That thread title was only going to cause problems anyway

[Vigilance]

I just thought it was a natural choice for someone who has ideas that aren't on their way to publication... that way others can use them. Given how much writing and designing happens for these fantasy worlds, by people who don't look towards publication as the project's endpoint, I thought it was a natural choice for sharing your work.

My guess would be that most people see publication, at least in PDF, as a natural endpoint for a project.

As someone who has done settings as commercial PDFs, and settings as free PDFs, I have to say I see very little upside to releasing a setting for free.

You won't get any more exposure releasing a setting for free. You'll get many, many more downloads, but people will just download it because it's free. For most of them, it will sit on their HD unread at all, or forgotten after a cursory glance.

You also won't get more meaningful feedback if you release a setting for free. Again, because it's free, people will download it that would never buy it. Since they aren't the target market, and would ordinarily have no interest in the work, their feedback is likely to be negative, and if followed, steer the product AWAY from those who actually would ordinarily play it.

In short, while people expect more of a commercial product, you get a lot more in return for them. The people who download it might be fewer, but they're more likely to take it seriously and help you make the setting better, if it's for sale.

It's counter-intuitive (at least it was to me). But there you go, my personal, subjective experience is that a commercially available PDF is the best way to share an idea you've invested a lot of time and energy in.

Not that this precludes adding a license to the setting allowing others to use it.

 

[Mark CMG]

They typically have such authority if they are the creator (note that "creator" and "author" aren't necessarily the same thing). Otherwise true, though this restriction is less one of the license itself than it is one of the entity making the material available.

Best not to equivocate and confuse the issue. The license does not deal with creators or authors nor does it mention either or define either word as a term of the license. The license does not require one to be an author or creator to contribute, neither does the license restrict contribution to either, nor does the license allow an author or creator to contribute despite not having the authority to contribute. The restriction made by the license is that the contributor have the authority to make the contribution. It is quite clear on the matter.

 

[jdrakeh]

Best not to equivocate and confuse the issue. The license does not deal with creators or authors nor does it mention either or define either word as a term of the license. The license does not require one to be an author or creator to contribute, neither does the license restrict contribution to either, nor does the license allow an author or creator to contribute despite not having the authority to contribute. The restriction made by the license is that the contributor have the authority to make the contribution. It is quite clear on the matter.

Well fair enough, though I'm not entirely sure what clarifying this point adds to the thread (other than clarification, of course).

 

[Mark CMG]

Not that this precludes adding a license to the setting allowing others to use it.

Remembering, of course, that OGC released under the OGL may not have any restrictions placed upon it than those in the OGL itself.

 

[Mark CMG]

Well fair enough, though I'm not entirely sure what clarifying this point adds to the thread (other than clarification, of course).

When dealing with a discussion of the OGL, there can hardly be enough clarification.

 

[Ry]

Well fair enough, though I'm not entirely sure what clarifying this point adds to the thread (other than clarification, of course).

I am finding this whole exchange very educational.

 

[fusangite]

Huh? What assumptions does the Creative Commons license make about the way a setting is developed or described?

I don't start out deciding that my setting will be circumscribed by the OGL. I make a setting and then decide whether it is D20, OGL or something else. Also, my setting design is not modular, and it's pretty clear that this release-as-you go style doesn't really fit with how I make settings.

 

[Arkhandus]

...What the heck is 'a creative commons fantasy setting' anyway?

Tons of folks contributed to the Eyros setting, but I don't know if that qualifies as whatever it is you're talking about, and that took place about 1-2 years ago.

 

[Ry]

Well, there's a few different flavors of CC, but I am aiming for a modular collection of fantasy materials worked together to create a cohesive setting, where the contributors deliberately give up most of their rights to it such that if someone wants to come along and use the material in another way (game, book, whatever) they can do so.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

Hey guys,

Just to clarify, the original message board version of Dretch to Demon Lord is not OGL compliant. It falls under that grey area of "fan fiction". The published version, however, has undergone an extensive edit to make it OGL compliant.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. Or did I completely miss the point.

BD