Urbis - Should I follow the GSL, or make the setting system-independent?

[Jürgen Hubert]

The Urbis Wiki gradually nears a state of, if not completion, then at least comprehensiveness that allows others to use the setting. The regions are getting increasingly detailed. Maps have been added that allow the readers to understand the scope and geographical detail. More and more illustrations and art are being uploaded.

But I have to make a decision in what direction I want to take the setting now.

Urbis has always been centered on D&D assumptions - essentially, I wanted to take the common tropes of D&D and build a setting around them that not only makes sense, but pushes them to their logical conclusions in the form of a magical industrial revolution. This goal has not changed with the arrival of D&D 4E - an edition which I like, and whose assumptions and elements (such as the new races) I have already partially integrated.

Yet I'm not sure whether I should trust the GSL, which seems very restrictive and might interfere with future publishing plans. So now I'm wondering whether I turn the Urbis Wiki - and with it, the "public" development of the setting that is freely downloadable by everyone - away from something that obviously refers to D&D 4E into a more "system-less" setting. That would involve some significant name changes with some aspects of the setting - elements which only appear in D&D would have to be altered to make them more universal. While common fantasy tropes such as vampires, ghouls, etc. could remain, I would, for example, rename "eladrin" into "high elves", "dragonborn" into "dragonkin", alter the color schemes for dragons, and remove references to many of the more obscure creatures of D&D canon.

The downside of this might be the alienation of many D&D fans, who might be annoyed by the alterations and confused by the use of different names for what are essentially the same creatures.

So, what are your thoughts? Should I stick to all the D&D-isms, or remove them and remake the setting into something more universal and distanced from D&D?

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Now, that's an easy one for me: keep them in!

It all boils down to ease of use. If I want to play my games in a setting designed by any other author than me, I want to use it without any undue effort.

Having to fill in mechanical details myself counts as undue effort, especially if the original author really put some thought into his work.

He has a cool idea and builds it into his setting. Then he mangles his idea so much that the mechanical underpinnings turn invisible. And now I have to re-invent his cool idea based on the remaining abstract description. That's possible, sure, but why do I have to do it?

 

[delericho]

I wouldn't even consider going with the GSL in its current state. If it ever gets updated, it might become suitable, but for now, I'd strongly advise staying away.

Is there anything in the setting that can't be done using the existing OGL? If so, can these be altered to work with the OGL (eg as Goodman did with their first 4e adventures)? If so, I would recommend going this route, at least for the time being.

If you are seriously considering publishing using the setting, then it's even more important that you don't tie the setting to a restrictive license. However, I suspect we're not the people you need to talk to - that would be a lawyer, to work out exactly what is and is not allowed, and so you can make an informed choice.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I wouldn't even consider going with the GSL in its current state. If it ever gets updated, it might become suitable, but for now, I'd strongly advise staying away.

Is there anything in the setting that can't be done using the existing OGL? If so, can these be altered to work with the OGL (eg as Goodman did with their first 4e adventures)? If so, I would recommend going this route, at least for the time being.

Well, it could be done with the OGL as well. However, if I don't use the conventions of D&D 4E, then using the conventions of an older license with a dwindling following wouldn't help me much either. In this case, I would also go the system neutral route.

Note that the issue here mainly revolves around the Urbis Wiki, which is essentially the central platform for developing the setting and presents the "interface for the public". Even if I make the Wiki system-less, I'm not ruling out commercial publications under the GSL (or for other systems, for that matter). These would then be adjusted to make them fit under the specific systems and their licenses. So even if I were to use the term "dragonkin" for "dragonborn" on the Wiki, any Urbis publications for the GSL would still use the term "dragonborn".

The question is which presentation on the wiki the fans of the setting (such as they exist...) would prefer.

 

[Jack7]

If it's a Wiki and you want it to be publicly available as such, then obviously make it system neutral, with certain differences from ordinary forms. Don't make it just a D&D work, and certainly not a specific edition D&D work. You will appeal to a larger group of people and you will protect yourself from any kinds of copyright or licensing violations of attempting public disclosure of what is considered proprietary. (Depending on how closely you wish to reproduce basic game disclosures on-line. Is it just an original setting disclosure, or are you reproducing game content on-line?)

Also that will cover and protect you if you want to seek a specific kind of publisher later because then your work would not have already been made publicly available on the internet.

Few if any publishers would want to publish supposedly proprietary information, or a supposedly original product, if it is already publicly available at no cost. (This assumes your Wiki is freely accessible, and I got onto it easily enough). If you want to seriously pursue publication then stay off the internet altogether, except in teaser form, or heavily restrict access to your Wiki to only a few people you can trust, and so that it cannot be easily or publicly accessed, linked to, or even found by potential publishers. Yes, it is the romance of the internet that if everything is freely available this will somehow magically attract profit and publishers. It will not. Publishers make money and so do authors specifically because their work is not freely available. Otherwise people make a reputation of "giving stuff away," and "making cool stuff," not of making a profit.

You can always keep any other copy of your work in any form you wish any where else so that it cannot be publicly accessed but where you can easily convert it into any format for whatever type of profit motive publication you desire. In other words it is not either/or. You can produce a "scrubbed publicly accessible form" for your Wiki and a commercial form for yourself and your publication efforts.

But I wouldn't necessarily rename many creatures, etc, even if you do produce a "public form" of the work.

Some ideas, names, conventions, etc. have become so universal they have almost become a thing unto themselves and would be easily recognizable to any "system."

You might wanna reconsider renaming creatures and so forth if you could make them truly original in some way (even if it was in a minor way) and you wanted to publish in some medium other than gaming, such as in fictional book form.

Anyways, Godspeed and good luck.

The question is which presentation on the wiki the fans of the setting (such as they exist...) would prefer.

By the way, the question is not really which would the fans prefer. It is, do you intend to publish this for profit at some point, or not?

You can give the fans exactly what they prefer on the internet, and not turn a dime. Or you can arouse interest on the internet and later produce a commercially viable product.

If you really intend commercial publication then what the fans want for free is not the issue, it is what the fans would be willing to pay for versus what you are willing to make available freely.

Giving away freely to someone everything they want in the way they want it, and getting them to pay for what they want are two completely different and contradictory aims.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Few if any publishers would want to publish supposedly proprietary information, or a supposedly original product, if it is already publicly available at no cost. (This assumes your Wiki is freely accessible, and I got onto it easily enough). If you want to seriously pursue publication then stay off the internet altogether, except in teaser form, or heavily restrict access to your Wiki to only a few people you can trust, and so that it cannot be easily or publicly accessed, linked to, or even found by potential publishers. Yes, it is the romance of the internet that if everything is freely available this will somehow magically attract profit and publishers. It will not. Publishers make money and so do authors specifically because their work is not freely available. Otherwise people make a reputation of "giving stuff away," and "making cool stuff," not of making a profit.

The goal here is to leave all the system-specific information to the professional products. Customers would pay for a work that, for example, explains the setting with all the necessary information for playing it under the D&D 4E (or Savage Worlds, or whatever) rules. The Wiki itself is intended to have no game rule information whatsoever.

But I wouldn't necessarily rename many creatures, etc, even if you do produce a "public form" of the work.

Some ideas, names, conventions, etc. have become so universal they have almost become a thing unto themselves and would be easily recognizable to any "system."

Well, finding the boundary here is tricky. "Vampire" or "ghoul" obviously are universal terms. However, "eladrin" and "dragonborn" have, so far, only been encountered in D&D. And while "dragon" is also universal, how about the D&D-specific color schemes of dragons?

If I want to make the wiki more system neutral, I will have to come up with a list of creatures which are universal, and another one which are too tied to D&D, and thus have to be altered and removed.

 

[Jack7]

Well, finding the boundary here is tricky. "Vampire" or "ghoul" obviously are universal terms. However, "eladrin" and "dragonborn" have, so far, only been encountered in D&D. And while "dragon" is also universal, how about the D&D-specific color schemes of dragons?

If I want to make the wiki more system neutral, I will have to come up with a list of creatures which are universal, and another one which are too tied to D&D, and thus have to be altered and removed.

That's true. You're gonna have to make content decisions.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

That's true. You're gonna have to make content decisions.

And if I have to make such decisions, I'd rather make them sooner than later. Hence this thread.

 

[Jack7]

And if I have to make such decisions, I'd rather make them sooner than later.

That would be true too. It's always better to prevent a problem than to fix one.

 

[FourthBear]

This is naive, but has anyone with a similar project ever asked WotC what it would take to obtain a specific license for such a work? It probably wouldn't be worth it just for WotC's lawyers to take a look at it, but I have to admit I'm curious.