OGC Wiki?

[Nellisir]

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.

I'm mixed about "fixing" crippled content. The idea appeals, but more out of spite than any actual value. Secondly, that material is more likely to provoke a challenge from a publisher than "standard" OGC. While we might be confident in our legal rights, that doesn't mean I want to be footing the bill for a lawyer if someone decides to push the issue.[/quote]

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.

We'd have to define what's acceptable and what's not pretty carefully, but there's no reason we couldn't approach publishers about releasing certain mechanics.
Offhand, I'd limit initial submissions to 1) author/owner submitted material based on the SRD or other acceptable sources, 2) OGC material released for free in a distributable format (I'm thinking rtf or pdf; trolling the internet and yanking OGC off of websites is potentially bad press) and based on the SRD or other acceptable sources, 3) material authorized for release by the publisher and based on the SRD or other permitted sources.

It would start off at a disadvantage, but the more publishers we could get to voluntarily sign up, the better off we'd be. And since it approaches them in a cooperative, rather than adversarial, manner, and they can greenlight specific products (or even product sections), it's possible cooperation could be significant. Even better if well-regarded authors approach publishers about material they wrote under contract (I'm thinking about Mike Mearls, here).

The only questionmark in my mind right now is for Unearthed Arcana. I think of UA as an addendum to the SRD, but that's just my view, and it's a bit presumptive to treat WotC's material different from everyone else's.

I'm not fond of allowing publisher "recall", though. First of all, it's a little bit late, second everything would be legally released, third it'll potentially turn the wiki into a giant preview/testing ground, fourth it'll be a huge, and I mean huge, hassle.
Should material written by someone else (when the material was available), but based on the recalled OGC also be recalled?

"Evil", by AEG, is listed in the S.15 of almost every subsequent product they did. If AEG gives permission to present OGC from "Evil", and subsequently asks that it be returned to "unauthorized" status, that'd invalidate nearly everything in the AEG line (and most of my stuff).

It's better, and simpler, to have a "no backsies" policy.

It's also important to remember that we wouldn't be asking for special permissions from publishers. Publishers don't have a right to withhold OGC. We'd be voluntarily restricting on the OGC we take, and we can reserve the right to rescind or amend that policy. If we extract OGC from a source we ordinarily wouldn't, it's within our rights to do so (but that would have to be exercised very cautiously. I think public & publisher opinion are the keystones of this project).

Gotta go to my paying job now. 20 degrees Farenheit, not counting wind chill, and I'll be outside installing windows.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, let me just pump my last few cents into this:

1) I understand (and embrace) the OGL in its entirety.

2) I don't think there's any legal or moral obligation not to make a Wiki.

3) I believe the Wiki will ultimately be counterproductive for the community-- both the publishing community, and the gaming community. I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.

4) I don't exactly see a lot of high-quality, high-content, high-output publishers out clamoring for the Wiki-- despite all the arguments about how useful it will be for us. Ask yourself who is behind the idea, and why.

5) The very idea of the 'publisher resource' Wiki overlooks a pretty fundamental observation about game designers: We all think we can do it better than anybody else.

Ok, that might be too broad. But understand what drives the creation of new game mechanics. Speaking solely towards mechanics game designers-- who by definition are the only ones for whom the Wiki could hold any promise-- we are problem solvers.

The observed need for a new or better game mechanic presents a problem for us to solve.

If the problem is already solved (ie, already exists in the Wiki), we go away.

If the problem isn't already solved, but there is no opportunity for us to 'ply our trade' by solving that problem, we go away.

(Note that we completely exclude a great many talented "fluff" designers from consideration. They don't matter in a discussion of OGC, because they are producing PI. Lucky bastards.)

6) Personally? I'd say the largest portion of proponents are just folks who want something for nothing. Some of them even seem to believe they deserve something for nothing.

7) I use a lot of Open Content. When I need some piece of OGC, I keep my ears open to find out what products might be out there, or even coming, that I can use.

And then I go out and I buy that product.

And if that doesn't sound like a wholly more healthy situation for the RPG industry, then you really need a refresher course in Economics. I don't need to perform a qualitative analysis on my own sales reports to confirm the obvious common wisdom that folks prefer "FREE" to "NOT FREE."

8) I'll worry about the Wiki when it happens.

 

[Psion]

I am only aware of two OGC settings (Murchad's Legacy and SpirosBlaak)

Add Second World to that list.

 

[Psion]

5) The very idea of the 'publisher resource' Wiki overlooks a pretty fundamental observation about game designers: We all think we can do it better than anybody else.

Quoted for truth.

I remember when I was first swallowing the concept of the OGL, I pictured a world wherein there would be cross pollination, continual improvement of shared mechanics sets, compatability, and whole bunch of other theoretical consequences on a wide scale.

In hindsight, I was a little naive...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Add Second World to that list.

Freeport?

Bluffside?

 

[Kerrick]

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.

It reminds me of that old Looney Toons episode - the one with Daffy Duck and the genie. you know the one I'm talking about? Where he gets all the gold, and yells, "Mine mine mine! All mine! You can't have it! Get away get away get away!" It's simple greed - "It's all mine and you can't have it unless I get my cut." Fine - we just won't use your stuff. There's plenty of other things out there that cover the same topic, and might well do it better.

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.

Exactly. That's a sticking point for me, too - if you start restricting who can contribute, then it ceases to become a true Open Source and becomes a "Boys' Club" like Jezter keeps saying. Leave it open for all to contribute, but screen the entries so only quality material makes it in.

It's better, and simpler, to have a "no backsies" policy.

But they CAN update their material at any time - revisions, errata, updates, whatever.

It's also important to remember that we wouldn't be asking for special permissions from publishers. Publishers don't have a right to withhold OGC.

I'm all in favor of the OGC wiki, but something about that statement just strikes me as wrong. I'm not sure what it is... maybe telling publishers what they can and can't do. It's their original material, no matter if it's based on the SRD or someone else's work - they are well within their rights to hold on to it and not ever give it to anyone who doesn't offer fair recompense (I'm not saying it's right or even nice, but it IS their right).

4) I don't exactly see a lot of high-quality, high-content, high-output publishers out clamoring for the Wiki-- despite all the arguments about how useful it will be for us. Ask yourself who is behind the idea, and why.

So far, I have only seen a handful of publishers period posting on this thread. I can't speak to past threads, since I never read them, but I wonder how many are reading this but not posting. How do we know what their opinions are?

If the problem isn't already solved, but there is no opportunity for us to 'ply our trade' by solving that problem, we go away.

And how, exactly, would that situation come about? The collapse of the RPG market? Do you really think an OGC wiki will do that?

I remember when I was first swallowing the concept of the OGL, I pictured a world wherein there would be cross pollination, continual improvement of shared mechanics sets, compatability, and whole bunch of other theoretical consequences on a wide scale.

In hindsight, I was a little naive...

:\

 

[philreed]

So far, I have only seen a handful of publishers period posting on this thread. I can't speak to past threads, since I never read them, but I wonder how many are reading this but not posting. How do we know what their opinions are?

I know what some of them think because I've talked with them about this subject. I do wish more publishers would post to this, though.

 

[Zelgar]

Well, let me just pump my last few cents into this:

1) I understand (and embrace) the OGL in its entirety.

2) I don't think there's any legal or moral obligation not to make a Wiki.

3) I believe the Wiki will ultimately be counterproductive for the community-- both the publishing community, and the gaming community. I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.

4) I don't exactly see a lot of high-quality, high-content, high-output publishers out clamoring for the Wiki-- despite all the arguments about how useful it will be for us. Ask yourself who is behind the idea, and why.

5) The very idea of the 'publisher resource' Wiki overlooks a pretty fundamental observation about game designers: We all think we can do it better than anybody else.

Ok, that might be too broad. But understand what drives the creation of new game mechanics. Speaking solely towards mechanics game designers-- who by definition are the only ones for whom the Wiki could hold any promise-- we are problem solvers.

The observed need for a new or better game mechanic presents a problem for us to solve.

If the problem is already solved (ie, already exists in the Wiki), we go away.

If the problem isn't already solved, but there is no opportunity for us to 'ply our trade' by solving that problem, we go away.

(Note that we completely exclude a great many talented "fluff" designers from consideration. They don't matter in a discussion of OGC, because they are producing PI. Lucky bastards.)

6) Personally? I'd say the largest portion of proponents are just folks who want something for nothing. Some of them even seem to believe they deserve something for nothing.

7) I use a lot of Open Content. When I need some piece of OGC, I keep my ears open to find out what products might be out there, or even coming, that I can use.

And then I go out and I buy that product.

And if that doesn't sound like a wholly more healthy situation for the RPG industry, then you really need a refresher course in Economics. I don't need to perform a qualitative analysis on my own sales reports to confirm the obvious common wisdom that folks prefer "FREE" to "NOT FREE."

8) I'll worry about the Wiki when it happens.

Just a few comments on the above...

Sorry, this is going to be long, but...

1 & 2 It's good to hear that some publishers/authors understand this.

3 - A Wiki could be a blessing or a bane for the rpg industry. It all depends upon how the industry (RPG-I) views and reacts to it. If the RPG-I reacts negatively to a Wiki by reducing new OGC material, tring to shut down the Wiki, limit OGC material available to the Wiki, there could be a blacklash like in the 90's when T$R had their draconian policies regarding material on the internet. If the RPG-I worked with the development of a Wiki, I think many of the potential problems with a wiki could be prevented. Quality Assurance & Quality Control of the Wiki would likely be better of only OGC and not PI material getting into the Wiki. Correct linkage in the Wiki of OGC material to the original source for Section 15 (maybe even better than some published sources). Also, there may even be an increase in some sales of rpg products based upon users wanting an entire copy of the source and not just the OGC material.

It also depends upon how the end users (e.g., gamers) react to having the material in a wiki. There will be a certain percentage of gamers that will take from the Wiki and not support the RPG-I by not purchasing anything. Of course, the RPG-I acknowledges that a certain percentage of their profits are lost due to theft of books and p2p. There are no guarantees that a Wiki will cause an increase or decrease in sales of rpg products, but opposition to a Wiki may cause a decrease in sales because gamers can be spiteful. By having the Wiki it will expose more people (gamers & the RPG-I) to the OGC material. How the person reacts to having the OGC material on a Wiki will be entirely up to the individual.

4 - I think most of the people who want an OGC Wiki are gamers and not the RPG-I. I believe that most gamers have read the OGL and believe that the OGC material should be freely available. Based upon numerous comments, some in the RPG-I feel that having a Wiki would be detrimental to the industry (e.g., loss of sales, deminishing "value" of OGC). As I stated in 3 above, the Wiki could be a blessing or a bane to the RPG-I, but fighting the establisment of a Wiki it is more likely to harm the RPG-I (e.g., gamers fight with their pocketbook) than working together with gamers in establishing the Wiki.

5 - I'm not a game designer, but I think the Wiki could be a benefit for some. By having a wiki, a game designer can see what has already been established by others before him. This doesn't mean that the concepts the desiginer will be in the OGC as the info may have only been put out as PI, but it's a first step in the process of seeing if the designer has anything to contribute to the RPG-I. I doubt that any game designer would want to find out when trying to be published (or even worse, after he has been published) that his concepts were already published as OGC or PI. If a Wiki existed, the designer could evaluate what is in the Wiki, may or may not purchase the source of the OGC, and decide on an outcome prior to spending a lot of time.

6 - As I stated in 4 above, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people who want the Wiki are gamers who think the OGC should be freely available based upon the OGL and its FAQ's. I think a lot of people in the RPG-I feel threatened by a Wiki because they have an invested interest in the OGC material (e.g., they wrote it, feel a Wiki could threaten sales). Alternatively, gamers who want a Wiki feel like the RPG-I is not living up to their obligations of the OGL for the OGC by fighting the establishment of the Wiki.

7 - As I said in 3 above, its is unknown what having an OGC Wiki will have on the RPG-I. Some people will probably purchase the source rpg products because they have seen the OGC in the Wiki, while others may not. From my experience, gamers are pack-rats. We collect everything and throw away little. Even if a Wiki was established, there would still be some gamers who would purchase books that was just a rehash of OGC material.

Additionally, as you indicated, if you find out what the source of the OGC material, you will purchase the book. I think it can be reasonably said, that some gamers will also purchase the book if they were interested in the material contained within it. Some sales may be lost if the only thing the gamer saw that was worth his $ was what was the OGC material, but that is the risk the RPG-I must take if they put out material as OGC or expand original OGC material.

8 - I would hate that people would have to "worry" about the creation of a OGC Wiki. I would like to think that a Wiki could be benefitial to both gamers and the RPG-I, and not think of it as a RPG-I Slaying weapon.

Zelgar

 

[Zelgar]

It reminds me of that old Looney Toons episode - the one with Daffy Duck and the genie. you know the one I'm talking about? Where he gets all the gold, and yells, "Mine mine mine! All mine! You can't have it! Get away get away get away!" It's simple greed - "It's all mine and you can't have it unless I get my cut." Fine - we just won't use your stuff. There's plenty of other things out there that cover the same topic, and might well do it better.

...

I'm all in favor of the OGC wiki, but something about that statement just strikes me as wrong. I'm not sure what it is... maybe telling publishers what they can and can't do. It's their original material, no matter if it's based on the SRD or someone else's work - they are well within their rights to hold on to it and not ever give it to anyone who doesn't offer fair recompense (I'm not saying it's right or even nice, but it IS their right).

If I'm not mistaken, the problem with this is that if a writer/publisher stated material was OGC they lose all rights to the material as long as the OGL is followed (e.g., listing in Section 15). By allowing a writer/publisher to withdraw OGC material they don't want in the Wiki, they are not abiding by their contract of the OGL. Additionally, if a writer/publisher wanted its OGC material removed, it would prevent other OGC material in the Wiki that was based upon the withdrawn OGC material.

The OGL stated what should be OGC. If you used OGC material from another source and expanded on it, the new material should also be OGC. Some designers/publishers have not lived up to this requirement of the OGL, which has resulted in some gamers resentment. Until a gaming company is sued over this, it will unfortunately continue and may result in the collapse of new OGC material.

Zelgar

 

[jgbrowning]

3 - A Wiki could be a blessing or a bane for the rpg industry. It all depends upon how the industry (RPG-I) views and reacts to it. If the RPG-I reacts negatively to a Wiki by reducing new OGC material, tring to shut down the Wiki, limit OGC material available to the Wiki, there could be a blacklash like in the 90's when T$R had their draconian policies regarding material on the internet.

This is what some publishers note about threads such as this. Odd, that a publisher who released OPEN material who then had someone release that material for FREE would be accused of being draconian by reducing the amount of OGC in future releases.

I'm not saying, you're saying that. I'm simply saying that you're correct in that some people would regard such an action the the light you're portraying.

4 - I think most of the people who want an OGC Wiki are gamers and not the RPG-I. I believe that most gamers have read the OGL and believe that the OGC material should be freely available.

This is because they don't understand the difference between OPEN and FREE. The only OGC released that was intended to be free is the OGC that was released free by the publisher. Every other bit of OGC was released as OPEN.

Someone else can take OPEN and turn it into FREE, but that's obviously not what any creator intended through using the liscense, unless the creator made the OGC FREE to begin with.

People may try to argue otherwise, but intent is clear and obvious. If it was made FREE it was intended to be FREE: if it was only made OPEN it was intended to be OPEN. What the next person down the line does with that OPEN material is up to them. The license gives that power to the next person, it doesn't make anything FREE and it never will. Making something FREE is only an individual's decision and not an expectation/requirement/expected outcome of the license.

Alternatively, gamers who want a Wiki feel like the RPG-I is not living up to their obligations of the OGL for the OGC by fighting the establishment of the Wiki.

Obligations? The only obligations of the OGL are to follow the license properly. If you're referring to something else, you should be more clear. If you're referring to the "desire people have to get stuff others created and opened under the OGL for free and how people think those creators aren't being nice by preferring to be paid instead of working for free" you need to state that.

8 - I would hate that people would have to "worry" about the creation of a OGC Wiki. I would like to think that a Wiki could be benefitial to both gamers and the RPG-I, and not think of it as a RPG-I Slaying weapon.

I don't worry about an OGC Wiki because I know what it would result in.... less OGC, greater acrimony between the creators of OGC and the users of the material, and more than likely reduced sales for certain products at least.

I'm glad you're trying to think of workable possiblities which would please everyone, but it's not a win-win situation and probably will never be. Making something FREE that was not created FREE fiscally devalues the worth of the the work and material. Eventually, one wonders if anyone would be terribly willing to pay for any electronic medium OGC once they've been inculturated in the use and belief that OGC material is and should be FREE.

joe b.