Why I only buy open content

Morrus said:
What Eridanis just said. The last few posts have gone over the line. Dial it back or stop posting, please. That especially goes for Warlord Ralts.
Not a problem, I'll avoid personal shots completely, and hopefully tongue in cheek or sarcasm poking fun at myself and the system is still OK. And I also promise not to hide little snipes and attacks. Usually I just come right out and say it, and thought I did pretty good this time. I guess the biggest problem, is once again the internet doesn't have a tone of voice replicator, so it's hard to understand sometimes what's poking fun at myself and teh whole situation, not individual people.




Mostly, I'm pretty disgusted over the thought that someone would complain about the fact it's considered polite to ask about utilizing content as "inhibiting thier creativity". I'm also VERY disgusted over the fact that many people, who have enjoyed the fact that the OGL exists, would seem to think that OGL and OGC are thier personal property.

When the OGL came out, it meant a lot of free fan sites no longer had to worry about cease and desist orders, and that everyone could post house rules, and even try to sell them on PDF's. A lot of people worked together, asking: "Hey, can I use this from you?" in order to keep from having bad blood between each other. The OGL was seen more as a community thing, a way to make something really cool and expand the system beyond the original, and less a tool reserved only for publishers.

Now, many people are talking about closing thier content, which is something that I had (obviously mistakenly) assumed from reading the liscenses and FAQ's was something only Wizards could do. You could declare PI on everything but the mechanics, but the mechanics were OGC no matter what, and you just had to live with it.

Asking another publisher: "Hey, can I borrow this?" was only a formality, but considered the decent thing to do. It was extremely doubtful they'd so no regarding mechanics, but possibly say no regarding flavor or campaign text.

MOST d20/OGL material out there is OGC, at least regarding the mechanics. Anything based off of, or derivative, of the d20 system is considered OGC as far as mechanics go. But still, before you go and borrow Joe Publisher's spell casting rules for artificially intelligent hypershrubs, you ask.

Sometimes, they'll even let you know thier original vision, that they weren't able to include, or help you expand upon it, or even let you know if there has been any problems with it in reviews/playtests after it was published.

Part of a community is contributing to the whole and being polite/cordial to one another.

Yeah, I'm arrogant, sarcastic, sometimes rude and just plain mean, but I won't take your stuff without asking, and will give credit where credit is due. I'll also let someone else use the OGC stuff I come up with, and often the PI material if I don't have any plans for it.

But asking's polite, even if you do use OGC material.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jmucchiello said:
And the reason someone would by a PDF of the SRD is that the example PDF is heavily bookmarked and hyperlinked. They are paying for the value-added linking.
GMSkarka said:
It sells due to the added value of hyperlinks. It's more than just a copy of the SRD.
That's precisely the point. A free, universally-accessible compilation of OGC material is not going to have as much value as a well-constructed PDF or print product. I think CMG's compiled SRD is a prime example that people will pay for such value, and thus, publishers shouldn't worry about lost sales from making their OGC freely available if they are providing additional value in the for-sale products.

Of course, if some publishers aren't selling anything more than just OGC mechanics text, they might have reason to be worried. If anything, an active movement to make OGC more free and available will drive some publishers to provide more value (ie PDF features, flavour text, cutout templates, maps, etc) in their products. I can't see that as being a bad thing.
 

Roudi said:
I'd like to point something out: the d20 System Reference Document is available for free on the WotC website, as well as on other websites. Yet, Creative Mountain Games' PDF compilation of the SRD is an RPGNow Electrum bestseller (that's 1000+ units sold, if I recall correctly). Seems weird that a product whose entire mechanical content is available for free elsewhere should sell so well.


I'd like you to point that out every time you post on the Internet, please. ;)

Slight correction, Electrum = 250+ but RPGNow.com is not the only place it is sold, of course. It also helps to have a handful of five star reviews for the product. It's in the top five (tied for third, last I checked) of PDF products reviewed on EN World. It benefits from all of that, but I think it mainly benefits from being the material that people need to reference most often, and also being the best possible way to reference it electronically. I do fess up, though, that the number of hours that went into making it what it has become (3,500+ pages, thousands and thousands of bookmarks) are so many that even with stellar sales I doubt I've gotten much more the minimum wage as a return. Not that I am complaining, since once I factor in the hours I personally save when using it for myself, I come out waaaaaay ahead of the game. The longer WotC holds off on 4e, the better off I will be.
 

Warlord Ralts said:
Can I get a translation on that?

No.

Warlord Ralts said:
You don't have to ask, but if you print a book using someone's closed content or IP, then you can expect repercussions, and I'll point and mock you when you cry about it.

I -don't- want to use closed content or PI. That's the point. That's why OGC should be clearly labelled. If there's any doubt, I don't use it.

I've sent letters to 3 publishers to clarify OGC questions. I've gotten 3 replies. When I get around to publishing/authoring, I'll absolutely ask about dropping some titles and names so I can say "buy this". I'm not afraid of asking permission. But some statements just make it much harder than others.

I have, onscreen right now, a new pdf from an experienced and respected publisher. The OGC declaration, in summary, says "anything that was OGC originally is OGC here".

That's it. The PI statement warns (not declares; warns) that among other things, the names of monsters, creatures, magic items, and abilities -may- be PI.

I dunno. It's not what I consider clear.

Nell.
 

Nellisir said:
I've sent letters to 3 publishers to clarify OGC questions. I've gotten 3 replies. When I get around to publishing/authoring, I'll absolutely ask about dropping some titles and names so I can say "buy this". I'm not afraid of asking permission.

Let me clarify.

I'm not afraid of asking permission. But I think it's a waste of my time and the publishers time to email a publisher and say "can you point out everything that's OGC and everything that isn't?", because one of two thing is probably true: either a) I can't understand the clear OGC statement, in which case I'm an idiot; or b) the OGC statement isn't clear. I like to assume people are smart, not dumb, so I think unclear statements are deliberately so, and the publisher doesn't want their OGC reused, but can't come out and say so.

Cheers
Nell.
Who is going to be dreadfully late for his own game.
 

I'm jumping in late, and truth be told, I tried to skip over the parts I thought were just snipes at people.....even if some of the ones I did read were amusing. :p

Ahem.

Anyway, has anyone actually suggested this idea?

A membership-based website (membership determined by an annual, low fee) that offers access to OGC of either a single, group, or of ALL publishers found on the world wide web?

Technically, one could be getting the best of both worlds - members have to "pay to see/search/use" (with the proceeds being split up somehow, determined by someone much smarter than myself), but those who want their OGC organized - and searchable - in one place, have access to it. Shoot, you could even create a set of parameters that require the original author's (if there is such a thing) permission to access the blasted mechanic.

Now, before you all start blasting holes into what I just suggested, please realize this: (start Closed Content) This idea I presented - which may or may not have been presented previously, but if was presented previously, was in no way presented in such the manner as I have presently presented it here - has not been researched for effectiveness, been seriously considered for viability, nor intends to be the "solve-all" solution. It is merely one person's - namely Jeremy Peterson's - quick, almost randomly-generated idea based on what little he has found time to read on this rather interesting topic. (end Closed Content ;) )

Oh, and in case you're all wondering...a Great Axe does 1D12 damage. Its okay to say that, cause its OGC, right? :heh:


I think that, if I was on a high horse, or a soap box, I'll step down now. If I wasn't, well....let me maintain my illusion for another 1D4 rounds. Thanks.

Peterson (not looking to get banned, just trying to be funny...banned is funny, though. Not "Heh Heh" funny, but more like "Ha Ha, you fool" funny.....shutting up now.)
 

Mark CMG said:
Electrum = 250+
My bad. I thought Electrum was the highest tier... turns out that is Platinum. 250+ is still a sizeable amount of sales (the highest tier reached by a product I've authored is Copper).
 


Roudi said:
My bad. I thought Electrum was the highest tier... turns out that is Platinum. 250+ is still a sizeable amount of sales


Not a problem. I think you had the important information correct. Plus, as said, when guessing at figures you're bound to be off anyway since RPGNow.com isn't the only place products are sold (though it is still the primary place for a lot of publishers).
 

Roudi said:
My bad. I thought Electrum was the highest tier... turns out that is Platinum. 250+ is still a sizeable amount of sales (the highest tier reached by a product I've authored is Copper).
Go back and read my post on page 2. Platinum is 500+
 

Remove ads

Top