OGC Wiki (merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a rabid d20 consumer, I would just like to state my own personal opinion on this idea. While I like the thought of being able to go out and find all of the OGC in one place where I can pull new things for my games, I have to agree with a lot of folks that it would be VERY bad for the Publishers, especially guys like Phil. I would rather see it kept hidden from public consumption and used only for the Publishers to hone their products and put out even better stuff for me to buy.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So the general opinion is:

I LOVE FREE STUFF!

and

I AM SORRY FOR PEOPLE THAT PUT OUT OGC RULES!

I already gave my fluff and OGC song dance, won't again. I would throw this weird guantlet down to the fans...

Love OGC?

Produce some, let it go into the wild, see what happens. The makers of the OGC Wiki should have some content there. Let's all have some damn invest in it. I'll serious look at creating some horror OGC just for the wiki, you do the same. (And anyone who reads ENworld knows I HATE D20 COC content now(because of the ancient war among us))
 
Last edited:

BryonD said:
Well, to be brutally honest, there are humans with the capability to do this right and humans without. The "with" humans are going to have better things to do. This isn't some humanatrian project or something.
I disagree. Well, of course there are retards (literally, medically) and illiterates and so on, but I think just about anyone that invests himself can extract OGC from clearly designated prodcuts and edit a wiki page to include it. No, he won't do it "right" be he'll provide a basis. Then another will come on and add to that, and another will come along and format it a little, another will change the graphic design to conform with the wiki's norms, and so on....
Wiki's grow by slow, gradual, accumulation. Each contributer cannot do it right, perhaps, or at least very few can - but when put together, the result is impressive. Not quite what one person will do when he tries to "do it right", but functional and comprehensive and often more creative.
 

Yair said:
I disagree.

First, I'm not talking about mental handicaps and such. I'm saying that there are lots of people with all the tools but without the drive. It is an abstract thing that wouldn't be easy to prove and I don't think it would be at all productive to try to debate here. I'll just say that I strongly believe it to be true and it is a starting assumption for me. I'm not going to get defensive and arguementative if you disagree. Just know thats where I'm coming from and take it or leave it.

I would suggest that were I wrong, there would have been hundreds of these things up and running for years now.

Anyway, humanity is defined by its exceptions. Some guy could wake up today and decide that he would just get a great deal of personal satisfaction out of doing this. And if that guy is one of the "with" people, the project will be up and running in the very near future.

But at even money, betting that this will be up and running in 12 months would be a total sucker bet.
 

BryonD said:
I agree completely with Mike's core concept that developer's sharing the pieces would make for better game in the long run. (I think that is happening quite nicely, actually. But maybe it could be more and faster). But to have Mike, Ben, Phil and others all sharing their tools so that they get them back sharper is not the same as dumping product to the public.

Which is why I think that a professional, subscription-based site -- say $500/year -- would be a good idea. It's not that I'm against the idea of publishers having access to lots of OGC so that they can work from it. I'm against the idea of all of this material being loaded online for free where it can kill sales for a lot of publishers.
 

BryonD said:
But at even money, betting that this will be up and running in 12 months would be a total sucker bet.

And you're probably right. I just think that now that it's being proposed by a "name" author (one that, I will point out, would be in no way harmed by the proposal -- the company he now works for is basically immune to the negative effects such a site would cause) the idea will gain more momentum.
 

And it doesn't help that this "name" author proposed the idea AFTER he started working for the big company. Over on rpg.net a comment was made about why he was supporting this now, especially after how confusing the OGC declaration is for Iron Heroes. Here is his response:
mearls said:
The OGC declaration in Iron Heroes is precisely the reason why I've begun taking this idea seriously.

In theory, the OGL should've sparked a renaissance in creativity and innovation. Publisher A produces sub-system X, that fan B improves and puts on his web site, that publisher C sees, takes, improves, and uses. As you cycle a set of rules through this process, it slowly improves. It'll likely shot off in various directions (Here's a rules heavy version of X, here's a rules light version, here's one for SF gaming, etc), but in the end the gaming and design communities have more, better options.

In reality, everyone just kept reinventing the wheel. The old, outmoded methods persisted. Nobody in the industry ever really grasped the power of open gaming content.

I'm convinced that, had this happened 4 years ago, we'd have noticably better gaming products and a significantly better educated pool of d20 designers.

In an ideal world, a community similar to the Forge would emerge and begin running through interations, improvements, and expansions to the core body of d20 material.

At GenCon, I had a short discussion with a would-be RPG designer. There were two other professionals there. The designer talked about the RPG he was working on, and he wanted advice on how to improve his game. I asked to look at what he had written so far, and there was a very funny reaction.

He, and both industry pros, were taken aback that I expected him to just show me his mechanical work. They were very ardent about it, too. That was utterly alien to me. Tn that moment, it was clear that the Forge way of doing things - rabid sharing, comparing, debating - was still isolated in one corner.

I believe it's no coincidence that that corner also happens to be where all the interesting, innovative, and exciting games are coming from.

A massive, interactive, community-based repository of OGC is the first step towards building a Forge analog for the "mainstream" of RPG publishing.

Unfortunately, he isn't thinking about how others will be adversely affected either. Apparently, his concerns are more around everybody being able to use the OGC easily, rather than what this would do to those producing it.

I would like to point out, however, that this sort of idea was first suggested on teh OGL mailing lists at about the same time that 3.0 was released to the public, as a resource by the publishers, for the publishers, and that almost none of the publishers on the OGL list at the time wanted to be involved in such then either (this idea revolved around a database, not a wiki). Shoot, they didn't even want to help with an index of OGC.

I really doubt that they will have all changed their minds since then. As can be seen by this comment:
Patrick Y. said:
PS: All this is, of course, sideline to the fact that many publishers, including several I've worked for - have a standing policy of not using existing content from other publishers even when they know it exists, and would fill their needs. Which is half the reason why there are approximately 8 million d20 books about sorcerers, for example. And since, by this point, many of them have established loyal customer bases that will buy their books because it's got their brand attached, one of the major reasons for having an OGL wiki - crosspollination for the strengthening of the system - probably isn't going to end up doing that much.
 

philreed said:
Which is why I think that a professional, subscription-based site -- say $500/year -- would be a good idea. It's not that I'm against the idea of publishers having access to lots of OGC so that they can work from it. I'm against the idea of all of this material being loaded online for free where it can kill sales for a lot of publishers.

Yeah.

And if there are enough publisher's willing to pay that, then you now have an incentive and it could happen. It appears no one is sufficiently confident that this demand exists to do the up front investment. But obviously I wouldn't personally have a clue on that level of insider game publishing scoop.

I hope it would happen. Because I would expect to get even better stuff in the long run. But who knows?
 

philreed said:
And you're probably right. I just think that now that it's being proposed by a "name" author (one that, I will point out, would be in no way harmed by the proposal -- the company he now works for is basically immune to the negative effects such a site would cause) the idea will gain more momentum.

Is it momentum or just a new round of buzz?

I don't think you can have much momentum when V=0. :p
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top