Massive Open Content SRD

[barsoomcore]

Yair, you seem to have a very strange attitude towards the OGL.

What difference does it make if Wulf disapproves? You can do what you like: the license makes it so. His feelings are ONLY of concern to you if you care about his feelings, and if you're asking because you care about his feelings, why don't you just email him and talk it over? It seems like you're trying to catch him in a contradiction or something -- but you're talking about FEELINGS, so who cares if they're contradictory? It's not like he can be wrong about his feelings.

What you're describing (adding more options and a few changes to his existing rules) is pretty much just what I did with Hot Pursuit, and Wulf's been very clear that I didn't hurt his feelings.

But then I was careful to ask him directly about his feelings, and not only did he not get huffy on me, he was generous and helpful and supportive as I figured out what I was doing.

If you've got a product idea based on his rules, you can either ask him to help you out, or you can go ahead and do it without him. You can sell it for any amount you like.

If you don't, what are you trying to accomplish here?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

... aren't you saying that you think the MassiveSRD is a BadIdea?

Yes, but saying it's a Bad Idea is not the same thing as saying I'm against it. It's nearly irrelevant to me (as a publisher)-- although I do have an interest in not harming the publishing community.

I mean, I think breast implants are a bad idea, too-- but I don't exactly have a personal vested interest in the matter. (Other than, you know, tangentially.... )

 

[Yair]

What difference does it make if Wulf disapproves? You can do what you like: the license makes it so. His feelings are ONLY of concern to you if you care about his feelings, and if you're asking because you care about his feelings, why don't you just email him and talk it over? It seems like you're trying to catch him in a contradiction or something -- but you're talking about FEELINGS, so who cares if they're contradictory? It's not like he can be wrong about his feelings.

Strange as it may be, I do care about his feelings, and the feelings of others. I don't want to hurt him or for that matter anyone else. (Edit: we're also talking about hurting the buisness, not just feelings, but the same principle applies - I don't want to take anyone's livelihood away.)

But you're right, the question was out of line and I removed it (prior to seeing your post). Again me posting too fast, I should really stop myself.

 

[DaveMage]

I mean, I think breast implants are a bad idea, too-- but I don't exactly have a personal vested interest in the matter. (Other than, you know, tangentially.... )

Ok, this is something that I never expected to encounter in this discussion - I *knew* there was a reason I was still reading!

Ah, mammories...

 

[Torm]

I mean, I think breast implants are a bad idea, too-- but I don't exactly have a personal vested interest in the matter. (Other than, you know, tangentially.... )

"Personally vested interest."

You should be pun-nished.

 

[woodelf]

I've seen several such suggestions fall flat. The main objection, and why I think they ultimately fail, is that no one wants to hurt the publishers. Another reason is that someone inevitably comes up and says "that product? Oh, I have the extract and will be posting it in no time. Really!" Sometimes even with "just so you'll see, here is the first chapter." For some reason, the full extract never gets posted.

I think it can work, and I think it can make for an excellent resource. Here is how I will go about doing it:
* Set up a private group/forum. All discussion and posting will be private only.
* Agree on a "Declaration of Intent", such as "Our purpose is to release OGC extracts to make all open rules available to the public, not to harm the publishers or make their products obsolete. We believe that by extracting only the rules and making them easily accessible the campaigns of individual GMs and the products produced by the industry as a whole will be enhanced."
* Agree on "Principles of Action". I am thinking of something like
a) Only products over a year old will be extracted.
b) This is a volunteer project. No one can tell anyone else to do a certain project, but if someone volunteers to help someone they ought to work with him and allow him to coordinate the efforts of the different volunteers.
b) When in doubt, the least inclusive interpertation of the OGL will be applied.
c) The publisher will be contacted at the project's beginning and its end. He will be asked if he wants us to extract all the OGC or rules only, if he wants to receive the extract prior to publication and if so if he wants to approve it, if he wants to be credited and if so how, if he wants to allow/add a new OGC/PI declaration (we can work with both), and if he has any reservations/concerns.
* Agree on projects, headed by Project Coordinators. All projects are to be maintained on private group/forum, posting all extracts and conducting communications through there.
* A Global Coordinator must be appointed, that will be able to appoint new project coordinators or function as one temporarily if current ones are inactive or need aid.

I think such a system can work, and useful extracts can be made fairly quickly. It is my experience that a few dedicated persons can do much in a short time, but if a project lingers it will not be completed as interest falls.

Just a POV to toss out here:
IMHO, getting the permission of an OGC producer to reuse the OGC is anathema to the whole point of open-content development. If someone doesn't want material to be reused, don't designate it OGC. Sadly, with the WotC OGL, getting permission to give proper credit *is* necessary (probably my biggest beef with the license), but, other than that, i just don't see any point in contacting the publisher.

Similarly, allowing people to effectively "revise" their OGC/PI declarations, and using the least-inclusive interpretation of the OGL (did you mean "...of the OGC declaration"?), seem to me to be not only not doing good, but actively doing harm to open-content game development, because they encourage producers to be sloppy about such matters, knowing they'll get a 2nd chance to change/clarify before someone actually reuses.

Personally, i'm all for being generous and considerate and recognizing that people make mistakes. I'm not gonna take advantage of a company's first OGC declaration if it has a mistake in it, insisting that the letter of the law applies. If they post a revised OGC/PI declaration on their website, or something similar, i'd abide by it. Particularly if they did so quickly. But neither am i going to coddle: i'm not going to go fishing for new info if there isn't any info already posted in the appropriate public places. And, barring bizarre OGC/PI declarations that simply can't be right, i'm going to assume that the producers are competent and mean what they say [write]. But the whole point of open-content licenses is to eliminate the permission step of reuse. So all this pussy-footing around when it comes time to reuse content just seems silly to me.

Anyway, this isn't just a rant--i think it's germaine to your suggestion. I, for one, wouldn't be interested in participating in a project to extract OGC that will cripple itself at the publishers' slightest suggestion. Now, maybe that's just me, and you'll find lots of others who'll gladly sign on to help out. But i suspect that those who believe strongly enough in redsitributing OGC are also largely those who believe in the principles of open-content development and would, like me, have some issues with hindering that redistribution unneccesarily.

I would ask any publisher, before extracting large chunks of OGC and making the m publicly available, if they intend to reprint, and if they have an opinion on whether making their OGC freely available would be good or bad for them. And then take that info into consideration before proceeding--as opposed to letting them decide whether or not i do it. Now, i'm a nice guy, so if they intend to reprint, and/or give good reasons why having the OGC freely available would noticably hurt their sales, i'd probably not do it. But it'll be because i'm a nice guy, not because i'm somehow beholden to the publisher of OGC. And if those reasons don't apply, then i'll go right ahead. Or, if the consequences are not of concern to me. (Frex, i wouldn't care if WotC went belly-up, or the D&D trademark got locked away and disappeared from the market. In fact, i sorta think those would both be good for the RPG industry. So the fact that it'd hurt WotC sales isn't gonna deter me from reusing OGC. But that's just me, and i don't expect anyone else to agree.)

 

[woodelf]

That's a good reason to HAVE an SRD extract. It is a laundary for crippled OGC: the same OGC, only with names you can use!
Indeed, I suggest this as a principle: the more crippled and obtuse the OGC declaration, the more is an OGC extract needed.

Isn't that likely to be in direct contradiction with your principle of getting the publisher's approval? Don't you think that it's precisely those with obtuse and/or crippled OGC declarations who would likely object to such a project and, given the opportunity, stop it? Don't you think that's *why* they have crippled declarations? (Perhaps less-so with obtuse declarations, which could simply be a matter of incompetence, rather than paranoia or malice.)

 

[woodelf]

I would love to see an expanded SRD*, but for print it may take 18-36 months before sales of that book make it worthwhile for the publisher to release the OGC to the XSRD and by then those publishers and consumer who really wanted it will have it.

*More for the publishers than the consumers.

What do you mean by "worthwhile"? And what makes you think RPG books *have* 18-36mo of sales? Everything i've heard is that, except for core rulebooks, typical RPG sales are ~90% in the first 30 days, ~99% in the first 90 days. Most RPG books have essentially sold all they're ever going to well within 6mo.

N.B.: i'm talking print books. PDFs have, notably, defied this obnoxious trend, for the most part.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't think there is a way. I've released various free PDFs that have had no effect on sales so I can't see how releasing SRDs of my existing materials would benefit me. It may be different for print publishers but with PDFs it doesn't seem to help.

What I find extremely funny (in a depressing way) is that a lot of people claim the appearance of a product matters to them. If this was true then people would rather buy the original PDF (illustrated by Christopher Shy) rather than download the free RTF. Sales experience has led me to the current method of publishing: most small PDFs have no artwork or frills at all and I save art and graphic talent for the larger releases.

Hmmm, Phil, your free PDFs were what started me buying Ronin Arts stuff. And I have bought a fair amount now, though not always in the lines that the free PDFs were for. (I only have one or two Dozens, ditto for 101s, but a bunch of your larger works and compilations.)

Though the idea of a Massive SRD seems as tempting as a Massive Unedited Slush Pile from a science fiction magazine... The closest that I can think of was the FanCC, which has now fallen by the wayside. There were a lot of gems, and about ten times as much spoil to get to them.

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

What do you mean by "worthwhile"? And what makes you think RPG books *have* 18-36mo of sales? Everything i've heard is that, except for core rulebooks, typical RPG sales are ~90% in the first 30 days, ~99% in the first 90 days. Most RPG books have essentially sold all they're ever going to well within 6mo.

N.B.: i'm talking print books. PDFs have, notably, defied this obnoxious trend, for the most part.

Part of this is caused by retailers not bothering wit restocks, which is what can kill a company dead as a doornail. Some retailers will not even restock product that was in their new book section when it sold out. This more than any other force is what drives companies to creating new editions every few years, not always for the better.

The Auld Grump