OGC Wiki?

[BryonD]

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.

I think that is kinda a red herring arguement.

Yes, it is 100% true. I think people do not understand the difference between OGC and public domain material. Some do not understand that, unlike public domain, the publisher retains 100% ownership of all of their material regardless of its status as either open or IP. All the OGL grants is the priviledge to re-publish OGC. And this is a big important difference and truly understanding it may sway some people'e perspective.

But it is ultimately irrelevant. As you said, the OGL gives the power to the next person.
When an author puts the OGL on something, then their intent with regard to OGC is no more meaningful than anyone else who correctly uses the license. It can even be less meaningful. Ultimately, whoever elects to publish the material in the LEAST restrictive manner is the one whose intent trumps everyone else.

Obviously, you have clearly acknowledged this. So I'm not trying to argue that. But I think this point is significant and pretty much makes your point about author's intent go away.

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.

Now there you are 100% correct.
I agree that >50% of the pro wiki crowd simply wants someone else to do the work and give the results to them. There is nothing redeemable in that position.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

This is the entire concept of the OGC put into practice. An OGCWiki is not only a good idea, the concept of Open Gaming was *invented* for such a thing.

The idea that only some elite cabal of the published and writing can have a say leaves a bad taste in my mouth. OGC was made, largely, as a benefit to the consumers -- so that we wouldn't have to have seven different systems for psionics and thirteen different ways to to ley line magic and twenty-and-a-half mass combat systems and a half-dozen airship design systems. Thus, it means the best of the best floats to the surface and is supported by democratic means. The best system for X will get support.

The publishing community has thus far stauchly resisted any attempt to actually use it that way. In part, this is modeled on WotC, who do their own things while only giving occasional nods to the OGC. So rather than use any source but the SRD for their game design, most companies think they can do it better, while mentioning the boogeyman of "devaluing" lurking in the closet. The first is an issue of pride, while the second is an issue of fear. Free material is in no way devalued, despite mentions to the contrary. The mechanics might be free, but the way it's presented -- the book, the binding, the art, the setting, the imagination and use of these things is not. People don't pay for water, they pay for water bottled up and presented in dynamic designs with promise of French moutain springs in them. The gaming community is stuck paying for mechanics when they should be paying for setting, for flavor, for fluff.

IMHO, it's really a matter of time. We're in transition, right now. People still want to publish like the old companies did, only now with the ability to use d20 mechanics without paying for them. Someday, we'll see the occasion when you can't just publish a collection of feats and PrC's in a pdf and have people pay for them. The industry can fall as people are bloated with rules-glut, or they can change and adapt. Don't sell people rules. Sell people a game. Use the best of the rules others have designed, throw your own in there, dress it up in pretty art with a big pagecount and have the consumer enjoy.

Perhaps there's another problem with the simple sample size -- the gaming community isn't that big, after all. The industry needs to buck this trend of following in WotC's footsteps and embrace everything it can do -- which includes getting rules material for free.

 

[BryonD]

The gaming community is stuck paying for mechanics when they should be paying for setting, for flavor, for fluff.

::SHUDDER::


THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS THEE!!!!!

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS THEE!!!!!

 

[jezter6]

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.

I know others who have stated that this should be free. I am definately not opposed to the idea, but I would pay for a subscription to the wiki at the right price.

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.

Sure, that works for the first guy to do it, maybe the second, but after 30 publishers do it, then you have no more contributions. A wiki with 'some but not all' defeats the purpose for me. If I can only get a litle here and a little there, why would I need this great database of OGC?

As for this:

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).

See, it's almost the same as them telling us what WE can an can't do with their OGC, except they're telling us what to do 'morally' and for the 'good of the industry' as we're telling them, according to the license, you can't legally do that. They are not within their rights to hold back open content. They ARE within their rights to create less open content as Phil has declared, but at no point can they take back massive amounts of material that is open. That was a permanent decision based on 1) choice to open something they didn't want and 2) requirement of the licence to keep rules derived from the SRD open.

The real question I have in all this: is it the open content (the classes, the feats, the spells) that publishers are scratching to hold on to? Or is it the 'The entire text of this product is 100% ogc' that is starting to worry people because setting and fluff were released under the license instead of protected as PI?

I have no problem even NOT having flavor text of backgrounds, settings, whatever left out of such a project, even if it is open content. It just doesn't feel right for how *I* see an OGC wiki.

 

[Zelgar]

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.



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.



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.



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.

Just got back from lunch, and I believe that the whole Open vs Free issue was addressed by WotC in the Open Game Definition FAQ which states:

Q: So an Open Game really is "free" as in beer?

A: To the extent that any person can distribute a copy of an Open Game without being required to pay a fee or royalty, or to charge a fee or royalty.

It is important to note, however, that a publisher may be able to add value to an Open Game in the form of non-Open Game material that enhances the Open Game content, provide various support services, or enhance the Open Game in other ways that will allow that publisher to charge for an Open Game, and cause people to be willing to pay for the Open Game material voluntarily.

Q: Can I require that recipients of my Open Game distribute copies without charge?

A: No. A limitation on charging a fee is incompatible with the freedom to distribute an Open Game. The choice to charge a fee must be the decision of the publisher, not the content creator.

Unless I am mistaken, this means that as soon as something becomes Open it becomes free.

Zelgar

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The gaming community is stuck paying for mechanics when they should be paying for setting, for flavor, for fluff.

There you go devaluing game mechanics again.

Let's put it in terms people can understand a little better.

What's Iron Heroes?

Is it a setting? Is it flavor? Is it fluff?

Or is it mechanics?

To what extent do Mike Mearls and Malhavoc Press deserve to be compensated for a wholly new game mechanic that take d20 in a new direction?

How about Mutants and Masterminds?

Revolutionary game mechanics, or book full of pretty superhero comics?

To what extent do Steve Kenson and Green Ronin deserve to be compensated for wholly new game mechanics that take d20 in a new direction?

Someday, we'll see the occasion when you can't just publish a collection of feats and PrC's in a pdf and have people pay for them.

Let's pretend for just a moment that that day wasn't actually 2 years ago.

Do you buy PDFs with collections of feats and PrCs in them?

Is it your contention that nobody should be able to buy PDFs with collections of feats and PrCs in them?

Or that nobody should be able to publish them?

Or simply that anybody who publishes them deserves to have their work distributed for free, regardless of whether or not they have actually built a business out of supplying that demand?

 

[jgbrowning]

Just got back from lunch, and I believe that the whole Open vs Free issue was addressed by WotC in the Open Game Definition FAQ which states:

Q: So an Open Game really is "free" as in beer?

A: To the extent that any person can distribute a copy of an Open Game without being required to pay a fee or royalty, or to charge a fee or royalty.

Here's the catch. It's "free" in the extent that someone can distribute a copy without paying a fee. That just means that you don't have to pay the creator of OGC a fee to use his OGC in your product. You just have to follow the liscense.

It is important to note, however, that a publisher may be able to add value to an Open Game in the form of non-Open Game material that enhances the Open Game content, provide various support services, or enhance the Open Game in other ways that will allow that publisher to charge for an Open Game, and cause people to be willing to pay for the Open Game material voluntarily.

Q: Can I require that recipients of my Open Game distribute copies without charge?

A: No. A limitation on charging a fee is incompatible with the freedom to distribute an Open Game. The choice to charge a fee must be the decision of the publisher, not the content creator.

This is saying that I as a creator of OGC cannot put any restrictions on the re-user of OGC content, be that if they wish to publish it for Free (as in no cost) or for sale.

Unless I am mistaken, this means that as soon as something becomes Open it becomes free.

Zelgar

Free as in there are no other restrictions upon the content except those placed upon it by the liscense, but not free as in "no cost." If you want to put OGC that someone else has created out there for no cost, that's a possiblity under the liscense, but that possiblity doesn't mean that everything published under the license "yerns to be free of cost."

It may be a terminology thing for a lot of people. Free as in Open doesn't mean Free as in "no cost." Free can mean as in "no cost" but it doesn't have to mean it—it's left up to the publisher of the OPEN material to determine if it will be FREE (as in no cost).

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

But it is ultimately irrelevant. As you said, the OGL gives the power to the next person. When an author puts the OGL on something, then their intent with regard to OGC is no more meaningful than anyone else who correctly uses the license. It can even be less meaningful. Ultimately, whoever elects to publish the material in the LEAST restrictive manner is the one whose intent trumps everyone else.

Obviously, you have clearly acknowledged this. So I'm not trying to argue that. But I think this point is significant and pretty much makes your point about author's intent go away.

I'm arguing from a different perspective than I think you may be. Legally you're correct obviously, but if someone believes "Anything published under the OGL license and made OGC means that all OGC should be made available without cost" they have a belief based upon a misunderstanding the license.

The license says specifically nothing about required cost of OGC. That is left up to each individual to determine. The license is about distribution, not value.

If the intent of the OGL and OGC was to create FREE (as in no cost) material, the license would prohibit creators from charging for the material. I believe there are several examples of this in the computing community: creator's who don't want their creation to be sold—ie. they intend the material to be free of cost.

To me creative intent is only used to show that the creator of OGC didn't intend for it to be given away free of cost only that they intended to give that option to someone else who follows the same liscense.

Does that make sense? I'm not using authorial intent as a means of limiting the license (that's pointless as I think we agree on that issue) but by using authorial intent to show that OGC doesn't mean "free of cost" it only means OPEN. OPEN means "can be used according to the license."

And at the root: If an author releases OGC for cost under a license that allows someone else to release the same OGC free of cost, releasing the OGC free of cost, while legal under the license, is obviously counter to the will of the creator.

If someone doesn't care about the creator's intent, this is a moot point. But to say "what the OGC really wants is to be free of cost" isn't true. It's more like "What I really want is for everyone else's OGC to be free of cost so I don't have to pay for it."

Big difference

joe b.

 

[Zelgar]

I agree that a publisher can charge for a book that contains OGC content. In fact, the entire book could contain OGC material and still cost me $50 if I am willing to pay for it.

The thing is, however, is that once material becomes OGC, I am not required to pay for its use (e.g., as if I would include it in my book) provided I follow the requirements of the OGL (e.g., listing the source in Section 15). AFAIK, I would not even have to own a copy of the original source to include the OGC in a book or web page that I created because the OGC could of been found in a 5th generation reference.

The only "cost" for OGC is following the OGL. Once a publisher has established OGC, they have lost any fee for it if people do not purchase the source material that contained the OGC and the later sources follow the OGL and include a reference in Section 15. If this is incorrect, please provide references to support your stance.

Zelgar

 

[jgbrowning]

The thing is, however, is that once material becomes OGC, I am not required to pay for its use (e.g., as if I would include it in my book) provided I follow the requirements of the OGL (e.g., listing the source in Section 15). AFAIK, I would not even have to own a copy of the original source to include the OGC in a book or web page that I created because the OGC could of been found in a 5th generation reference.

You're correct. You don't have to own the orginal source. The license is very clear that you are free to distribute and don't have to pay for any "rights" to distribute.

The only "cost" for OGC is following the OGL. Once a publisher has established OGC, they have lost any fee for it if people do not purchase the source material that contained the OGC and the later sources follow the OGL and include a reference in Section 15. If this is incorrect, please provide references to support your stance.

Zelgar

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. I thought you were arguing that by the nature of the OGL and OGC that OGC "yearns to be free of cost." In other words OGC should be free of cost by nature of the license. Your comment

Unless I am mistaken, this means that as soon as something becomes Open it becomes free.

led me to believe this. As soon as something becomes OPEN is becomes "free to distribute" not "free of cost." Your above paragraph doesn't seem much like that so I think I may have misunderstood.

It may be a terminology thing.

joe b.