OGC Wiki?

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

In fact, unlike Open Source software in which the end user benefits from the above practice, the end user will not benefit as less OGC material will be produced.

The people making OGC, unlike the people making Open Source software, are doing so because they're being fiscally rewarded.

If every publisher starts doing this, the only new OGC will be coming from non-publishers.

This is so blatantly insulting and egotistical, I'm speechless -- but not suprised. Degradation and condemnation of anything not put out by "a publisher" has been the theme all along.

Really? That's not what I'm reading.

And no, it hasn't been a theme all along.

Want to know how a lot of us got into publishing?

By another publisher saying: "Wow, this stuff is good, have you ever thought of publishing?"

What I believe jg was saying is:

If publishers works are going to be placed up thier free, the majority of publishers will pack it in, or drop out, as they won't be able to recoup costs on a simple PDF, and many print publishers will close up as they will realize that the mechanics of any book they create will hit the Wiki within a week.

There won't be any publishers who won't supply totally closed content.

Why not? It's not like "non-publishers" create any worthwhile OGC -- it's free, right? So it has no value.

Nice turn around.

You seem to be of the opinion that if it's from publishers, it's evil, because all publishers are just a good ol' boys club who back each other up and try to keep everyone else from publishing or enjoying stuff.

Some people seem to be saying we created our stuff from a free source, so it has no value and we should give it away anyway.

A lot of people act like because you use the SRD to create something, you should give everything away, and that it should be free for use by everyone.

THAT'S what's upsetting people.

I'm out of this thread as of now. I made an honest attempt at negotiating a middle ground, and get pissed on in return. Everyone agrees an OGC repository is legal. Most people agree one is inevitable. And your response is to antagonize, insult, and intimidate anyone willing to seek a fair middle ground, so that the only people left to create one are people who don't give a damn what you think. That's the opposite of a brilliant plan.

Thank god you guys weren't in charge at WotC when the OGL was proposed.

Really? You're the one who has misrepresented how easy it is to become a self-publisher, making it sound as if all kinds of barriers have been erected to keep people out, when in fact both distributors and existing publishers bend over backwards to help people. A lot of your threads and other people's seem to center around villanizing publishers who don't want all of thier hard work and effort to be put up for free three days after they put it out.

I can understand thier viewpoint, and people constantly painting publishers as ogres sitting on top of treasure saying: "MINE!" while smashing other people with a club unless they can climb onto the stack, is blatantly smearing them with an undue image.

I believe that should an OGC Wiki that contains everything connected to the SRD come out, that posts stuff regardless of release date, author's wishes, and other restrictions, will eventually result in many publishers packing it in.

Contrary to popular belief, it is EXPENSIVE to put out a good looking PDF. Artists costs usually aren't paid for till about half way through the products shelf-life. Add in advertising, man hours, layout, editing, etc, and your average high quality PDF costs around $300-$2000 to put out, depending on artwork.

 

[isidorus]

I cannot believe I read this whole thred.

I do not belive in the OGC wiki, after reading this whole thread. On the other I do not usually buy anything with crippled OGL license. I recently bought Iron Heroes, but will probably sell it because of the way the OGL is worded. Anyway I am a huge fan of the Linux model, but do not think it will work here, although it has been a interesting read so far.

A couple points.

1.) I buy quite a few games, many more non-d20 then d20 these days, But d20 I usually buy I read the license carefully. See iron herose mistake. The only reason is if I want to post it to may group on a website for their use only I do not want to post non-OGC material, In respect I post nothing from other games. After reading this discussion I went and took down my website and it will stay dead for my group.

2.) I want to thank all especially the publishers for allowing my learn so much more about about the OGL. I respect your guys work and dedication.

3.) Funny thing is now we are going towards a holy war like the RIAA debacle. I do not why I see lawsuits, more crippled OGC and many other nasty things on the horizion, but I do.

Hope something works out but I do not see it at all! All I see is two groups paring off at each other

 

[jgbrowning]

Yes. This is not the Open Source software community, however. What you describe is not common practice in this community.

Neither was the OGL.

I don't understand this comment.

In fact, unlike Open Source software in which the end user benefits from the above practice, the end user will not benefit as less OGC material will be produced.

The people making OGC, unlike the people making Open Source software, are doing so because they're being fiscally rewarded.

If every publisher starts doing this, the only new OGC will be coming from non-publishers.

This is so blatantly insulting and egotistical, I'm speechless -- but not suprised. Degradation and condemnation of anything not put out by "a publisher" has been the theme all along.

I'm puzzled by this comment. If all publishers attempt to limit their new OGC to the minimum, then where would the the majority of new OGC come from if not from non-publishers?

This is not degrading or condeming anything put out by anyone. This isn't egotistical or insulting. This just a statement of what would happen.

I imagine this would be the result. A "Cabal" of publishers who allow other publishers to reuse material while prohibiting anything but the very minimum from being OGC.

Is getting stuff for free (of cost) really worth creating such a "community"?

Why not? It's not like "non-publishers" create any worthwhile OGC -- it's free, right? So it has no value.

Oh, you think I'm insulting non-publishers work? I'm not: any opinion of quality valuation is what you've read into this thread as I have have not stated any opinion concerning the value of non-publisher OGC.

I find it, ironic however that you'd get insulted because you think I think poorly of non-publisher OGC when the creation of an OGC wiki would most certainly contain a majority of publisher OGC.

Why? Because most of the OGC has been put out by publishers and not non-publishers.

If you believe non-publisher OGC to be appropriate for the OGC wiki, just go out and find the OGC that people have put out on their websites for free and start compiling it. They won't mind a bit since they've decided what they did is fiscally worth nothing to the creator (FREE of cost) and they'll get a kick out of being included.

I'm out of this thread as of now. I made an honest attempt at negotiating a middle ground, and get pissed on in return.

I have not "pissed" on anyone unless pointing out how publishers would probably react is viewed as pissing on someone.

everyone with half a brain agrees an OGC repository is legal. Most people agree one is inevitable. And your response is to antagonize, insult, and intimidate anyone willing to seek a fair middle ground, so that the only people left to create one are people who don't give a damn what you think. That's the opposite of a brilliant plan.

I don't think I have antagonized, insulted or intimidated anyone. I have said what the probable outcome of a certain action will be and how that action is probably counter to supporting an OGC community because it will cut out the largest section of the contributing community (publishers). More OGC has been made by publishers for sale than has been made by non-publisher and not for sale. If an action is taken that cuts out publishers in the community (which a massive FREE OGC wiki would do) that action removes the part of the community that has been the most productive in creating material the community uses. This doesn't mean non-publisher OGC is crap. It just means that there will be a whole lot less OGC and of that a greater % will be non-publisher OGC.

It looks like you don't like that outcome so have decided that I'm a mean person. Seriously, WTF? I've been a nice guy througout this conversation, it's just what I'm saying means that what people would like to happen

"A FREE source of public OGC"

can't happen without hurting the very publishers who will have created the majority of the OGC, created the material around which the OGC community has been built, and in the long run will hurt the very people who want the OGC to be FREE by limiting the future production of OGC to those with the least amount of experience in creating OGC.

This isn't pissing on anyone. This is the reality of what will probably happen when someone decides to follow the letter of the OGL and release OGC for FREE (of cost). These negatives won't go away. No matter how much legal right someone has to do something.

Thank god you guys weren't in charge at WotC when the OGL was proposed.

Ever wonder why WoTC in general only releases NON-OGC products? One of the reasons is because of people who believe that anything OGC means that it should be free of cost.

Talk about insulting. Your comment is very insulting. I guess my taking a fiscal risk (unlike the people asking for stuff for free) to produce and allow others to use the entire breadth of my production (1500+pages) means that I wouldn't have ever supported the OGL at its inception? I've backed up my support of the OGL with money, time, and effort. I think I deserve a little more respect than this.

I'd like an apology.

joe b.

 

[Twin Rose]

Any content located in a "Repository" or "wiki" would be completely unusable in anything resembling a print product. Why?

You can't just cite the section 15 and say, 'Content from the FCR'
...

You'd have to cite EVERY section 15 of EVERY product entered in. Assume, if you will, that 500 products had content entered. Then assume that each of those products had at least 2 bits in section 15. (SRD and the product itself). You cite the SRD once for the whole s15 of the FCR, then 1 for the FCR, then 1 for EACH of the 500 products. No ifs. No ands. No buts. A 2 page book would, in fact, turn into a 12 page book - 10 pages of section 15 alone!

Now, RPGNow has something like 6000 products. How many free products are out there on publishers websites and fan sites? How much material will be entered by fans, with possibly mistaken s15, but s15 all the same? How many print products? Suddenly that 2 page book is FIFTY pages long.

 

[Zelgar]

Sorry for my delay in responding, but I left at 3:30 and a normal 1 hr drive turned into 2+ because of snow. Then the driveway...

First, and foremost, I am NOT trying to destroy publishers or game designers. That has never been my intent, nor my goal in debating about the OGC and OGL.

I have tried to indicate where a OGC Wiki would be benefitial to everyone. It would expose people to sources of material that they may not know exist. This could result in more sales of product but I will agree that it may also reduce it.

Zelgar

 

[Zelgar]

If anyone is online right now, I would be interested in chatting....

 

[jgbrowning]

I have tried to indicate where a OGC Wiki would be benefitial to everyone. It would expose people to sources of material that they may not know exist. This could result in more sales of product but I will agree that it may also reduce it.

Zelgar

I think you're correct. I think there are benefits to the idea and you show one of them. Some people may find new stuff and go buy it and, in fact, instead of hurting anyone their actions are beneficial overall. They have stuff they know they want to own, publishers have a happy customer, and more OGC is created to continue the cycle. That's great!

But I think that this would occur less than someone finding something they want and use and then not buy the product, instead spending their money on things they can't get for free (of cost).

I'm not a knee jerker on this subject, I just really cant think of how, in the long run this is really beneficial to anyone. I'm still willing to talk about it and think about it.

joe b.

 

[Raloc]

Exactly.

And another thing-- One of the things that bothers me the most about subjects like this is that it brings to the fore something that I've noticed over the past decade in the business: Gaming is one of the few entertainment media where a disturbingly large percentage of the audience seems to actively resent those who produce the material they enjoy.

I've seen it pop up here and there in other "geek media" (comics, for example), but never with the frequency and vehemence that I've seen among gamers. It's this twisted sort of love/hate thing....love the material, hate those who make it. Often manifested as the view that we somehow "play games for a living" and don't deserve to be paid for what we do....or that they "could keep gaming without the industry," which seems to be a view that those who professionally produce the entertainment products they use are somehow superfluous to the process.

It's frustrating.

If your previous post is indicative of how you normally treat customers, then it's no wonder they resent you (the post having been rather elitist and insulting). I'm not trying to start a "flame war" or insult you here, I'm just pointing out how your post came across to me (and others, from what I saw of a couple of other posts saying the same). Now, I understand the issues here in regards to an OGC Wiki, and I understand where authors are coming from. I've published work (not game related) in the past, so I know first hand what that's like.

That said, if you are always so condescending and elitist when you speak to customers, I'm incredibly surprised you have customers at all.

[post in question below]

Phil, for what it's worth, you know that I completely agree with and share your position.

The reason I don't participate in these threads is because it's just the same arguments about how the material should be free, and how if we didn't want it to be free, we shouldn't have used the OGL, etc. etc., from the same people, pretty much none of whom have the slightest idea of how the license was intended and was communicated to publishers from the beginning.

There is no way to convince them, so I don't bother. My blood pressure thanks me.

 

[schporto]

I'm curious. Would the publishers in this thread be ok if someone made a module/adventure using OGC? What would the reaction be if I posted that on the internet for free? I don't mean the entire content, nor something you've specifically allowed me. I'd mean grabbing random equipment, or feats and using them inside the adventure.
Would this be acceptable?
My understanding is that it would be legal, but I'm not sure if it would be something that the publishers would find 'acceptable'.
Thanks.
-cpd

 

[Man-thing]

From what I've read, the publishers seem to have no problem with you creating something from their open game content and posting that creation for free.
(Building = good)

Its the posting of huge sections of OGC in a repository that they are uncomfortable with.
(Xeroxing tons of stuff = bad)

Loosely translated.