OGC Wiki?

[Crothian]

Gamers are not trying to crucify the game designers and publishers for OGC nor is that the purpose of a OGC Wiki.

But in reality it does. It doesn't matter that intentions might be good, the final product wi8ll have the same effect.

 

[philreed]

In fact, if I wanted to expand your OGC and post it on a forum like here on ENWORLD, I would be perfectly within my rights as well. Gamers are not trying to crucify the game designers and publishers for OGC nor is that the purpose of a OGC Wiki.

Do you feel that the creator of the work deserves to be rewarded for his effort?

 

[philreed]

If a game designer or publisher had made some OGC feats that would work with my campaign, I am not devaluing your work if I include them on my campaign website as a list of feats the PC's can take.

If you respected the work, and wanted to be certain that publisher/author continued to release new products, you would first encourage your players to buy the source product.

 

[jgbrowning]

If the creator didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC.

Whoa! I didn't want it to be FREE that's why I charge money for it.

If Someone else wants my OGC to be FREE that's their decision. Don't ever, ever confuse what someone else does with what the creator wanted. The creator has already told everyone what they wanted by making their OGC for cost and not FREE.

OGC !=FREE (of cost). The license is only concerned with distribution and makes no statements concerning valuation.

Also, just because somebody post OGC for free does not mean that they do not value the work. If a game designer or publisher had made some OGC feats that would work with my campaign, I am not devaluing your work if I include them on my campaign website as a list of feats the PC's can take. It would be legal for me to do so, provided I follow all of the requirements of the OGL.

Of course it would be legal. It would be legally devaluing. The effect would be minimal because you're not trying to distribute the FREE OGC on a large scale. Anytime something that is currently for sale is given away for free, devaluation occurs. The amount of that devaluation varies, obviously.

In fact, if I wanted to expand your OGC and post it on a forum like here on ENWORLD, I would be perfectly within my rights as well. Gamers are not trying to crucify the game designers and publishers for OGC nor is that the purpose of a OGC Wiki.

Zelgar

Gamers may not be trying, but I see the hammer and nails in the background of any attempt to massively distribute FREE OGC. Even if gamers don't. And I'm not the only publisher seeing them.

That should tell the gamers something, eh?

joe b.

 

[Kerrick]

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.)

Well then, let me be the first. I'm not technically a publisher, I'm a designer, but I still support the idea of an OGC Wiki. Maybe if I made my (entire) livelihood from it, I might have a different stance, but who knows? I think the only real way to tell would be an experiment - put out a small pdf, leave it up for sale for a month or three (or even immediately), then release the material in a semi-wiki for free and see what happens.

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

It was suggested that only material that was 4 years old be used (among other things), but 4 years puts it well before 3.5's advent. A year sounds reasonable - I would have said the same. I also like Nell's suggestion that anything that uses material from the FRC (or at least states the FRC as a source) becomes "eligible" for entry into the FRC itself after a certain period of time. (But see below).

OR, one day, you use something from the FCR. By virtue of the OGL, you have to include in your S.15 a phrase something like *Free Content Repository: [material], copyright 2006, [copyright holder]*.

I can see a slight problem in this - say someone takes the Walk Like an Egyptian feat from the FRC, but he states the original source in the S15 as 101 Funky Walking Feats (or whatever that book was called), which was where the feat originally appeared. Sneaky? Yes. Unethical? Most likely. Legal? Yes. Possible? Most definitely. I'd like to think that writers/publishers are more honest than this, but I"m not that stupid or naive. It's already happened, and it will happen again, until such time as someone gets sued for it.

I think some people would think that it would be unethical/illegal to publish OGC that was created by someone else if they did not own the original source (or the source where they found the material), but that is not a requirement of the OGL.

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

Yes, which is why I agree that contribution should be voluntary on the author's part. This eliminates the problem of publishers who don't want their material up for distribution, for whatever reason, losing money and/or becoming embittered about the whole thing. If they want to put up old products for distribution (free or otherwise - see below), that's great. If they want to keep it and charge people for it, that's fine too.

It's notthe freely distributed bit, it's the free of cost bit that most people don't like. If you had a Wiki that was charging for access, there'd be a lot less concern because you are showing that the material you're distributing has worth and more importantly you're protecting the worth of other people's OGC.

I would have thought they'd go the other way for some reason, but yeah, I think this is the way to go. After all, a wiki/server would have operating costs and such. So let's ask: how many of you publishers out there would contribute to a pay-for-access OGC wiki?

I believe the original publisher should be respected, but should not have absolute control of what they want to post and what they want to keep hidden. I'm afraid that if you can choose what to post, you'll only post less innovative content and hide juicy bits.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I've stated this before (perhaps a little obtusely), and I'll state it again - if you wrote it, you have some right to dictate how (or if) it is distributed, at least for the first tier (from your hands to someone else's). If I wrote a bunch of material and chose to keep it for the use of myself, my group, and a few select friends, that's my right. It doesn't matter if it's OGC or not. If I choose to put that same material up on my website for free, or sell it (for a reasonable price or not), that's also my right. If I choose to withhold it from an OGC wiki, that's my right. Now, if I distribute it (either free or for pay) to someone else, I lose the right to dictate where it goes from there.

And that's the crux of the matter - publishers are worried that their material will make it up to the site without their approval (or possibly even knowledge) from someone who bought one of their books/pdfs. Hence my position that it should be voluntary. If they only want to submit their less-than-stellar work, so be it - we can't force them to do otherwise. They are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to make their work FREE. They have to make it OPEN so that others can use it, modify it, etc. as stated in the OGL, but FREE? Uh-uh.

 

[jgbrowning]

Well then, let me be the first. I'm not technically a publisher, I'm a designer, but I still support the idea of an OGC Wiki. Maybe if I made my (entire) livelihood from it, I might have a different stance, but who knows? I think the only real way to tell would be an experiment - put out a small pdf, leave it up for sale for a month or three (or even immediately), then release the material in a semi-wiki for free and see what happens.

Your initial result would be minimal.

However, after training people to go to the Wiki for gaming material, the result would be rather large.

It's a mindspace issue. Once people get used to getting something for free and going someplace to get free stuff they'll go there first. Especially since it would be legal (if done properly).

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I've stated this before (perhaps a little obtusely), and I'll state it again - if you wrote it, you have some right to dictate how (or if) it is distributed, at least for the first tier (from your hands to someone else's). If I wrote a bunch of material and chose to keep it for the use of myself, my group, and a few select friends, that's my right. It doesn't matter if it's OGC or not. If I choose to put that same material up on my website for free, or sell it (for a reasonable price or not), that's also my right. If I choose to withhold it from an OGC wiki, that's my right. Now, if I distribute it (either free or for pay) to someone else, I lose the right to dictate where it goes from there.

None of us are talking rights. We know the OGL.

We're talking cause and effect, politeness, consideration, deference, desire and outcome.

Different than rights.

Just because something is legal that doesn't mean it's free of consequences. There are negative repercusions of a OGCwiki to the publishers which will lead to a negative in the production of OGC materail which will have a negative effect on gamer to publisher relations, which will have negative effect on publisher to gamer relations.

Damn lot of negatives there just to get and give away other peoples OGC for FREE, legally.

joe b.

 

[Flyspeck23]

First off, I'm not a huge fan of the Free-all-OGC movement, or else I'd done a bazillion card products by now... if another publisher wants to cooperate, that's cool - but I'm not "stealing" their OGC (although it'd be legal) if all I'm adding is fancy layout.

What might work is a OGC Wiki where the publishers - or anyone who has written his own OGC - themselves would submit material to the database...

Hell, everything I've ever released has been 100% open, but now I'm deciding if I should form new opinions on the matter. I don't like it and am not pleased with it.

I've been waiting for a free version of your MMS:WE for quite some time now, seeing that it's "100% OGC". Gladly it was never made... though I wonder why. Respect for your work, perhaps?

Or is it because people think it'd be unethical to reprint the whole product? If so, I don't see a difference to the OGC Wiki. Yet some people are considering to do exactly that: reprint the whole MMS:WE.

Strange.

If the creator didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC. It is the creators decision, unless the material was based upon previous OGC material, to make material OGC or PI.

Let's turn your statement around: If the player didn't want the OGC declarations to be more stingy, they shouldn't have made so much of it available for free at the OGC Wiki.

You're opening a can of worms if you're punishing publishers for being generous with their OGC - "Hey, it was your decision to make all your book OGC, now live with it!"
Chances are, that same publisher will cripple his OGC declaration from now on.

 

[GMSkarka]

If the creator didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC.

....and there you have it, folks. The wall at which point further debate is useless. The pro-Wiki folks actually believe this, and, like any matter of Faith, there is no point in debating it.

They've ignored the fact that this will most damage the publishers who are generous with OGC declarations....the very sort of publisher they prefer to those with more complicated and restrictive declarations. Those of us with 100% open products will have to change our policies, and release product that only opens the minimum of material as required by the license....it's a no brainer: Publishers who do that are not hurt by the Wiki, and the sales lost to the very few customers to whom such declarations matter are MUCH less than the sales lost to the entirety of your product being made available for free.

What kills me is that they don't see what they're doing. They'll create the very sort of declarations they despise.

Of course, I doubt the Wiki will happen, either way---the "give me everything for free" crowd isn't known for their nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic....and make no mistake, organizing this thing, confirming OGL compliance, etc., will be a TON of work.

 

[Pinotage]

Sorry for jumping onto different points, but I'm trying to understand both sides of the argument better.

What benefit is it to the casual gamer that a publisher declares more OGC? Does it make any difference to Joe Gamer whether it's 25% OGC or 100% OGC? Isn't this just a publisher thing, granting usage rights? What usage rights are important to the casual gamer? Aren't gamers around a table going to share material irrespective of the OGC content? And, if so, why not just cut down on the OGC in any case, but allow privately full use to other publishers interested in building on it?

Pinotage

 

[Zelgar]

It seems like a lot of people are upset with my quote "If you didn't want the OGC to be free, they shouldn't of made it OGC." I would like to know how the decision was made to make X% of the resourse OGC? It seems to me, it would be easy for a publisher to state 100% of my material is OGC just so they didn't have to partition their book from OGC and PI material. Some may wish others to be able to use portions of their work in their creations, but are adamant if anyone suggest to allowing it to accessible online for free.

Nobody here wants the role playing industry to go under, more restrictive licensing or a reduction in available material. I believe the only portion of the industry is extremely threated by the Wiki would be online publishers that use or publish content with a high percentage of OGC. I think the publishers who print material may have some impact, but a lot of people want to have a hard copy and are willing to pay for the privledge.

Zelgar