OGC Wiki?

[Yair]

AFAIK, there's nothing stopping someone from publishing an adventure or sourcebook and keeping the whole thing closed except for the parts specifically demanded by the license.

Many publishers do just that. From the (very good!) Dungeon Crawl Classics#14: Interludes adventure - "Subject to the product identity designated above, all creature and NPC statistic blocks are designated as Open Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or other open content sources."
The sad thing is this is actually a relatively clear designation....

 

[jezter6]

No. I have elected to give others a choice in whether or not they will make the material free, I have never elected material to be free unless I make it free.

OGC != Free

OGC = You get to decide if you want to make other people's stuff they would like to get paid for for free.

joe b.

The problem is when you as a publisher object to someone else's legal right to make your content free. Not saying it SHOULD be, and I think other feel the same way...but you're so worried about it becoming free, that you are in essence trying to add (purely implied) restrictions on your open content.

I don't see why this argument comes up all the time because regardless of how we all feel about what is right and wrong, it comes down to what is legal according to the license.

 

[philreed]

Ok, I apologize for that one. What I meant was that you're not doing it only for the 'love of the game' as so many athletes say when making 10 million dollar salaries. If you were doing it ONLY for that, you'd just put good stuff out for nothing.

Yeah, but I'm not making anywhere near $10 million. When someone working in the game industry says they're doing this because they love games, there's an excellent chance that they're telling you the truth. The skills necessary to create good product can be applied to almost any publishing effort (I used to work in the ag industry and spent several years designing ads for tractors and such -- if all I cared about was money I could go back to that and have a job with one phone call).

 

[jezter6]

Many publishers do just that. From the (very good!) Dungeon Crawl Classics#14: Interludes adventure - "Subject to the product identity designated above, all creature and NPC statistic blocks are designated as Open Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or other open content sources."
The sad thing is this is actually a relatively clear designation....

I still don't get why publishers opt to 'open' things that are not required to be open. If you're concerned about your flavor text being reproduced, then by all means close it. As a consumer, and maybe someday publisher, I could care less about your text.

The fact that someone released the tools to allow publishers to create open crunch and make a profit on it is somehow ok, but when others want to make that publisher's content available they are against it. This aint WotC. They're the only ones above the license.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

My choice as a publisher, and I believe almost every publisher who uses the OGL and puts out a lot of material is this—

1. Be mean to the majority of people (publishers, customers who want more OGC to support their hobby) by having a vicious IP claim and absolutely minimum OGC declaration. This mean I'm being, effectively, a "leech" publisher by using other's free stuff (the SRD) to make money while trying to make sure no one else can really use my stuff.

2. Be open in my declarations and run the risk of having my work devalued by being put up for free, but add to the community benfit for everyone using/playing the OGL/OGL games. In otherwords, be nice to those to made material I could use and be nice to those who may want to use my material in the future

It seems to me that there's a #3 available: make some of the material open content and other material not. If you publish a book of 17 magical pipe cleaners, make 5 of them open content. If they show up somewhere else, even in a free internet location, there are still 12 that you have the rights to, as well as a nice PDF presumably with illustrations and layout and stuff. And if the republishers are following the license, there will be a footnote referencing those 5 to your book of 17. Even if they muck that up, if I mention a magical pipe cleaner on these boards, there's a pretty good chance that Joe Poster will appear to inform me that there are 17 magical pipe cleaners in your book, and that the one I'm talking about originally came from there. I know that I find most of my small-press (meaning non-WotC) d20 publication info through the grapevine on message boards anyway...

 

[philreed]

I don't see why this argument comes up all the time because regardless of how we all feel about what is right and wrong, it comes down to what is legal according to the license.

Because, for me, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. I have personal standards and values that I will not sacrifice, no matter how "legal" I would be.

Example: Mastering Iron Heroes includes a very cool set of rules on zones. I'd like to do something with those but the OGC declaration does not open those rules. Now many have argued that they fall under the "based on SRD" clause and are free to use. I will not, though, because it is obvious to me that Monte Cook did not intend them to be open or available to others.

This is me showing respect to Monte's decision to not open the rules for zones.

 

[jezter6]

Yeah, but I'm not making anywhere near $10 million. When someone working in the game industry says they're doing this because they love games, there's an excellent chance that they're telling you the truth. The skills necessary to create good product can be applied to almost any publishing effort (I used to work in the ag industry and spent several years designing ads for tractors and such -- if all I cared about was money I could go back to that and have a job with one phone call).

Phil, I have no doubt that you love the game. And no doubt that most publishers love the game. Love is not money, and you cannot buy a house with love. You certainly have the right to do what you do, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are mistaken.

However, when someone else wants to do the same thing, they have the right as well, and if they don't need the money and can do it all for free, so be it.

I still think that good publishers with decent product will continue to sell decent product regardless of any ogc wiki project.

 

[jgbrowning]

The problem is when you as a publisher object to someone else's legal right to make your content free.

I'm not ojecting to someone's legal right. I'm telling them that if they do so on a large scale, their "right" will become less and less as the creators of OGC will make less and less OGC.

I don't see why this argument comes up all the time because regardless of how we all feel about what is right and wrong, it comes down to what is legal according to the license.

Because behaving legally isn't the issue. Behaving in a manner that is beneficial to customers and publishers is the real issue here.

All of us publishers know that we have made our material "Open." That means somecould make it "Free." However, that's not really to the benefit of everyone as much as being a bit more responsible with "Open" material. Because the liscense doesn't make anything FREE it makes things OPEN. What people decided to do with that OPENness once I've put it out there is up to them.

joe b.

 

[philreed]

And if the republishers are following the license, there will be a footnote referencing those 5 to your book of 17.

Unfortunately, that's a pretty big if. I had a recent problem with a publisher reusing some of my OGC and changing the names of my products in the Section 15. Anyone looking for my products will never find them because they'll never find products with those names.

 

[BryonD]

I agree. However here's a point to consider.

I want other people to be able to use my stuff in their books, but I don't want someone to rip my whole book off and repackage it for sale or put it up for free at a publically accessable site.

My choice as a publisher, and I believe almost every publisher who uses the OGL and puts out a lot of material is this—

1. Be mean to the majority of people (publishers, customers who want more OGC to support their hobby) by having a vicious IP claim and absolutely minimum OGC declaration. This mean I'm being, effectively, a "leech" publisher by using other's free stuff (the SRD) to make money while trying to make sure no one else can really use my stuff.

2. Be open in my declarations and run the risk of having my work devalued by being put up for free, but add to the community benfit for everyone using/playing the OGL/OGL games. In otherwords, be nice to those to made material I could use and be nice to those who may want to use my material in the future

Most publishers chose #2 right now simply because there isn't anything really making being #2 less fiscally viable than being #1. As soon as being a #2 publisher means that your stuff gets sucked up and released for free, almost all publishers will become #1 publishers. This means that, basically, everyone gets to be a jerk.

I don't like that, I that's why I don't support a massive public source of OGC. It will result in #1 style publishing more than #2.

And I like being nice to others and being treated nicely by others.

It's not immoral, but it is irresponsible because by using the OGL to it's "full extent" you're basically guaranteeing that there's going to be much less OGC in the future.

joe b.

The only thing I disagree with is you description under #1.
There are people who use cripple content (spells with closed names, etc...) And that may somewhat suck to some people. I certainly don't like it. But I don't think it is at all "mean". If you as a publisher are using the OGL correctly and anyone else who re-uses the material also does so, then there should not be any great debate beyond that.

If #2 is people that are choosing to go beyond the requirements of the OGL, then fine. But they do it of their own free will. You don't need to talk me out of re-using stuff. I buy a lot and I don't infringe on any of it. I'm just talking about the overall market reality.

I agree with you 100% regarding the negative impact on publishers would have. My gripe is when publishers start attacking others for using OGC in an authorized way. And calling immoral meets that criteria to me.

I agree with you that it would impact you in a way you don't want.
Can you agree with me that this does not make it unacceptable or immoral?

Anyway, I don't want it to happen. And I still strongly predict that it will not happen any time soon. It would take a lot of both tedious and concientious work to do it correctly. I persoanlly don't believe that anyone who has the real ability to do it right would ever find it to be worth their time.

That's why these threads always start out with someone asking when someone ELSE will start producing this free stuff for them.