OGC Wiki?

[isidorus]

philreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by isidorus
I cannot believe I read this whole thred.


Thank you for reading it before getting involved.

No Problem Phil, I learned quit a bit about publishers of OGC material, although I feel it is probably useful in theorizing about publishers in general.

Anyway this OGC Wiki is not really my cup of tea, but it has somewhat confirmed one thing for me. I suspect somewhere in the future there will be more crippled OGC, which is quite sad.

The other thing I suspect is that posting any of a publishers OGC material in Wiki's, web pages fan or otherwise may end up with RIAA cease and desist letters somewhere in the near future. This is a feeling though, but I am not limiting this to D20. I figure as RPG's sales slow, RPG companies may feel they have no choice so they can extract a living from what seems like a very tight market.

Not sure any of the above will happen, although from all I read so far, I suspect someone on one side of the other will fire the first salvo. I sincerely hope it does not become war between publishers and consumers like the RIAA battle.

Anyway I noticed it is still being talked about, so I keep reading and learning.

 

[jgbrowning]

No Problem Phil, I learned quit a bit about publishers of OGC material, although I feel it is probably useful in theorizing about publishers in general.

Anyway this OGC Wiki is not really my cup of tea, but it has somewhat confirmed one thing for me. I suspect somewhere in the future there will be more crippled OGC, which is quite sad.

We'll have to see. I have an entirely new line, a new concept, coming out in January that I think will make people very happy. I have a little time to think about what I'm going to do with my OGC statements. I don't know if I have the faith to keep going 100% OGC.

The other thing I suspect is that posting any of a publishers OGC material in Wiki's, web pages fan or otherwise may end up with RIAA cease and desist letters somewhere in the near future. This is a feeling though, but I am not limiting this to D20. I figure as RPG's sales slow, RPG companies may feel they have no choice so they can extract a living from what seems like a very tight market.

I doubt this will happen as long as everyone follows the OGL. If someone's not following the OGL however, I don't see why it wouldn't.

Anyway I noticed it is still being talked about, so I keep reading and learning.

Which is why I keep talking as well. Hopefully I can help people see a bigger picture than just what's legal and what's not legal. I've already made something like 80+ pages of FREE OGC already, so it's not like there's a paucity of FREE OGC out there right now.

joe b.

 

[Conaill]

Joseph doesn't seem to have had much success in making folks here understand the difference between OPEN and FREE.

Which is pretty frustrating, in my opinion, since he's been very clear.

It may also just be that they don't care.

Oh, I think most of us here DO understand the difference, and DO care. With the possible exception of a vocal minority. Overall though, I see a lot of miscommunication on both sides. And a lot of strawman accusations of "what the other side thinks".

I think this discussion has been more fruitful than some people here seem to think. For example, I have seen several people in this and related threads changing their minds on a totally free-for-all OGC repository, typically along the lines of "you know, I hadn't really thought it through from the perspective of the publishers", or "I still disagree on the effect it would have on sales, but if it makes publishers drop out we should probably try to find a different approach".

That does *not* mean those users have necessarily given up hope on a free OGC repository of some sort - as long as it can be implemented in such a way that it benefits all of us, publishers and users. This implies it would most likely NOT be a regular Wiki where anyone can submit whatever OGC they feel like scanning in (just because the title of the thread hasn't changed, don't be fooled into thinking the contributors to this thread haven't moved on long ago...). It may also mean only publishing OGC with the original author's consent. Exact details still to be worked out, naturally...


SO... Wulf and other publishers: what sorts of pieces of your OGC *would* you be willing to enter into a free repository? Where do you draw the line between "releasing this is going to hurt my sales" and "releasing this is going to encourage users to check out my products", or "releasing this will be of benefit to the industry as a whole"?

Should we follow the SRD's example, and encourage publishers to submit specifically their core mechanics, so they can still make money off of products that expand on those core mechanics?

 

[jgbrowning]

That does *not* mean those users have necessarily given up hope on a free OGC repository of some sort - as long as it can be implemented in such a way that it benefits all of us, publishers and users. This implies it would most likely NOT be a regular Wiki where anyone can submit whatever OGC they feel like scanning in (just because the title of the thread hasn't changed, don't be fooled into thinking the contributors to this thread haven't moved on long ago...). It may also mean only publishing OGC with the original author's consent. Exact details still to be worked out, naturally...

In order for something to happen that would be enjoyed and accepted by the majority of everyone involved, I suspect it would have to something like you suggest above.

SO... Wulf and other publishers: what sorts of pieces of your OGC *would* you be willing to enter into a free repository? Where do you draw the line between "releasing this is going to hurt my sales" and "releasing this is going to encourage users to check out my products", or "releasing this will be of benefit to the industry as a whole"?

Well if someone wanted to start with products that are already made FREE by the creator and ask the creator for permission to use their name and company name to create a link to where the product from which the FREE OGC material came from could be purchased, that would be a begining. Beyond that, there's so many variables it's hard to conceptualize possiblities.

But I think most publishers would be cool with that. Nothing FREE that wasn't made FREE by the creator and a little plug to maybe help with the creation of more OGC in the future, both FREE and for cost. I'd still worry about mindspace, and a few other variables, but there's give and take in all negotiations.

Should we follow the SRD's example, and encourage publishers to submit specifically their core mechanics, so they can still make money off of products that expand on those core mechanics?

I think what many of us forget is that the SRD wasn't realy created "for the people." It was created to alow other people to create for sale products that drove the sale of the core books by WotC. It wasn't conceived of as a "shareware-style" community. It was created to create a 2nd tier of for profit companies who'd create smaller, less profitable material, for the core rules.

In other words, for WotC to give away core rules is fine, because they're giving them away to publishers with the intent of using the pubishers to create a powerful RPG mindspace for D&D. Like Gareth's quote of RD in the "Is the OGL working" thread, it was far and away not a nice thing to do to other publishers (of other existing systems)— even though it created a short gaming reinassance for the fans and may have had the side effect of making the RPG market bigger overall by bringing back lapsed customers who may migrate to other systems. We'll have to see what happens in the future for the larger impact over time, I suppose.

So, for a small 3rd party publisher to give away core mechanics for FREE with the intent of distribution to customer's directly instead of to an intermediary 2nd tier, the orginating publisher would then be effectively competing with other publishers while being unable to capitilize on the increase sales of a Core product with was the reason for the OGL to begin with.

It would be better, I think, to keep core rules for sale and put out free product that supports the core, than to release core rules and try to make money off supplements (which historically always do worse than core rules).

joe b.

 

[Conaill]

In other words, for WotC to give away core rules is fine, because they're giving them away to publishers with the intent of using the pubishers to create a powerful RPG mindspace for D&D. Like Gareth's quote of RD in the "Is the OGL working" thread, it was far and away not a nice thing to do to other publishers (of other existing systems)— even though it created a short gaming reinassance for the fans and may have had the side effect of making the RPG market bigger overall by bringing back lapsed customers who may migrate to other systems. We'll have to see what happens in the future for the larger impact over time, I suppose.

And yet, one could argue that giving away 99% of the content of the core books for free should have ruined the market precisely for those core books - and it hasn't really. Sure, WotC releasing the SRD had a big effect on the size of the market as a whole, and they are raking in a lot of buys from the less computer-savvy elements of that market as well. This is not something that could be hoped to be achieved by a small publisher. But fact is, *most* people who use the SRD on a regular basis actually own the books as well.

It would be better, I think, to keep core rules for sale and put out free product that supports the core, than to release core rules and try to make money off supplements (which historically always do worse than core rules).

And yet Wulf, for example, has decided to make the GT Character Creationrules available for free, indicating there's at least one publisher who thinks that releasing at least *some* part of his core mechanics isn't going to be a death sentence for his product.

Wulf - I'd still love to hear a bit more about your strategic reasoning behind this. Is this just a trial balloon on your part? Do you think it may increase sales of GT or GT-related products by releasing this bit of the core mechanics?

If we want the OGL to achieve what a lot of us had been hoping for - i.e. a gradual evolution towards better and better rules variants (which I know is not what it was designed for - it was designed in the first place to make WotC money...), then I think freeing the very *core* of the mechanics may be the way to get there. (And by "core", I don't mean "all the crunch" - could be perhaps only 10-20% of the content of an all-crunch book.)

 

[jgbrowning]

And yet, one could argue that giving away 99% of the content of the core books for free should have ruined the market precisely for those core books - and it hasn't really.

The people arguing that releasing the SRD should have ruined the market for the core books seem to be those who want more FREE OGC from 3rd party publishers, not the people who've made money off the relase of the SRD. The reasons why that argument doesn't hold water are many and varied, and I expect you probably know them as well as I do.

Sure, WotC releasing the SRD had a big effect on the size of the market as a whole, and they are raking in a lot of buys from the less computer-savvy elements of that market as well. This is not something that could be hoped to be achieved by a small publisher. But fact is, *most* people who use the SRD on a regular basis actually own the books as well.

Do you think WotC would have released the SRD if they only produced PDFs?

I don't.

Much of the OGC being released right now is coming from non-traditional sources (PDF). These sources of OGC are only targeted at the computer-savvy elements of the market, the very group that would be the highest adopters and users of a FREE OGC repository. And these PDF sources are the ones that would be the first taken and made FREE because they already come in an easy-to-replicate package (PDF). There's no need to scan, OCR... etc..

These are more reasons why I think using the SRD as a model for the consequences of releasing OGC from 3rd party publishers isn't a good one. To me it really is an apples and wrenches comparison.

And yet Wulf, for example, has decided to make the GT Character Creationrules available for free, indicating there's at least one publisher who thinks that releasing at least *some* part of his core mechanics isn't going to be a death sentence for his product.

Releasing some core mechanics is different than releasing core mechanics. My response was to releasing core mechanics "en toto." Partial releases would serve the same purpose that anyone seeks when they release FREE OGC: being nice to the peoples and trying to make more sales by giving examples of what is there to be purchased.

This amount of "being nice" vrs. "promoting product" via the relsease of FREE OGC varies a lot between publisher and is massively dependent upon having a product that is large enough in size to parcel out. If you have a small product, take my Seeds for example (4.5 pages generally), If I give away a single page of FREE OGC for that product I've done 25% of my work for no money.

That would be like releasing 56 pages of a 224 page product for FREE. I don't think anyone would expect that and I think people would understand why such an expectation wouldn't hold water.

If we want the OGL to achieve what a lot of us had been hoping for - i.e. a gradual evolution towards better and better rules variants (which I know is not what it was designed for - it was designed in the first place to make WotC money...), then I think freeing the very *core* of the mechanics may be the way to get there. (And by "core", I don't mean "all the crunch" - could be perhaps only 10-20% of the content of an all-crunch book.)

What you mean to say is "then I think FREEING (of cost) the very *core*," if I'm parsing your sentance correctly. I think that because since the mechanic is already OGC, it is already free (to distribute) according to the OGL. To me there's a difference between the two and that something needs not be FREE (of cost) to evolve. Because basically every bit of re-used/evolved piece of OGC so far has already come from a non-FREE source.

It looks like you believe that FREE OGC would evolve faster than *for cost* OGC. And that's a compelling arguement as there are several things that back up that idea nicely. However, at least given the current example of the market we have right now, the vast majority of OGC has been created by people who want it to be *for cost* and not FREE. This makes me wonder, "although making things FREE would mean more people would have the opportunity to see and build upon something, are those more people going to *actually* produce more or better material than is currently being produced today?"

I don't know. I don't know if there would be enough people to "pick up the slack" if the current OGC producers decide to produce less OGC because their OGC is being turned into FREE when they want it to be *for cost*. Having seen many more fan communities fail than succeed, however, I think that taking out a fiscal incentive to create OGC would result in a massive decrease in the amount produced.

Just look at the net-books. They've been around for oh, 5-10 years now for most of them? How many pages of material has been created for FREE compared with how much material has been created in the past 5 years *for cost*

In fact, I wonder, how much new OGC has been created FREE (of cost) already, by all the publishers who've relased FREE web supplements, teasers, chapters, etc... Does this amount also exceed the amount produced by the "fan community" in a straight 5 year comparison? In other words, is the *for cost* OGC actually creating a bigger pool of FREE (of cost) OGC than would occur if everything was FREE (of cost).

I think it is.

joe b.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I gotta say, it's really hard to read those posts where FREE is capitalized. I suspect it's being done to make some sort of point, but when I read it, the reading voice in my head reads it as "frrrreeeeeeeeaahhh", which makes it somewhat difficult to pay attention to the rest of the sentence. Anyway, just sayin'.

 

[jgbrowning]

I gotta say, it's really hard to read those posts where FREE is capitalized. I suspect it's being done to make some sort of point, but when I read it, the reading voice in my head reads it as "frrrreeeeeeeeaahhh", which makes it somewhat difficult to pay attention to the rest of the sentence. Anyway, just sayin'.

Heh... I'm using FREE to mean "free of cost," because there are so many other ways to use it in this type of discussion.

And I like ALL CAPS. Makes me look PROFESSIONAL.

joe b.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf - I'd still love to hear a bit more about your strategic reasoning behind this. Is this just a trial balloon on your part? Do you think it may increase sales of GT or GT-related products by releasing this bit of the core mechanics?

There is no strategic reasoning behind it. Enough folks were asking for it to overcome inertia.

I certainly hope it increases sales of GT, though I don't think there's any reason to think that it would. It will simply make life easier for a small but loyal group of GT fans who deserve to be supported in kind.

 

[Hussar]

While I realize this was addressed, I just wanted to come back to the Unearthed Arcana for a moment. It's been out for almost two years, and its just now that the OGC is available on the Hypertext SRD site. Somehow, I don't think that the Hypertext SRD has made much of an impact as to whether or not WOTC produces another OGC book. If they were going to produce one, they likely would have done so before now. Pointing to the Hypertext SRD and saying that they are the cause of no more OGC from WOTC is a little misleading IMO. I don't think there's really a causal relationship there. Not when so much time has passed.