Where is the Unearthed Arcana SRD?

[Psion]

What some of us said is that it's not very polite

What's polite is, as the internet continues to prove, very subjective.

Now I can understand being polite if a person's culture finds something rude, whether or not I think it's impolite.

But now, if we are talking about the realm of a brand spanking new legal license without much cultural background, and someone creates their brand new notion of what's polite and what is not and tries to impose it on me under the guise of being polite, well, it begins to look less like obligation of politeness and more like someone trying to make me submit to their personal nit.

To me, there was this big hype when the OGL hit the streets... all about reusing content and growing the body of open game content. That's the promise of the OGL to me. The reason BEHIND that may have been to make publishers support the Skaff effect, but if you want to talk in realms of expectations and not what's in the license, offering this license and then telling me that "well, the license says that, but they really don't MEAN you hobbyists", in essence attached hidden expectations to the agreement, is impolite if anything is.

Now I would agree, posting a "UA SRD" the week after it is out and undercutting sales (possibly; I don't know if it really would) would be non classy. But I hear people in the industry testify that reorders are becoming a thing of the past nowadays; I'm not sure after a year it is going to harm anything.

Let me be a little more clear. I own UA. Bought it ASAP. But I wan't it electronically because that would be more convenient for my game. I don't want it because I can "get it free."

 

[johnsemlak]

Let me be a little more clear. I own UA. Bought it ASAP. But I wan't it electronically because that would be more convenient for my game. I don't want it because I can "get it free."

ditto

 

[Ranger REG]

Because the OGL says so. It's the rule that applies to all OGC. The OGL is the bible on OGC etiquette, because that's what the court is going to use if you get dragged into it over improper use of copyrighted materials. I also don't think for a second that WotC somehow "missed" that part of the license when they wrote it.

It is free, just as much as a public domain content is used in a copyrighted book.

As long they designated the certain content, excerpt, mechanics inside a copyrighted book as OGC, they fulfilled the terms of the OGL. Beyond that, they are not obligated to provide those designated OGC in a SRD format.

I think you're being too spoiled by the generosity of WotC. Kinda like getting an PS2 System for Christmas, but you start to pout because your favorite relative forgot to include a 2nd controller, a memory card, or at least 3 game titles with the present.

 

[Halivar]

As long they designated the certain content, excerpt, mechanics inside a copyrighted book as OGC, they fulfilled the terms of the OGL. Beyond that, they are not obligated to provide those designated OGC in a SRD format.

Right. What we're arguing over is whether 3rd-parties are allowed to do it for you. I don't think anyone (I hope) expects (much less demands) a UA SRD from WotC itself.

It would be sweet, though.

 

[Henry]

Myself, I'd be curious to know how WotC decides what to put into the SRD... For example, practically all the sourcebooks for D20 Modern are all included, but very, very few of the D&D sourcebooks are. Why not? How come the D20 Modern Menace book is SRD, but not Monster Manual II or Fiend Folio? How come the Urban Arcana campaign setting is in the SRD, but not Eberron or Forgotten Realms?

Think about it a second, and it has a very rational explanation: How many copies of Modern Menace manual are sold, versus MM2 or FF? How many copies of UA sold versus the versus Eberron or FR? The d20 Modern itself was not assured to be a hit when it was first released, and in order to promote its use, it needed to have a guaranteed base of people trying it out. How much more guaranteed are you going to get that people will at least look at a product, than if it's free?

On top of that, you have the difference in levels of support. With D&D, WotC is guaranteed they will support it wholeheartedly. With Modern, they can't devote as many resources to it, so the fans are the ones who need to support it most; give the fans the tools, and they will take over, and popularize it on their own. If we saw a dramatic upswing in Modern and Future purchases, I firmly believe you'd see a dramtic DECREASE in Modern OGC released by WotC.

This logic even holds for the 3.5 books; if you want people making 3.5 compatible versions of your stuff, you'd BETTER make sure they can get their hands on the rules.

 

[Henry]

As long they designated the certain content, excerpt, mechanics inside a copyrighted book as OGC, they fulfilled the terms of the OGL. Beyond that, they are not obligated to provide those designated OGC in a SRD format.

I totally agree. OGC is "free" in the sense that the info can be re-packaged legally, no problem. Whether it is available electronically is totally a matter of convenience.

When Monte Cook first started releasing material, I used to be annoyed with his (for lack of a better term) "jigsaw puzzle" means of releasing OGC. In hindsight, I can completely understand why he does it, from a business point of view. He releases the mechanics on most of his feats and hard rules, and spells, but keeps the names and flavor as closed. He is still supporting the Open Gaming movement, but to use his materials means the person has to work harder at using it.

I think you're being too spoiled by the generosity of WotC. Kinda like getting an PS2 System for Christmas, but you start to pout because your favorite relative forgot to include a 2nd controller, a memory card, or at least 3 game titles with the present.

That's being a little harsh, but I understand what you are saying. OGC can be released in an easy-to-cannibalize form, but by no means does it HAVE to be. I can give you a blueberry pie, or I can give you the flour, sugar, berries, eggs, water, pans, and oven; but past that, it would be irrational of me to be mad at you when you actually made the pie, and then decided to slice it up and share it. It's not one of my custom-made blueberry pies, after all.

 

[Ranger REG]

That's being a little harsh, but I understand what you are saying. OGC can be released in an easy-to-cannibalize form, but by no means does it HAVE to be. I can give you a blueberry pie, or I can give you the flour, sugar, berries, eggs, water, pans, and oven; but past that, it would be irrational of me to be mad at you when you actually made the pie, and then decided to slice it up and share it. It's not one of my custom-made blueberry pies, after all.

Well, I tried being diplomatic in my earlier posts in this thread. But if it didn't get through to some who still demand a UA SRD like they have a sense of entitlement, I gotta bring the jackhammer down on them.

*shrugs*

But to use your analogy, they demand you to make the pie, not just the offered recipe and ingredients. IOW, your gift is not good enough, they want more for their convenience.

As for Monte Cook's "jigsaw" OGC, only a serious designer would try to utilize his contributing content and put them to good -- and hopefully profitable -- use. Aside from that, gamers wouldn't concern themselves with OGC and PI if it is for their own personal use.

 

[pennywiz]

Well, I tried being diplomatic in my earlier posts in this thread. But if it didn't get through to some who still demand a UA SRD like they have a sense of entitlement, I gotta bring the jackhammer down on them.

*shrugs*

But to use your analogy, they demand you to make the pie, not just the offered recipe and ingredients. IOW, your gift is not good enough, they want more for their convenience.

You're being obtuse.

No one has demanded anything.

No one has expressed a sense of entitlement.

You should turn off the jackhammer if it distracts you.

 

[Cergorach]

Chapter 4 from the UA:
http://www.thehelix.nl/chapter4adventuring.pdf

I still need to add diagrams for a couple of articles.

There are currently two terms in there that are colored red, those are "20xF" and "20-Sided", those two are IP. The reason for this is that i want to create a license that identifies a work as being compatible with the 20 sided system (or a particular 20 sided subsystem). This license and the acompanying logos are not ready yet, and to be on the 'save' side i decided that these terms are IP for now.

If there are any (spelling) mistakes in this document please report them, so that when i release an updated version of this document i'll be able to incorporate these corrections.

 

[BSF]

Wow Cergorach - Looks nice. Is that one you are putting together for resale? If so, when will it be ready? Thanks for posting the link.