New site Idea the OGC exchange

[Ace]

I wanted to get some feedback on a website idea I had

My concept is The Open Game Content Exchange

Basically It is all of the OGC cruchy bits from the various projects, netbook, EnWorld wherever assmebled in one place. Legally

All of the bits would be sorted by creator and type (prestige class, feat, spell)

Here is the conundrum.....

If i did the site I have 2 goals in mind

Put all the crunchy bits together for gamers and developers. So far with all of the OGC stuff out there about the only thing that ever gets used it Chaosiums formation fighting feat. I would like to see more OGC in use

Second I would like fans to have acess to lots of material for thier games.

and I must do it ethically.

It is really important to me not to impact the sales of anyones "Book of Crunchies" .

After all if I hurt profitability that means less high quality content for all of us. Its just plain wrong

My problem is I don't know how long to wait before putting something on the site from an OGC product.

As I see it if I post, say 1 OGC monster from a module-- well thats cool because the module sales won't suffer. I don't think folks want to pay $5-15 US for a critter by itself

OTOH Reprinting the OGC content of say Liber Equites is moral piracy and just plain wrong

But there will come a point in a year or more which a product is effectivly not selling anymore and posting dead OGC stuff (legally of course) is ethical

I have three ideas for content sources

#1 OGC Cruchy Bits that aren't the focus or even a major part of the product-- a monster, a spell whatever

#2 Fan OGC Stuff. The margin between designer and fan is very samll and some of the fan stuff is really good

#3 Donated taster stuff, Good bits and many links to sample items for different D20 companys.

$4Cruchies from dead stuff. OOP OGC crunchies, PRC and rules varients from dead products and so on.


If it is print I want the companys to approve of what I am doing.
Besides, fan support is not all of what I would be doing.
The other purpose of the site is to help with product crosspolination.


The questions are....

When is a product dead enough for me to post it without harm How could I tell?
How much crunchy stuff is too much?
Are any game companies interested in the idea?
Can I make the site break even either with my own OGC products or with banner adds? Profit is nice but not expected.
Is this even ethical?

Thanks for the feedback

 

[DSC-EricPrice]

Of the half dozen adventures and sourcebooks my company is juggling right now, every single one has OGC from another d20 publisher. Our two biggest draws at the moment are from FFG (their OGC released in the various Dragonstar books as well as Traps and Treachery and from Sword and Sorcery's Creature Collection 2. There are others, but those are the two biggest.

Even as a publisher I find it hard to find all the crunchy rules other publishers have already made. Still, Im not sure I'd want OGC just pasted up on a website en masse. Of course, those of us who publish under the license understand that, legally, there wouldnt be word one we could say about it. Especially some of the early books like Evil. Evil, if I recall correctly, is ENTIRELY OGC!

Despite my difficulty finding OGC sources (I cant buy every book), I wouldnt want a central repository. Instead, I think publishers would do well to populate their website with the occasional crunchy bit and say "Go buy All or Nothing from Dragon Scale Counters (available May 2003) if you'd like a great sourcebook full of a lot more of this kind of material.

Just my opinion. Im sure others will be along shortly

 

[Christian Walker]

I feel that an OGC archive is an excellent idea. Properly executed, it would be a boon to publishers and fans alike.

I suggest the following:

Register a domain name and have the site developed in a manner that looks professional. Even if it's just a Front Page template, you'll do yourself a favor. This may put some publishers at ease, assuaging fears that a fan armed with html skills isn't going to release their hard work to the public.

Only publish the OGC of companies who give you permission to do so. While this is not a legal requirement, it shows good form.You might even get publishers to allow you the use of logos, cover art, etc.

Only make available OGC from companies whose work has been tested in the marketplace. "Tested in the marketplace" is a loaded phrase, but it will add prestige to the project. Perhaps, only seek OGC material from print or pdf publishers that actually have products available for sale. Maybe you could even have a review board made up of intelligent rules lawyers to validate and "questionable" entries. Personally, I would have little use for material that was developed by a random gamer without a proper review process. I think personal web pages are the best place for fan created material; this project should feature "professional" work.

Offer advertising to companies who wish to take advantage of it. This might help defray costs. Also, you might consider selling a monthly digest delivered via e-mail to publishers. For $5 they could get a run down on the month's OGC. Even if it was just a bunch of stat blocks, I'd be happy.

Keep the focus tight. Don't drive yourself crazy by trying to manage complex chat boards, news, and etc. Stick to OGC material and the demands on your time will be manageable.


I really like this idea. If you need any help, just ask.

 

[NemesisPress]

I guess I responded to another version of this thread, but I'll repeat what I said and add a couple of points.

No one is forced to publish under the OGL - and it's not terribly complicated to understand. The OGL doesn't specify that you can use the info only after a certain amount of time or after receiving separate permission.

Anyone who publishes under the OGL and then complains about that information being disseminated is naive at best, disengenous at worst. And if they are relying on the limited availability of their work to ensure its value, that's a shortsighted concept.

As you point out, the OGL relates to the "crunchy" bits. If that's all a publisher has to offer, then he shouldn't publish under it.

The corrollary is that the true value must lie in what isn't so "crunchy" - the "meat" of the product, as it were. (Or do we call them "squishy" bits?) Wider availability of the OGL content would actually help encourage publishers to provide more of the latter.

I have several products that I intend to produce that I would love to see included in a project like this - even before publication of the product itself! - because I think getting players interested in those crunchy bits would pique their interest in the product as a whole.

 

[Suzerain]

***

 

[The Sigil]

Interesting...

As you point out, the OGL relates to the "crunchy" bits. If that's all a publisher has to offer, then he shouldn't publish under it.

Interesting - because personally, I am 500 times more interested in buying a book for the "crunchy bits" than the "creamy bits." To be honest, the "creamy bits" are annoying if done in more than on an "as needed" basis to explain the "crunchy bits."

Personally, I despise most creamy bits - because they're really not all that applicable to my campaigns. But perhaps I am in the majority - as a publisher, I want to focus on stuff people can use in their own campaign (crunchy) as opposed to stuff that other people can't grab and re-post on the internet (creamy). Why? Because I personally am of the opinion that people are more apt to buy crunchy bits because they are of more use to gamers than creamy bits - precisely BECAUSE they are game mechanics.

BTW, Ace, I will happily help you get started by giving you a copy of the monster database for the Netbook of Creatures (http://www.cooleys.org/nbocr/ ) and associated ASP pages. I will also happily provide you with stuff from my for-profit publishing line (http://www.cooleys.org/publishing/ ) after it gets to the point where it has (a) made sufficient sales for my tastes or (b) "dies out" (to use your term).

I'm just a small publisher, but I'm on board to support your project. I can't offer much more than what I have offered above (mostly content - no ad revenue or web knowledge) but I'll offer what I can.

--The Sigil

 

[Morrus]

No one is forced to publish under the OGL - and it's not terribly complicated to understand. The OGL doesn't specify that you can use the info only after a certain amount of time or after receiving separate permission.

Anyone who publishes under the OGL and then complains about that information being disseminated is naive at best, disengenous at worst. And if they are relying on the limited availability of their work to ensure its value, that's a shortsighted concept.

So your position is that anything in the world that you *can* do, you *should* do? There are a whole variety of things I can do right now to you - I can call you names, I can ban you from the boards, I can follow you around and edit all your posts. I can post bad reviews of your products, recommend that people don't buy them. All of this is perfectly legal. By your reasoning, it sounds like I *should* be doing these things, and if I do, you have no cause to complain.

Why have you not released a pdf version of Green Ronin's Freeport adventures? It's quite legal!

I think that the OGL, and, more importantly, the D20 industry as a community, has unwritten rules based on trust. One thing all publishers trust others to do is not rip off each other's OGC wholescale, but rather to use it as intended.

Of course, I'm not saying that you advocate that - I'm just pushing this concept to its limits because I think it's fundamentally flawed.

 

[The Sigil]

I think that the OGL, and, more importantly, the D20 industry as a community, has unwritten rules based on trust. One thing all publishers trust others to do is not rip off each other's OGC wholescale, but rather to use it as intended.

Thanks, Morrus - that was put perfectly. Amen to that.

--The Sigil

 

[Suzerain]

***

 

[NemesisPress]

I think that the OGL, and, more importantly, the D20 industry as a community, has unwritten rules based on trust. One thing all publishers trust others to do is not rip off each other's OGC wholescale, but rather to use it as intended.

You mean the OGL is not written as it was intended to be? Or that people misuse it purposely?

The OGL is pretty clear: anything that's marked open content is open content - not "open content with a few little additional restrictions I felt like adding." If you don't want something open, don't make it OGC. If you want to wait for a future revision to make it open, that's fine too.

But for practicality's sake any OGC exchange would have to be based on voluntary submission anyway, so that would essentially nullify these complaints.

As for crunchy bits versus creamy bits, given the way the OGL describes what is open (at a minimum), those types of rules would be so out of context as to be not particularly useful except to someone who's dedicated enough to tweaking that they might as well just do it from whole-cloth themselves.

The popularity of d20, however, has expanded the market to where I think the creamy bits will be more and more important - and saleable. We're already inundated with crunchy bits - what people want are ways to use them creatively - as the current discussions of the ELH bear out. And it's no accident that the OGL is specifically designed to protect those types of creative applications.