Nice turn around.

You seem to be of the opinion that if it's from publishers, it's evil, because all publishers are just a good ol' boys club who back each other up and try to keep everyone else from publishing or enjoying stuff.

Some people seem to be saying we created our stuff from a free source, so it has no value and we should give it away anyway.

A lot of people act like because you use the SRD to create something, you should give everything away, and that it should be free for use by everyone.

THAT'S what's upsetting people.



> I'm out of this thread as of now.  I made an honest attempt at negotiating a middle ground, and get pissed on in return.  Everyone agrees an OGC repository is legal.  Most people agree one is inevitable.  And your response is to antagonize, insult, and intimidate anyone willing to seek a fair middle ground, so that the only people left to create one are people who don't give a damn what you think.  That's the opposite of a brilliant plan.
> 
> Thank god you guys weren't in charge at WotC when the OGL was proposed.



Really? You're the one who has misrepresented how easy it is to become a self-publisher, making it sound as if all kinds of barriers have been erected to keep people out, when in fact both distributors and existing publishers bend over backwards to help people. A lot of your threads and other people's seem to center around villanizing publishers who don't want all of thier hard work and effort to be put up for free three days after they put it out.

I can understand thier viewpoint, and people constantly painting publishers as ogres sitting on top of treasure saying: "MINE!" while smashing other people with a club unless they can climb onto the stack, is blatantly smearing them with an undue image.

I believe that should an OGC Wiki that contains everything connected to the SRD come out, that posts stuff regardless of release date, author's wishes, and other restrictions, will eventually result in many publishers packing it in.

Contrary to popular belief, it is EXPENSIVE to put out a good looking PDF. Artists costs usually aren't paid for till about half way through the products shelf-life. Add in advertising, man hours, layout, editing, etc, and your average high quality PDF costs around $300-$2000 to put out, depending on artwork.


----------



## isidorus (Dec 9, 2005)

I cannot believe I read this whole thred.

I do not belive in the OGC wiki, after reading this whole thread. On the other I do not usually buy anything with crippled OGL license. I recently bought Iron Heroes, but will probably sell it because of the way the OGL is worded. Anyway I am a huge fan of the Linux model, but do not think it will work here, although it has been a interesting read so far.

A couple points.

1.) I buy quite a few games, many more non-d20 then d20 these days, But d20 I usually buy I read the license carefully. See iron herose mistake. The only reason is if I want to post it to may group on a website for their use only I do not want to post non-OGC material, In respect I post nothing from other games. After reading  this discussion I went and took down my website  and it will stay dead for my group. 

2.) *I want to thank all especially the publishers for allowing my learn so much more about about the OGL. I respect your guys work and dedication.* 

3.) Funny thing is now we are going towards a holy war like the RIAA debacle. I do not why I see lawsuits, more crippled OGC and many other nasty things on the horizion, but I do.

Hope something works out but I do not see it at all! All I see is two groups paring off at each other


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 9, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by jgbrowning said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't understand this comment.



			
				Nellisir said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by jgbrowning said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm puzzled by this comment. If all publishers attempt to limit their new OGC to the minimum, then where would the the majority of new OGC come from if not from non-publishers?

This is not degrading or condeming anything put out by anyone. This isn't egotistical or insulting. This just a statement of what would happen.



			
				Nellisir said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by jgbrowning said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh, you think I'm insulting non-publishers work? I'm not: any opinion of quality valuation is what you've read into this thread as I have have not stated any opinion concerning the value of non-publisher OGC.

I find it, ironic however that you'd get insulted because you think I think poorly of non-publisher OGC when the creation of an OGC wiki would most certainly contain a majority of publisher OGC.

Why? Because most of the OGC has been put out by publishers and not non-publishers.

If you believe non-publisher OGC to be appropriate for the OGC wiki, just go out and find the OGC that people have put out on their websites for free and start compiling it. They won't mind a bit since they've decided what they did is fiscally worth nothing to the creator (FREE of cost) and they'll get a kick out of being included.



> I'm out of this thread as of now. I made an honest attempt at negotiating a middle ground, and get pissed on in return.




I have not "pissed" on anyone unless pointing out how publishers would probably react is viewed as pissing on someone.



> everyone with half a brain agrees an OGC repository is legal. Most people agree one is inevitable. And your response is to antagonize, insult, and intimidate anyone willing to seek a fair middle ground, so that the only people left to create one are people who don't give a damn what you think. That's the opposite of a brilliant plan.




I don't think I have antagonized, insulted or intimidated anyone. I have said what the probable outcome of a certain action will be and how that action is probably counter to supporting an OGC community because it will cut out the largest section of the contributing community (publishers). More OGC has been made by publishers for sale than has been made by non-publisher and not for sale. If an action is taken that cuts out publishers in the community (which a massive FREE OGC wiki would do) that action removes the part of the community that has been the most productive in creating material the community uses. This doesn't mean non-publisher OGC is crap. It just means that there will be a whole lot less OGC and of that a greater % will be non-publisher OGC.

It looks like you don't like that outcome so have decided that I'm a mean person. Seriously, WTF? I've been a nice guy througout this conversation, it's just what I'm saying means that what people would like to happen

"A FREE source of public OGC" 

can't happen without hurting the very publishers who will have created the majority of the OGC, created the material around which the OGC community has been built, and in the long run will hurt the very people who want the OGC to be FREE by limiting the future production of OGC to those with the least amount of experience in creating OGC.

This isn't pissing on anyone. This is the reality of what will probably happen when someone decides to follow the letter of the OGL and release OGC for FREE (of cost). These negatives won't go away. No matter how much legal right someone has to do something.



> Thank god you guys weren't in charge at WotC when the OGL was proposed.




Ever wonder why WoTC in general only releases *NON-OGC* products? One of the reasons is because of people who believe that anything OGC means that it should be free of cost.

Talk about insulting. Your comment is very insulting. I guess my taking a fiscal risk (unlike the people asking for stuff for free) to produce and allow others to use *the entire breadth of my production (1500+pages)* means that I wouldn't have ever supported the OGL at its inception? I've backed up my support of the OGL with money, time, and effort. I think I deserve a little more respect than this.

I'd like an apology.

joe b.


----------



## Twin Rose (Dec 9, 2005)

Any content located in a "Repository" or "wiki" would be completely unusable in anything resembling a print product.  Why?

You can't just cite the section 15 and say, 'Content from the FCR'
...

You'd have to cite EVERY section 15 of EVERY product entered in.  Assume, if you will, that 500 products had content entered.  Then assume that each of those products had at least 2 bits in section 15.  (SRD and the product itself).  You cite the SRD once for the whole s15 of the FCR, then 1 for the FCR, then 1 for EACH of the 500 products.  No ifs.  No ands.  No buts.  A 2 page book would, in fact, turn into a 12 page book - 10 pages of section 15 alone!

Now, RPGNow has something like 6000 products.  How many free products are out there on publishers websites and fan sites?  How much material will be entered by fans, with possibly mistaken s15, but s15 all the same?  How many print products?  Suddenly that 2 page book is FIFTY pages long.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 9, 2005)

Sorry for my delay in responding, but I left at 3:30 and a normal 1 hr drive turned into 2+ because of snow.  Then the driveway...

First, and foremost, I am NOT trying to destroy publishers or game designers.  That has never been my intent, nor my goal in debating about the OGC and OGL.

I have tried to indicate where a OGC Wiki would be benefitial to everyone.  It would expose people to sources of material that they may not know exist.  This could result in more sales of product but I will agree that it may also reduce it.

Zelgar


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 9, 2005)

If anyone is online right now, I would be interested in chatting....


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 9, 2005)

Zelgar said:
			
		

> I have tried to indicate where a OGC Wiki would be benefitial to everyone.  It would expose people to sources of material that they may not know exist.  This could result in more sales of product but I will agree that it may also reduce it.
> 
> Zelgar





I think you're correct. I think there are benefits to the idea and you show one of them. Some people may find new stuff and go buy it and, in fact, instead of hurting anyone their actions are beneficial overall. They have stuff they know they want to own, publishers have a happy customer, and more OGC is created to continue the cycle. That's great!

But I think that this would occur less than someone finding something they want and use and then not buy the product, instead spending their money on things they *can't* get for free (of cost).

I'm not a knee jerker on this subject, I just really cant think of how, in the long run this is really beneficial to anyone. I'm still willing to talk about it and think about it.

joe b.


----------



## Raloc (Dec 9, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> And another thing-- One of the things that bothers me the most about subjects like this is that it brings to the fore something that I've noticed over the past decade in the business:  Gaming is one of the few entertainment media where a disturbingly large percentage of the audience seems to actively _resent_ those who produce the material they enjoy.
> 
> ...



If your previous post is indicative of how you normally treat customers, then it's no wonder they resent you (the post having been rather elitist and insulting).  I'm not trying to start a "flame war" or insult you here, I'm just pointing out how your post came across to me (and others, from what I saw of a couple of other posts saying the same).  Now, I understand the issues here in regards to an OGC Wiki, and I understand where authors are coming from.  I've published work (not game related) in the past, so I know first hand what that's like.

That said, if you are *always* so condescending and elitist when you speak to customers, I'm incredibly surprised you have customers at all.

[post in question below]


			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Phil, for what it's worth, you know that I completely agree with and share your position.
> 
> The reason I don't participate in these threads is because it's just the same arguments about how the material should be free, and how if we didn't want it to be free, we shouldn't have used the OGL, etc. etc., from the same people, pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.
> 
> There is no way to convince them, so I don't bother.   My blood pressure thanks me.


----------



## schporto (Dec 9, 2005)

I'm curious.  Would the publishers in this thread be ok if someone made a module/adventure using OGC?  What would the reaction be if I posted that on the internet for free?  I don't mean the entire content, nor something you've specifically allowed me.  I'd mean grabbing random equipment, or feats and using them inside the adventure.
Would this be acceptable?  
My understanding is that it would be legal, but I'm not sure if it would be something that the publishers would find 'acceptable'.
Thanks.
-cpd


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 9, 2005)

From what I've read, the publishers seem to have no problem with you creating something from their open game content and posting that creation for free.
(Building = good)

Its the posting of huge sections of OGC in a repository that they are uncomfortable with.
(Xeroxing tons of stuff = bad)

Loosely translated.


----------



## Psion (Dec 9, 2005)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> Any content located in a "Repository" or "wiki" would be completely unusable in anything resembling a print product.  Why?
> 
> You can't just cite the section 15 and say, 'Content from the FCR'
> ...
> ...




Before its untimely demise, the Fantasy Netbook Community council had a plan for this. They proposed a database that served up OGL statements specific to the content served up. Thus it need nod result in a dictionary-thick OGL statement.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 9, 2005)

schporto said:
			
		

> I'm curious.  Would the publishers in this thread be ok if someone made a module/adventure using OGC?  What would the reaction be if I posted that on the internet for free?  I don't mean the entire content, nor something you've specifically allowed me.  I'd mean grabbing random equipment, or feats and using them inside the adventure.
> Would this be acceptable?
> My understanding is that it would be legal, but I'm not sure if it would be something that the publishers would find 'acceptable'.
> Thanks.
> -cpd




I'd think it would be an awesome thing to do! Support it 100%. Its for stuff like this that we all support the OGL.

joe b.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 9, 2005)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Phil, Joe, Wulf, Ralts, et al:
> 
> Aside from game mechanics that are SRD derivative content (feats, classes, etc) that are regularly open, what else have you released as OGC that other publishers have actually used?




Hmmm... Quite a bit of stuff from _Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves_ has made it into use here and there. Usually with smaller publishers, but Mongoose used a couple of bits from Dwarves and Half-Orcs in (IIRC) Ultimate Games Designer's Compendium.

Corey Reid wrote to me shortly after Grim Tales came out and asked me if I would be interested in publishing his expansion rules that he had developed based on the Vehicles chapter in GT. His work was great, but quite a large expansion. I was rather enamored of the streamlined rules already in Grim Tales so I encouraged him to shop them to other publishers. Adamant Entertainment subsequently published _Hot Pursuit_ and I believe it was one of their best sellers.

Ralts already mentioned using the _Horror_ rules from Grim Tales in his own product (though I confess I don't even remember him asking). 

My typical response, when someone asks me if they can use my OGC, is, "Of course you can use it, you don't even have to ask. It's Open. Just make sure you follow the license correctly and get my copyright notice correct in the Section 15. I do appreciate you asking, though."

A certain code monkey recently asked me if he could create an online character generator for Grim Tales characters. I released to him all of the electronic files he needs to do it, on the condition that when he is finished, he also post those files online into a "GT Character Creation SRD."

Grim Tales, of course, uses tons of Open Content from other sources, most notably Spycraft and d20 Modern, but there are many others (Joe already mentioned his "Economic Models" OGC which I used).

Phil Reed put out an inspired little PDF quite a while back called "Possessors: Children of the Outer Gods." The seeds of the idea he presented there fueled a good deal of Bad Axe's _Slavelords of Cydonia_.

I assume there is a great deal more that I don't even know about. These are all top of mind as most of these folks have posted to this thread.


----------



## Zelgar (Dec 9, 2005)

wulf...

a few of us are chatting right now, care to join in?

Zelgar


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 9, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> If every publisher starts doing this, the only new OGC will be coming from non-publishers.




Won't that make them publishers?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 9, 2005)

Raloc said:
			
		

> If your previous post is indicative of how you normally treat customers, then it's no wonder they resent you (the post having been rather elitist and insulting).  I'm not trying to start a "flame war" or insult you here, I'm just pointing out how your post came across to me (and others, from what I saw of a couple of other posts saying the same).  Now, I understand the issues here in regards to an OGC Wiki, and I understand where authors are coming from.  I've published work (not game related) in the past, so I know first hand what that's like.
> 
> That said, if you are *always* so condescending and elitist when you speak to customers, I'm incredibly surprised you have customers at all.
> 
> [post in question below]




Yeah, phil?  If you're still wondering where this whole publishers vs. customers thing entered the thread, it was with the GMSkarka post quoted.

I notice that the thread has, since I've been away from it, veered away from the idea of putting together a wiki built on a voluntary basis by supporting publishers.  More's the pity, I think.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Won't that make them publishers?




If they start a company and try to make more money than they loose doing it, yep. But I have a very loose definition of publishers.

joe b.


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Yeah, phil?  If you're still wondering where this whole publishers vs. customers thing entered the thread, it was with the GMSkarka post quoted.




Gosh...an RPGnet regular, blaming me for something.

I'm shocked.   I really am.

Maybe you should re-read the thread.   The "us vs. them" was already there, long before I posted....and, if you actually read what I said, I was saying that most of the folks arguing in favor of the Wiki would trot out the same arguments about how the material should be free, and how if we didn't want it to be free, we shouldn't have used the OGL.

Which, you'll note, I was right about.   People DID end up saying just that.

So, if you want to blame me for turning out to be right, um...well, go right ahead.


----------



## Raloc (Dec 9, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Gosh...an RPGnet regular, blaming me for something.
> 
> I'm shocked.   I really am.
> 
> ...



 GMSkarka, that was secondary to my point, however.  I was merely commenting on the particular language used to express the "Most people don't understand the OGL" message.  

However, I do understand the argument you're making.  I agree that an OGC Wiki would likely end up being bad for gamers and publishers alike, even though it would be a great resource for actually playing games.  Which is unfortunate, but that's the likely outcome.

I was merely pointing out that your post made you seem adversarial.


----------



## Yair (Dec 9, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> *You are able to move across soft sand easily.*
> *Bonus:* You retain normal movement speeds over soft sand, disregarding movement penalties.
> *Special:* This feat does not work on quicksand.
> 
> as being OGC whether I want it to or not.



We have no real disagreement, except on terminology. The above is what I would say must be OGC, our versions have a few differences but these are not fundumental.

I'll be retiring from this thread now, so if someone wants further conversation contact me by email or something.

Yair


----------



## philreed (Dec 9, 2005)

isidorus said:
			
		

> I cannot believe I read this whole thred.




Thank you for reading it _before_ getting involved.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 9, 2005)

Heh, do I get points for reading "almost" all the thread?  

On a side note, I wonder what the reaction over at WOTC is over the Hypertext SRD posting all of the OGC from the Unearthed Arcana?  I haven't heard anything.  Has anyone else heard any reaction?


----------



## philreed (Dec 9, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On a side note, I wonder what the reaction over at WOTC is over the Hypertext SRD posting all of the OGC from the Unearthed Arcana?  I haven't heard anything.  Has anyone else heard any reaction?




ALERT: Speculation follows.

I suspect there are two camps within WotC when it comes to the OGL. My feelings would be that the anti-OGL camp has support within Hasbro and every time the OGL is used in a manner that _looks_ as if it could have a negative impact on sales the chances of 4e following the OGL decrease.

So I suspect that all of the OGC from UA being online is actually harming the future of D&D's connection to the OGL.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Dec 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> ALERT: Speculation follows.
> 
> I suspect there are two camps within WotC when it comes to the OGL. My feelings would be that the anti-OGL camp has support within Hasbro and every time the OGL is used in a manner that _looks_ as if it could have a negative impact on sales the chances of 4e following the OGL decrease.
> 
> So I suspect that all of the OGC from UA being online is actually harming the future of D&D's connection to the OGL.




Most likely. IIRC WotC made it clear that UA was an experiment - seeing what happens when they declare new material (non-SRD) open. Now the whole book (or 98% of it) is available online. Guess that'll teach WotC not to open their content again.

UA was the last OGC book by WotC, of that I'm sure.

I can't think of any publisher not going a similar road (although only WotC can close a whole book) if such a thing should happen to them.




			
				Man-thing said:
			
		

> From what I've read, the publishers seem to have no problem with you creating something from their open game content and posting that creation for free.
> (Building = good)
> 
> Its the posting of huge sections of OGC in a repository that they are uncomfortable with.
> ...




QFT


----------



## philreed (Dec 9, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> Most likely. IIRC WotC made it clear that UA was an experiment - seeing what happens when they declare new material (non-SRD) open. Now the whole book (or 98% of it) is available online. Guess that'll teach WotC not to open their content again.
> 
> UA was the last OGC book by WotC, of that I'm sure.




There might just be a lesson there.


----------



## Pramas (Dec 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> ALERT: Speculation follows.
> 
> I suspect there are two camps within WotC when it comes to the OGL. My feelings would be that the anti-OGL camp has support within Hasbro and every time the OGL is used in a manner that _looks_ as if it could have a negative impact on sales the chances of 4e following the OGL decrease.




My speculation is that all decisions regarding the D&D game and the OGL are internal to WotC. I sincerely doubt anyone at Hasbro has the time or inclination to pay attention to what is a very small part of their larger business, with the exception of licensing the D&D brand for things like computer games. People like to think that evil Hasbro suits are making all these decisions. I suspect they are coming from WotC itself.


----------



## Conaill (Dec 9, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> A certain code monkey recently asked me if he could create an online character generator for Grim Tales characters. I released to him all of the electronic files he needs to do it, on the condition that when he is finished, he also post those files online into a "GT Character Creation SRD."



Wulf - I'd love it if you could expand on this a little. What is your reasoning behind releasing some of your OGC for free in this manner, and how do you see it different than what people here have been proposing.

It seems to me that it *is* possible to release some OGC for free in a way that is beneficial to the individual publisher, as well as to the community as a whole. After all, that's what WotC did with the original SRD, and it seems to have worked for them. (Although I'm sure there is some faction at WotC and possibly at Hasbro that is not convinced of this.)

Could we design a free OGC repository - and a set of policies for how to manage that repository and its content - that would serve those goals? So far, I haven't really seen anyone try to address these questions directly.


----------



## KaosDevice (Dec 9, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> My speculation is that all decisions regarding the D&D game and the OGL are internal to WotC. I sincerely doubt anyone at Hasbro has the time or inclination to pay attention to what is a very small part of their larger business, with the exception of licensing the D&D brand for things like computer games. People like to think that evil Hasbro suits are making all these decisions. I suspect they are coming from WotC itself.




I would tend to agree with this. But I think there is probably at least one person internal to either WOTC or Hasbro that is in charge of oversite for WOTC legal concerns in order to ensure they match with the overall Hasbro legal paradigm. That seems like pretty standard corp-logic to me. Whether or not they are 'evil' I leave up to the individual.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 9, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Wulf - I'd love it if you could expand on this a little. What is your reasoning behind releasing some of your OGC for free in this manner, and how do you see it different than what people here have been proposing.




I'm not releasing everything, I'm releasing it in a responsible manner to a responsible party, and it's not going to threaten my livelihood.

That's obviously very different from someone else taking (for example) _A Magical Medieval Society_ and reposting it in its entirety, without the knowledge of, or even against the express wishes of, Expeditious Retreat Press.



> It seems to me that it *is* possible to release some OGC for free in a way that is beneficial to the individual publisher, as well as to the community as a whole.




Of course it is. _Publishers release their content for free all the time. _

Publishers-- even WOTC-- don't expect that their OPEN content will be immediately re-released for FREE. 

Joseph doesn't seem to have had much success in making folks here understand the difference between OPEN and FREE.


----------



## philreed (Dec 9, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Joseph doesn't seem to have had much success in making folks here understand the difference between OPEN and FREE.




Which is pretty frustrating, in my opinion, since he's been very clear.

It may also just be that they don't care.


----------



## isidorus (Dec 10, 2005)

> philreed
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by isidorus
> I cannot believe I read this whole thred.
> ...




No Problem Phil, I learned quit a bit about publishers of OGC material, although I feel it is probably useful in theorizing about publishers in general. 

Anyway this OGC Wiki is not really my cup of tea, but it has somewhat confirmed one thing for me. I suspect somewhere in the future there will be more crippled OGC, which is quite sad. 

The other thing I suspect is that posting any of a publishers OGC material in Wiki's, web pages fan or otherwise may end up with RIAA cease and desist letters somewhere in the near future. This is a feeling though, but I am not limiting this to D20. I figure as RPG's sales slow, RPG companies may feel they have no choice so they can extract a living from what seems like a very tight market. 

Not sure any of the above will happen, although from all I read so far, I suspect someone on one side of the other will fire the first salvo. I sincerely hope it does not become war between publishers and consumers like the RIAA battle.

Anyway I noticed it is still being talked about, so I keep reading and learning.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 10, 2005)

isidorus said:
			
		

> No Problem Phil, I learned quit a bit about publishers of OGC material, although I feel it is probably useful in theorizing about publishers in general.
> 
> Anyway this OGC Wiki is not really my cup of tea, but it has somewhat confirmed one thing for me. I suspect somewhere in the future there will be more crippled OGC, which is quite sad.




We'll have to see. I have an entirely new line, a new concept, coming out in January that I think will make people very happy. I have a little time to think about what I'm going to do with my OGC statements. I don't know if I have the faith to keep going 100% OGC.



> The other thing I suspect is that posting any of a publishers OGC material in Wiki's, web pages fan or otherwise may end up with RIAA cease and desist letters somewhere in the near future. This is a feeling though, but I am not limiting this to D20. I figure as RPG's sales slow, RPG companies may feel they have no choice so they can extract a living from what seems like a very tight market.




I doubt this will happen as long as everyone follows the OGL. If someone's not following the OGL however, I don't see why it wouldn't.



> Anyway I noticed it is still being talked about, so I keep reading and learning.




Which is why I keep talking as well. Hopefully I can help people see a bigger picture than just what's legal and what's not legal. I've already made something like 80+ pages of FREE OGC already, so it's not like there's a paucity of FREE OGC out there right now.

joe b.


----------



## Conaill (Dec 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Wulf Ratbane said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, I think most of us here DO understand the difference, and DO care. With the possible exception of a vocal minority. Overall though, I see a lot of miscommunication on both sides. And a lot of strawman accusations of "what the other side thinks".

I think this discussion has been more fruitful than some people here seem to think. For example, I have seen several people in this and related threads changing their minds on a totally free-for-all OGC repository, typically along the lines of "you know, I hadn't really thought it through from the perspective of the publishers", or "I still disagree on the effect it would have on sales, but if it makes publishers drop out we should probably try to find a different approach".

That does *not* mean those users have necessarily given up hope on a free OGC repository of some sort - as long as it can be implemented in such a way that it benefits _all_ of us, publishers _and_ users. This implies it would most likely NOT be a regular Wiki where anyone can submit whatever OGC they feel like scanning in (just because the title of the thread hasn't changed, don't be fooled into thinking the contributors to this thread haven't moved on long ago...). It may also mean only publishing OGC with the original author's consent. Exact details still to be worked out, naturally...


SO... Wulf and other publishers: what sorts of pieces of your OGC *would* you be willing to enter into a free repository? Where do you draw the line between "releasing this is going to hurt my sales" and "releasing this is going to encourage users to check out my products", or "releasing this will be of benefit to the industry as a whole"? 

Should we follow the SRD's example, and encourage publishers to submit specifically their core mechanics, so they can still make money off of products that expand on those core mechanics?


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 10, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> That does *not* mean those users have necessarily given up hope on a free OGC repository of some sort - as long as it can be implemented in such a way that it benefits _all_ of us, publishers _and_ users. This implies it would most likely NOT be a regular Wiki where anyone can submit whatever OGC they feel like scanning in (just because the title of the thread hasn't changed, don't be fooled into thinking the contributors to this thread haven't moved on long ago...). It may also mean only publishing OGC with the original author's consent. Exact details still to be worked out, naturally...




In order for something to happen that would be enjoyed and accepted by the majority of everyone involved, I suspect it would have to something like you suggest above.



> SO... Wulf and other publishers: what sorts of pieces of your OGC *would* you be willing to enter into a free repository? Where do you draw the line between "releasing this is going to hurt my sales" and "releasing this is going to encourage users to check out my products", or "releasing this will be of benefit to the industry as a whole"?




Well if someone wanted to start with products that are already made FREE by the creator and ask the creator for permission to use their name and company name to create a link to where the product from which the FREE OGC material came from could be purchased, that would be a begining. Beyond that, there's so many variables it's hard to conceptualize possiblities.

But I think most publishers would be cool with that. Nothing FREE that wasn't made FREE by the creator and a little plug to maybe help with the creation of more OGC in the future, both FREE and for cost. I'd still worry about mindspace, and a few other variables, but there's give and take in all negotiations.



> Should we follow the SRD's example, and encourage publishers to submit specifically their core mechanics, so they can still make money off of products that expand on those core mechanics?




I think what many of us forget is that the SRD wasn't realy created "for the people." It was created to alow other people to create for sale products that drove the sale of the core books by WotC. It wasn't conceived of as a "shareware-style" community. It was created to create a 2nd tier of for profit companies who'd create smaller, less profitable material, for the core rules.

In other words, for WotC to give away core rules is fine, because they're giving them away to publishers with the intent of using the pubishers to create a powerful RPG mindspace for D&D. Like Gareth's quote of RD in the "Is the OGL working" thread, it was far and away *not a nice thing* to do to other publishers (of other existing systems)— even though it created a short gaming reinassance for the fans and may have had the side effect of making the RPG market  bigger overall by bringing back lapsed customers who may migrate to other systems. We'll have to see what happens in the future for the larger impact over time, I suppose.

So, for a small 3rd party publisher to give away core mechanics for FREE with the intent of distribution to customer's directly instead of to an intermediary 2nd tier, the orginating publisher would then be effectively competing with other publishers *while* being unable to capitilize on the increase sales of a Core product with was the reason for the OGL to begin with.  

It would be better, I think, to keep core rules for sale and put out free product that supports the core, than to release core rules and try to make money off supplements (which historically always do worse than core rules).

joe b.


----------



## Conaill (Dec 10, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> In other words, for WotC to give away core rules is fine, because they're giving them away to publishers with the intent of using the pubishers to create a powerful RPG mindspace for D&D. Like Gareth's quote of RD in the "Is the OGL working" thread, it was far and away *not a nice thing* to do to other publishers (of other existing systems)— even though it created a short gaming reinassance for the fans and may have had the side effect of making the RPG market  bigger overall by bringing back lapsed customers who may migrate to other systems. We'll have to see what happens in the future for the larger impact over time, I suppose.



And yet, one could argue that giving away 99% of the content of the core books for free should have ruined the market precisely for those core books - and it hasn't really. Sure, WotC releasing the SRD had a big effect on the size of the market as a whole, and they are raking in a lot of buys from the less computer-savvy elements of that market as well. This is not something that could be hoped to be achieved by a small publisher. But fact is, *most* people who use the SRD on a regular basis actually own the books as well. 



> It would be better, I think, to keep core rules for sale and put out free product that supports the core, than to release core rules and try to make money off supplements (which historically always do worse than core rules).



And yet Wulf, for example, has decided to make the GT Character Creationrules available for free, indicating there's at least one publisher who thinks that releasing at least *some* part of his core mechanics isn't going to be a death sentence for his product.

Wulf - I'd still love to hear a bit more about your strategic reasoning behind this. Is this just a trial balloon on your part? Do you think it may increase sales of GT or GT-related products by releasing this bit of the core mechanics?

If we want the OGL to achieve what a lot of us had been hoping for - i.e. a gradual evolution towards better and better rules variants (which I know is not what it was designed for - it was designed in the first place to make WotC money...), then I think freeing the very *core* of the mechanics may be the way to get there. (And by "core", I don't mean "all the crunch" - could be perhaps only 10-20% of the content of an all-crunch book.)


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 10, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> And yet, one could argue that giving away 99% of the content of the core books for free should have ruined the market precisely for those core books - and it hasn't really.




The  people arguing that releasing the SRD should have ruined the market for the core books seem to be those who want more FREE OGC from 3rd party publishers, not the people who've made money off the relase of the SRD.  The reasons why that argument doesn't hold water are many and varied, and I expect you probably know them as well as I do.



> Sure, WotC releasing the SRD had a big effect on the size of the market as a whole, and they are raking in a lot of buys from the less computer-savvy elements of that market as well. This is not something that could be hoped to be achieved by a small publisher. But fact is, *most* people who use the SRD on a regular basis actually own the books as well.




Do you think WotC would have released the SRD if they only produced PDFs?

I don't. 

Much of the OGC being released right now is coming from non-traditional sources (PDF). These sources of OGC are only targeted at the computer-savvy elements of the market, the very group that would be the highest adopters and users of a FREE OGC repository. And these PDF sources are the ones that would be the first taken and made FREE because they already come in an easy-to-replicate package (PDF). There's no need to scan, OCR... etc..

These are more reasons why I think using the SRD as a model for the consequences of releasing OGC from 3rd party publishers isn't a good one. To me it really is an apples and wrenches comparison.



> And yet Wulf, for example, has decided to make the GT Character Creationrules available for free, indicating there's at least one publisher who thinks that releasing at least *some* part of his core mechanics isn't going to be a death sentence for his product.




Releasing some core mechanics is different than releasing core mechanics. My response was to releasing core mechanics "en toto." Partial releases would serve the same purpose that anyone seeks when they release FREE OGC: being nice to the peoples and trying to make more sales by giving examples of what is there to be purchased.

This amount of "being nice" vrs. "promoting product" via the relsease of FREE OGC varies a lot between publisher and is *massively* dependent upon having a product that is large enough in size to parcel out. If you have a small product, take my _Seeds_ for example (4.5 pages generally), If I give away a single page of FREE OGC for that product I've done 25% of my work for no money.

That would be like releasing 56 pages of a 224 page product for FREE. I don't think anyone would expect that and I think people would understand why such an expectation wouldn't hold water.



> If we want the OGL to achieve what a lot of us had been hoping for - i.e. a gradual evolution towards better and better rules variants (which I know is not what it was designed for - it was designed in the first place to make WotC money...), then I think freeing the very *core* of the mechanics may be the way to get there. (And by "core", I don't mean "all the crunch" - could be perhaps only 10-20% of the content of an all-crunch book.)




What you mean to say is "then I think FREEING (of cost)  the very *core*," if I'm parsing your sentance correctly. I think that because since the mechanic is already  OGC, it is already free (to distribute) according to the OGL. To me there's a difference between the two and that something needs not be FREE (of cost)  to evolve. Because basically every bit of re-used/evolved piece of OGC so far has already come from a non-FREE source.

It looks like you believe that FREE OGC would evolve faster than *for cost* OGC. And that's a compelling arguement as there are several things that back up that idea nicely. However, at least given the current example of the market we have right now, the vast majority of OGC has been created by people who want it to be *for cost* and not FREE. This makes me wonder, "although making things FREE would mean more people would have the opportunity to see and build upon something, are those more people going to **actually** produce more or better material than is currently being produced today?"

I don't know. I don't know if there would be enough people to "pick up the slack" if the current OGC producers decide to produce less OGC because their OGC is being turned into FREE when they want it to be *for cost*. Having seen many more fan communities fail than succeed, however, I think that taking out a fiscal incentive to create OGC would result in a massive decrease in the amount produced.

Just look at the net-books. They've been around for oh, 5-10 years now for most of them? How many pages of material has been created for FREE compared with how much material has been created in the past 5 years *for cost*

In fact, I wonder, how much new OGC has been created FREE (of cost) already, by all the publishers who've relased FREE web supplements, teasers, chapters, etc...  Does this amount also exceed the amount produced by the "fan community" in a straight 5 year comparison? In other words, is the *for cost* OGC actually creating a bigger pool of FREE (of cost) OGC than would occur if everything was FREE (of cost).

I think it is.

joe b.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 10, 2005)

I gotta say, it's really hard to read those posts where FREE is capitalized.  I suspect it's being done to make some sort of point, but when I read it, the reading voice in my head reads it as "frrrreeeeeeeeaahhh", which makes it somewhat difficult to pay attention to the rest of the sentence.  Anyway, just sayin'.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I gotta say, it's really hard to read those posts where FREE is capitalized.  I suspect it's being done to make some sort of point, but when I read it, the reading voice in my head reads it as "frrrreeeeeeeeaahhh", which makes it somewhat difficult to pay attention to the rest of the sentence.  Anyway, just sayin'.




Heh... I'm using FREE to mean "free of cost," because there are so many other ways to use it in this type of discussion.

And I like ALL CAPS. Makes me look PROFESSIONAL.   

joe b.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 10, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Wulf - I'd still love to hear a bit more about your strategic reasoning behind this. Is this just a trial balloon on your part? Do you think it may increase sales of GT or GT-related products by releasing this bit of the core mechanics?




There is no strategic reasoning behind it. Enough folks were asking for it to overcome inertia. 

I certainly hope it increases sales of GT, though I don't think there's any reason to think that it would. It will simply make life easier for a small but loyal group of GT fans who deserve to be supported in kind.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2005)

While I realize this was addressed, I just wanted to come back to the Unearthed Arcana for a moment.  It's been out for almost two years, and its just now that the OGC is available on the Hypertext SRD site.  Somehow, I don't think that the Hypertext SRD has made much of an impact as to whether or not WOTC produces another OGC book.  If they were going to produce one, they likely would have done so before now.  Pointing to the Hypertext SRD and saying that they are the cause of no more OGC from WOTC is a little misleading IMO.  I don't think there's really a causal relationship there.  Not when so much time has passed.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 10, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While I realize this was addressed, I just wanted to come back to the Unearthed Arcana for a moment.  It's been out for almost two years, and its just now that the OGC is available on the Hypertext SRD site.  Somehow, I don't think that the Hypertext SRD has made much of an impact as to whether or not WOTC produces another OGC book.  If they were going to produce one, they likely would have done so before now.  Pointing to the Hypertext SRD and saying that they are the cause of no more OGC from WOTC is a little misleading IMO.  I don't think there's really a causal relationship there.  Not when so much time has passed.




I remember when they were discussing making an online directory of the OGC in Unearthed Arcana, a couple months after it came out.  Andy Collins appeared and threw a fit about it, and the consensus among the non-WotC posters was that a 6-month waiting period would be more than enough time for the book to go through its sales lifespan, making it safe to post OGC from the book without eating into anyone's profits.  6 months passed by and no online resource appeared.  Only very recently did UA get transcribed and posted.

Maybe the lack of further OGC from WotC has to do with Andy Collins getting worked up about the reception of UA.  Maybe not.  But I think it's a bit daft to attempt to connect UA's actual dollar value to WotC with the fact that it contains open content.  The two are, as far as I can tell, completely unrelated.


----------



## philreed (Dec 13, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Only very recently did UA get transcribed and posted.




And the version I just found online -- at www.d20srd.org -- violates the OGL. I keep watching the exact same mistake get made when someone attempts to post all of the OGC from UA online.

EDIT: I have one very simple test that takes me only a few seconds to perform. I've yet to see a free extract of the UA OGC pass the test.


----------



## Yair (Dec 13, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> And the version I just found online -- at www.d20srd.org -- violates the OGL. I keep watching the exact same mistake get made when someone attempts to post all of the OGC from UA online.
> 
> EDIT: I have one very simple test that takes me only a few seconds to perform. I've yet to see a free extract of the UA OGC pass the test.



And would you mind sharing this very simple test with us, or at least with the site's owner so that he wouldn't be breaking the license unintentionally?

To my knowledge, the d20srd.org site maintains the OGL very well. If he made a mistake, that's unfortunate, but respectfully - I can point you towards several publishers that made very big mistakes.


----------



## philreed (Dec 13, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> And would you mind sharing this very simple test with us, or at least with the site's owner so that he wouldn't be breaking the license unintentionally?




I've shared it many times in the past. The first sentence on this page tells the entire story.

It's actually one of the easiest tests you can run on any collection of the UA OGC. I guess I haven't mentioned it enough times yet.




			
				Yair said:
			
		

> I can point you towards several publishers that made very big mistakes.




As could I. I've discussed problems with some publishers and there are a few out there that don't care. They'll continue to violate the OGL until someone steps in and legally stop them.

An online OGC collection, designed for use by the entire community, should be held to a high standard. One mistake in such a collection could spread rapidly.


----------



## Yair (Dec 13, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I've shared it many times in the past. The first sentence on this page tells the entire story.



So noted.



> An online OGC collection, designed for use by the entire community, should be held to a high standard. One mistake in such a collection could spread rapidly.



A wiki OGC collection can be modified by any viewer, and with many eyes reading it and each able to edit it, the probabiity for an OGC violation is decreased.


----------



## philreed (Dec 13, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> . . . and with many eyes reading it and each able to edit it, the probabiity for an OGC violation is decreased.




I think the chance of violation would be increased. In the OGC setting* thread alone mind flayers were mentioned. We _all_ make mistakes. With many more people involved the chance of mistakes increases and with a lot of content in such a Wiki it would be easy for violations to go unnoticed for extended periods of time.

After all, how long was that particular mistake at the www.d20srd.org site before it was mentioned?

EDIT: * And a quick look at the OGCS Wiki shows that Dark Sun is mentioned.


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 13, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> So noted.
> 
> 
> A wiki OGC collection can be modified by any viewer, and with many eyes reading it and each able to edit it, the probabiity for an OGC violation is decreased.




I don't think that's something that could be assumed.  The numerous mistakes that appear on Wikipedia tell a different story.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 13, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I've discussed problems with some publishers and there are a few out there that don't care. They'll continue to violate the OGL until someone steps in and legally stop them.
> 
> An online OGC collection, designed for use by the entire community, should be held to a high standard. One mistake in such a collection could spread rapidly.



This is a really interesting point. I actually read the Section 15 for D20/OGL products I buy, and I see problems with it all the time. Beyond that, I've seen many products that take content from other sources out of whole cloth and don't site it at all. Since I don't buy all of the product that's out there (who could) I shudder to think of how many problems there are that I just don't recognize.

This brings up the next question: for a publisher, which is worse, someone posting your content in a wiki, or using it inappropriately in a product and actually making money off of it?

For my part, I believe that an OGL wiki will eventually happen, and that some negative actions of some publishers (not you, Phil) have actually sped this along. When that happens, I expect that it will be held to exactly the same standard as publishers are, which is to say not a particularly high one.

Whether that will be a bane or boon for the gaming industry has yet to be written, I suppose. I suspect that some publishers will adapt and thrive with it, and others won't and they'll be gone...just like always.

--Steve


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 13, 2005)

SteveC said:
			
		

> For my part, I believe that an OGL wiki will eventually happen, and that some negative actions of some publishers (not you, Phil) have actually sped this along. When that happens, I expect that it will be held to exactly the same standard as publishers are, which is to say not a particularly high one.




I promise you I will have an easier time finding and acting on violations that appear in a Wiki than I do in umpteen published products.


----------



## philreed (Dec 13, 2005)

SteveC said:
			
		

> This is a really interesting point. I actually read the Section 15 for D20/OGL products I buy, and I see problems with it all the time. Beyond that, I've seen many products that take content from other sources out of whole cloth and don't site it at all. Since I don't buy all of the product that's out there (who could) I shudder to think of how many problems there are that I just don't recognize.




I know exactly what you mean. Small, accidental mistakes don't really bother me (especially since they can usually be easily corrected). It's the big, blatant "mistakes" -- that are repeated over and over -- that drive me crazy.

But until the community as a whole learns to care about, and punish, those frequent violators (or legal action takes place) there's no incentive for publishers to actually try to get things right.


----------



## jmucchiello (Dec 13, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I've shared it many times in the past. The first sentence on this page tells the entire story.



IIRC, Mongoose use to habitually use an OGC statement similar to "Chapter x, y, z is all open content except for the actual text as written." (Not sure what they do now.) They received a lot of flak for this supposed attempt to end run around the OGL. Matt would post that you could use the material all you wanted in accordance with the license as long as you rewrote it. He then would add that you should rewrite it anyway so that your product doesn't switch voices as it moves between stuff you came up with and stuff you were reusing.

I admit I thought he was full of it at the time. Now I see there's a certain beauty to such a declaration. The point is not to make you work to reuse the stuff. The point is to make you *think* as you reuse the stuff. If the transcriber of UA had had to rewrite the vitality and wound point system in his own words, he would never have made that mistake.

I can see where this would make casual reusers (I just want to make a campaign document for me and my 4 friends) complain about the declaraion. But such a declaration removes the scan and dump problem for the publisher.


----------



## Man-thing (Dec 13, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> (Not sure what they do now.)



It depends on the product. EPG will be 100% open, Ultimate X line was 100% open.
I've also found that when asked they are very liberal at define what of there is "derived from SRD", likewise I often found they have been generous grant PI material for work as well.

I think COnan is all OGC except the setting and characters (because those are licensed) but almost everything else is OGC. [Which I think lead to the development of OGL Barbarian line).


----------



## Yair (Dec 13, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> IIRC, Mongoose use to habitually use an OGC statement similar to "Chapter x, y, z is all open content except for the actual text as written."
> 
> I admit I thought he was full of it at the time. Now I see there's a certain beauty to such a declaration.



You mean the beauty of not declaring anything as OGC or abiding by Section 8? 
Yeah, beautiful.
Having to rewrite things has nothing to do with OGC. I can rewrite any game mechanics I want to from any rpg, it is copyrighted not patented.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2019)

*Rise!  Rise from the grave!!*

Heh.  I'm bored and procrastinating, so, I reread this beast of a thread.

Funny how things have changed.  4e and 5e no longer use the OGL and, well, this thread would be finished only about 3 years before 4e comes out.  

One wonders how different history might have been had we actually been able to get this sort of thing off the ground.  A massive OGL wiki, had it succeeded, might have changed the look and reaction to 4e.  Or, it might not have.  Anyway, I thought this was a fascinating blast from the past on how publishers felt at the time.  

Remember, this is 2005.  No iPhones (heck, someone mentions a Blackberry network  ), and a very different scene than now.  One could argue that the DM's Guild has taken the idea of an OGL repository and monetized it - providing the kind of visibility to customers for 3pp that most never could have achieved back in 2005.  

As I said, it was just something I read and resurrected for S&G's.  Enjoy.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 5, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Funny how things have changed.  4e and 5e no longer use the OGL




Um, 5e absolutely uses the OGL.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd

4e had the GSL, which was an abomination of a license. 5e uses the same OGL as 3e; WotC just didn't release the entirety of the core books under the OGL this time; they provided a sample of everything as an example (basically they released the 5e D&D Starter Set rules). You can still make compatible products and everything, you just can't copy the PHB wholesale anymore.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 5, 2019)

Heh. I just paged back looking for the last thing I posted and trying to remember what this thread was about.

Oh yeah. NOW I remember.... 

(It'd be interesting to reread this thread having 14 more years of data, particularly via Pathfinder, and reevaluate opinions, but this ship has long sailed and it'd just be rudderless naval gazing.)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2019)

Nellisir said:


> Um, 5e absolutely uses the OGL.
> http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd
> 
> 4e had the GSL, which was an abomination of a license. 5e uses the same OGL as 3e; WotC just didn't release the entirety of the core books under the OGL this time; they provided a sample of everything as an example (basically they released the 5e D&D Starter Set rules). You can still make compatible products and everything, you just can't copy the PHB wholesale anymore.




Yes, sorry, my bad.  Typing in haste.  You are, of course, correct.

I think it is interesting though to look at what they did with the DM's Guild in light of how the 3e OGL and OGC in general worked out.


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 5, 2019)

I think if anything, the DM's Guild is closer to the d20 System Trademark License. It gives WOTC more control over products, a lot more control than the d20 license did, but also gives more in return than just being able to use a logo and refer to the D&D PHB by name.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2019)

trancejeremy said:


> I think if anything, the DM's Guild is closer to the d20 System Trademark License. It gives WOTC more control over products, a lot more control than the d20 license did, but also gives more in return than just being able to use a logo and refer to the D&D PHB by name.




Yeah, that's probably a good analogy really.


----------



## Nellisir (Apr 9, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I think it is interesting though to look at what they did with the DM's Guild in light of how the 3e OGL and OGC in general worked out.




Absolutely. I think it's a smart play.


----------

