OGC Wiki?

[Yair]

Has anyone thought of only using material that has been out for 6 months or more? Let the publishers get some sales of items for a half of year before it would be added to the Wiki

Actually, the most "dangerous" suggestion currently on discussion is a 4 year waiting period, and the one picking up speed is a volunteer-only policy (only original content, no copying from any derived source except the SRD without the publisher's say-so).

People aren't as bull-headed as some would have you think. No one wants to cut down the amount of produced OGC, that's counterproductive.

No, Chris, it's important for you to mention it, because some folks around here seem to think that innovative mechanics specifically like those found in Mutants and Masterminds will somehow just ing write themselves, and that the RPG publishing community can get on with the "serious business" of providing flavorful fluff for the "savvy" consumer.

Very well put.

The more I think about it, the more I like Nellisir's "Open Source Community" model. It is just so unproblematic, that there isn't any objecting to it.
Only original SRD- and self-referencing content, from the original publishers. Let the Free content grow on its on, unconnected to the commercialy produced content, until it becomes so good and large that it will surpass it in quality and usability.
Well, that's the theory.

 

[Conaill]

We can speak of past threads. There is not a publisher that I'm aware of that has said a public repository of OGC would be a good thing for publishers or publishing.

Of course, should a publisher say he's behind a public OGC repository, I suspect someone would immediately release that publisher's OGC onto a public repository and that perhaps is holding back any publishers leaning on the other side of the fence. But if there were someone fully behind such a repository, I don't see why they wouldn't say so. (Aside from not having seen this thread. )

Actually, IIRC there were one or two authors who said they would support such a move (if implemented carefully and with publishers concerns in mind), and would be willing to donate part of their content.

You have to keep in mind that below the tier of "big" publishers who are actually trying to make soem money in this business (or at least to break even), there are a fairly large number of people who would just like to create material and see it used by other people. For those at least, an open OGC repository would be a welcome development.

I'm guessing that's not who you had in mind when you said "publishers" though, and this starts to look an awful look like a Netbook repository, with all the quality issues attached to that...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Unethical not in action, but in result is what I think a lot of people think.

Personally I would put it at unwise.

Hell, if you wanted to set up a wiki of OGC material (pay publishers a small fee as a show of good faith that isn't required under the OGL) and then charge for access, you'd have more support than a free of cost wiki.

Particularly unwise considering that even a "for pay" Wiki is just an easily-accessible electronic amalgam waiting to be copied and distributed free of charge by the "Your greedy capitalist business plan penalizes me!" crowd.

I'm not joining in the ethical/unethical, legal/illegal chorus here. It's just flat out unwise.

I know what the license says. I know what the license can do. So I don't support any position that pretends to be anything short of the worst possible-- but completely legal-- ultimate result.

 

[Yair]

this starts to look an awful look like a Netbook repository, with all the quality issues attached to that...

By its nature an OGC Wiki will have a WORSE quality than a Netbook, generally speaking, as it doesn't even really allow for rankings like those used in the Feats Netbook for example. If the Wiki is open to all to edit and use, it will have a lot of poor entries.

 

[jgbrowning]

Personally I would put it at unwise.

I just think it will have effects counter to desired.

Particularly unwise considering that even a "for pay" Wiki is just an easily-accessible electronic amalgam waiting to be copied and distributed free of charge by the "Your greedy capitalist business plan penalizes me!" crowd.

I hadn't thought about that. Hrm.. Proves that I can be as unwise as the rest of 'em.

joe b.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Proves that I can be as unwise as the rest of 'em.

I thought your trip to Nepal was supposed to fix that.

What, you got all the way there, and the guru was OUT?

 

[Crothian]

Actually, the most "dangerous" suggestion currently on discussion is a 4 year waiting period, and the one picking up speed is a volunteer-only policy (only original content, no copying from any derived source except the SRD without the publisher's say-so).

Why is 4-year waiting period dangerious?

 

[jgbrowning]

I thought your trip to Nepal was supposed to fix that.

What, you got all the way there, and the guru was OUT?

He just asked for some new shoes and a bottle of asprin. And he smiled a lot.

Didn't say a damn thing else I understood.

joe b.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Wulf: I tried to PM you, but apparently I can't send PM's anymore for some reason...

Anyway, I hope you don't feel that I think that innovative or excellent written, clean mechanics just write themselves, because that was definately not the point I was trying to make, and I wouldn't want you to misconstrue what I was saying.



Look, as far as a Wiki goes, the only way WRITERS are going to be happy is if they get to control what of thier works is inserted.

See, what is ignored by a lot of people is one critical thing...

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

 

[BryonD]

Which is why I was talking about creator intent, and not OGL intent. I think we both agree that the OGL has no intent in any fashion concerning value, only distribution, which is why I think no one can claim "OGC yearns to be free of cost" or conversely "OGC yearns to be with cost."

However, I can say "If you use my OGC and make it FREE, when I have already made it for cost, you are obviously doing somthing that I as a creator didn't want done." Just because the license allows you the ability to do it doesn't mean the license is pro or against making OGC FREE of cost. The license gives the legal authority to do so against the wishes of the creator because the license is independent of matters of valuation. And every creator signed on with the liscense, so they know it's a possiblity. But it doesn't mean that it's what they want to happen, so don't use a false justification such as "OGC yearns to be free" as an excuse for turning someone's for pay work into something for free.



Of course.

joe b.

Cool. I'm not using that justification and I have a low opinion of those that are.