D20 OGC Master Compilation.

[Tyrant]

One of the last times this came up some of the publishers mentioned that they arent interested in "getting on board" because they have no time and little financial interest in going back through and designating their Open Content. I BELIEVE (meaning I could be misremembering) that Orcus (Clark from Necromancer) said they might also risk exposing themselves to lawsuits from 3rd party people who used the self-proclaimed OGC in good faith and were ultimately slapped with a C&D.

For these reasons and more I think this plan will not succeed as it was originally suggested. Someone has to take responsibility for designating the Open Game Content. That is probably why so many section 15s are so vague to begin with.

At the same time, I question the value of a system the merely provides an index of who has submitted what kind of content. Every book has feats and prestige classes, so how do you classify and distinguish content in a meaningful way? And what do you do when a title is OOP? Will publishers and would-be writers buy books on the offchance it has the reference material thats useful to them? What if it doesnt? I guess Im just saying an index also leaves questions to be answered.

For a while I considered opening an online game store, and thought that publishing parts of a company's OGC from their product might be a possible hook to lure people to the site.
One thing I thought about doing was something like this...
http://www.hugeogre.com/ogc_info.php?products_id=35

This lists a single feat from author Erik Mona's Armies of the Abyss by Green Ronin.

I believe that this satisfies the requirement of the license without making the thing too unwieldy. I originally had a link that displayed the entire license instead of just the section 15, but it made for long, obscurred pages...

I also created a listing that allows you to sort by the name, type of feat, publisher, and book title where the OGC first appeared.
The OGC is stored in a MySQL database, crossreferenced to the product it originally appeared in, and linked to a store by product. The section 15 as it appears in the original book is also stored in the db, and the huge ogre website blurb (which Im pretty sure is required since I am in effect "republishing" the OGC).

End result? Huge Ogre is not going anywhere, and I would be happy to donate it to the cause if thats what it takes. The website, the URL, a new name (Open Gaming Resource Emporium). You still need a way to make money to sustain the site though. Perhaps if someone could get the publishers to buy into the system as a marketing mechanism, where links to OGC linked back to a preferred store where the published sold the original book or something. Or if you sold banners (preferably to game companies and not to Netzero or that DVDclub, lol)

Anyway, Hunger forces me to close this post, probably when I should have gone back and reread it.

Eric Price
Dragon Scale Counters, LLC
http://www.dragonscalecounters.com

 

[Kerrick]

IMO, the problem with saying, "only certain people get to use this" is that it creates an "elite club." As in, one that is seen as elitist by others.

Remember all the uproar about WotC's decision to make the 3.5e revisions accessible only to companies that have published a print product or had former WotC R&D people on staff? WotC made a dividing line and people didn't like it.

SOME people didn't like it - the majority of companies (and this is only from what I saw here and elsewhere, so I could easily be wrong) seemed to understand WotC's decision on this matter. I seem to recall a copy of the ELH playtest rules getting out...

I think that rather than including every single mechanic (which is a LOT of stuff - it would take a single person a couple years to collate all of it), why not just make it a library of information that has been declared OGC? (Or am I misunderstanding this whole thing? If I am, forgive me). #1, it would encourage more people to incude OGC material in their products, and #2, it eliminates having to ask someone to use their OGC in your product (yes, I know you don't technically have to ask, but it's professional courtesy). THIS, IMO, is the spirit of the OGL - free interchange of informatio, ideas, and work for use by all.

1.) Only those who have contributed to the pool can use it. That means even the smallest contribution - 1 spell - is enough to get you in. An "entry fee" if you will.

2.) Anyone can use it, even without an "entry fee."

Given the spirit of the Open Game License, I would prefer to see #2.

Sorry, I vote #1. Why? It should be slightly elitist. Only the people who are willing to contribute to the greater vision, if you will, should be able to partake of the final product. Have you heard the story of the chicken who wanted to make some bread? She asked her friends (several other barnyard animals) who wanted to help her gather the grain, grind the grain, gather the flour, and make the bread, and not one of them wanted to help. But when it came time to help her eat the bread, everyone wanted in on it. Of course, she told them all that since they didn't help her, they didn't get any bread.

The same principle holds true here - if you don't want to help build the ballpark, you shouldn't get to play on the field. It's simple enough, and it encourages people to make more OGC like I mentioned before.

 

[Blacksad]

A forum to discuss OGC
http://pub44.ezboard.com/bassociationofoglpublishers

The Open Gaming Exchange, that apparently every one forgot
http://www.ogexchange.com/

Here you go, spoiled publisher

 

[afstanton]

I find this a fairly interesting discussion, but the thought that crosses my mind is that if all content contained in this online system (database) is truly OGC, then there's no real way to stop someone from snagging the entire thing and setting up their own system that the general public can then get to for free. This is true even if you establish an entry fee to access the original database, whether the fee is a contribution of cold hard cash. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no good way to get it back in.

There's really no way of stopping someone from buying product off the shelf at their local bookstore, OCR'ing it, removing all non-OGC stuff, and creating such a database with no permission from the publisher. It would indeed be highly rude, but completely legal if they followed the OGL perfectly, as far as I can tell.

Given that there's no way of preventing it, I'd suggest a responsible party be the first to actually do it. What I'd personally think is a good way to do it is to come up with a human readable format for game content, preferably via an XML schema, and include a section for digital signatures. The digital signature should only be used by an entity claiming ownership of the OGC, which would leave little room for doubt that they are indeed releasing specific work as OGC.

This data could be uploaded to a server where it is verified against the entity's public key. Once verified, the file is then parsed out and integrated into the master database. Unverifiable files would be either rejected outright or put into a holding location. Public keys from registered entities would be stored in the database as well. Actual human interaction would be recommended during the step of accepting a public key.

One interesting side effect of this is that if datasets use a standardized accepted format, programs such as PCGen, RPM, and CS (to name the 3 that I can immediately think of) could import them for creating characters. Programs would certainly need to be written to generate these files, as well. Also, the database could generate XML datasets as a result of a query, although those would be unsigned datasets - recall, signing data would be equivalent to claiming ownership in this system.

Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth. There are many people much more qualified than I am to consider the specific details of how to implement this kind of system, but that's what came to mind.

Aaron

 

[jmucchiello]

A forum to discuss OGC
http://pub44.ezboard.com/bassociationofoglpublishers

The Open Gaming Exchange, that apparently every one forgot
http://www.ogexchange.com/

Here you go, spoiled publisher

Never heard of the first one (and it hasn't had a new post since August).The second one still hasn't added me to the list of OGC publishers. I know I sent data in a long time back.

Mailing lists all the major players subscribe to: ogl-l@opengaingfoundation.org
and
ogl-d20-l@opengamingfoundation.org

 

[Sir Whiskers]

I don't mean to be inflammatory, and I apologize upfront if my post offends anyone:

Why are we even discussing who should have access to this material????

The whole point of declaring something as OGC is so that others can use that material (within legal constraints) freely. I'm more than a little concerned at the number of posts I've just read that seem to imply that this great tool is too dangerous to allow into "just anyone's" hands.

The huge benefit I see to this project (if it ever happens) is that it has the potential to make using OGC material quick and easy. Yes, that can be a problem, but Sigil has suggested several ideas for limiting the potential damage - ideas which can be refined as needed. Also, his point of placing responsibility on publishers means that any publisher who sees the database as a competitive threat is free to not submit anything to it. As for someone else copying the db and trying to sell it: why should I pay for their copy, when I can sign into the original site?

I hope this happens. I'd love to be able to login, spend an hour running queries for specific data I need, cut and paste it as needed, then logout. More importantly, I'd like to see OGC material that can really be used, not material that is declared OGC, but I then have to jump through hoops to get at it. That sounds a bit too much like wanting our cake and eating it too.

 

[Blacksad]

Why are we even discussing who should have access to this material????

Because publisher still want to get money when they write something?

 

[Mongoose_Matt]

Hi guys,

Can I throw a cat among the pigeons?

Ask yourselves, for a moment, why any publisher would want to do this. Take Mongoose as an example, by all means. We have nearly 100 books out there, so we are looking at a serious amount of time that I would have to get someone to commit to in order to do this - it just won't get done, we are too busy putting new books out.

I also suspect that many of the other larger d20 companies will be in a similar position, and if you don't have them, how much utility will the database have?

You really need someone willing to OCR it - but that would take a long, long time However, I would certainly charge for such a database though I would also expect it to be pirated over and over again. Oh, and BTW, limiting entries to those of 24 months or more will not avoid drops in sales. Companies who have been around that long tend to survive on backlist sales rather than work the three month boom and bust model. Just something to be aware of

Someone also raised the point the OGC should be free. Umm, no. This is written no where - each and every one of you can use OGC, pretty much without restriction, but who ever said it should be free?

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Matt, I did not mean to imply that someone should not be able to charge for access to OGC material, whether in pdf, print, or a database. In fact, I have no problem if the discussion centers around how much to charge for access to this db. It seems to be a massive undertaking and I'd expect whoever did it to receive some sort of recompense, if only to meet expenses.

What I disagree with is the idea of a free db, that only "certain" individuals or companies should have access to, because they "deserve" it. If someone wishes to create such a db, he/she is allowed to limit access in any way they want - but the original poster (Geist) was discussing a tool to make using OGC material easier, which implies wide access. If the purpose of the db is to make money (nothing wrong with that), then charge for access. If the purpose is to promote the use of OGC material, to enrich the entire community, then it (IMHO) should have only those limitations that are absolutely necessary. Of course, the idea of making such material widely available seems to be the main reason publishers balk at supporting it, fearing lost sales.

Which brings me to this question: why are companies declaring anything OGC? In some cases, the amount of OGC material affects a product's review, so that could be one reason. Another is the hope that some other publisher will use the material, which may indirectly promote the original product. But as soon as the discussion moves toward making OGC material readily available, people balk. Is it that OGC is not a threat, so long as it's too difficult to use in most cases? If so, is this a bit hypocritical - saying material is OGC, but only if someone really wants to work at it?

I don't mean to generalize about the industry as a whole, or even a particular publisher. I do feel however, that this discussion has brought out a dichotomy in the way OGC is perceived within the industry - sort of, it's okay in small doses, but watch out if it ever gets organized. This reminds me a bit of the music industry and the internet - it was just another way to promote the product, until someone figured out how to (illegally) share music pretty much universally. Of course, the big difference is we're talking about OGC material here, aren't we?

Lastly, I'm the last person to claim to be an expert on OGC or copyright law. If I've misunderstood the purpose or use of OGC material, feel free to correct me

 

[Mongoose_Matt]

Which brings me to this question: why are companies declaring anything OGC? In some cases, the amount of OGC material affects a product's review, so that could be one reason. Another is the hope that some other publisher will use the material, which may indirectly promote the original product. But as soon as the discussion moves toward making OGC material readily available, people balk. Is it that OGC is not a threat, so long as it's too difficult to use in most cases? If so, is this a bit hypocritical - saying material is OGC, but only if someone really wants to work at it?

None of the above - material is OGC because it _has_ to be, if the d20 System is being used. There is no way around it - if a rule even sniffs of d20, it has to be OGC and you have to really try hard to avoid this (check out the generation tools in T20 for a good example).

I am not really against the idea of this database, partly because the subject has been raised before and I seriously doubt whether it will ever get done. The magnitude of this task is _enourmous_. Think about it for a moment - if it is going to have _real_ value, rather than just be another compilation of random elements, then you need to include, well, everything! PDFs will be the easiest to incorporate but, at some point, you have to look at the larger publishers. Just taking Mongoose as an example, that is 6-900 pages to keep up with _every_ month. Add to that GR, FFG, FFE, MEG and all the rest (every month, remember!) and the task is staggering.

To further complicate matters, most publishers will not lift a finger to help, for two reasons. First off, they are just way too busy trying to run their own businesses. Second, do not underestimate the fear of losing sales - we have already had publishers approach us and ask us to leave their OGC out of our books. Think about that for a moment - there are some publishers out there who do not want their OGC touched by another.

The thing is, I can see exactly where they are coming from but I am not sure their fears carry much weight. However, we respect their wishes and give their material a wide berth.

Now, we have faced some criticism (ha!) in the past with regards to how our OGC is declared - you know and I know that argument so let us not rehash it here. However, I will say this - one reason we use this method is so that someone cannot come along with a big vacuum cleaner and just OCR all our books and chuck them on RPGNow for $5 a throw. If you really want our material for your own work, you'll hash it about anyway and so there is no real additional workload. If you just want to hoover up our stuff, I am not going to make it any easier.

The trouble is, there is a section in our little community who truly believe that OGC means free. No, it does not. I have to pay for it (in buying other publisher's books or paying writers) - why shouldn't anyone else? There is a facility within the OGL that allows someone to take such material and distribute it freely but you could argue he is selling himself short. However, this is the risk that every publisher who takes advantage of OGC runs and if a publisher does not understand that (mentioning no names) then he is in the wrong game.

I realise this is not going to be a popular opinion with some people, but I have 9 staff members, some of whom have families and mortgages and I cannot afford to simply hand out vast chunks of their work for nothing.

At the end of the day, this database idea is a _great_ thing for gamers and hobbiests who love to tinker (whether the results of their work make it onto RPGNow.com or not). Of course it is - compile everything and get it all for free (or very little).

But you cannot expect publishers to be very impressed

My honest view. Take it for what it is worth.