Mongoose 3.0/3.5 Grand Archive - Any Interest?

[jdrakeh]

MGP 2600 D20: Dr Blottenberger’s Bestiary of Extraordinary Creatures will be releasing in 2006.

I think that he's a fictional narrator of Mongoose design.

 

[kensanata]

I think that he's a fictional narrator of Mongoose design.

Ah, thanks. Are we doing a Mongoose-only OGC wiki? Better decide such things as early as possible. If we're using Mongoose's fictional narrator, that may discourage other publishers, I'd think. Perhaps we could use him for the page heading the Mongoose section (basically the only section for the moment).

 

[kensanata]

http://grandwiki.wikidot.com/start

Will the wiki remain read-only for casual users? I noticed that I couldn't edit any pages even though I created a wikidot account.

 

[Yair]

I don't think the d20-srd site is a good model for this enterprise. That would entail a single interconnected work, and hence a single enormously long Section 15. I suggest instead publishing each distillation as a single stand-alone product. This can be done in a hypertext-document, if desired, but I think the document needs to be seperate under the OGL.

A d20-srd style site would be fun, but I don't think it's a good way to distill the huge collection of sometimes contradictiory material Mongoose is offering here, certainly not in a way that would make it easy for someone else to then use the material in his own work.

 

[jdrakeh]

Ah, thanks. Are we doing a Mongoose-only OGC wiki?

They're the only publisher that I have seen voluntarily offer their OGC for such a project. Last time an OGC wiki was proposed, a lot of publishers threatened to sue. This being the case, a good rule of thumb for we free indviduals who can't fight a corporation in the courts is, I think, that we don't enter OGC in the wiki until it is specifically volunteered for the project in writing by the publisher who owns it (no, OGC declarations in printed works dont count).

 

[kensanata]

I suggest instead publishing each distillation as a single stand-alone product. This can be done in a hypertext-document, if desired, but I think the document needs to be seperate under the OGL.

I agree that this will be the easiest way to start and the easiest on other publishers that want to reuse the content. (Although their section 15 isn't too intimidating)

The d20srd.org site is very player & DM friendly. I think getting the OGC Wiki into a very player & DM friendly form will be possible to do, eventually. It's a wiki, and it's OGC. There's nothing stopping us (except lack of time and energy, haha).

 

[Witchfinder General]

There are several wikis that host the SRD and fan contributed OGL content, such as http://www.dandwiki.com/ and http://www.d20wiki.com. Active publisher support for a community OGC wiki would be awesome.

A commuity OGC wiki will have thousands of pages. I think it would be a good idea to discuss the technical merits of different wiki engies before deciding on a particular hosting service / wiki syntax / feature set. Features such as templates, categories and automated scripting (bots) are very helpful when writing markup, organizing content and maintaining the wiki.

My personal preference is MediaWiki (as used on Wikipedia and the wikis I mentioned earlier). I have used PhpWiki, but it is no longer maintained, so I needed to move to a new wiki engine. I found these pages useful:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software
• http://www.wikimatrix.org/

I've written a perl script which I use for migration from PhpWiki to MediaWiki (change markup and links, preserve page history). It's a lot of work, even with automated conversion. I sincerely hope that others do not have to go through it. I'm not saying that the proposed community wiki should use MediaWiki, just that it worked for me.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I think this is a fantastic idea, and I'd be fully willing to contribute content also (we've already got an OGC wiki of our own; see my sig), but I've got one small question: What about the Section 15? Every time a previous discussion came up about an OGC wiki, this killed it. That little clause about "You must provide the entire S15 for every product from which you used content in this book" makes borrowing content from an OGC wiki kind of untenable, even if each item were clearly marked. Now, if WotC were willing to give an exception (say, use the site as the sole source for the S15), that'd be great... but would they?

You need a section 15 for each entry, for best effect - surely it is easy to have a link on each page that points to an OGL page, with a custom section 15 on each that relates to the entry in question? No web site wizard, but it seems to me a that a simple database can handle that

Oh, and Mark, it looks like you have volunteered/been volunteered. Drop me a line at msprange@mongoosepublishing.com - a couple of bits and pieces we need to cover, and I'll start sending along files.

 

[Sitara]

Hey Matt, where is your reaction/review/comment about 4e? I and many others were looking forward to it.

Also, how's the new Lonewolf rpg coming along?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hey Matt, where is your reaction/review/comment about 4e? I and many others were looking forward to it.

Hey there,

Well, in a nutshell, 4e/the GSL is pretty much what we expected - in fact, if we were WotC, we might have gone further If there could have been an extended grace period for publication for first-adopters (as was originally being discussed), then we might well have been prepared to lay down 'an amount' of money for the privalege ($5-10,000 was being floated around during discussions).

As it is, the only 'surprise' we are. . . not miffed about, but mildly irked, I suppose. . . is that we cannot include 4e-based articles in S&P. However, we can still link to outside PDFs from the magazine, and we can still preview source material.

As for actual titles, we are preparing some announcement material right now. Three lines are currently planned (after which, we will assess the 4e market). The Quints will be making a return, though in a very different format, and they will actually be done by a completely different studio. There will be just one book that converts older material from one of our previous lines. However, I am most looking forward to something we did not do in the D20 days - a full blown setting. This one uses pretty much all the rules (races and classes, etc) of 4e 'as is', but in a manner that has not been done before in fantasy - it was also specifically designed to play to 4e's strengths, rather than shoehorn A N Other fantasy setting into the mould. When you see it, you will know exactly what I mean by that

Anyway, Chris Quilliams (he of Conan cover and Slayer's Guide anatomy fame) is prepping some concept art and the front cover right now, and we'll be putting together a preview PDF that introduces the concepts of the game/setting, as well as the steps we went through with concept art.

Also, how's the new Lonewolf rpg coming along?

Done!

Well, almost.

The system is finished, and the final manuscript complete, bar an introductory scenario. We also have outlines for supplemental books.

The main hold up is the status of the softcover Lone Wolf gamebooks, which we are intending to release into the mainstream book trade, both in the UK and US. The intent of the new Lone Wolf RPG (or Multiplayer Gamebook, as we call it) is to sit alongside the gamebooks, and cunningly draw in new players to RPGs as a whole - it is aimed squarely at Lone Wolf fans who have yet to enter roleplaying proper, and thus, in the grand scheme of things, bring new blood into the hobby.

With suchg a goal, we are not going to rush the book to market, but position it ready to take advantage of gamebook sales.