OGC Wiki (merged)

[philreed]

I see where that's coming from, and as I told Phil, the only way that it would be possible to compete with that is some value added to the commericial PDF, and even that would be no guarantee of sales. Better art, layout, editing, hyperlinking, pop up boxes, etc... would be one way to combat the old open content issue.

And as I've learned from -- wow, almost three years -- experience is that adding all of those things (other than editing, that is) does not have a significant effect on sales. Unlike print products, few people buy a PDF because of the art.

 

[philreed]

Anyway, I apologize Phil if you take offense to this. Its not my intent.

No offense taken.

 

[Rasyr]

In fact many PDF purchasers seem to prefer less artwork (as it is less ink-intensive on their printers).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, if open content isn't really open, what difference does it make?

I can't understand why folks still can't grasp the difference between content that is Open, and content that is widely distributed free of charge.

It's really not complicated.

Let's say Phil Reed releases "101 Chunks of Raw Crunch" as 100% Open Content.

Phil is a smart guy. While weighing the benefits and risks of publishing under the OGL, he envisions several outcomes:

1) Fans cut and paste from Phil's document into their homebrew house rules. These same fans come back to Phil for more.

2) Another publisher comes along and wants to use a couple of chunks. He also cuts and pastes those chunks into his own work. Phil is properly credited in the new work, and a few folks come to buy the whole thing or even buy other things Phil has written.

3) Yet another publisher comes along, copies all the text from Phil's work, puts in new art, and slaps it back up on RPGnet at half the price Phil was asking for it.

4) A group of fans come along, copies all the text from Phil's work, and puts it up on the internet for anyone to download for free.

Can you understand that as the pendulum swings farther and farther towards one end of the scale, Phil might feel disinclined to release any more 100% OGC products?

Is any of this getting through yet?

 

[philreed]

When someone who readily hamstrings the Open Gaming community with counter-open cripple content such as IP spell names starts talking about how it should be a friendly community, I find that hypocritical.

And don't forget that it is someone that would be completely immune to the negative effects of such a site.

 

[Cergorach]

Yes. It's called "don't release any more OGC". Simple. Phil suggested it pages ago.

Whether people like it or not, that's the only change publishers would make. They'll do what they feel they need to do to continue publishing. Yet, I've seen people criticise Phil harshly for saying that. It all seems very one-way here - "you have to change the way you do things, but you can only change it in a way that benefits me, not you"; but if Phil chose to do that in reponse to such actions, I'd not blame him one whit.

As long as Phil or any other publisher publishes within the rules of the OGL then i see no problem with not declaring anything OGC that doesn't have to be declared OGC. But that does mean more work for the publisher, that also means that there are less people inclined to buy the product because of the product not being 100% OGC (but then again some people don't buy products because the price of another product was to high), etc

Products like Ultramodern Firearms D20 are great, but only the gun stats and some gun rules are declared OGC, that didn't stop me from buying the product. Shadowrun 4th edition (pdf) isn't OGC, that didn stop me from buying it.

Keep the engine (the rules) OGC, everything that uses the rules (the setting) can be IP. Just don't be suprised if i supported an OGC setting that i liked, i just love Open Source, be it software or games...

 

[JoeGKushner]

And as I've learned from -- wow, almost three years -- experience is that adding all of those things (other than editing, that is) does not have a significant effect on sales. Unlike print products, few people buy a PDF because of the art.

Has any PDF publisher released a say, monster book with art by Todd Lockwood or Wayne Reynolds? Ron Spencer? Not that I'm aware of. I mentioned a monster book because monsters are generally very visual in nature. Ditto with magic weapons/equipment.

The art in PDF books has, in my opinion, a long way to go to catch up to print products.

But there are other things that can be done. Providing PDF's in landscape and portrait mode, in printer friendly and non-printer friendly, in plain text with or without art, etc... Some of these things are being done now.

Has any publisher done a test where they had a product that had all of those benefits and then did an "SRD" style document stripped of formatting, art, layout, bonus features?

 

[Morrus]

Could you sell as many units if you left the OGL behind?
Honest question.

Possibly. Not of the back catalogue, obviously - that'd be dead, it's already OGC. What I meant was that you wouldn't see any of this "entire text is OGC" stuff that you see a lot of nowadays. You'd literally just get the bare legal minumum.

I like Phil. I like his products. I like most of what he says.
He is getting a lot more criticism than Wulf. Why is that?
I think because Wulf has just made some matter of fact statements, while Phil seems to be claiming certain privledges that are not really due. Maybe it isn't meant. But that is the way I read it. And I don't think I'm the only one.

I can't see that in his posts. I can see a regret that he's let so much (200+ products and years of work) out as OGC, and that he would have done things differently if he thought this would happen. Truth is, nobody who publishes really thought this would happen. More importantly, if we're all honest, how many of us think it'll happen now? It has been discussed time and time again, month in month out, for years.

Why do I see that regret? Maybe I'm projecting, but I'm feeling regret. ENP has released about 50 products, entirely OGC. I wish to goodness we hadn't.

Open content has been released and that is the end of the discussion there.

What is ethical and what is nice and yadda yadda yadda are all just a smoke screen around that.

Yes, you're correct. It's tough luck on those who did it.

I someone cranks out all Phil's OGC and crashes his sales, it is not a crime. And I'm sorry, but it isn't even unpolite.

I think it's impolite, but no, it's not a crime. But my point was that if that's OK to do to Phil (or whoever), then whoever is advocating it really has no business criticising him for not continuing to release OGC. He literally has no choice.

When someone who readily hamstrings the Open Gaming community with counter-open cripple content such as IP spell names starts talking about how it should be a friendly community, I find that hypocritical.

Well, it's either a friendly community or it isn't. Doing something - legal, yes - that will harm Phil is not the action of a friendly community. Therefore, using the "friendly community" rationale as a basis for advocating mass release of OGC is about as hypocritical as can be, in my opinion. Justifying it with statements like "Open content has been released and that is the end of the discussion there. What is ethical and what is nice and yadda yadda yadda are all just a smoke screen around that." don't mesh with any claims of community.

 

[JoeGKushner]

In fact many PDF purchasers seem to prefer less artwork (as it is less ink-intensive on their printers).

That hasn't been my experience.

This is just from where I'm coming from. My own observations. Good artwork, especially black and white line drawings, are never seen as "bad". I've never had someone go, "Man, I can't believe there's another illustration in here by Eric Lifgren! How terrible!" Monte's PDF's aren't selling text products only no?

And as a PDF format, as mentioned in another post, the purchaser should have a screen friendly version, as well as a printer friendly version as well as an option in between that might have a full color monster illustration, but no borders or background.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Could you sell as many units if you left the OGL behind?
Honest question.

Leaving the OGL behind isn't an option.

Really, what Phil is doing is doing cost-benefit analysis to releasing products as 100% Open Content.

There are advantages to this. Fans like it. It increases the likelihood that other publishers can make use of his OGC and drive customers back to Phil.

There are disadvantages to this. Some fans might decide-- legally, ethically, morally, who cares?-- to distribute Phil's work free of charge.

And all Phil's saying (if I can put more words in his mouth) is that the recent emergence of an OGC Wiki with a respected industry figure putting momentum behind it means that he has to reassess the risks.

It will mean one of two things:

1) Phil resorts to "crippled" OGC designations that are designed to obfuscate the OGC and elevate the threat of legal action if the user runs afoul of the license; or,

2) Phil quits the d20 publishing business and gets a 'real' job (and within months, gamers are complaining that there are no good designers in the RPG industry anymore).