A new site Idea The OGC exchange

[Ace]

I wanted to get some feedback on a website idea I had

My concept is The Open Game Content Exchange

Basically It is all of the OGC cruchy bits from the various projects, netbook, EnWorld wherever assmebled in one place. Legally

All of the bits would be sorted by creator and type (prestige class, feat, spell)

Here is the conundrum.....

If i did the site I have 2 goals in mind

Put all the crunchy bits together for gamers and developers. So far with all of the OGC stuff out there about the only thing that ever gets used it Chaosiums formation fighting feat. I would like to see more OGC in use

Second I would like fans to have acess to lots of material for thier games.

and I must do it ethically.

It is really important to me not to impact the sales of anyones "Book of Crunchies" .

After all if I hurt profitability that means less high quality content for all of us. Its just plain wrong

My problem is I don't know how long to wait before putting something on the site from an OGC product.

As I see it if I post, say 1 OGC monster from a module-- well thats cool because the module sales won't suffer. I don't think folks want to pay $5-15 US for a critter by itself

OTOH Reprinting the OGC content of say Liber Equites is moral piracy and just plain wrong

But there will come a point in a year or more which a product is effectivly not selling anymore and posting dead OGC stuff (legally of course) is ethical

I have three ideas for content sources

#1 OGC Cruchy Bits that aren't the focus or even a major part of the product-- a monster, a spell whatever

#2 Fan OGC Stuff. The margin between designer and fan is very samll and some of the fan stuff is really good

#3 Donated taster stuff, Good bits and many links to sample items for different D20 companys.

$4Cruchies from dead stuff. OOP OGC crunchies, PRC and rules varients from dead products and so on.


If it is print I want the companys to approve of what I am doing.
Besides, fan support is not all of what I would be doing.
The other purpose of the site is to help with product crosspolination.


The questions are....

When is a product dead enough for me to post it?
How could I tell?
How much crunchy stuff is too much?
Are any gamers interested in the idea?
Are any game companys interested in the site?
Can I make the site break even either with my own OGC products or with banner adds? Profit is nice but not expected.
Is this even ethical?

Thanks for the feedback

 

[chatdemon]

This was suggested before, by Robert Romano of Children of the Grave Press IIRC. Problem was, none of the publishers wanted to play ball, and those of us who spoke about the spirit of open content were attack, rather harshly (in particular by someone who bragged from here to next week about how 'pro' he was, only to go on and have to sell his game to another publisher because his outfit couldn't put the pieces together.) Of course, everyone's account of the situation will vary, but that's how I saw it. Comes down to the arrogance of the print publishers concerning the pdf only publishers IMO. God forbid the little suggests something that actually embodies the spirit of the open gaming movement. I guess the OGF is just supposed to be a club for guys who want to get rich riding someone else's coattails.

If you do want to try and pursue this project, I recommend popping over to CotGP's website and talking to RR. He may have some work started that he abandoned due to the negative reaction.

 

[kingpaul]

This was suggested before, by Robert Romano of Children of the Grave Press IIRC. Problem was, none of the publishers wanted to play ball, and those of us who spoke about the spirit of open content were attack, rather harshly (in particular by someone who bragged from here to next week about how 'pro' he was, only to go on and have to sell his game to another publisher because his outfit couldn't put the pieces together.) Of course, everyone's account of the situation will vary, but that's how I saw it. Comes down to the arrogance of the print publishers concerning the pdf only publishers IMO. God forbid the little suggests something that actually embodies the spirit of the open gaming movement. I guess the OGF is just supposed to be a club for guys who want to get rich riding someone else's coattails.

While I don't recall this being brought up before, it is unfortunate that others did not want to participate. I know such a think would be of great interest for me. I do know that some of my fellow Team Leaders (most notably Spells and Magic and Feats) are working on doing this with their books (Feats has already started this, Spells and Magic will in the future).

 

[Morrus]

My opinion of this is fairly simple. If you start posting OGC on the web en masse, then publishers will stop designating stuff as open. They'll stick to the minimum 5% required.

Chatdemon, I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of the purpose of the OGL. What you are describing is the spirit of Open Source material; just because the OGL has the world "Open" in the name doesn't make it the same thing.

In my opinion (which is, admittedly, no more vaid than yours, but I'm pretty sure of myself here), the license is designed to 1) allow publishers to base derivative materials on the core rules and 2) to cross-pollinate to an extent. "2" is more of a by-product though; the aim of it is to sell core rulebooks.

As Ace says - you could take Librum Equitus and sell it yourself; or post the content for free. It's pretty much all OGC. Legallyyou're OK. In my opinion, morally you're not. And if you do that, wait and see how much OGC appears in that publisher's next book.

 

[chatdemon]

Morrus:
I do agree that wholesale repackaging and distribution of everyone's OGC isn't what the OGL is designed for, and would hurt the industry by encouraging publishers to close more of their content.

OTOH though, look at the Interlock/link(whatever they call it this week ) thing that Green Ronin and others are doing. Sharing more than the OGL and D20STL require. This is what I mean by the spirit of the OGF.

When Robert Romano first suggested an OGC archive, he explicitly stated he would not reproduce anyone's OGC without their consent, yet the industry types that replied almost unanimously belittled his efforts, and it did lead to some nasty flamewars on the industry lists that basically proved my theory about the print publisher's attitudes toward the little guys. What saddens me is, if someone like Monte Cook or Clark Peterson suggested this same thing, it would be hailed as the sliced bread of open gaming, but since a little guy suggested it, it was ridiculed and ignored.

YM(and opinions)MV of course, I'm just calling it like I saw it when it went down.

(edit)
Also, the 'OGL isn't exactly 'open' ' argument is one I see a lot. My thoughts on the matter come from Ryan Dancey's (self serving, IMO) article which blatantly, and repeatedly compared the OGL and OGF to the GNU thing, and Linux in particular, read it here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e

 

[chatdemon]

By the way,
I wholeheartedly support (as I did when RR suggested it last year) such a project if Ace decides to pursue it, probably with the understanding that the 'owner' of the OGC involved would have a right to not have their material included. I'd gladly donate 'un-greyhawked' versions of the 3rd edition work I've done.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm in the infancy of d20 publishing now.

As a small press, I consider the danger of my OGC being distributed without my permission as roughly equal to the danger of ending up on peer-to-peer.

In either case, I rely on folks to buy my print version because it's the right thing to do.

My first book is (conservatively) 75% open content. Probably more. Certainly 100% of the crunchy stuff is open content-- perforce so, as crunchy stuff is derivative of the SRD and is therefore, by definition, open. There's only so much that publishers can do to control the amount of OGC in their stuff and still remain relevant.

That said, if an "Open Content" movement started undercutting retail sales and short-circuiting profit, publishers just won't bother putting stuff out anymore. This isn't just a print vs PDF issue; if folks start preying on the open content right out of the gate, you won't even be able to sell a PDF before it's available elsewhere for free.

To answer the original concern, I would say 6 months after publication would be VERY aggressive, 1 year would be the minimum to be polite, and if you wanted to be completely on the level about it you'd ask the original publisher for permission regardless of how long you wait. You don't need permission, but that's the most gentlemanly way to go about it.

That's my newbie, relatively inexperienced opinion.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

When Robert Romano first suggested an OGC archive, he explicitly stated he would not reproduce anyone's OGC without their consent, yet the industry types that replied almost unanimously belittled his efforts, and it did lead to some nasty flamewars on the industry lists that basically proved my theory about the print publisher's attitudes toward the little guys.

I read those threads, and in my opinion, the hostile reception had far more to do with Robert's arrogant attitude at the time. In fact RR himself suggested almost immediately afterwards that he'd only entered the list in the first place to somehow "flush out" the "industry types" and show everyone "what they were really all about."

It was like reading the ravings of a madman.


Wulf

 

[Ace]

Thanks you all for the feedback.

The "clam up' problem that Morrus mentioned is exactly what I was afraid of. I don't want to hurt anyones sales in any way.

Walking that razor edge is really difficult and I don't want my "exchange" to backfire on me

I want more open content for all not less.

I will keep researching though, this is only the trial balloon so to to speak, and I don't even know if the idea is better in throery than in practice.

 

[chatdemon]

That may be, I don't speak for RR's motives. But...if that was what he set out to do, he did it well, IMO. It gave me a new outlook on some of the industry people at least. I personally doubt that was RR's intention though, after all, a majority of the action on that flamewar was held on a list he owned. In the process of being ridiculed into silence by those who disagree, we all make harsh comments sometimes, and to me, that is what it seemed like RR's closing comments in that matter were, but again, only he can say for sure.

If you'll recall, the conclusion of that mess was heralded by some of the 'pros' forming their own, private list. In order to get on thier list and talk about the D20 industry with the 'pros' you had to have at least 2 publishing credits, not counting pdf/electronic publishing. Let me repeat that, electronic publishing was not acceptable as credentials for joining their list. What this basically means is that if I go to a vanity press publishing outfit and ramrod my crap into print, I'm a more legitimate author than someone who has, say, been published repeatedly in a place like Pyramid magazine. It wasn't about quality of membership, or actual credentials, it was about exclusivity, plain and simple.