Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 2773792" data-attributes="member: 4722">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.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).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.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.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?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.</blockquote>

Verification