A Community SRD?

[philreed]

Now remember that baring the 100% OGC products, most of the time the cruch of the OGC comes through but all the flavor is ripped out.

And thus, as I've said, the publishers with the more convoluted OGC declarations are the ones that suffer no adverse effect from this.

 

[Firebeetle]

This is a terrific idea, I'm so surprised that gamers, a community famous for its rules lawyers, hasn't done this yet.

"Every dollar spent in a market benefits the market leader, even if they don't receive that dollar directly" When 3e was published, the intention was to reinvigorate the industry with a common ruleset that would de facto require purchase of the core ruleset. This makes D&D the "lingo franco" of RPGs. If you want to publish a game, you may use the SRD. Take "Talislanta" for example. That old, classic RPG reprinted and used the d20 rules, when it already had a developed (albeit intentionally simple) rule system.

The original concept of OGC (Open Game Content) for D&D was that third party publishers would add to and modify the rules, and that other publishers could pick up those rules and use them. In due course of time, the rules that were superior would end up changing the game. E.G. The ENWorld Grapple rules, which are a clear improvement.

However, it's never really gotten past the first step. Publishers seem scared to use each other's rules, even when they are better. We do see compilations, but we don't see a lot of publishers using each other's material.

Now, according to the rules, you can do this:

1.) You can make a program or use a wiki to compile OGC material, the trick being that whomever is entering that material needs to understand how to separate OGC from PI (Product Indentity) If you enter a spell of Relics and Rituals, you can enter the spell stats and the description of the actual mechanics, but not the flavor text which explains the spell's history and common use.
2.) The second problem is that there is no feedback system for this. Netbooks have often used some sort of judging of the material on a variety of criteria. This would need to happen here as well, to guide users to the best material.
3.) It would have to exist with the understanding that some folks may be unhappy you are publishing their rules. Any d20 publisher knows their OGC may be reproduced, that comes standard with the d20 industry. If you try and track down every publisher and get permission for this sort of project, all your resources and time will be tied up in asking permission. I personally always ask a publisher if I can use their rules in a project, but that's individual. Ultimately, you are doing this because you can.

I think this is a worthy cause and well worth persuing. Alas, I can't help other than contribute the occasional bit. I work 14-16 hour days between work, more work, and grad school and I keep my weekends free for kids and homework. So someone else would have to get it started.

I would really like to see something like this. It's a fine idea and long, long overdue.

 

[Mark CMG]

And thus, as I've said, the publishers with the more convoluted OGC declarations are the ones that suffer no adverse effect from this.

And, I imagine, the publishers with more open declarations and a higher percentage of OGC would become more closed and decrease their OGC percentages in an effort to offset the perceived devaluation OGC stripmining would inevitibly have on their products. And, unfortunately, this would most likely hit those publishers who have been most generous in the past the hardest since, once open, OGC cannot be closed.

 

[Kerrick]

And, I imagine, the publishers with more open declarations and a higher percentage of OGC would become more closed and decrease their OGC percentages in an effort to offset the perceived devaluation OGC stripmining would inevitibly have on their products. And, unfortunately, this would most likely hit those publishers who have been most generous in the past the hardest since, once open, OGC cannot be closed.

Yeah... while I like the idea of an OGC wiki, I don't agree that you should go out and "stripmine" any product you can get your hands on. I think I said this the last time a thread like this popped up: It should be volunteer-only. If the publishers don't want to contribute and participate, fine - they don't have to. There's plenty of material out there. If they are interested and want to add to this, then they can hand over some stuff. If this thing takes off and looks really nice and works well, then others might look at it and say "Hey, this is kinda cool! I want to contribute too!" It's got to start small - if you overextend yourself, you're going to fall on your face.

As an aside, all incoming material should have proof of documentation - a Section 15 entry delineating where it came from and who wrote it, so you can verify that it is, indeed, OGC. Also, you should have some kind of explanation on the site (preferably on the front page) as to what constitutes OGC and what doesn't - something simple enough that Joe Gamer knows what it means and doesn't just start ripping stuff out of his pdfs to contribute.

 

[philreed]

As an aside, all incoming material should have proof of documentation - a Section 15 entry delineating where it came from and who wrote it, so you can verify that it is, indeed, OGC. Also, you should have some kind of explanation on the site (preferably on the front page) as to what constitutes OGC and what doesn't - something simple enough that Joe Gamer knows what it means and doesn't just start ripping stuff out of his pdfs to contribute.

Pointing back to contributing publishers/products would also help offset any negative impact.

 

[Nellisir]

Pointing back to contributing publishers/products would also help offset any negative impact.

1) can't be done without permission, and
2) will make the negative impact, if there is one, -worse-, not better.

I could go and put a hundred OGC spells on my wiki. Change a few spell names, and 99% of the people out there wouldn't be able to identify the source for 99% them, UNLESS I "point back" to the original source.

95% of those people will never have heard of the original source, let alone seen it and made an informed decision not to buy it.

The only way this might -not- be true is if people purchase the original source for the time/savings value - $5 for the pdf, vs 1 hour searching out and printing 40 spells. But this doesn't help the ultra-short pdf products.

 

[DreadArchon]

Meh, I don't like this idea. D&D/d20 is much broader and more subjective than NWN. Even with a single official center for rules, DM's are free to change around things at will and you can do just about anything.

The NWN CEP worked because it added things. You couldn't have a cape or wolf-head helmet before the CEP, for example. With the pen & paper version, you have indefinite freedom, limited by the DM and in many regards steered by the rules. Any "community SRD" would be, by necessity, relatively confusing or restrictive, limiting or (in various DM opinions) "screwing up" things that already exist or can be done.

In short, the game is already limited only by one's imagination, so such a project could not add much (if anything), just push around what we already have (pointlessly in most cases). This means that wide support for such an action is unlikely--ever.

 

[Byrons_Ghost]

Meh, I don't like this idea. D&D/d20 is much broader and more subjective than NWN. Even with a single official center for rules, DM's are free to change around things at will and you can do just about anything.

The NWN CEP worked because it added things. You couldn't have a cape or wolf-head helmet before the CEP, for example. With the pen & paper version, you have indefinite freedom, limited by the DM and in many regards steered by the rules. Any "community SRD" would be, by necessity, relatively confusing or restrictive, limiting or (in various DM opinions) "screwing up" things that already exist or can be done.

In short, the game is already limited only by one's imagination, so such a project could not add much (if anything), just push around what we already have (pointlessly in most cases). This means that wide support for such an action is unlikely--ever.

This is sort of what I was getting at, but I kind of got lost in my own post.

In NWN, the community package worked because everyone was playing the exact same game, and had more or less decided through common experience what needed to be changed. It was like a large group of individuals coming together in the middle.

The opposite thing happens with D20 rules. Everyone starts from the same ruleset, and then goes off in different directions. They change things for their homegames, drops some rules and add others, take third party content from only certain sources, and end up playing entirely different games from other groups who had the same starting point.

We're not actually using the same final product, it's more like we're using the same programming platform to make our own customized products. That's why I don't think you're ever going to get universal adaptation of custom rules.

There's a few exceptions, of course- nonlethal damage in D20 Modern is almost universally houseruled (often even within WotC products. )

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As for what whizbang had to say about being rubbed the wrong way. If a publisher did not want their content to be open then they should not have opened it.

That's a load of crap. Gamers are benefiting from D20 and OGL because publishers have been willing to stick their necks out. Anyone remember the last time WotC added more content to the very dusty SRD?

The gamers are benefitting from D20 publishers taking the risks. Deciding to then pounce on that and take away any financial incentive for making new content will bring it to a crashing end.

We're not talking about the equivalent of a few lines of code here, we're talking about gutting publications and rendering the originals worthless.

What is legal and what is right are two different things.

 

[jezter6]

My question is- do we NEED more crunch? How much is left out in this world un-crunched? If it moves publishers to a more PI fluff focused model, so be it. I'm just not sure (after hearing about an abortionist advanced class in a d20 modern product) that we've run out of sane ideas.

It's like new car names. They used to be unique and entertaining, now we're just picking words out of the dictionary (or real life) -- Focus, Fusion, Santa-Fe, Liberty