OGC Wiki?

[Crothian]

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?

THe one advantage, and its one for the most part publishers don't do anyway, is that the rules I like in book A can be used and further developed in Book B. When this all started 5 years ago I was relaly looking forward to that happening. And for the most part I'm still waiting for that happen.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Zelgar

Because they WANT other publishers to be able to use the work within the OGL.
They COULD declare only what must be OGC as OGC and the rest as IP, and then make it clear they will share the IP as well. But that is a pain and a counter-incentive for others to share the product. And OGC isn't shared nearly as much as its potential would allow as is.

I think it is a really easy question to answer.

They are allowing options A & B because they don't have a choice to offer one and not the other. That doesn't begin to mean they are at all eager to have option B selected. They simply risk it so as to offer option A.

 

[Pinotage]

They are allowing options A & B because they don't have a choice to offer one and not the other. That doesn't begin to mean they are at all eager to have option B selected. They simply risk it so as to offer option A.

You mean a publisher can't declare 25% OGC and then open content 100% to publishers only?

Pinotage

 

[Zelgar]

You mean a publisher can't declare 25% OGC and then open content 100% to publishers only?

Pinotage

From my understanding of OGC, PI (Product Identity) and Trademarks from the OGL, they can. You would need to have permission of the other party to use the non OGC material.

Zelgar

 

[Man-thing]

And then you need to identify the other publishers product identity as product identity as well. So if you borrow from two or three publishers who do this you end up with a crippled or confused OGC statement.

 

[Zelgar]

Because they WANT other publishers to be able to use the work within the OGL.
They COULD declare only what must be OGC as OGC and the rest as IP, and then make it clear they will share the IP as well. But that is a pain and a counter-incentive for others to share the product. And OGC isn't shared nearly as much as its potential would allow as is.

I think it is a really easy question to answer.

They are allowing options A & B because they don't have a choice to offer one and not the other. That doesn't begin to mean they are at all eager to have option B selected. They simply risk it so as to offer option A.

Isn't it true, that it's easier to claim 100% OGC and including all of your sources in Section 15 than separating out the Product Identity (PI)?

Please don't get me wrong, but this entire OGC debate seems like someone donated some sports equipment and then gets mad if the equipment is later given away for free.

Zelgar

 

[Man-thing]

Please don't get me wrong, but this entire OGC debate seems like someone donated some sports equipment and then gets mad if the equipment is later given away for free.

I think it more of someone has a store selling newspapers, you buy a copy and then stand out side the store to read each person the stories they want so they don't need to buy a copy.

 

[Crothian]

Please don't get me wrong, but this entire OGC debate seems like someone donated some sports equipment and then gets mad if the equipment is later given away for free.

No, because in this case the giving away for free actually creates compition for the person trying to sale it. Once things get declared as OGC doesn't mean they can't be sold nor does it mean it should be free.

 

[Zelgar]

No, because in this case the giving away for free actually creates compition for the person trying to sale it. Once things get declared as OGC doesn't mean they can't be sold nor does it mean it should be free.

Nor does it mean that OGC cannot be distributed for free. The creator/publisher has lost all rights to control once he established the material as OGC and the OGL is followed.

I also think it is interesting that there are publishers who reprint OGC material. If this was not profitable, why would they do it? (Note: if there was a OGC wiki, the profitability of reprinting OGC may decrease, but a lot of people prefer to have hard copies vs electronic)

Zelgar

 

[Crothian]

Nor does it mean that OGC cannot be distributed for free. The creator/publisher has lost all rights to control once he established the material as OGC and the OGL is followed.

I also think it is interesting that there are publishers who reprint OGC material. If this was not profitable, why would they do it? (Note: if there was a OGC wiki, the profitability of reprinting OGC may decrease, but a lot of people prefer to have hard copies vs electronic)

I'm not sure you understand who this is going to hurt. Wizards will be uneffected by this. But thelittle publishers that are trying to break into gaming and show what they can do; this will hurt them. It seems like you don't care about that though. All you care about is that this is technically legal. I'm just waiting for a good reason on why the Wiki should be put together. Becasue it is legal, is not a good reason.