OGC Wiki?

[Yair]

THe last time this topic made the rounds, I asked a question that got mostly ignored in the kerfuffle. So, I'd like to ask it again. The last time, I was told that there is very little (read almost no) cross polination between d20 publishers. There is a minor amount, but, very few and far between.

If that's true, then what difference would it make if d20 publishers started getting more proprietory? If no one is using other people's material anyway, who cares if it's open or closed?

Is this a false assumption on my part that there is very little cross polination between publishers? Granted, in the other thread, I proposed that publishers actually get their act together and add to the SRD to make cross polination easier, but, then again, I got called a thieving peon for having the temerity to suggest that a larger SRD would help everyone.

Firstly, little cross polination doesn't mean none. Works like Monster Geographica do take from other's OGC, and would be sorely missed.
More to the point, the people who care to create an OGC Wiki are generally the sort of people who care about things being OGC even if they are not publishers. Let me put it this way: why create a legal OGC site anyways? Why not create a regular fan site and disregard the law? You can put lots and lots of content there. And you're pretty much guerenteed not to get sued; there are sites showing WotC material, p2p networks trafficking its goods, and so on.
The point of having free OGC is that you are free to use and browse it - it doesn't cost you money or great effort, you can do so publicly and legally, without any hussle or trouble.
If the material is open, you can use it with impunity. You want more and better quality OGC to be released so you will have more to play with without legal and other restraints. The degree of cross polination really has nothing to do with that.

 

[Zelgar]

I can understand some reluctance from authors/publishers of having a OGC Wiki, but I can also see some benefits. If the Wiki existed, the users would probably find many sources of information that would benefit their game. From my experience, most gamers prefer having a hard copy of the information instead of an electric one, which may result in actually boosting sales of rpg products.

In fact, users may find several sources that have expanded a OGC rule-set that they like better than their existing one that they never knew existed. Additionally, some authors may discover that many of their ideas have already been developed and may be able to better use their talents to expand on existing OGC versus "reinventing the wheel".

Zelgar

 

[Nellisir]

I would generally support the inclusion of story-element OGC if a) the publisher went out of buisness, or b) the content is meant for free distribution (such as an OGC shared construction of a world), or c) with the publisher's consent.
(I'll add fluff always. A class ain't worth much without it's fluff.)

There's certainly room for compromise. "A" concerns me only because I've seen several defunct publishers sell or hand off their catalog to other publishers -- so while the "original" publisher is out of business, the products are still in the retail pipeline. Related to that is the question of discontinued lines; for example, AEG has ended d20 support for Rokugan and Swashbuckling Adventures, but isn't out of business and could, in theory, revive those at any time. One could argue that free release of the material in those lines will a) spark interest and revive sales, or b) drive sales of the remaining products down.

"B" and "C" are valid.

There is little point, I think, in restricting the page count. While that may alleviate Phil's personal concerns, it really has little bearing on the broader issue. I certainly think an OGC compilation would be remiss in not including material from small, esoteric, sources. A free repository should take care in choosing sources so it will not diminish further OGC output or reward stringy OGC declerations, but size doesn't really enter into it.

The only advantages to avoiding smaller products are a)not penalizing pdf publishers that specialize in small products, and b) keeping the size of the S.15 down. The Ronin Arts catalog alone is, what, 200-300 items?

Incidently, the S.15 doesn't have to printed in its normal bullet list appearance. You could compress the section by taking out line breaks and leaving a star or bullet between entries.

And regarding repeat material, there are no universal solutions. A system of Variants with scoring would be most productive, I think, allowing the most popular variant to be presented within the main text and others to be linked to it.

This is probably going to be the most difficult thing to address. When is a "variant" sufficiently varied to stand on its own? Everyone has a different appreciation of game balance and game flavor (I'm high fantasy/high magic myself). Can a system be devised and instituted that a) maintains and improves entries to meet a consistent baseline power level, and b) preserves quality variations?

I still don't want to do this (absolute lack of technical knowledge, for one thing), but it's an increasingly intriguing challenge (can you plot a course that presents as much OGC as possible, preserves the perceived value of the original source, and creates a quality product?).

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Henry]

Quick sidetrack: So far, the mods have been scanning this monster thread, and I want to thank everyone inthe past two or three pages for keeping courtesy towards one another, despite that such a thread have gone down in the past.

The reason I've been ambivalent about it is BECAUSE it's more a moral and courtesy issue than a legal one; each side has so many reasons for for it, all good, and I really can't take a stance that I'd feel solid with. If I HAD to (say, if I were an avid collector of OGC or a publisher), I'd probably rather it didn't happen, because in the end the hostile feelings generated community-wide may more than offset the added value of a communal source of OGC for gamers and publishers. If you can live without something, and this something is liable to cause trouble anyway just by having it, my philosophy says it's not worth it, just like someone holding down two or three jobs just so they can own a boat or car that's beyond their normal means.

 

[philreed]

Quick sidetrack: So far, the mods have been scanning this monster thread, and I want to thank everyone inthe past two or three pages for keeping courtesy towards one another, despite that such a thread have gone down in the past.

I agree. I had expected this to rapidly devolve into a flame war but it's been quite civil.

 

[BryonD]

The reason I've been ambivalent about it is BECAUSE it's more a moral and courtesy issue than a legal one; each side has so many reasons for for it, all good, and I really can't take a stance that I'd feel solid with. If I HAD to (say, if I were an avid collector of OGC or a publisher), I'd probably rather it didn't happen, because in the end the hostile feelings generated community-wide may more than offset the added value of a communal source of OGC for gamers and publishers. If you can live without something, and this something is liable to cause trouble anyway just by having it, my philosophy says it's not worth it, just like someone holding down two or three jobs just so they can own a boat or car that's beyond their normal means.

I don't think anybody could reasonably dispute that.

But us agreeing that it would be better if no one did this has no bearing on the freedom of someone else to choose to do so. And I really believe that it is important that the true open nature of the License be retained and fully respected, even though that includes some downsides to publishers.

And I still say it doesn't matter. Nobody with the knowledge and diligence to do this correctly is sitting around with nothing better to do with their time.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Perhaps more importantly: several publishers have clearly stated that they feel this sort of use of OGC would hurt their bottom line, and that they would probably have to stop stop publishing OGC - or stop publishing altogether.

This is the part of the argument that seems compelling to me. The problem with an OGC wiki is the practical consequences of its existence. If an OGC wiki pushes Phil Reed out of business, because nobody wants to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free, it will reduce the quantity and quality of d20 material.

Of course, I'm not convinced that an OGC wiki will have this effect, but I'm also skeptical concerning the likelihood that anyone will ever stick their neck out to put together such a project. Too much trouble for no reward.

However, I disagree with the notion that a wiki isn't a good vehicle for this kind of project, even with tight controls. You might be getting confused by the way most wikis are open and editable by anyone. But a wiki is simply a document sharing environment that is simpler to use than HTML. It's designed for collaborative writing, which is essentially what this would be.

 

[gamecat]

I completely agree with philreed (and others) that while the OGC Wiki would (if properly section 15-ed) be legal, but that it would be pretty rude.

For those of you who seem to think that it would not be immoral in the least, allow me to put it this way...

Several Publishers have clearly stated that this sort of use of OGC would hurt their feelings. It is immoral to willfully hurt another's feelings. For instance, it is perfectly legal for you (generic you, of course) to say, "I think that Michael Silverbane is a jerk-wad!" But Morrus' dear old granny would whop you with her purse for doing so... Because it is rude. Rude rude rude.

Try not to be rude.

Later
silver

But publishers are seemingly allowed to reproduce other publisher's OGC in their own products.

Looks like we'd be cutting in on Monte Reed's "The Best of OGC ][: Cut and Paste Hackjob".

Rude rude rude.

If I'm not wrong, I saw at least two publishers (CMG, http://www.enworld.org/shop/index.php?do=product&productid=389&source=Publisher Recent Malhavoc http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_YBd20_2004 ) produce some regurgitated OGC book.

Monte's site goes on to state

The sheer volume of d20 System products -- many with small print runs and low profiles-makes it impossible for a person to find out about them all, let alone read them all. That's why this collection of The Year's Best d20 game material is great for roleplayers who want the cream of what the industry has to offer.

If a publisher can reproduce other's OGC FOR PROFIT then I say onward to the wiki.

 

[Yair]

The only advantages to avoiding smaller products are a)not penalizing pdf publishers that specialize in small products, and b) keeping the size of the S.15 down. The Ronin Arts catalog alone is, what, 200-300 items?

The question is - who does the repository serve? If it is meant to be an online resource for homebrewers only, there is no need to limit the size of the Section 15. A huge Section 15 will make it difficult to use the material in a non-digital format, so publishers may want to actually buy each other's work if they want to use it (*gasp!*), but for the wiki's end user the size of the Section 15 simply doesn't matter.

Incidently, the S.15 doesn't have to printed in its normal bullet list appearance. You could compress the section by taking out line breaks and leaving a star or bullet between entries.

I'm not at all clear on what's needed in the Section 15. Can I change the order? Can I use bullet points or stars? If the original has some emphasis (indentation, bold), should I maintain it?
I just don't know.

This is probably going to be the most difficult thing to address. When is a "variant" sufficiently varied to stand on its own? Everyone has a different appreciation of game balance and game flavor (I'm high fantasy/high magic myself). Can a system be devised and instituted that a) maintains and improves entries to meet a consistent baseline power level, and b) preserves quality variations?

True, this is inherently very difficult.

I still don't want to do this (absolute lack of technical knowledge, for one thing), but it's an increasingly intriguing challenge (can you plot a course that presents as much OGC as possible, preserves the perceived value of the original source, and creates a quality product?).

It is an interesting conundrum.
It is trivial that you can publish any original content, or anything with the publisher's support, and publishing free content is nearly as obvious. Going anywhere beyond that is sure to alienate some people.
Personally, I would add old content (over 4 or 5 years old) and crippled content ("freeing" it into a usable format). I realize OGC can have commercial value for decades, but I feel that for a D&D/d20-based RPG 4 to 5 years is a good place to draw the line. The addition of crippled OGC is both out of spite (to "punish" those who I feel abuse the OGL), and practicality (I simply can't Use crippled OGC, to use it I need to make an open version of the material).

Ensuring quality is even more difficult. A large part of quality is presenting a cohesive tight package and throwing out the rest; obviously problematic.
I was thinking on a voting system based site, with categories based on type of contribution (campaign setting, magic system variant, and so on). But might not work well for a wiki.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

As another poster pointed out, my product line, if the non-mechanics were taken out, wouldn't be a very big line. And that's the point. You don't buy the material just for the mechanics, and to assume that it is the only reason people purchase your material is actually somewhat insulting to the majority of gamers out there.

When you get right down to it, there's nothing that has been produced that a GM couldn't build on his own. The tools are there, examples are there, there's even step by step instructions on how to build everything from PrC's, weapons, magic items, spells, monsters, EVERYTHING!

When I bought various books, I did not purchase them for the mechanics. I purchased them for setting, fluff text, and details that are not considered OGC. After all, what is FR, Greyhawk, Shattered Lands, Year of the Zombie, Firefly, but just a handful of mechanics and a LOT of setting data? Pull all the PI setting data, and what do you have? Not a whole lot, when you get right down to it.

As for the Section 15, that's fairly simple to handle. A "variable form" that pops up, and insert the publisher name, the origin book, the date, and the author. One section 15 form, with the variable being buried in the data for the feat, weapon, vehicle, whatever.

As for cross pollination, no, you don't see much of it, but make no mistake, it's out there. I've asked for, and gotten permission, to be allowed to reprint Monte Cook's venom rules, I've been allowed to do a module for d20 Modern that crossed RPGObjects popular Blood & Guts line with my own just starting line, I've gotten permission from ENPublishing, Wizards of the Coast, The Game Mechanics, Ronin Arts, Green Ronin. Sure, it wasn't the whole book, often one or two small tidbits, but it is cross pollination. It's there, it's just not that blatant.

I look at the OGC Wiki like this...

It will happen. No matter what the majority of the publishers clamor. With "Crippled Content" being unethical at best, downright against the OGL at worst, the more publishers that move to it will not only alienate thier fan base, but other publishers.

Since it WILL happen, eventually, I'd rather be a supporter of it, and be able to control what goes into it from my writing, rather than it just being added.

On the format, I would want to see ALL flavor text/non-mechanics data pulled from an item going in. Just straight mechanics and nothing else.

No maps. No fluff text. No character names. No non-mechanics information at all.

[Feat name]
[Benifit]
[Special]

That's it.

With the presentation handled correctly (The item being looked up, with the section 15 at the bottom relating to that item, and the banner for the company that produced the item at the top, along with author name and publication of origin underneath the banner) it would not only generate interest, but clearly and definately show who the work belongs to, who came up with it, and where it is available.

Seeing the different ones, say, Paladin classes, also allows a browser to decide which versions of Paladins he likes better. And a book about Paladin classes is going to have much more desired data than just some variant Core Classes and some PrC's, it'll have non-OGC information out the wazoo, and that will allow the browser to also decide which one he wants.

Face it, the person who just goes there to get data, bare bones mechanics data, is more likely to get the PDF from a P2P network than to shell out $7.50 for it. They aren't the ones the site would be built for.