A d20 NPC Wiki?

[Vascant]

I think NPC Designer is fine, but it's not as broad as the NPC Wiki, since the wiki accept anything anyone thinks of, really. NPC Designer won't generate my talvijotun sorceress without me writing up talvijotuns and modifying sorcerer. Does it do monsters? Will it do an annis sorcerer? What about a huecuva druid, a leopard animal companion skeleton, or a frost man fighter?

Cheers
Nell.

Can't speak for "talvijotuns" since I have not seen it but it probably can be scripted and at worse case, just need me to code a function to handle a specific situation. As far as modifying classes, sure it is easy since all of the scripts are just text files.

Yes it handles Monsters and (Though not tested yet) can handle advancing monsters as well. Can also handle your "leopard animal companion skeleton" and a frost man fighter too.

Skill selection, yeah like I said we are always tweaking it.. Thats the point of the system: All of those types of changes are handled in areas that users can change as they need for their world. That was one of the main problems I seen with many systems that exist today, users had a hard time if not impossible time editing and adding data, with NPC Designer we have made that one of our focuses.

To day NPC Designer is not broad is absurd, it can has the functionality to handle most monsters in most of the material I have seen released for 3.5e. There are some things it cannot handle at this moment but over the next few weeks even those will change (Such as races with natural spell casting class features, like dragons). My initial focus has been the SRD material with regards to normal races, classes and prestige classes.

NPC Designer does have one failure and thats people in general. It seems for the most part people assume what it can't do rather then take a moment and find out. Like the skill and feat selection opinion ThirdWizard has, it only takes 3 minutes to make both changes to the system (Not by me in the code but by the user who wants his NPC's that way).

 

[Vascant]

But if you find an error in NPC Wiki, you can fix it, probably in less than 5 minutes. I can't recode NPC Designer.

Most errors you find in NPC Designer like what ThirdWizard found, are changable in less then 5 minutes by you the user, not me.

 

[Roudi]

Why would anyone wish to give up their free time to do this, though?

I give up my free time to (attempt to) produce a free online e-zine for modern gaming. You may find the first two issues here. I would also like to dedicate time to such an endeavour as an OGL NPC Wiki. Why? Because I love the game, I love the 3rd party market, and I want to see both proliferate.

And what would be the benefit?

The benefits would be that folks could see that there is life beyond WotC. There is a lot of great 3rd-party material that many folks don't know about simply by virtue of never being exposed to it. A d20 NPC Wiki that allowed OGC material from any open content source (under the terms of the OGL) would be an excellent place to "show off" the kind of material people don't get exposed to.

The OGL is there to allow for commercial exploitation of WoTC's copyright work by other publishers.

It also exists so that other publishers can "exploit" the copyrighted work of other publishers. Though, in actuality, exploiitation is definitely the wrong term to use. The OGL promotes shared use of material. It allows developers to build on each other's work instead of having to use different mechanics to model the same thing just to avoid copyright infringement. For the most part, permission is sought before using open content... it typically isn't just mined unawares. Also, an OGL's Section 15 always gives credit where credit is due and makes sure the original copyright holders are acknowledged. An OGL NPC Wiki wouldn't be about exploiting the terms of open content, but about showing off OGC work and letting people know where it came from. Of course, an NPC Wiki wouldn't have to limit itself to just the Section 15 for giving credit... it could list, right under the NPC, the sources used for material creation and provide links to either the publisher or a vendor page.

This might be workable if the only allowed source for OGL material was the SRD. It breaks down completely once you start allowing arbitrary OGL content into the Wiki: the compliance volunteers aren't going to have access to all possible sources, and so who's to say if a contributor is using the OGL content from Fred's Big Book o' Feats and Prestige Classes correctly?

This is why you would need submission reviewers (the aforementioned "people to maintain compliance). Their job would be simply to review NPC submissions, check to make sure any unfamiliar material is cited from an OGC source, contact the author about discrepancies, and update the Section 15 when appropriate. A set of clearly-written submission guidelines would help as well (similar to what's already in place, but geared towards submissions containing 3rd party OGC). These guidelines would remind submitters to list their sources and remind them not to submit material unless they were certain it was entirely open content.

 

[Yair]

This is why you would need submission reviewers (the aforementioned "people to maintain compliance). Their job would be simply to review NPC submissions, check to make sure any unfamiliar material is cited from an OGC source, contact the author about discrepancies, and update the Section 15 when appropriate. A set of clearly-written submission guidelines would help as well (similar to what's already in place, but geared towards submissions containing 3rd party OGC). These guidelines would remind submitters to list their sources and remind them not to submit material unless they were certain it was entirely open content.

Not to nitpick, but WHY? Why do you need to make sure everything is truly OGC as publicised? Who's forcing you? In an OGL-based wiki you are bound only by the OGL. No terms may be added beyond it, that's part of the license.
This means each Contributer (editing the wiki) should declare when he presses "submit" that he has Authority to Contribute, as per Section 5, and maybe change the Section 15 accordingly. But you are under no obligation, as the publisher or maintainer, to make sure that his declaretion is truthful.
Should someone complain on a breach, you have 30 days - per Section 13 - to correct it. This is the ONLY source for termination. Indeed, since sublicenses survive you can organize things so that each "edit" is an independent Contribution and so maintain everything but that violating edit even for a longer breach.

You are under no obligation to be active. You are obliged to act only when you become aware of a breach, and so can sit back and let anyone concerned email you and tell you about the breach. If they want it fixed, it's their obligation to make you aware.

Of course, all this does not apply to the NPC Wiki, which does not follow the OGL.

And I am not a lwayer, this is not a legaly binding opinion. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Roudi]

Not to nitpick, but WHY? Why do you need to make sure everything is truly OGC as publicised? Who's forcing you? In an OGL-based wiki you are bound only by the OGL. No terms may be added beyond it, that's part of the license.
This means each Contributer (editing the wiki) should declare when he presses "submit" that he has Authority to Contribute, as per Section 5, and maybe change the Section 15 accordingly. But you are under no obligation, as the publisher or maintainer, to make sure that his declaretion is truthful.
Should someone complain on a breach, you have 30 days - per Section 13 - to correct it. This is the ONLY source for termination. Indeed, since sublicenses survive you can organize things so that each "edit" is an independent Contribution and so maintain everything but that violating edit even for a longer breach.

You are under no obligation to be active. You are obliged to act only when you become aware of a breach, and so can sit back and let anyone concerned email you and tell you about the breach. If they want it fixed, it's their obligation to make you aware.

Of course, all this does not apply to the NPC Wiki, which does not follow the OGL.

You certainly could go and put OGC material up on the NPC Wiki without proper declaration (or even PI-protected material) and conceivably not be caught for it. And yes, even if violation is detected, there is still 30 days to fix the problem. The point would be that, if you are going to work with the OGL, there is no point in working with it unprofessionally. If you are going to do something, do it right.

I guess the idea of an OGL NPC Wiki is too much work for anyone to really want to consider, even if the naysayers wouldn't be the ones doing the work. In all honesty, I could waltz right over to the Wiki, add an OGL, edit all entries into compliance with it, and add new NPCs that used 3rd party OGC. And, just as quickly, other people could change it right back. Though I really want to see an OGL NPC Wiki, I'm not about to do that, as it appears that "those in charge" of this NPC Wiki have no desire to get involved with "that messy OGL business." Oh well. Personally, I just wanted an NPC Wiki that I would have found useful.

 

[Yair]

In all honesty, I could waltz right over to the Wiki, add an OGL, edit all entries into compliance with it, and add new NPCs that used 3rd party OGC. ...

If you want to do it properly, no you can't. The NPC Wiki is based on WikiCities which uses a different open license, that is incompatible with the OGC. I do NOT believe the text can be made compliant to them both.
You would have to find another wiki farm or start your own, one which allowed to publish under the OGL.

As for "doing it right", I personally think this ihas killed more endeouvors than the black plague killed people. An OGL wiki that had material that was only "mostly right" is by far superior to no wiki, or even to a far smaller and less inclusive wiki. Perfectionism ISN'T good, there is a reason even professional products have errata and versions and patches.
Much less a fan- or community-based thing such as a wiki.
It's better to do something half-right then to not do it at all.

And it isn't a matter of being "caught". You're doing what you have to do by the license, no more. It's the unauthorized Contributers that are being "caught", not you.

 

[Roudi]

I'm not going to address your comments about perfectionism, except to say that I think you over-exhaggerated my meaning. I don't want to continue this debate. However, for my own curiosity, could you demonstrate how the WikiCities open license is incompatible with the OGL? My understanding of both licenses led me to believe that they were compatible.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The problem with an OGL wiki is really simple. You can't use things unless they're OGC. Thus, no Frenzied Berserkers, no Beholders, no Hexblades, etc etc etc.

Since the point of this is to be a fansite, and there are no plans to publish this, there isn't really any reason to limit the content. So, no, you couldn't go through and make it OGL compatable unless you were willing to delete several enteries. This isn't an OGL project. It is a fan project. There's more difference to that than just a label.

EDIT: If I want to add an Alhoon (mind flayer lich) Mindbender 5 with feats from Libris Mortis, I could do that. And, that's not a bad thing. Man... now I'm tempted.

 

[Yair]

could you demonstrate how the WikiCities open license is incompatible with the OGL? My understanding of both licenses led me to believe that they were compatible.

I am no expert on the GNU-license, but everything published under the OGL is still the copyright of the Contributer. You don't have a right to Use it except under the OGL, i.e. to publish it under the OGL. You don't have a right to publish it under the GNU or any other license, you just don't have the copyright.
Either the GNU license adds conditions or rights or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's meaningless as you can just publish under the OGL. If it does, then it is incompatible with the OGL, as the OGL doesn't allow you to add more rights or obligations.

 

[Yair]

The problem with an OGL wiki is really simple. You can't use things unless they're OGC. ... This isn't an OGL project. It is a fan project. There's more difference to that than just a label.

I agree completely. My only concern is that the NPC Wiki claims to publish it's content under the GNU, when in fact it doesn't. It can't.
The wiki should be a fan-site, free of any license.
But that's just my opinion.

Yair