Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[Bendris Noulg]

Unfortunately, to make such a copyrighted product while utilizing the d20 ruleset without the OGL would require a separate agreement with Wizards of the Coast, unless the publisher wishes to introduce a whole new ruleset.

Actually, I did have a line of thought once that the whole Open/Closed/PI issue was just backwards. I think (opinion, pipe-dream, whatever...) that it would have been better if the product itself was declared untouchable copyrighted material but the contributor had a period of time (3-6 months) to submit a txt format file (minimum) of the OGC within the product to some form of Open Gaming "depository". Fail to submit that file, and the book goes OGC in-total.

That would have solved a lot of issues in Open Gaming.

 

[Ranger REG]

Actually, I did have a line of thought once that the whole Open/Closed/PI issue was just backwards. I think (opinion, pipe-dream, whatever...) that it would have been better if the product itself was declared untouchable copyrighted material but the contributor had a period of time (3-6 months) to submit a txt format file (minimum) of the OGC within the product to some form of Open Gaming "depository". Fail to submit that file, and the book goes OGC in-total.

That would have solved a lot of issues in Open Gaming.

It would, but it would also be costly for the publisher.

As I said, to make a d20 product a copyrighted material that is derived from the D&D core rulebooks rather than from the SRD would require you negotiating an exclusive agreement with WotC, and one would expect there may be royalty fees involved.

I think that if the publisher know all the risks, and still decide to utilize the open rules system (which the SRD provides) which is under the OGL, then he has to accept the risks, or have already done so, for his business.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I think Bendris Noulg posting sections of UA on his website for his players is great. At some point though, rather than posting all of it, I think it becomes more fair to the publisher to just ask players to buy the book if they want to use the rules.

To comment on this, the idea for Aedon is to have complete rulebooks. That is, only the 3-Ring binders containing the Aedon Rules will, in the end, be all that we will require at the table. (Note that Aedon does not carry the d20 logo; Character Creation Rules are included.)

My players do, on occassion, buy books, but often those books are representative of themes they want to explore as players with PCs and are few and far between; the bulk of purchases, as world-maker, falls on me (except for one other member that GMs an Oathbound game, but 90% of her purchases are strictly Bastion Press with the occassional dip into Fantasy Flight and Privateer, which has blended well into a very unusual and unique game I must say... Story Hour recently started at Valar.).

 

[kenjib]

Actually, I did have a line of thought once that the whole Open/Closed/PI issue was just backwards. I think (opinion, pipe-dream, whatever...) that it would have been better if the product itself was declared untouchable copyrighted material but the contributor had a period of time (3-6 months) to submit a txt format file (minimum) of the OGC within the product to some form of Open Gaming "depository". Fail to submit that file, and the book goes OGC in-total.

That would have solved a lot of issues in Open Gaming.

I think that's a really great idea and I would like to see WotC consider something like this for 4e. It would remove all of the ambiguity and allow people to easily re-distribute any and all OGC available to them.

 

[frugal]

I think part of the problem might be with the idea of "adding value". Everyone has a different idea as to what adds value to a product.

Let's take a concrete example: me.

I have created an online Modern SRD. I took WotC's OGC, prettied it up, added massive amounts of hyperlinking and made it available to the world. For free.

From one point of view, I understand why someone might sayI just copied the material and posted it online (let's ignore for the moment that it already was online) without adding any value -- after all, I didn't create any NEW OGC, nor did I add any closed content either. I just took the OGC and reposted it, making it easier for people to get at.

But from another point of view, I think it's clear that someone might think I added HUGE amounts of value -- simply by making it more accessible. By providing the navigation and hyperlinking that I did. I certainly put very large amounts of work into it.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am currently building a OpenOffice / PDF document of the whole of the SRD and I will probably add other OGL content as I get it.

Now I own the PBH, DMG, MM, ELH, origial 3.0 psionics and I have all of them at the table so why do I want to spend about 50 hours reformatting, indexing and linknig all of these documents? Because searching through an PDF/DOC/HTML file is an order of magnitude quicker than trying to find the rule in just the 3 core books.

WoTC did a wonderful job with the rules, art and cover design. But they did a lousy job with the contents, index and layout. I would refuse to buy a technical book for my job that only had a 2 page index for a 200 page book (and have done in the past)...

 

[frugal]

Correction: Spycraft is not a completely closed system. At the time of the book's release, only one game content remained closed and are used with permission by Wizards of the Coast: VP/WP health system. But for the most part, mainly the ruleset, Spycraft is a third-party d20 product in compliance with the OGL.

I stand corrected. I have never actually seen Spycraft, my only exposure was on the PCGen mailing list when people asking for Spycraft datasets were told they it contained closed content and was therefore unavailable. I inferred (incorrectly) from those statements that Spycraft had licensed the D20 rules from WotC rather than used mostly OGL rules with one or two closed content rules licensed in a different way.

Unfortunately, to make such a copyrighted product while utilizing the d20 ruleset without the OGL would require a separate agreement with Wizards of the Coast, unless the publisher wishes to introduce a whole new ruleset.

This is the point I was trying to make: If publishers do not want their rules open for a period of time then they have the option of licensing the WotC closed content.

Now I know that this will make considerably more legal work for both parties and it will almost certainly mean that small publishers are unable to go down this route unless WotC are generous and easy going with their licensing, but never the less, it is a possible path for publishers to take.

 

[jessemock]

Speaking as one of the authors of Unearthed Arcana, it seems to me a little petty to simply scan/retype the entire product and make it available for free to anyone who wants it.

I like the use of 'petty' here: it could only indicate "mean" or "narrow-minded" or "spiteful"--as if the distribution of the material could only take place as a result a desire either to harm someone or to adhere strictly to the letter of the law, for its own sake.

Surely, 'petty' couldn't mean "insignificant".

We made UA open content to encourage publishers to try out some new rules in their products, as well as to recognize some exciting concepts pioneered by other companies,

'Recognise' is interesting in this context, because it doesn't mean "acknowledge as an achievement", but rather "take and sell for our own profit".

More neat rhetoric from the people who 'unlock wellsprings'.

 

[Ranger REG]

'Recognise' is interesting in this context, because it doesn't mean "acknowledge as an achievement", but rather "take and sell for our own profit".

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

All I know is that some of the mechanics from third-party souces are the more talked-about by fans, mostly praises. I don't know if they're considered achievements or innovations for the d20 open rules system, but they're definitely fan favorites.

 

[barsoomcore]

If some companies (even if it's just WotC) are producing 4E stuff, and others (maybe everyone but WotC) are making 3.5 stuff, we, the consumers, lose.

Again, this condition will be true regardless of how 4E is licensed. Currently 3E is licensed via the OGL, which makes things difficult to some degree -- as this thread attests. There's nothing to suggest that the licensing chosen for 4E -- whatever it will be -- will make things MORE difficult. Indeed, a license that (for example) requires payment or WotC approval might improve things. Nobody knows, at this stage.

Fair enough, but it seems you're assuming that people wouldn't bother paying you for it just because they aren't legally required to.

Well, I know if I put out an OGC book (OGC because it's all crunch), I would hope people would pay me for my work (assuming I was actually charging for it). Since I would hope people would pay me, I'll certainly pay them.

Assumptions are a bad way to plan for the future. If your business plan includes statements like, "We hope people will pay us because they're nice," you should accept that your business model is high risk.

And high risk business models rarely produce healthy industries. I'd much rather see the RPG industry based on lower-risk, more sustainable business models. I think that releasing OGC can produce such models -- but publishers have to consider how the OGL will affect their business. THAT will produce a healthy industry.

At some point though, rather than posting all of it, I think it becomes more fair to the publisher to just ask players to buy the book if they want to use the rules. There's definitely a lot of gray area there- no doubt.

Yeah, that's the problem. And I think something that's happening here is that I'm arguing from the "principle" point of view, looking to derive specific cases from that, whereas you're starting with a specific case and building a principle upon that.

That is, I'm saying, "It's always okay to post OGC," and thereby concluding that any instance of posting OGC is good, while you're saying, "This kind of posting is bad," and thereby concluding that it's not always okay. If you see what I mean.

The fact that we both agree whole-heartedly with everything Joe B. is saying suggests to me maybe our positions aren't as far apart as the number of posts in this thread indicates.

 

[Fester]

... blah ...

all the debate anybody tells me won't change that thought.

Then why are you here? You have no interest in debate and combined with your stamping of feet and yelling "You're a jerk!" really doesn't lead me to give anything you say much credence. I've always found that when people get abusive, it's because their argument has unravelled, but they just don't want have the wit to know it or the honesty to admit it.

I think there are good uses and bad uses of OGL out there. Each one I judge based on how exploitive it is. To me, If it feels like you are doing something wrong, it probably is wrong. That's how everybody should behave.

So, everybody should behave like you? And if they don't, they're jerks? Right. I think you must have been on your own for too long. Go out, get some friends, talk to people. You may just realise then that debate and conversation is a two way thing and that, in fact, very few (if any) are likely to regard your opinion as sacrosanct. Of course, you'll need to retract your head from the bucket of sand it's in.

Some of us feel that the creation of an SRD for Unearthed Arcana for free on the Internet violates a trust. We discourage people from doing that, and debate why. And we realize our actions have consequences, and the activities of a few may discourage the good elements of OGL.

Us? We? Our? Are you a Mason?

And before anybody thinks I am attacking anybody, I am attacking the attitude, not an individual. I have not attacked others, but I see people ready to jump on both myself and Andy Collins for daring to speak out about this, questioning our motives. I can't help it if some of the things we say make people feel guilty about their actions.

I just hate this pompous, pretentious attitude. You slag everybody off, call us jerks (or sleazy), and then have the audacity to say you're not attacking anybody. Now, you might not agree with what people have to say, but if that is the best rebuttal you can come up with - ie "you're a jerk and I'm not playing with you anymore - then I can say nothing more than: JERK!

Apologies (to everyone else) for my rant - I know, I know, I'll probably get told off. But it just had to come out