OGC Wiki (merged)

[mythusmage]

What's not clear about:

"The entire contents of Spells & Magic is considered Open Content, except for the cover, artwork, and other graphic elements."

Bastion has been open with A LOT of their material. As have Green Ronin and myself. Would you rather see people start using confusing, restrictive designations?

Phil, you are not the problem. Books like Spells & Magic are not the problem. The problem is those companies that essentially tell you, make a wild guess. I'd rather see people make clear designations. Making clear distinctions between IP and OGC. Something like ...

[open side bar] [open OGC]

This is Open Game Content. It is free to use by anyone who wishes to use it in their own product. What you would use it for I have no idea, but you can use it. Just remember to note that it is copyright Alan Kellogg 2005

[close OGC] [close side bar]

That's right. put it in a box or sidebar. In the designation of OGC section tell people where OGC is to be found. Use something like "Open OGC" and "Close OGC" to show where OGC material starts and ends. So it adds to the size of the material, at least any reasonable person can tell where the OGC is. If the product itself, minus the graphics and art, is to be OGC, tell people, "The text of this work after the introduction and before the OGL is Open Game Content. That is the text only. The art and the look of this product is not OGC. All art is the property of the respective artists and is used with permission. The look is the property of the publisher and is not open to use.

Hell, I'd be happy if people would word their declarations more clearly. Something like, "Feat mechanics and Feat descriptions are designated as Open Game Content."

Remember, when I say "clear", I mean "clear".

 

[mythusmage]

Which will then be given away for free shortly after publication?

The mechanics are not the game.

 

[mythusmage]

An OGC wiki would make it possible to compare different versions of mechanics. If there are 5 different versions of the Interior Decoration Feat people could compare those 5 and decide on the one they prefer. Or combine two or more Feats to produce a better one.

As I recall Dancey's intention was that people would be able to compare OGC and decide on which they preferred. Hopefully the OGC that works better. Let competition eliminate bad mechanics from the market.

Furthermore, the intent was to produce a set of common mechanics anyone could use, without having to re-invent the wheel. I can understand the desire to be original, but why waste your time on a new solution when there's a perfectly good old solution out there? Spend your time on making your product unique. If company A has a perfectly good mechanic for simulating the effect of an adrenaline surge on a character's Strength, use that mechanic.

The goal in game design is not to use unique game mechanics, it is to use game mechanics that work. If mechanics are already available that can do the job, and they're free to use, use them. If you really must use stuff you invented yourself, then why bother with the OGL?

 

[Roudi]

If you really must use stuff you invented yourself, then why bother with the OGL?

Just to follow that train of thought with a deeper one: if your motivation is to avoid using common rules, and try and make your own unique mechanics... then why should you have any customers, when they can just as easily write their own game mechanics and be happy with them?

If I wanted, I could try to model a variety of martial arts by writing my own d20 Modern rules. Or I could pick up Blood & Fists. Expanding on that, I could use my own custom rules to model wrestling with Mecha. Or I could follow the model presented in Blood & Fists and use some of it's OGC. What's the common thread here? In both cases, it's a lot easier for me to use what's already available as a basis for my own creations, instead of having to build the framework myself. It's part of the reason the OGL exists, and I'd rather have solid mechanics reinforced by other solid OGC mechanics than simply the satisfaction that I "did it all myself." Hell, if we followed the thinking of "it's better to do it all yourselves", then roleplaying games wouldn't be an industry and we'd all be creating our own original games.

JBowtie: You seem to have the resources available to create an OGC Wiki. You said such an endeavour would be "trivial" and you've been epousing the benefits of such a potential database. So, what are you doing lurking on here, debating the concept with others! Get out there and set it up! The best way to prove your points about the benefits of an OGC Wiki would be to show us all. Your draft policy looks solid, as a start, and you already said you have the software and have constructed a similar wiki. In the words of Ralts, "put up or shut up."

 

[Yair]

Hell, I'd be happy if people would word their declarations more clearly. Something like, "Feat mechanics and Feat descriptions are designated as Open Game Content.".

Actually, that's the kind of designation that irrates me. I mean, mechanics cannot be Open Game Content as they are not copyright to begin with; only parts of the actual text can be designated as OGC. And just what parts of the text "Feat mechanics" singles out as OGC is beyond me.

While I would be interested in seeing an OGC Wiki, I have yet to see such enterprises succeed. There is a lot of resistance to such efforts from the industry (perhaps justly so), which curtails such efforts.
Personally, at this stage I would be primarily interested in using it as a means to untangle crippled OGC, just for spite's sake. I think the main argument against an OGC Wiki is that it punishes those publishers that actually have clear OGC designations.

 

[JBowtie]

JBowtie: You seem to have the resources available to create an OGC Wiki. You said such an endeavour would be "trivial" and you've been epousing the benefits of such a potential database. So, what are you doing lurking on here, debating the concept with others! Get out there and set it up! The best way to prove your points about the benefits of an OGC Wiki would be to show us all. Your draft policy looks solid, as a start, and you already said you have the software and have constructed a similar wiki. In the words of Ralts, "put up or shut up."

I'll need to procure hosting and bandwidth. Can do so with my current provider but it'll be a couple of weeks before I can afford to. Only reason I haven't opened one yet. If someone offers hosting/bandwidth I'll take it.

 

[JBowtie]

Your draft policy looks solid, as a start

Oooh, good, feedback on specifics. Thank you, I worked for a long time on that one. The policy itself is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5-Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/) if anyone wants to use it. Knock yourself out.

I'm thinking the classic SRD content and "Ink + Quill" would be a good starting point for content, along with source info (OGC declaration, Section 15) for the books used on my current wiki. A couple of embargoed pages as well so people have a reference point; thinking pages for beholder/yuan-ti, instead of the monster stats it would explain that this is PI of WOTC, and explain the history that led it to be used as open content under the draft license. These pages would be locked to prevent tampering.

Once it's running I'll probably stick in Phil Reed's one-and-only SRD if I can find my copy and he can tell us if it affects sales of the associated product (he might not tell us, but he could).

 

[philreed]

Once it's running I'll probably stick in Phil Reed's one-and-only SRD if I can find my copy and he can tell us if it affects sales of the associated product (he might not tell us, but he could).

I doubt it could have any impact beyond what the original release had -- releasing that SRD KILLED sales of that product. There's a very good reason I haven't done anything like that since then.

 

[Rasyr]

If you really must use stuff you invented yourself, then why bother with the OGL?

Just to be able to ride on d20's coat-tails?

 

[philreed]

Just to be able to ride on d20's coat-tails?

Well, I dropped the D20 logo on my last release and my next one won't carry it, either.