OGC Wiki?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Interestingly enough, your deal with Kirin'Tor may help us find out, by the beginning of next year. Personally, I can't wait for SRD and Chargen, myself, because this by-hand business is slowing my spread of the GTospel.

For the record, I think there is a big difference between print and PDF, in terms of the potential negative impact of an OGC Wiki.

I wouldn't expect a wiki to affect my GT print sales.

I would expect it to annihilate my PDF sales.

You'll also note that I'm not trying to sell the chargen portions of GT in PDF format, either. I'm giving those away, in a format and utility of my choosing.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Sorry about the multiple posts-- I wanted to do a little relevant research:

On a single day in March (March 4th, GM's Day), I gave away the Gamemastering PDF for free.

Its ordinary everyday price is a ridiculous $1.95. (I know, I know, I'm gouging.)

On the single day I was giving it away for free, it was downloaded more than twice as much as it has been purchased over the course of its lifetime. (EDIT: We're talking a data set in the hundreds, fwiw.)

I consider that a 2-to-1 vote in favor of "FREE," even when the damn thing is only $2 to begin with.

Two bucks. Too much.

The price of a large Dunkin Donuts coffee (the jet fuel of this game designer, and likely many others...)


I suspect that the impact of the OGC wiki would be even greater than that-- since the Wiki wouldn't be just a one day thing 'advertised' to a fairly limited set of General Forum readers. A few folks saw my GMs day offer. How many more folks would be lured away by an OGC Wiki?

 

[Conaill]

On a single day in March (March 4th, GM's Day), I gave away the Gamemastering PDF for free.

Its ordinary everyday price is a ridiculous $1.95. (I know, I know, I'm gouging.)

On the single day I was giving it away for free, it was downloaded more than twice as much as it has been purchased over the course of its lifetime. (EDIT: We're talking a data set in the hundreds, fwiw.)

I consider that a 2-to-1 vote in favor of "FREE," even when the damn thing is only $2 to begin with.

Not entirely unexpected. However, in order to know how that would actually affect your bottom line, we'd also have to look at:

- did the sales of the Gamemastering PDF go down significantly after that day?
- did you see any effect on sales of other Bad Axe products, either during or after GM's day?

 

[Nellisir]

OK. A variable, generated-on-the-spot OGL would solve the S.15 issue (and require a little more coding).

A reminder - you CANNOT indicate compatibility with a product inside the OGL. You MUST have an independent agreement to do so. To the best of my knowledge, this includes listing a source and an author.

This whole fluff/crunch thing is why I said "Story Elements" instead of fluff. And a "cape", for instance, is quite arguably a game mechanic, not a piece of "fluff", insofar as it has defined in-game statistics, much like stunned, nauseated, and longsword.

I think an OGC setting would be cool. But it should be largely seperate from the OGC (mechanics) repository. I DO buy products for "fluff" (I own almost every FR product, but use none of it), but I don't buy them for -random- fluff, and most people are going to strip out the proper names and insert their own anyways.

I also buy products for mechanics, btw. Thus I have the complete d20 Rokugan line, a wonderful source for feats, spells, prestige classes, and an in-game "Action points" mechanic (Void).

Now, I understand why most publishers oppose an OGC repository. Insofar as they know & believe, it will penalize them in greater measure than it benefits them. I get that, I understand, and I empathize. I've got stuff I'd like to make money on. But money in their pocket is money out of mine. Their business plan penalizes me. And the argument that an OGC repository will drive them out of business AND harm the state of OGC in general rests on the assumption that they are more creative and better able to utilize OGC than non-publishers. After all, if that assumption -weren't- true, making such a large mass of OGC available to the general public would HELP the state of OGC.

The OGL's inspiration came from open-source computer code. I'm not an expert in that field by any means, but I'm pretty certain that public involvement hasn't hurt all that much, and that people continue to make money off of it.

Heck, I've changed my mind. I'll support a voluntary/free OGC repository. Material willingly posted by the author or publisher, or material already available for free, ONLY, with one exception. Any subsequent product that uses the repository is fair game for OGC extraction in...12 months. No free rides.

Phil, Wulf, Monte, and the other publishers can put out as much OGC as they want, marked however they want, and it won't be entered, ever. All they have to do is not use the repository and whatever develops there.

I think it'll start off slow. There'll be hassles and issues and disagreements. It'll be behind the curve. But I'm betting if it catches on and catches up, baby watch out.

Cheers,
Nell.

 

[Staffan]

In Monte's Year's Best d20, he both made a bit of pocket for himself, AND exposed a lot of unknown d20 publishers to the limelight with their consent. Like it or not, his name on the cover automatically ensured that the publishers included would be looked at by twice the size of their normal audience.

It made me consider getting Denizens of Avadnu, when I saw that half the monsters in Year's Best came from that book. Had it been available as a PDF, they would have had a sale.

 

[BryonD]

The primary proponents of the OGC Wiki (I'm not lumping Ralts in here, btw) believe that such innovations in game mechanics have no compensatory value.

I object to that on ideological grounds.

Um, I honestly and with most complete sincerity hope you realize that I'm also not in that lump.

My position is simply that the OGL requires that SRD derived material must be fully open regardless of how great its value may be. And I well understand that the true value can be significant.

I'm opposed to the wiki idea.
I just have a bad pet peeve about forcing my opinions on other people. And just as much so when other people do it. My strong opinion that it is a really bad idea plays no role in the freedom to do it anyway.

I'm opposed to anything that would cut into your Bad Axe revenues.
I'm opposed to anything that would cut into your production of future product.

I'm really really opposed to pissing on your shoes.

But I just can't make myself be opposed to letting people do what the license says they can do. sorry.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Do you object to patents on medical drugs? In sense, it sounds like you're arguing that a pharmacuetical company should be able to hold onto it's patent indefinately, rather than it "going generic".

I would be ashamed to post something so... stupid. Knocked me back on my heels with that one.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My strong opinion that it is a really bad idea plays no role in the freedom to do it anyway.

Doesn't that simply mirror the exact position of every publisher who has posted to this thread?

 

[BryonD]

Doesn't that simply mirror the exact position of every publisher who has posted to this thread?

No. I don't believe it does.
There has certainly been a wide spread on the positions taken.

But:
It has been called unethical. I disagree.
It has been called immoral. I disagree.
It has been called irresponsible. I disagree.

In my opinion there have been very thinly veiled suggestions that it would be nearly criminal.
Now, has Phil offered up such a veiled suggest? No.
Have you? Absolutely not.

But I think others have. I think there are some who have constructed in their mind a right to protections they simply do not have.

 

[Nellisir]

I would be ashamed to post something so... stupid. Knocked me back on my heels with that one.

Hrm. Just to clarify, that's my comment you are calling stupid?

Never mind. I removed it, and your quote in my post. I still think it's a worthwhile analogy, but maybe too dramatic. The thread isn't served by something that provokes an emotional over an intellectual response.

I think I've been relatively civil in this thread.
Nell.