Massive Open Content SRD

[Psion]

If you do this, I would think most of the publishers and d20 writers would stay away from it since we would have no way of knowing if you did it right. Suppose I'm browsing your megaSRD and find a spell in it called Cool Spell. How do I know that it is in fact OGC? Who extracted it? From what book? Did that person extract it correctly? Who double checked it? Where do I find the Section 15 to use it in my work? Etc. Some of those questions are simple. But others are impossible from the OGL.

This question is no less prevalent in pay-published products. Some are notorious for botching OGC statements.

 

[Michael Morris]

There were plans to do this here, but it ultimately fell through due to worries about how the OGL needs to be implemented and how much liability would be incurred through an improper submission. So the project was canned indefinately, though I'm trying to ressurect the work in other forms I won't discuss for now.

 

[Mark]

This is a LOT of work, with a capital LOT.

As someone who works fulltime as a publisher of a reformatted SRD 3.5 Revised Bundle (fantasy sections only), and one who has a small collection of OGC in an additional PDF Variant Rules Pack, I am probably uniquely qualified to say that although I know this is being suggested with the best of intentions, the project is fraught with sooooooooo many potential problems that it is doomed to fail. Although this would be a hobby project, EVERYONE working on it would potentially be liable if there was ever a lawsuit. Some folks will poo-poo that aspect, but I'd suggest that you don't listen to anyone who downplays that possible damage that can come from a lawsuit. Even if the suit is seemingly not valid, you have to ask yourself, "If the absolute worst happens, and things go horribly wrong, do I want to jeopardize anything else in my life over a hobby project that will likely never come to fruition anyway?"

Beyond that hurdle, there is the time involved. I'll pop back into this thread, if time permits, and touch on this and other related topics a bit later (segments of the community disliking you, friendships lost as the project moves forward, family wondering if you have lost your mind, publishers releasing less and less material as OGC, Real Life intruding on key members of the team at times when they are most crucial to the project's success, a new edition of the game being released when you have only half completed most of the sections of the project, you don't get paid enough for the headaches involved...in fact, no pay at all!, etc.). There are time constraints even for me, who does this for a living...

 

[Planesdragon]

Suppose I'm browsing your megaSRD and find a spell in it called Cool Spell. How do I know that it is in fact OGC? Who extracted it? From what book? Did that person extract it correctly? Who double checked it? Where do I find the Section 15 to use it in my work? Etc. Some of those questions are simple. But others are impossible from the OGL.

Actually, a well-done XML (or other metadata-enabled) format can answer all of those questions, and still remain inside the bounds of the OGL.

Assuming that one cannot get the publisher's blessing, a "megaSRD" (or whatever you call it) would need to include metadata that lists all of the following:

• A non-trademarked but unique reference to the source. (see below)
• Name of the person or persons who submitted the OGC.
• Name of the person or persons who approved the OGC.
• The full Section 15 of the OGC, possibly broken out by unique entry.
• Comments by the submitter or approver, regarding the OGC and the publisher.

The first one is what gives folk the biggest headache, but it can be done. It's was done numerous times by professionals just as scared of a lawsuit from WotC as the MegaSRD guys would be scared of a lawsuit from the professionals.

A sequential or random number might do it, or an abbreviation, or a good number of other references. This is easy if we have permission, and harder if we don't. But, really, how hard is it to say "item #450 in the Open Gaming Directory". (Which is the exact plan that Mike Cortez and the rest of us FGA folk came up with back in the day.)


In all honesty, this is something that keeps coming up, again and again and again. The reason it hasn't been done isn't that it's impossible, it's that folk keep starting over again and no one helps anyone else out. There's no good reason that those who want to spend ten hours creating a database or marking up the SRD or throwing together content should keep starting over from scratch.

(gratuitous, but on-topic link: The FGA gets the XML bug)

 

[DaveMage]

Based on the reaction from many publishers here when Monte Cook was proposing his "best of d20" idea, I have no doubt that many of them would jump at the chance to bring legal action against anyone who dared to make a mistake with their IP (which they certainly have a right to do) rather than help the compilers get it right.

Again, though, I'd say the value of the majority of it in its raw form would be very small (although Psion brings up a good use for some content in an electronic form).

What I would prefer is that publishers release their own open content in electronic (SRD) form a year or two after a product's practical life cycle (3-12 months). However, since this activity generates $0 in profit, there's really no incentive for them to do so beyond a nice benefit to the RPG community.

 

[Mark]

Actually, a well-done XML (or other metadata-enabled) format can answer all of those questions, and still remain inside the bounds of the OGL.

I doubt it.

Assuming that one cannot get the publisher's blessing, a "megaSRD" (or whatever you call it) would need to include metadata that lists all of the following:

• A non-trademarked but unique reference to the source. (see below)

Let's jump down then...

The first one is what gives folk the biggest headache, but it can be done. It's was done numerous times by professionals just as scared of a lawsuit from WotC as the MegaSRD guys would be scared of a lawsuit from the professionals.

A sequential or random number might do it, or an abbreviation, or a good number of other references. This is easy if we have permission, and harder if we don't. But, really, how hard is it to say "item #450 in the Open Gaming Directory". (Which is the exact plan that Mike Cortez and the rest of us FGA folk came up with back in the day.)

This is one of those sticking points that dooms such projects to failure before they really ever get off of the ground. This has NOT been done numerous time, under the OGL, by professionals regardless of their concerns about lawsuits. There's always someone who thinks they can sidestep what is plainly against the license, either for altruistic reasons (like "I think people deserve credit where it is due") or for project bolstering reasons (like "the project will have better credentials if we find a way to point out who contributed what"). The problem is that the license says that without permission you can't...

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

...and...

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

...and...

11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.

It doesn't just say that you cannot use their name or trademark, it also says that you cannot "indicate" compatibility. That basically blows any of the plans to sidestep right out of the water. Would such a thing dilute a trademark and compel a lawsuit? It doesn't matter how you answer because it isn't up to you. In fact, it isn't up to the person(s) who owns the trademark...unless they want to keep it. Because, to protect a trademark, they are legally required to defend it, so if you tread on it they have no real choice but to bring a suit against anyone involved in such an enterprise.

Mind you, I am not an attorney, just a publisher who has his actual ass on the line beyond just some hobby projects, so take my advice for what it is, and only for what it is.

In all honesty, this is something that keeps coming up, again and again and again. The reason it hasn't been done isn't that it's impossible, it's that folk keep starting over again and no one helps anyone else out. There's no good reason that those who want to spend ten hours creating a database or marking up the SRD or throwing together content should keep starting over from scratch.

The "starting from scratch" thing might be one more reason than the ones I outlined above. In ALL honesty, there are many, many more. It's been five years (approx.) since the advent of the OGL and people have "discussed" this type of project since then. There is obviously a whole slew of reasons why this hasn't and won't happen. How many you accept as valid is another story.

 

[Mark]

... I have no doubt that many of them would jump at the chance to bring legal action against anyone who dared to make a mistake with their IP (which they certainly have a right to do) rather than help the compilers get it right.

Most would rather not. They have to protect their trademakrs, and vigorously defend them, if they are to continue to hold them. They virtually have no choice. As sad as it might be, it could result in some unfortunate fan/hobbiest being sued...and everyone thinks that sucks.

 

[DaveMage]

Most would rather not. They have to protect their trademakrs, and vigorously defend them, if they are to continue to hold them. They virtually have no choice. As sad as it might be, it could result in some unfortunate fan/hobbiest being sued...and everyone thinks that sucks.

Yeah, but in a lot of cases, I would argue their trademarks really aren't that valuable to begin with.

What amazes me, though, is how different publishers are with their OGC. I look at Bastion Press on one hand, and with a number of their products, excluding the graphic elements, they are 100% OGC. Compare that with other publishers, who say, basically, that only stat blocks (no proper names, of course) and items derived from the SRD are open.

I suppose it makes very little difference to me, as a consumer, but I appreciate the way Bastion has embraced the spirit of OGC, and kind of roll my eyes at publishers who think their "crunch" content has to be protected with confusing OGC declarations, or that the names of prestige classes are really that valuable a property.

I have no problem with a publisher protecting the "fluff" in their work or a few proper names in a work (like the title of a campaign setting or a few major characters within), but is there really a point to protecting monster names or spell names? (Not including licensed properties, of course.)

 

[Vocenoctum]

Based on the reaction from many publishers here when Monte Cook was proposing his "best of d20" idea, I have no doubt that many of them would jump at the chance to bring legal action against anyone who dared to make a mistake with their IP (which they certainly have a right to do) rather than help the compilers get it right.

It's telling how restrictive some of them are vs the fans, when they're basically using another companies product without fee.

Again, though, I'd say the value of the majority of it in its raw form would be very small (although Psion brings up a good use for some content in an electronic form).

It'd be of great use to me, as an Online DM. It is nearly impossible to run a game for scattered players, without being able to show them the rules. That means either they get a book (not an option in all cases) or I type up lots of stuff.

What I would prefer is that publishers release their own open content in electronic (SRD) form a year or two after a product's practical life cycle (3-12 months). However, since this activity generates $0 in profit, there's really no incentive for them to do so beyond a nice benefit to the RPG community.

This is my problem, mainly with full OGL games like Mutants and Masterminds, or Arcana Unearthed. It's nearly impossible for me to use their products in my online games. I don't expect them to diminish their product sales, but the lack of an SRD is paranoia IMO.

 

[pogre]

I would focus on a best of the d20 product and add to it as folks choose to.

Follow the OGL in good faith and you will be just fine. A simple mistake or two, especially in the case of those with hazy designations, is nothing to worry about. If the publisher is concerned they will send you a cease and desist way before they take you to court.

If it's a worthwhile project to you - go for it.