Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nellisir" data-source="post: 2769790" data-attributes="member: 70">OK.  A variable, generated-on-the-spot OGL would solve the S.15 issue (and require a little more coding).A reminder - you CANNOT indicate compatibility with a product inside the OGL.  You MUST have an independent agreement to do so.  To the best of my knowledge, this includes listing a source and an author.This whole fluff/crunch thing is why I said "Story Elements" instead of fluff.  And a "cape", for instance, is quite arguably a game mechanic, not a piece of "fluff", insofar as it has defined in-game statistics, much like stunned, nauseated, and longsword.I think an OGC setting would be cool.  But it should be largely seperate from the OGC (mechanics) repository.  I DO buy products for "fluff" (I own almost every FR product, but use none of it), but I don't buy them for -random- fluff, and most people are going to strip out the proper names and insert their own anyways.I also buy products for mechanics, btw.  Thus I have the complete d20 Rokugan line, a wonderful source for feats, spells, prestige classes, and an in-game "Action points" mechanic (Void).Now, I understand why most publishers oppose an OGC repository.  Insofar as they know & believe, it will penalize them in greater measure than it benefits them.  I get that, I understand, and I empathize.  I've got stuff I'd like to make money on.  But money in their pocket is money out of mine.  Their business plan penalizes me.  And the argument that an OGC repository will drive them out of business AND harm the state of OGC in general rests on the assumption that they are more creative and better able to utilize OGC than non-publishers.  After all, if that assumption -weren't- true, making such a large mass of OGC available to the general public would HELP the state of OGC.The OGL's inspiration came from open-source computer code.  I'm not an expert in that field by any means, but I'm pretty certain that public involvement hasn't hurt all that much, and that people continue to make money off of it.Heck, I've changed my mind.  I'll support a voluntary/free OGC repository.  Material willingly posted by the author or publisher, or material already available for free, ONLY, with one exception.  Any subsequent product that uses the repository is fair game for OGC extraction in...12 months.  No free rides.Phil, Wulf, Monte, and the other publishers can put out as much OGC as they want, marked however they want, and it won't be entered, ever.  All they have to do is not use the repository and whatever develops there.I think it'll start off slow.  There'll be hassles and issues and disagreements.  It'll be behind the curve.  But I'm betting if it catches on and catches up, baby watch out.Cheers,Nell.</blockquote>

Verification