OGC Wiki?

[philreed]

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

Yes, they can. Something people seem to overlook is that OGC is still copyrighted material. I own what I write and if I elect to make only a small % of the material OGC there is nothing preventing me from allowing others -- of my choice -- to use the remaining material as I wish.

And as we've all seen happen many times, I can state that some material is closed even if others disagree with me. It is my choice what I open.

 

[philreed]

I'm not sure you understand who this is going to hurt.

I think it has more to do with he doesn't care who it is going to hurt because anyone that doesn't understand who this will hurt shouldn't even be involved in this thread.

Far too many people think that the internet gives them permission to talk about things they really don't know anything about. By participating in this thread, in my opinion, he implies that he understands the OGL and the effects an OGC Wiki could have on the publishers and the community.

 

[Crothian]

I think it has more to do with he doesn't care who it is going to hurt because anyone that doesn't understand who this will hurt shouldn't even be involved in this thread.

Well, that's why I bring it up, If he doesn't care I think he needs to say it.

 

[philreed]

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)?

It's just as easy for me to write:

"Only game mechanics directly based on material from the SRD is presented as open game content. All text, including names and descriptions, are closed content and may not be used without permission of the publisher."

 

[Crothian]

Far too many people think that the internet gives them permission to talk about things they really don't know anything about. By participating in this thread, in my opinion, he implies that he understands the OGL and the effects an OGC Wiki could have on the publishers and the community.

I don't think that at all. I think this type of thread and other like it attract people that have no idea what they are talking about and yet they post anyway.

 

[philreed]

Well, that's why I bring it up, If he doesn't care I think he needs to say it.

I agree. For once I'd like to see someone stand up and admit that they don't care about the publishers and authors working in the game industry.

 

[philreed]

I don't think that at all. I think this type of thread and other like it attract people that have no idea what they are talking about and yet they post anyway.

Which makes me think it might be time I exercise the ignore feature and put an end to my even seeing this particular individuals posts. I've never used the ignore feature before but in this instance I feel completely justified in considering the option.

 

[Pinotage]

Yes, they can. Something people seem to overlook is that OGC is still copyrighted material. I own what I write and if I elect to make only a small % of the material OGC there is nothing preventing me from allowing others -- of my choice -- to use the remaining material as I wish.

And as we've all seen happen many times, I can state that some material is closed even if others disagree with me. It is my choice what I open.

I see. Thanks. People have been suggesting 4 years and older material - do those products, meaning older 3e products still sell well?

Pinotage

 

[philreed]

I see. Thanks. People have been suggesting 4 years and older material - do those products, meaning older 3e products still sell well?

Here's where we enter into an area that comes up a lot when people talk about illegal PDFs of older products being okay. Just because something is 1 year, 2 year, or 10 years old doesn't mean that it has no value. There's absolutely no reason for me to think that Green Ronin (going back to my Hammer & Helm example from earlier that appears to have been ignored) can't update the material to 3.5 and rerelease it. Would that material sell as well if the original was already free online?

 

[schporto]

I don't think that at all. I think this type of thread and other like it attract people that have no idea what they are talking about and yet they post anyway.

It also attracts people who would like to learn. Which I have. When I first read this I thought COOL, I can get all my stuff for free. Of course that's what the publishers intended, I mean that's the whole point behind the OGL isn't it.
Now, after following this thread, I see that one heck of a murky area. I do like seeing the discussion continue. Peronally my feelings are:
An open game content wiki is legal.
An open game content wiki will have an effect on the game publishing industry. Not sure the size of that effect, or what that effect would be.
I bought the PHB, MM, DMG knowing they were (mostly) open and available on the web.
I continue to receive a newspaper despite the content in it being available for free online.
I have bought recompilations of stuff that I already had access to. (Pocket Grimoires)
And this thread has made me think about these concepts more then most things. Please continue.

Have there been many modules/adventures that use makes extensive use of OGC? To me I thought the biggest idea behind the OGL was to allow publishers to create generic adventures.
-cpd