OGC Wiki?

[Nellisir]

Incidently, I think an OGC repository should have a zero- story element policy, regardless of the OGC declaration (possibly excepting deities. It'd be nice to have an OGC pantheon). That preserves at least some of the "original" sources value.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I completely agree with philreed (and others) that while the OGC Wiki would (if properly section 15-ed) be legal, but that it would be pretty rude.

For those of you who seem to think that it would not be immoral in the least, allow me to put it this way...

Several Publishers have clearly stated that this sort of use of OGC would hurt their feelings. It is immoral to willfully hurt another's feelings. For instance, it is perfectly legal for you (generic you, of course) to say, "I think that Michael Silverbane is a jerk-wad!" But Morrus' dear old granny would whop you with her purse for doing so... Because it is rude. Rude rude rude.

Try not to be rude.

Later
silver

 

[BryonD]

I completely agree with philreed (and others) that while the OGC Wiki would (if properly section 15-ed) be legal, but that it would be pretty rude.

For those of you who seem to think that it would not be immoral in the least, allow me to put it this way...

Several Publishers have clearly stated that this sort of use of OGC would hurt their feelings. It is immoral to willfully hurt another's feelings. For instance, it is perfectly legal for you (generic you, of course) to say, "I think that Michael Silverbane is a jerk-wad!" But Morrus' dear old granny would whop you with her purse for doing so... Because it is rude. Rude rude rude.

Try not to be rude.

Later
silver

A) Mr. Silverbane publishes a document authorizing me to call him a jerk-wad
B) There is some mystical reason that calling him a jerk-wad has actual worth

Change those two critical things and maybe the analogy will stop being completely flawed.

Or

Mr Silverbane uses the OGL to his benefit. Mr Silverbane then turns around and attempts to pressure others into giving up their rights under the very OGL which has benefited Mr Silverbane. That would be rude. Mr Silverbane should not be rude.

 

[Conaill]

Several Publishers have clearly stated that this sort of use of OGC would hurt their feelings.

Perhaps more importantly: several publishers have clearly stated that they feel this sort of use of OGC would hurt their bottom line, and that they would probably have to stop publishing OGC - or stop publishing altogether.

Much as I would love to have a free source of OGL material, I don't think this should happen at the expense of the publishers. Best solution IMHO is to restrict this to material from publishers who have explicitly given their blessing. If we can set it up in such a way that everybody profits from it - publishers included - I'm sure everybody else will eventually fall in line as well. Of course, this does mean that you need to have strict control over which material gets added (which you probably need to maintain all the OGL legalities anyway), so pehaps a Wiki isn't the best vehicle for this...

 

[danzig138]

Again. It is not that I don't want the OGC I create to be used. It's that I want it to be used responsibly.

Anyone watching but not participating that understands what I mean -- yes, you! -- please post. My hand is getting tired.

If it makes you feel any better, I do understand what you're saying, and I don't think it's an unreasonable stance. I'm undecided on this whole mass OCG release issue. I've seen good points on both sides. It's a bit of a shame that this seems to frequently become a "moral/immoral" issue, since morals, yeah, those spark agreements frequently.

 

[danzig138]

It is immoral to willfully hurt another's feelings.

No it isn't. Willfully hurting another's feelings isn't necessarily depraved or wrong. If my friend starts smoking crack, and I say "Hey, Bob, smoking crack is stupid and you're pretty stupid for doing it" knowing that it will probably hurt his feelings, doesn't mean it was immoral of me to do so. It means he's stupid for smoking crack and someone needs to tell him so.

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say it sucks that people try to turn this into an issue about morals. You might think intentionally hurting another's feeling is wrong. I don't. And I know for a fact that my morals are the correct ones.

 

[Yair]

Incidently, I think an OGC repository should have a zero- story element policy, regardless of the OGC declaration (possibly excepting deities. It'd be nice to have an OGC pantheon). That preserves at least some of the "original" sources value.

Cheers
Nell.

I'm suprirsed.
I want a more comprehensive resource, but not at the cost of hurting the publishers. I would generally support the inclusion of story-element OGC if a) the publisher went out of buisness, or b) the content is meant for free distribution (such as an OGC shared construction of a world), or c) with the publisher's consent.
(I'll add fluff always. A class ain't worth much without it's fluff.)
I would also add altered OGC content much more willingly. For example, I would add my variations on the pantheon of the Murchad's Legacy Campaign Setting - it's certainly based on the setting's information, but I altered it and I think I did some things better and want to show off.
I wouldn't add the entire campaign setting. If someone wants to use it, they can buy it from the publisher. (Well, unless the publisher says he wants it added, of course.)

 

[Yair]

5 - The size of the S.15, and many of Phil's personal business concerns, could be controlled by not taking OGC from products under, say, 30 pages long. Stick with the meaty stuff, in other words.
7 - Repeat material is...not helpful. If feat "Cross Your Fingers" has multiple versions, then the "best" one should be up, not every version. For this alone there will probably need to be some sort of general oversight, and not a simple grand melee. Otherwise every twerp in the world will be nerfing/unnerfing/nerfing/unnerfing haste.

You raise some good points. Perhaps a single Section 15 is better.
I don't agree with the above two, however. There is little point, I think, in restricting the page count. While that may alleviate Phil's personal concerns, it really has little bearing on the broader issue. I certainly think an OGC compilation would be remiss in not including material from small, esoteric, sources. A free repository should take care in choosing sources so it will not diminish further OGC output or reward stringy OGC declerations, but size doesn't really enter into it.
And regarding repeat material, there are no universal solutions. A system of Variants with scoring would be most productive, I think, allowing the most popular variant to be presented within the main text and others to be linked to it.

 

[Hussar]

THe last time this topic made the rounds, I asked a question that got mostly ignored in the kerfuffle. So, I'd like to ask it again. The last time, I was told that there is very little (read almost no) cross polination between d20 publishers. There is a minor amount, but, very few and far between.

If that's true, then what difference would it make if d20 publishers started getting more proprietory? If no one is using other people's material anyway, who cares if it's open or closed?

Is this a false assumption on my part that there is very little cross polination between publishers? Granted, in the other thread, I proposed that publishers actually get their act together and add to the SRD to make cross polination easier, but, then again, I got called a thieving peon for having the temerity to suggest that a larger SRD would help everyone.

 

[philreed]

. . . I was told that there is very little (read almost no) cross polination between d20 publishers. There is a minor amount, but, very few and far between.

To put it simply, some publishers work better together than other publishers do. Additionally, some publishers use existing OGC -- building on, improving on, and adding to -- while others would rather plot their own course. There is no right or wrong side to this since everyone is free to do as they wish.

I wouldn't call the amount of cooperation and OGC use minor, though. I would just say that the degree to which this is done depends completely on the individual publisher.

(Man, that was a horrible post. Sorry.)