Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[nHammer]

After going through this thread(I got a heaadache ) I have a question....

Does anybody have UA content legally on line for me to look over, so I can decide if I want to buy the book? I don't get to the store often enough to look it over there.

If not, then I get it illegaly, look it over and decide if I want to buy it or not.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

First of all this is flaming.

Only on Romper Room and Mister Roger's Neighborhood.

No, I'm saying this is what I'm going to do. As I've already said, other people can set their own morals where they choose. It's not a matter of right morality versus wrong morality. It's a case of what I believe is fair is different than you. Glad you can understand that.

I do understand it. However, bringing up the fact that you choose to do so lends no weight what-so-ever to the topic, so I gotta ask: Are you bringing it up to look morally superior or just as an FYI? Cause we've already trumped the morality issue, and if it's just an FYI, well, a dozen posts saying the same thing goes well beyond making a point.

Remember how laws don't have spirit? They also don't have built in repect.

Glad you see my point.

I'm not insisting you do anything! I already stated that people who wanted to do this should be left alone to do it. The fact you're not remotely go by my actual opinion is more annoying than anything else.

The fact that you keep bringing it up is rather annoying in itself, but not as annoying as not understanding what the hell your trying to say in that last sentance.

The topic I was discussing was off-topic and has nothing to do with your project.

Which project would that be?

And I'm not stating you're being disrespectful. To me, it doesn't show enough respect.

Wow... So much said in two little sentances.

Your code of conduct isn't the same as mine, and nothing says it has to be. I want the topic to die so that people can work on their respective projects instead of flaming. (Much like your post.)

For someone that wants the topic to die, you seem unable to resist continuing it.

Let me explain this simply. I don't care what you do. The topic was brought up about OCR other companies OGC, and I was seeing what other people thought about asking the companies themselves. Just because you can't be bothered to read through all the posts, doesn't make it right for you to go off half-cocked.

I am reading all the posts. That's the problem: You keep repeating yourself, and with little to no real reason.

I'm not challenging your right to the project, I'm not challenging your conduct. I'm simply saying that the license itself doesn't dictate how it will be used. How you intend to use it is up to you, but laws don't dictate morality. Laws don't have spirit, morality, fairness, or anything else. It's just a contract. How I intend to use that contract, in no way impedes on your usage. The only reason I got back on this part of the topic at all is because I'm being attacked, and it's hardly limited to my views.

Well, I certainly don't know anything about you other than your views (and those being limited to the ones you keep repeating in this thread). However, one thing the license does dictate is that, once made OGC, what happens to the material, when it happens, and how it's done, is irrelevant so long as its within the bounds of the license. I cannot support (and will indeed speak against) anything that allows an individual to go around the license and prevent the re-use of OGC they released under it. To which, "asking" for "permission" which is already given does just that; you might as well ask, "is this material really OGC?" because if the material is OGC, than no one has the right to say "no" to its re-use. Indeed, I would find being told "no" to be disrespectful, both towards me and Open Gaming. As is, I'd rather know people for the excellent work they do instead of knowing what kind of jerks they are.

To which, while you see it as something that "should" be done, I see it as something that "should not" be done. And you can definately expect me to repeat such everytime you bring it up.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I cannot support (and will indeed speak against) anything that allows an individual to go around the license and prevent the re-use of OGC they released under it. To which, "asking" for "permission" which is already given does just that; you might as well ask, "is this material really OGC?" because if the material is OGC, than no one has the right to say "no" to its re-use. Indeed, I would find being told "no" to be disrespectful, both towards me and Open Gaming. As is, I'd rather know people for the excellent work they do instead of knowing what kind of jerks they are.

I think the problem those of us who disagree with you see is the following:

Legally, the license leans on the side of being open. Publishers choose to use this license because it is helpful for there own products and to be compatible with D&D. Again, you've emphasized that there is nothing we can do about that.

However, some of us feel that posting copious amounts of text on-line for free from products is taking advantage of the flawed aspects of the license. We would rather ask the publisher if they would mind. I agree with Monte Cook, it is good form to ask publishers if they'd mind before undergoing these actions.

People are free to do what they want, however, I do fear the consequences will be that a 4th Edition D&D will be more closed, and that fewer publishers will participate if people take advantage of this. Time will tell if this great experiement fails or succeeds. In this case, we want to err on the side of caution.

Indeed, I would find being told "no" to be disrespectful, both towards me and Open Gaming. As is, I'd rather know people for the excellent work they do instead of knowing what kind of jerks they are.

The license isn't as important to me as the economic survival of the people who provide such works. I don't think a publisher asking for restraint is a bad thing. "Open Gaming" was, as Ryan himself stated, designed to increase the market share of the hobby. You sort of reveal your "subjective morality" by calling whoever asks for this restraint as a "jerk"--the same thing you got mad at me about--and saying that it's an insult to "open gaming" to ask for a little more restraint. Wow, Open Gaming doesn't have any feelings, it's sort of like that erroneous meme that "Information Wants to be Free"...Information doesn't want for anything, it has no sentience.

Somehow, I can't see people like Andy Collins, Chris Pramas, or Monte Cook as jerks for asking people to just use a little restraint.

Is there any sort of benefit for the hobby to have rules that people are expected to pay for appear on-line? The marginalization of paid content into free content can't exist without severe consequences to the industry--and the industry is what keeps the hobby alive. If publishers feel themselves being exploited, they will pull out and stop providing cool stuff.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Publishers choose to use this license because it is helpful for there own products and to be compatible with D&D.

How compatible is M&M? How about T20? Judge Dread?

You have a narrow view of the license's proven potential.

However, some of us feel that posting copious amounts of text on-line for free from products is taking advantage of the flawed aspects of the license.

Actually, what's flawed is the lack of fore-sight to build in a mandatory OGL depository.

We would rather ask the publisher if they would mind.

Of course, the issue at-hand isn't the reproduction of OGC in SRD format (or better) on the web, it's the Distribution of previously released OGC in any form. It could be the day after release, a month after release, or a year after release. And it could be of any amount.

And, again, I ask, if they "mind", does this mean that we can't Distribute the OGC? If not, what if we do anyways? Does their private or public statement requesting we not do so in any way invalidate or nullify the material as OGC, or restrict my ability to use it?

And that's my problem with it; it's empty, inconsequential, and completely defeats the purpose of Open Gaming by circumventing the "open" part of the deal.

People are free to do what they want, however, I do fear the consequences will be that a 4th Edition D&D will be more closed, and that fewer publishers will participate if people take advantage of this. Time will tell if this great experiement fails or succeeds. In this case, we want to err on the side of caution.

If we tip-toe around it now, why would we stop tip-toeing around it 5, 10 or 15 years from now? WotC is already under no obligation to release anything as OGC. They wouldn't have to worry about this mythical closed-4E; they could completely turn their backs on it now without making any major changes to the system. About the most we should expect is more revisions to tighten their fist around the d20STL.

The license isn't as important to me as the economic survival of the people who provide such works. I don't think a publisher asking for restraint is a bad thing.

Define "Restraint"?

Would "restraint" qualify as a no for any of the following:

1. This new spell in your new book is kewl. Can I give it to an NPC in my new book?

2. This new Prestige Class in your new book is kewl. Can I use it for an organization in my new book?

3. This new method of magic in your new book is kewl. Can I use it as a villain-base in my new book?

4. This book of warfare is kewl. Can I use it as the warfare system in my new book?

If any of these answers comes back as a "no", the purpose of the license has been subverted.

"Open Gaming" was, as Ryan himself stated, designed to increase the market share of the hobby. You sort of reveal your "subjective morality" by calling whoever asks for this restraint as a "jerk"--the same thing you got mad at me about--and saying that it's an insult to "open gaming" to ask for a little more restraint. Wow, Open Gaming doesn't have any feelings, it's sort of like that erroneous meme that "Information Wants to be Free"...Information doesn't want for anything, it has no sentience.

Again, define "restraint"? If "restraint" entails limiting the use of the license, then it's more than "restraint". If restraint means getting the nod to use something already legally made usable by the origanal creator's consent to use it, then it's more than "restraint".

Tell me that you would send an email to a Contributor announcing your Use of their OGC, then I'd see no problem with it. But to ask for permission is silly.

Somehow, I can't see people like Andy Collins, Chris Pramas, or Monte Cook as jerks for asking people to just use a little restraint.

And none of them to date are on record saying "no". If anyone reading this thread has been told "no" by any of these people, or any others in fact, than feel free to say so.

What I have seen is CP asking a poster not to do it and the poster accepting the reasons given. Okay.

What I have also seen is AC calling the idea of OGC extraction and the people that do it "petty", followed up by a rather misleading and misdirected comparison of OGC extraction to literary piracy. Not so okay, but who cares?

But no one has ever said "no" that I know of, and I've yet to ever get an email asking me to stop (that is, I cannot be "told" to stop).

Is there any sort of benefit for the hobby to have rules that people are expected to pay for appear on-line?

Who defines those rules? I think OGC should be made available by the publisher after a certain amount of time. However, it's not part of the license. And since it's not in the license, it's up to me when I choose to do it, where, and how.

The marginalization of paid content into free content can't exist without severe consequences to the industry--and the industry is what keeps the hobby alive. If publishers feel themselves being exploited, they will pull out and stop providing cool stuff.

Again, though, this goes back to my opinion that the most of the industry has built itself up on a standard business model that does not take Open Gaming into account. That is not my fault; It's theirs.

 

[jeffh]

Tell me that you would send an email to a Contributor announcing your Use of their OGC, then I'd see no problem with it. But to ask for permission is silly.

And none of them to date are on record saying "no". If anyone reading this thread has been told "no" by any of these people, or any others in fact, than feel free to say so.

But no one has ever said "no" that I know of, and I've yet to ever get an email asking me to stop (that is, I cannot be "told" to stop).

Possible counterexample:

Jim Ward of Fast Forward Entertainment (the same Jim Ward who contributed to many classic TSR products) once very publicly insinuated that he had been told "no" by GR. If true this would be the only such case I have heard of. However, Chris Pramas later commented that this a) wasn't strictly true and b) that there were extenuating circumstances Ward's comments ignored.

Given Ward's own OGC-related blunders and generally logic-free debating style, I would tend to take Pramas' word over his on anything OGL-related, but I don't actually know what went on, and even what I remember of it is a little fuzzy. Can anyone fill in the details? Some of it played out on these boards and might still be there, but they're not searchable for non-paying members like myself so I'd have no hope of finding it.

 

[The Sigil]

Go right on ahead and ask permission all you want. Go ahead. Ask away. That doesn't bother any of us in the slightest. Just don't expect anyone else to be as anal about it as you are.

Here's a spin from a publisher... DON'T ask me if you can use my OGC... I simply can't be bothered with "can I use this" and "can I use that" all day. I have more important things to do than worry about it. Just use it... that's why I gave you the stuff as OGC in the first place. I'm in the business of "publishing," not "licensing."

Now, I would love it if you give me a holler to let me know when you release a product that has my OGC in it, so I can see how my "child" has "grown up," but that's not mandatory, either.

--The Sigil

 

[barsoomcore]

Just to chime in yet again: I think the development of a sensible business plan based on the reality of the OGL has not yet been completely figured out besides the original Dancey plan for WotC -- to sell more PHB's. And that one can't really be considered completely verified yet.

I have to admit I've been surprised at WotC's aggressive product releases -- it seems to run contrary to the basic strategy of OGL -- offload low-profit work onto smaller firms, sit back and watch PHB sales keep on truckin'. But I am not a big clever industry analyst, so there you go.

 

[Nellisir]

I have to admit I've been surprised at WotC's aggressive product releases -- it seems to run contrary to the basic strategy of OGL -- offload low-profit work onto smaller firms, sit back and watch PHB sales keep on truckin'. But I am not a big clever industry analyst, so there you go.

Huh...I thought they were doing exactly what they said. Instead of the old TSR days, when we got 3-5 AD&D products a month, WotC gives us one D&D hardbound every 2 months. They've scaled back and focused on higher quality products "core" products, instead of trying to fill every niche.

That's my take, anyways.
Cheers
Nell.

 

[barsoomcore]

Yeah, that's probably right. They just seem to be working a lot harder than I really think they need to.

But I'm preternaturally lazy. Which explains why I'm typing on a message board instead of getting out there and making something of myself.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Jim Ward of Fast Forward Entertainment (the same Jim Ward who contributed to many classic TSR products) once very publicly insinuated that he had been told "no" by GR. If true this would be the only such case I have heard of. However, Chris Pramas later commented that this a) wasn't strictly true and b) that there were extenuating circumstances Ward's comments ignored.

Given Ward's own OGC-related blunders and generally logic-free debating style, I would tend to take Pramas' word over his on anything OGL-related, but I don't actually know what went on, and even what I remember of it is a little fuzzy. Can anyone fill in the details? Some of it played out on these boards and might still be there, but they're not searchable for non-paying members like myself so I'd have no hope of finding it.

Yes, I would like a bit more info on that. And I agree; your assessment, based on my own observations of both companies, is likely correct.