OGC Wiki?

[Old Fezziwig]

And Phil beat me to it...

 

[philreed]

And Phil beat me to it...

Barely. I'm just happy to see another person agreeing with me.

 

[RangerWickett]

Because I do want people to have the ability to reuse material. I see it as completely different situations when someone selects an item or two and uses them as treasure in a dungeon than when someone starts posting complete products online for free.

I open material for the use of other publishers, not so that everything can be given away for free. And I think a lot of the other publishers that publish significant amounts of OGC feel the same way. (Though I do wish that at least a few of them would post in these sorts of threads.)

I completely agree. The OGL is intended for game designers to build on each other's work, to make supplements from different publishers be compatible. The spirit of the license is not for people to take the work one person has done in an attempt to make money, and then give it away for free. While it is legally allowable, it is morally wrong to do such a thing.

Open Gaming Content is meant to foster the gaming community and industry. Giving the stuff away for free might foster the community for a bit, but it'd kill the industry, which would cripple the community.

I might be okay with an OGC wiki that asked permission of the publisher and would in general not publish things less than 2 years old. But as a pdf publisher, a sizeable number of sales still come in for products in the back catalog. Giving away the content for free . . . I dunno. It might spur sales of new products a bit, but I cna't be sure.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm not sure that's what's being argued here. From what I understand, the intent of the OGL is to open up material for publishers to use and encourage some forms of collaboration, not to create a bunch of freely distributable game material for fans. It can do that, too, but I'm not sure that was ever the primary intent.

I have doubts about things like "intent," and its relevency to these sorts of issues. But putting that aside, the fact is if you publish something as open content, its content can be freely distributed, subject to the conditions in the OGL. Publishing something under the OGL in this manner is precisely giving permission to republish the open material. There are provisions included in the OGL to mark certain material as open content and certain material as not open content. But once it's open, it's open, and that's clearly stated in the terms of the license.

I dunno. It just seems to me like when I was six and used to play marbles and the other kid, upon losing, quickly says "no keepsies!" But keepsies was called before we started playing. Or maybe I'm just rubbed the wrong way by the notion that there's some kind of special privilege that game publishers are supposed to have that us proles don't have, that makes it okay for other publishers to freely plagiarize each others' work with impunity but not okay for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell for a buck, with the inclusion of some neat stuff he saw in this or that OGL sourcebook, or just to put on his website. If both of these parties are operating by the rules of the OGL, as far as I'm concerned they're operating under its intent.

If they intended some other form of use, they would have put that in the OGL instead of what's in there.

 

[philreed]

IWhile it is legally allowable, it is morally wrong to do such a thing.

Unfortunately, a sizable number of people feel that "information should be free." So while a number of us want to protect OGC, by making sure that it is used responsibly, another group wants all of the OGC to be completely free to the world.

I doubt if the two parties will ever agree on the right and wrong way to use the OGL.

 

[jezter6]

Yes, but now think about a product with 101 different short, single items. If it's all declared as OGC -- which I usually do -- what is to prevent the problem I mentioned earlier? (The entire collection of material being released online for free.)

1) Have good images of all your items to go with the description, those can't be copied.
2) Don't release such a book. If you're that worried about someone using your OGC in a legal manner, find better ways to release your content.
3) Put little bits of equipment in relevant books so that collecting your entire content isn't so damn easy.
4) Realize that the 'phil reed' name seems to sell, and hope people buy it anyway. Sure, someday it may get released, but in all honesty...you're probably in the top 5 3rd party publishers out there and going to make your sales dollars up front, so don't worry about devalue later.
5) Screw over the collections people and put out collections of your own. I'm obviously not a fan of the (again IMHO) outrageously overpriced small product market. Put out a book with like 1000 items for only a few bucks, cheap enough that a compilation document wouldn't really be able to compare, even at the retail price of $0.00.

 

[philreed]

Or maybe I'm just rubbed the wrong way by the notion that there's some kind of special privilege that game publishers are supposed to have that us proles don't have, that makes it okay for other publishers to freely plagiarize each others' work with impunity but not okay for Buddy Whatshisname to work up his own stuff to sell for a buck, with the inclusion of some neat stuff he saw in this or that OGL sourcebook, or just to put on his website.

I think a problem with the OGL is that WotC didn't specify that a certain percentage of the OGC in a product must be original to that product and released as OGC. If something as simple as this was a part of the OGL I think a lot of the problems would vanish -- then anyone releasing existing OGC for free would also be releasing new OGC, of their own creation, for free.

And for the record, I've had fans ask if they can use my OGC on their campaign websites and give it to their players and I've always told them to go for it. Again, it boils down to exactly how the OGC is used for me. I know of a few "campaign bibles" that incorporate feats, classes, and spells that I've written and to me that's pretty neat. These weren't created solely to distribute everything to the world for free, they were created for a specific set of players for their campaign.

If I were really opposed to the responsible reuse of my OGC I would lock the files to prevent copying the text. I don't do this and won't do this.

 

[philreed]

2) Don't release such a book. If you're that worried about someone using your OGC in a legal manner, find better ways to release your content.

So you're telling me that I should stop writing the types of products people want me to write? (Note: I don't believe that's at all what you're saying, I'm just making a point.)

I think the problem boils down to legal use vs. responsible use and, as I said earlier, I don't think the two sides will ever agree on this point.

 

[Nellisir]

ARCHER’S GREATCOAT
Appearance: This richly crafted greatcoat is deep green in color and hangs down to the wearer’s knees. Thick straps wrap around the coat, fastening with gray metal buckles when the coat is closed. The left arm of the coat is leather while the rest of the garment is made of heavy linen. The entire coat is lined with white fur and is horribly warm to wear in all but the coldest of conditions. Down the left side of the coat are dozens of long pockets, each one of which is designed specifically to hold a single arrow.
Appraise Information: DC 16. This greatcoat was specially made two decades ago for the ranger Delphakae, a masterful woodsman that was as well known for his expertise with the bow as he was for his skill at tracking dangerous prey. The fur that was used to line the coat was taken from a winter wolf that Delphakae killed during the Goblinhost Campaign; a brutal goblinoid uprising that almost resulted in the death of thousands of human settlers.
Value: 565 gp (5 gp for the coat, 35 gp for the winter wolf fur, 25 gp for the artistry involved in the manufacture of the coat, and 500 gp for its historical significance).
Special Rules: The coat can be used to carry a total of 36 arrows, doing away with the need to carry a quiver. The coat acts as leather armor when worn and provides its wearer with a +2 circumstance bonus to Fortitude saves made to resist the effects of cold weather.

I'd rename Appearance to Description, eliminate the Appraise section, and switch the placement of the Special Rules and Value sections. Move the history of the item to Description, and the Appraise DC to the Value section. That groups the mechanics together, and the value (which is modified by material in the Special Rules section) at the end. Then write the declaration like this:

The name of this item is declared Product Identity. All text in the Description entry is hereby declared closed content. All game mechanics and text (except PI as designated above) in the Value and Special Rules entries is hereby declared open content.

Leaving it like it is, you're pretty much forced into either "all game mechanics (including item values & modifiers to dice rolls) are OGC, all other text is closed content" or "all descriptive text is closed content, all game mechanics are open content", since both are intermingled in the item description.

It's a very cool item, btw. Is it from an upcoming product, or an existing one?

Cheers
Nell.

 

[jgbrowning]

I doubt if the two parties will ever agree on the right and wrong way to use the OGL.

Which is why I don't get involved in these discussions and why I think a lot of publishers don't either.

joe b.