Doug- Here is the real issue: give the publishers a business reason to do it. Right now there isnt a good one.
Clark --- Doug Meerschaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had cause to think about this today. There are > other forums where > this could be discussed, but all the key players are > already here... > > Every few months someone comes up with the (hardly > obvious) idea of > "lets make an OGC database." The actual work > sputters out due to lack > of support, both from volunteers and from the > industry. The downside of > a database is clear--professionals risk losing their > exclusivity for > their work. > > However, I think that most of the database projects > fail not because > they aren't a good idea, but because that's all that > they are--an idea > looking for a cause. It's sort of like pure HTML > compliance--sure, it's > a great ideal, but there's no real benefit to it. > (To advert > rebuttals--it's a hypothetical point. If you're > smart enough to argue > for Pure HTML compliance, then you're smart enough > to find a different > example of where idealism and practicality aren't > matched.) > > So, if a database is to work, it needs to serve a > purpose. This purpose > certainly can't be "we want a cheap way to get OGC." > The folk who want > a database need to identify the problems it can > solve, and design it so > that it does solve the problems--and that the work > and risk needed to > support it are outweighted by these benefits. > > Some problems that a database could solve: > > _Who wrote what?_ : The OGL doesn't have any easy > way to deliniate who > wrote what OGC. A downstream writer needs to > purchase and search > through every work mentioned in Section 15 to find > the original > source. A database could solve this by listing the > OGC, the common > name, and places where it appears--including the > original author, > allowing for an enhancement of the marketing value > of S.15. > > _Is this properly quoted?_ : Similarly to the > above, OGC "in the wild" > can be overquoted (include non-OGC) or misquoted > (missing all or part of > its S.15.) Having a public and credible source to > direct freelancers to > will nicely filter out their indescretions, give an > essentially > zero-cost check of their quoting, and give the > author a theoretical > chance to object to the quoting. > > _Can I use this? (Yes) Can I use this? (Yes) Can I > use this? (Yes)_ : > Every professional company, from WotC to Mongoose to > ENWorld, apparantly > gets requests from individuals for private use, and > for clarification on > the extent of an OGC entry. While I'm sure that > game designers have > nothing but free time to talk to their downstream > derivitors, I suspect > that they could gain some goodwill (and free time) > by being able to go > to a public and easily searchable forum to answer > questions about their > product. > > > I know that a database could solve these problems, > given sufficient > mass. Especially if it's trademark-opt-in only, > directs the casual > viewer to a marketplace to purchase any source work > contained therein, > and gives a recorded and archived forum for a > publisher to make > statements and clarifications about their work. > > > Hmm... that could have been better written. Ah, > well--either you > believe me, or you don't. ;) > > > DM > > P.S: For those of us who ARE interested in a OGC > database, perhaps we > can stop re-inventing the wheel and get together, > just for a little bit, > and pool our resources? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
