OGC Wiki?

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

The ridiculous, blatant straw man?

Yeah, that's the one.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work on my new edition of Grim Tales, the one that cures cancer.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

I don't think any responsible publisher fits that description; certainly none that have posted in this thread (off the top of my head).

 

[Nellisir]

The ridiculous, blatant straw man?

Yeah, that's the one.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work on my new edition of Grim Tales, the one that cures cancer.

Straw man's down, for reasons stated above.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think any responsible publisher fits that description; certainly none that have posted in this thread (off the top of my head).

Agreed. No responsible publishers have.

 

[Kerrick]

Question to publishers in the thread:
If I specifically asked to say "This came from XXX by Company YYY" to give you a big plug, would you let me do it? (By "I" and "me" I really mean...any other publisher, as I am not one)

Hell yeah I'd let you do it! I'm using a couple of programs (one free, one not) to make NPCs for our books. I intend to put a line or two in the acknowledgements that essentially says "The NPCs in this book were made using X and Y programs. Many thanks to the folks who made them, so as to make my job easier."

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.

And I would be one of those gamers. Flipping through a book at the table is MUCH faster/easier than scrolling through a document (ease of use of a book vs. computer, etc.) or even a multitude of documents (which is why I plan on buying the Spell Compendium when I can find it).

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".

Exactly. Say I want to do a book on ley line magic - a new magic system, PrCs, magic items, feats, the whole thing. So I go take a look through the wiki to see what's been done for this already, and I find some really cool things (I know there's been at least one book on ley line magic written). Some of them would fit perfectly in the book, and a few of them were even things I was thinking about, but done better. And there are a few things that I think I could improve/expand on. Wow - I just saved myself some time here. I check out the S15 to see who wrote the better entries, and check out some of their other entries, and find that those are really well-written too - I think I'll go buy a couple of their books while I'm at it.

Yes, this is probably an extreme example, but it's not an impossibility. If I see a bunch of cool stuff that's in one book, I'm more likely to buy that book so as to have them all together in one source, rather than spending my time copying things from a wiki. I know I have way too much free time on my hands, but I've certainly got better ways to spend it.

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?

Sure. There's a panel of judges that does it every year for the Ennies (as far as B is concerned, at least). As for A, I don't think it'd be hard to find some people who would volunteer their time to judge entries worthy and balanced. "Balance," in this case (and IMO) is what works for the majority of campaigns. If you use a medium-power campaign (pretty much what the core books are) as the baseline for balance, then it wouldn't (shouldn't?) be hard for others who play high- or low-powered campaigns to alter it for their own use.

The OGC Wiki will shut down innovations in mechanics...

How? Going back to my example (above) about the book on ley line magic... Let's say that I find nothing, except for a few minor entries or I find some entries, but they're not very well done (and obviously included because they're the only things covering that subject). Obviously, this is a niche that can be filled.

Going to the other extreme... let's say I find a bunch of stuff, and it's so well done that I find no need to improve on it. Why reinvent the wheel? I'm going to find something worth improving on or something that hasn't been done yet. I think that having the "best" material easily accessible will improve innovations in mechanics, because people will stop rehashing the same old crap. Someone made mention of "how many books on dwarves can there be?" and I agree - how many indeed? You may argue that people have a right to put out more books on dwarves, and I wouldn't argue the point - every publisher out there could write a book on dwarves, but it would defeat the purpose. Instead of spending their energies writing new and innovative material, they're all doing the same thing.

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 think that the OGC wiki is a great idea, and I also believe that they DO have value.

This (d20) is a community. If we work together, complementing each others' work, everyone benefits. Yes, there are publishers working together, and that's great. We'll never get ALL the publishers to work with each other - there are simply too many differences - and to get a larger percentage of "cross-pollination," to put the love of the hobby before the love of money, would be great, but that also goes against human nature. Me, I would do it. I've actually considered it - Ralts and wrote a book a couple years back that got all kinds of accolades. We started working on a revised version when 3.5 came around, but then we split with our then-publisher and found a new one. The old publisher wouldn't give us permission to re-release the book for 3.5, at which point we strongly considered releasing it for free, completely OGC. Yes, free. A book that is now 200+ pages in Word, that required a couple years' worth of work, free. I would regret it a little, sure - we could make a bit of money off it - but I personally have enough money, and a full-time job besides. I just want to get my name out there. Ralts doesn't care - he's got his YotZ books, which are a full-time job for him. It might still happen, maybe not with this book, but with other things. Who knows...

But then I am kind of an odd case.

I think you'd be surprised. A lot of publishers do this as a side-job, not as a full-time thing. Unless you're someone like Monte Cook, you simply can't churn out enough product to make a living at it. I'd bet you could count the number of companies who can on two hands.

As a side topic - I'm sure many of you remember the netbooks that permeated the web (and are still out there) in the days of 2E. How many of you have written one? I have - a couple, in fact. Why? For the love of the game. I had a cool idea that I wanted to share with others, with no thought of profit or self-aggrandizement (beyond having my name on the doc). Maybe I'm strange, maybe I'm an idealist, but this is what the OGL should be - a bunch of people working for the betterment of all (and sure, making a little profit on the side isn't a bad thing) by working together or side-by-side in competition to make better products, not a bunch of "islands in the sea" working alone, churning out tired old retreads of the same thing.

As for my opinion on what I think the wiki should be: I agree with Nell - the best way to do it would be through voluntary submission. Number one, this gets rid of cries of theft; number two, it does away with the clause about referring to a product in the s15 without permission; number three, I think that if publishers see others contributing their work, they might be convinced to do it themselves ("Hmm... that Dancer of the Clouds PrC is kinda cool, but I have a much better version. I think I'll submit mine."). Some people have noted that the main stumbling blocks are time, money, and expertise. Wikipedia isn't run by one person - there are 600 people working it. An OGC wiki wouldn't need nearly that many; it could run on donations (ENworld does server drives just about every year), and there are quite a few talented people who know HTML/XML. No, the main stumbling block is who's willing to take that first step. I'm willing to contribute material - I'd even be willing to edit/format sumbissions - but I have no expertise regarding wikis. Ralts is right - it WILL happen, sooner or later. The topic has come up often enough here and seen enough discussion that it's obvious people consider it important. The question is simply when.

 

[Khuxan]

Hi,

I think the answer to the OGC Wiki I originally suggested has been shot down, if not unanimously (Sp?) than at least by 51% of people. With that in mind, can I ask publishers and nonpublishers alike if an OGC Wiki built along the following lines would meet with your approval.

1. Only a select group of people would be allowed to submit material.
2. Material submitted could only be OGC and:
a) given away for free or
b) more than 4 years old or
c) unavailable in print OR as an ebook or
d) posted on the Wiki with the publisher's approval.
3. Each piece of content would have its own Section 15.
4. The material would not mention an author or publisher UNLESS the publisher requested it (that's a part of the OGL, so it's not something we can change)

Thanks for your feedback, you've brought up some interesting ideas and I hope the above list either meets with your approval or can be easily repaired so it meets with your approval.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Hi,

I think the answer to the OGC Wiki I originally suggested has been shot down, if not unanimously (Sp?) than at least by 51% of people. With that in mind, can I ask publishers and nonpublishers alike if an OGC Wiki built along the following lines would meet with your approval.

1. Only a select group of people would be allowed to submit material.
2. Material submitted could only be OGC and:
a) given away for free or
b) more than 4 years old or
c) unavailable in print OR as an ebook or
d) posted on the Wiki with the publisher's approval.
3. Each piece of content would have its own Section 15.
4. The material would not mention an author or publisher UNLESS the publisher requested it (that's a part of the OGL, so it's not something we can change)

Thanks for your feedback, you've brought up some interesting ideas and I hope the above list either meets with your approval or can be easily repaired so it meets with your approval.

I could get behind this if you add one clause.

The author/owner (sometimes not one and the same) of the material asks it be removed, it be removed.

There could be a multitude of reasons for this happening. From the material is undergoing rewrite and rerelease to there is problems with ownership, to the material being contested, to the material about to be rereleased.

If you could add that one clause, which returns power back to the creators, I can get behind this.

 

[Yair]

I guess our definitions of fluff vary.

I guess.
I am keen on using "story-element" instead of "fluff".

You may have zero tolerance for removing such fluff, but I'd have zero tolerance for some of my major characters being used by whoever wants to, without any type of oversight.

But you don't make those characters open content, do you? There is no problem. What's closed isn't open.

For additional consideration, what if, tied to the OGC Wiki, was an OGC setting? Much like that tongue in cheek Wiki-Setting found on Penny Arcade (I think, I might be mistaken) involving ambulatory furniture, it could easily added to and expanded on, and might actually be an interesting project.

I'm contemplating an OGC setting, actually. I doubt it will ever see fruition, but hey - creating worlds is fun
I am only aware of two OGC settings (Murchad's Legacy and SpirosBlaak), and I doubt either of their producers would be thrilled at having the setting available for free online.
I'm sure there are others.

1. Only a select group of people would be allowed to submit material.
2. Material submitted could only be OGC and:
a) given away for free or
b) more than 4 years old or
c) unavailable in print OR as an ebook or
d) posted on the Wiki with the publisher's approval.
3. Each piece of content would have its own Section 15.
4. The material would not mention an author or publisher UNLESS the publisher requested it (that's a part of the OGL, so it's not something we can change)

1) What "select group"? I think the group should be anyone that signs in. Contributers that prove they have no understanding of the OGL or no respect for the Wiki's submission guidelines will be locked out.
2) Well, as it is an OR list, it seems alright. I would again mention my pet peeve - crippled OGC.
I don't expect (c) to come up much these days, and even more in the future.
3) In this case, I hope a good script could be cooked up. Also, I would present it as a link rather than within the text.

Your policy doesn't give guidelines on the treatment of fluff or crunch, I'm not so certain what the policy should be there.
I would tend to also accept a publisher's wishes against his material being on the wiki. However, I would remove it only if the publisher presented a valid reason - such as revising or republishing it.
It also fails to consider revised materials. Say I enter in my variation on Murchad's Legacy's (ML) religions, and that BiggusGeekus later asks for his ML OGC to be removed. My entry is based on his OGC, but it is modified - should it be removed? Say I enter a recent spell from a book just published, but with considerable revisions, a "broken" but cool spell that I "fixed" - am I not now the "publisher"? If not, how do you treat OGC that is derived from prior (non-SRD) OGC?

Consider also that all these restrictions mean that the wiki may be more palatable to the publishers but will contain less. I predict that sometime after its founding a new wiki will be founded that will incorporate all its materials and add "off limits" material.

 

[Yair]

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.

It's an interesting suggestion as of itself. A closer resemblance to the Open Source community.
I can see the appeal, but I think there is cause to release some OGC against the publisher's wishes. Just like there is room to remove the patent from drugs after some time, even though the manufacturers would love to have it maintained. And crippled OGC (always that, with me). And there is no point in holding back on other free OGC. And...
I see merit in both the Open Source Community model and the OGC Wiki model.

Under your Open Source model, you would need to bar derivative materials. Only the person who first came up with Vitality & Wound points, for example, could contribute it or any variant of it to the community.
Then you enter the issue of presenting the same mechanics differently. There is no copyrighting mechanics, and the OGL does not protect from this, but it's a very hard thing to do right legally. Hmm.

 

[jezter6]

The OGC Wiki will shut down innovations in mechanics...

How? Going back to my example (above) about the book on ley line magic... Let's say that I find nothing, except for a few minor entries or I find some entries, but they're not very well done (and obviously included because they're the only things covering that subject). Obviously, this is a niche that can be filled.

Going to the other extreme... let's say I find a bunch of stuff, and it's so well done that I find no need to improve on it. Why reinvent the wheel? I'm going to find something worth improving on or something that hasn't been done yet. I think that having the "best" material easily accessible will improve innovations in mechanics, because people will stop rehashing the same old crap. Someone made mention of "how many books on dwarves can there be?" and I agree - how many indeed? You may argue that people have a right to put out more books on dwarves, and I wouldn't argue the point - every publisher out there could write a book on dwarves, but it would defeat the purpose. Instead of spending their energies writing new and innovative material, they're all doing the same thing.

It's not because the technology itself is not good for the creative process, it's that publishers will WILLINGLY stop creating new mechanics because their last bit of mechanics were opened up for free on a wiki. Phil has commented that he would have less OGC available per product if something like this happened. A number of other publishers agreed with him. OGC will be crippled and obscured so that it's difficult to post it.

I've said it, someone else said it...some publishers are putting outside constraints on the license and believe that they can control who uses their OGC and how with this outside pressure of making us all think the market will go south because of an OGC Wiki. The wiki itself won't cause the industry to fold, the poll seemed fairly clear that most people would keep buying things they want to buy, even if some of it is free in the wiki. The publishers themselves will try to bring the market down by creating less innovative content because they don't want their open content to be open. I'm guessing a few will claim that sales have gone so far down they need to double prices to stay in business, product prices will be jacked up to a new all time high even though they have no little OGC in them. Then the zombies will come, eat our brains, and we all roll up new GC (gamer characters) and start the process over again when 4e comes out minus an OGL.