You reap what you sow - GSL.

[Ruin Explorer]

As Mearls is the guy that proposed the OGC Wiki, which wasn't a popular idea among a number of key publishers, I find it far more likely that Monte Cook (or people working for him) were the ones that wrote the OGC Declaration for Iron Heroes. Unless you actually have some proof that Mearls did, that is.

ROFL.

Oh yes because I'm such a big fan of Monte's. Please... This is pompous nonsense on your part. The cold hard fact (at the end of the day, if that's not enough cliche for you!) is that Mike's name is on a product which uses terms precisely like those he claimed to be against, and indeed, it's his most prominent product.

At the very least the "It was someone else's fault!" argument can be used to defend damn near all of the people guilty of this, if you want to try, which rather invalidates it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, if you read my post I said that Mr. Cook is more likely to be to blame, and that it is unlikely he would have given final say to Mr. Mearls. Not sure why these perfectly reasonable comments are drawing ire.

I in no way said that Mr. Mearls had no influence at all. I don't see how you could read my comments that way. I was responding to someone who implied that Mr. Mearls had the final determination as to the OGC declaration of Iron Heroes. We have no way of knowing that, and it's a bold assertion given the circumstances.

At least this is some hilarious stuff, all the overwrought language and elaborate "but you could be wrongs" over one human being's apparent hypocrisy. I love this idea of Mike going "But Monte, that's against everything I said the OGC stood for!" and Monte's all "Mike, you're a loose cannon! I'm gonna publish this the way I want to publish it and ta hell with the OGC!" <chomps on cigar>

Mike reads these boards. If we're very lucky, he may clear this up and thus we may be spared the further pathetic shameful hilarity of this "debate".

 

[Fifth Element]

At least this is some hilarious stuff, all the overwrought language and elaborate "but you could be wrongs" over one human being's apparent hypocrisy. I love this idea of Mike going "But Monte, that's against everything I said the OGC stood for!" and Monte's all "Mike, you're a loose cannon! I'm gonna publish this the way I want to publish it and ta hell with the OGC!"

You read my posts however you want to, I guess, but the only thing I'm asserting is that generally a publisher is more likely to have final say on OGC declarations than an author.

You have some imagination there, by the way, if you read the above in my posts.

 

[The Little Raven]

Oh yes because I'm such a big fan of Monte's. Please... This is pompous nonsense on your part.

Pot: Kettle, you're black, dude.

Calling someone a fanboi for presenting a logical explanation of the author-publisher relationship is pretty f-cking pompous. Publishers have final control over products. Editors and publishers often make changes to products after the author hands over his work.

The cold hard fact (at the end of the day, if that's not enough cliche for you!) is that Mike's name is on a product which uses terms precisely like those he claimed to be against, and indeed, it's his most prominent product.

Y'know what's funny? The fact that you ignore the big MONTE COOK PRESENTS on the cover. This does, indeed, mean that Monte's name is on the product, especially since he's the publisher.

The publisher is the one ultimately responsible for the content of the products he publishes.

At the very least the "It was someone else's fault!" argument can be used to defend damn near all of the people guilty of this, if you want to try, which rather invalidates it.

Maybe you should learn a little more about how freelancing in the industry works, and what the publisher is allowed to do with your work (hint: anything they want). A number of companies are notorious for changing authors' work after it has been submitted (Palladium and White Wolf, for example).

 

[jdrakeh]

We're talking about a company that probably had less than 5 employees, not a vast corporation ruled by unchangeable draconian policy. I would call the idea that Mike had no way to influence this . . . unlikely.

That's a more reasonable assertion, I think. I don't doubt that he may have had some influence in this regard. That said, I still think that since Mike didn't publish Iron Heroes, the final decision regarding such things was likely not his to make. I mean, that seems pretty reasonable, right? Were you ever allowed to dictate to White Wolf how to distribute/market/publish books that you wrote for in a 'work for hire' capacity?

 

[jmucchiello]

The cold hard fact (at the end of the day, if that's not enough cliche for you!) is that Mike's name is on a product

Which product are you talking about? Is it "Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes"? Is that the product? The Iron Heroes OGC declaration is identical in format to every other Malhavoc OGC declaration. And said declarations are often furnished by OGC zealots as prime examples of crippled OGC. I'd say Mike had little to do with the OGC declaration for that book.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Smells like fanboi nonsense to me,

That's exactly what your post sounds like, except directed towards Monte instead of Mike.

Hey, tweedledee, tweedledum, get a room, okay?

I assume the publisher would be the party designating OGC and PI, as they're the entity that held the Copyright on the work in question (it appears to have since been transferred to Adam Windsor).

Usually, it's the publisher. Malhavoc specifically is known for having a few more exceptions in their Section 15 than some other companies (reserving all creature and spell names in some situations, IIRC). It's not exactly crippling, necessarily, but if anyone were to do it, I wouldn't be surprised if it's Malhavoc.

 

[jdrakeh]

Usually, it's the publisher.

I know

 

[Particle_Man]

Also, wasn't Mearls writing Iron Heroes in a very narrow window before taking a job at Wotc? I doubt he would have had much time to decide OGC policy on Iron Heroes, by the time it was published, he was gone, man.

 

[eyebeams]

That's a more reasonable assertion, I think. I don't doubt that he may have had some influence in this regard. That said, I still think that since Mike didn't publish Iron Heroes, the final decision regarding such things was likely not his to make. I mean, that seems pretty reasonable, right? Were you ever allowed to dictate to White Wolf how to distribute/market/publish books that you wrote for in a 'work for hire' capacity?

I never meant to imply he had the final word. Do I think he probably could have had a bunch of it opened up? Pretty much. But I doubt the idea was even on his mind at the time. Design is on Design Time. Internet is on Internet Time.

What I'm saying is that a guy who produces a lot of effectively closed content that can't be wiki'd telling guys who released 100% open content they're Not Doing it Right for not being enthusiastic about having their stuff wiki'd is not arguing from a empathetic position. If he'd come at it from the perspective of someone who'd opened up and posted content and had data and evidence of his convictions, then I think publishers would have been more receptive -- and that telling people who at least believe that equates to a serious business risk pretty much demands this.

As for how WFH creators influence other tasks at WW, that's an interesting subject. Marketing takes cues from creative output, and the degree to which it moves from brain to printed product isn't easy to describe, but it's not the "writing to order" many people imagine it is.