Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1492014" data-attributes="member: 6398">I'm not a publisher, but I play one on my website. Seriously, as a non-business entity, OGC is very important to me.  It determines what I can or can't put on my website.  I want my rules available to my players (for convienience) and to the community (for the hell of it).  Therefore, I am following the OGL.  And let me tell you, having the OGL is great for fans.  It gives us far more potential than publishers do.  They need to worry about niche markets, general approval of the material, and having that material judged in comparison to what WotC declares the "Core" rules, sales, expenses, etc.  Nope, us fans only got one thing to worry about: Our own, individual, unique group, without care of profit or popularity. Also, unlike the dying days of TSR, I don't have to worry about getting a cease and desist letter, unless I break the rules that I agreed to follow just like everyone else (and fixing a pdf within the 30 day cure period is easy enough, even if that means cutting out an entire section to make the deadline in order to replace it later).  Heck, the OGL lets me go well beyond the terms of "Fair Use" within a legal set of agreed upon rules. "Extremist" is a loaded term, wouldn't you say?  In this day and age, it's often used in conjunction with "Terrorist". Oh, and as an FYI, I'm not opposed to buying non-OGC.  Most of the books I have are mostly IP material (settings and setting-specific, etc.) that is either PI or otherwise simply not OGC.  This doesn't phase me in the slightest; indeed, quality PI/closed content can be entertaining, inspiring, and even sometimes educational depending on the subject matter (Stone to Steel, for instance).  A company producing lots of good stuff like that doesn't need to worry about their OGC being online because the value of the book isn't dependant on the OGC but on the non-Open portion of the product. Or, "Hey, I can put all the rules my group uses in one place and not get our arses sued off for it." And what of a distribution such as the Pocket Player's Handbook?  It's just a prettied up SRD, after all.  And it's not free; it's a commercial product. Is that past the boundaries of using OGC in good faith? Of course not. Would the proposed (impending?!) SRD+ Project be beyond those boundaries? At the same time, people driving 40 MPH on the Freeway shouldn't complain about everyone else driving so fast. I have a supplement here.  It's got 94 pages of 100% text OGC (only art and graphics declared PI...  Well, the cover too, but that's not part of the 94 pages.).  I go through it and realize I'm going to re-use 90% of the product. Alright, I get an idea.  I contact the publisher and ask that I be allowed to list his product as the "needed to run" item (essentially gaining a seperate agreement as allowed in Section 7 of the OGL).  I explained my setting and adjoining rules are online.  That their rules would be online for free if no such statement was allowed. They said, "no".  Knowing that I would be transcribing most of the material from that book, they actually gave me the nod and said to do it, indicating that they had no concern about online material effecting their sales. Now, here we have Bastion Press (and the product is Alchemy & Herbalists), standing on one side of the issue saying "go ahead".  Then we have another publisher (Green Ronin via the link to CP's post) standing on the other side asking "don't". Now, obviously, I see two completely opposing views on the matter, coming from two successful publishing sources within the OGL/d20 industry.  Neither are right, as they cannot speak for anyone else in the matter, but neither are wrong.  We simply have a case of one publisher being concerned that online material will effect their sales, while we have another publisher that is confident that it won't. As such, any claims that this should not be done out of some form of "respect" for the publisher, or fair play, or anything other reason outside of the law, is essentially saying that we should cater to those that either (A) didn't understand the implications of the OGL (which I can assure you, WotC does indeed understand it), or (B) keep hoping the inevitability of Open Gaming "source libraries" won't occur; doing so, I might add, despite publishers like Fantasy Flight (who openly acknowledge website posting of their material within their material) or Bastion (who are so unconcerned about potential online-availability impact as to turn down what essentially would be free advertising).  Publisher != Professional. And see my reply on Page 1 of this thread concerning the work load that would hit our dear friend in WotC Legal, Andy Smith.  The poor kid is probably going bald as it is... Would a collection of OGC in the form of an online library fall into that equation? Depends on the book.  However, there is something to consider.  Take the list I made earlier (it's on page 2 or 3, I believe) and consider that most of that material will be on my website just because I am using it.  Then consider another part posted on someone else's site for the same reason.  And another, and another.  Eventually, you're going to reach a point where the entire thing is available anyways; At the very least, the part you are interested in will likely be out there somewhere.  And that's why I'd like to see this project and others like it be done; It would save so-much transcription time for so many people. And, to be honest, I don't think this should stop with UA.  I'd really like to see this be the kick-off for something new in Open Gaming.</blockquote>

Verification