OGC Wiki?

[Psion]

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.

Before its untimely demise, the Fantasy Netbook Community council had a plan for this. They proposed a database that served up OGL statements specific to the content served up. Thus it need nod result in a dictionary-thick OGL statement.

 

[jgbrowning]

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

I'd think it would be an awesome thing to do! Support it 100%. Its for stuff like this that we all support the OGL.

joe b.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Phil, Joe, Wulf, Ralts, et al:

Aside from game mechanics that are SRD derivative content (feats, classes, etc) that are regularly open, what else have you released as OGC that other publishers have actually used?

Hmmm... Quite a bit of stuff from Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves has made it into use here and there. Usually with smaller publishers, but Mongoose used a couple of bits from Dwarves and Half-Orcs in (IIRC) Ultimate Games Designer's Compendium.

Corey Reid wrote to me shortly after Grim Tales came out and asked me if I would be interested in publishing his expansion rules that he had developed based on the Vehicles chapter in GT. His work was great, but quite a large expansion. I was rather enamored of the streamlined rules already in Grim Tales so I encouraged him to shop them to other publishers. Adamant Entertainment subsequently published Hot Pursuit and I believe it was one of their best sellers.

Ralts already mentioned using the Horror rules from Grim Tales in his own product (though I confess I don't even remember him asking).

My typical response, when someone asks me if they can use my OGC, is, "Of course you can use it, you don't even have to ask. It's Open. Just make sure you follow the license correctly and get my copyright notice correct in the Section 15. I do appreciate you asking, though."

A certain code monkey recently asked me if he could create an online character generator for Grim Tales characters. I released to him all of the electronic files he needs to do it, on the condition that when he is finished, he also post those files online into a "GT Character Creation SRD."

Grim Tales, of course, uses tons of Open Content from other sources, most notably Spycraft and d20 Modern, but there are many others (Joe already mentioned his "Economic Models" OGC which I used).

Phil Reed put out an inspired little PDF quite a while back called "Possessors: Children of the Outer Gods." The seeds of the idea he presented there fueled a good deal of Bad Axe's Slavelords of Cydonia.

I assume there is a great deal more that I don't even know about. These are all top of mind as most of these folks have posted to this thread.

 

[Zelgar]

wulf...

a few of us are chatting right now, care to join in?

Zelgar

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

Won't that make them publishers?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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]

Yeah, phil? If you're still wondering where this whole publishers vs. customers thing entered the thread, it was with the GMSkarka post quoted.

I notice that the thread has, since I've been away from it, veered away from the idea of putting together a wiki built on a voluntary basis by supporting publishers. More's the pity, I think.

 

[jgbrowning]

Won't that make them publishers?

If they start a company and try to make more money than they loose doing it, yep. But I have a very loose definition of publishers.

joe b.

 

[GMSkarka]

Yeah, phil? If you're still wondering where this whole publishers vs. customers thing entered the thread, it was with the GMSkarka post quoted.

Gosh...an RPGnet regular, blaming me for something.

I'm shocked. I really am.

Maybe you should re-read the thread. The "us vs. them" was already there, long before I posted....and, if you actually read what I said, I was saying that most of the folks arguing in favor of the Wiki would trot out 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.

Which, you'll note, I was right about. People DID end up saying just that.

So, if you want to blame me for turning out to be right, um...well, go right ahead.

 

[Raloc]

Gosh...an RPGnet regular, blaming me for something.

I'm shocked. I really am.

Maybe you should re-read the thread. The "us vs. them" was already there, long before I posted....and, if you actually read what I said, I was saying that most of the folks arguing in favor of the Wiki would trot out 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.

Which, you'll note, I was right about. People DID end up saying just that.

So, if you want to blame me for turning out to be right, um...well, go right ahead.

GMSkarka, that was secondary to my point, however. I was merely commenting on the particular language used to express the "Most people don't understand the OGL" message.

However, I do understand the argument you're making. I agree that an OGC Wiki would likely end up being bad for gamers and publishers alike, even though it would be a great resource for actually playing games. Which is unfortunate, but that's the likely outcome.

I was merely pointing out that your post made you seem adversarial.

 

[Yair]

You are able to move across soft sand easily.
Bonus: You retain normal movement speeds over soft sand, disregarding movement penalties.
Special: This feat does not work on quicksand.

as being OGC whether I want it to or not.

We have no real disagreement, except on terminology. The above is what I would say must be OGC, our versions have a few differences but these are not fundumental.

I'll be retiring from this thread now, so if someone wants further conversation contact me by email or something.

Yair