Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[John Q. Mayhem]

I honestly never considered that.

Now I feel like a jerk, so I'm going to keep my files private from now on.

My apologies.

I also feel like a jerk. Apology here as well.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I've been lurking on the ogf-l mailing list and I would guess that this is what they would call crippled OGC - it's open, but it's not freely available.

Actually, no, this isn't "crippled" OGC. Crippled OGC is when re-use is made less viable. There are also "degrees" of crippled... For example:

Name Identity Claims: "All Spells, Feats, Classes, and Prestige Classes are OGC; All names of Spells, Feats, Classes, and Prestige Classes is Product Identity."
The problem with Name Identity is that there is no difference between "Festers Big Boom Boom Spell" and "Big Boom Boom Spell", as both are declared "off limits". The debate with this is whether or not "Big Boom Boom Spell" is something the should qualify as PI (although, under the current license, it does qualify).

Closed Text: "All rules are Open Game Content; All text used within the book is closed."
This means that anything not directly mechanical in nature must be re-written in order to be re-used legally.

Neither of these are the case with UA, which is actually quite generous aside from certain elements that WotC has choosen not to release (ex: Mind Flayers), as is their right.

A number of people complain about "crippled OGC", but I don't let it phase me. If something requires extensive re-write the become usable, than that's what it takes. I either re-write it or rename it (making that OGC, thus giving it "legs") or I don't. After all, 9 times out of 10 I have to transcribe that material from hard-copy to computer, and I've found that there is little difference between transcribing word-for-word or re-wording as I go.

 

[blackshirt5]

I just dicovered thi thread, and I think I can help.

I've got the following sections fully transcribed, OGL-compliant and in RTF format:

1. Bloodlines (no Yuan-ti, naturally)
2. Alternate classes (All of them; both in UA summary form and in complete SRD class-listing format)
3. Weapon Group feats
4. Generic classes
5. Gestalt classes.
6. Action point system

I plan to eventually transcribe all the alt.rules I find useful (75% of the book).

It never occurred to me to share it---and I'm still unclear about the legalities involved. I'd love to help if I could.

Hey Wormwood, could I get a copy of that? Email it to blackshirt52002@yahoo.com Thanks in advance!

 

[Darkness]

Hey Wormwood, could I get a copy of that?

Don't get your hopes up, mate:

I honestly never considered that.

Now I feel like a jerk, so I'm going to keep my files private from now on.

My apologies.

 

[blackshirt5]

Don't get your hopes up, mate:

Yeah, I just caught up to that. Oh well, it's just not my day today.

 

[jaerdaph]

I just want to thank everyone here for making it highly unlikely for WotC to release any more material under the OGL, and possibly even consider keeping D&D 4.0 closed as well.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

As for the "spirit" of Open Source, I don't see how you could proclaim yourself an advocate. No offense intended. The only recognized advocate for OGL is Ryan Dancey.

Actually, going back to this point, wasn't it Ryan Dancey himself that, in early-January, was talking about an SRD+ project, one that would take the SRD and add-in material from a multitude of sources into one large depository of OGC?

The OGF-L Server Archives aren't functioning at the moment, otherwise I'd link to his original e-mail on the subject, but you'll likely recall the conversation. Indeed, it was the end-result of that conversation that got me involved in d20X*, which isn't the same thing as an SRD+ depository, but is developed with the same principle in mind: That OGC, once released, is nothing more than OGC and may be copied, shared, and altered as the re-user desires within the bounds of the OGL.

* Plug: The d20Exchange is a depository of submitted OGC that anyone can contribute to. Essentially, if you are the sort that transcribes material from one source for your own personal use, than you've got something to contribute: The transcribed rules. Anyone curious about this can email me for more information.

 

[Cergorach]

I just want to thank everyone here for making it highly unlikely for WotC to release any more material under the OGL, and possibly even consider keeping D&D 4.0 closed as well.

If they closed D&D 4E they would alienate a lot of publishers and with them a lot of customers. Also, chances are that when there's actually a movement that collects and distributes OGC, the changes that will happen from 3.5 to 4.0 should be easy to incorporate in the excisting OGC.

A sidenote: I think that if WotC wanted to exeriment with OGC, they should have used a different book than UA. UA as a product has very little value to 80% of the consumers, even when people see something usefull, it will only be a very small part of the book. IMHO they should have used that Exalted book as the experiment and should have been a bit less enthausiastic with the OGC designation.

 

[Maggan]

Well, you're welcome

I just want to thank everyone here for making it highly unlikely for WotC to release any more material under the OGL, and possibly even consider keeping D&D 4.0 closed as well.

Well, I think everyone is happy that they made your day.

In my opionion, releasing OGC and then hoping people won't share it, use it, retype it or whatever, is an exercise in futility.

Also, having the strategy of open gaming content rely on hopes that people don't share material that they have an explicit right to share, is also probably not a very good idea.

The material is out there. It can be shared, retyped, re-published, what have you.

If WotC (and not only Andy Collins) is surprised and disappointed by this, and if this in itself would lead to the cancellation of the OGL, I think it's high time they went throught with it and cancelled the OGL altogether. And it's better for us to know now, than later.

Because if anyone release OGC, they have to expect people to re-publish it.

If WotC is disappointed that this is happening, then I don't really see what they are expecting of us, since they allow us to use the material, but lays a guilt trip on us if we do.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Cergorach]

If WotC (and not only Andy Collins) is surprised and disappointed by this, and if this in itself would lead to the cancellation of the OGL, I think it's high time they went throught with it and cancelled the OGL altogether. And it's better for us to know now, than later.

Well, they can't 'cancel' the OGL, they could possibly 'cancel' the D20 license (not sure here), but OGC is OGG. Even if Hasbro somehow decided to stop producing D&D we can always use the SRD rules and OGC, publishers can keep on releasing under the OGL.

Ryan is my personal hero because he got WotC brass so far as to release the SRD under the OGL. I tell you, that man can sell an iceberg to an eskimo! ;-)