Clark, I've been keeping a close eye on this issue and I hade to disagree
with your stance. I understand where you are coming from and I can see how
a complete Reference Document for a company's OGC could be seen as a threat.
But you simply can't restrict these from being created. I can't help but
agree with Faust on this, repositories like this will exist and I think they
MUST exist if the Open Gaming Movement is ever going to gain any real
support from the Gaming Community. If it were my company (and with any luck
it will be some day) that were producing products under the OGL, I would
want to be the first to compile my own OGC to make sure that no one else
does a bad job of it. What you are, in effect, saying by the attitude on
your message is that you don't want to give other OGL developers the same
rights to use your OGC as WotC is giving you to use theirs. Where do you
find WotC's OGC? In the D20SRD which is posted on a website for the whole
world to see. Granted, right now it's not on their website but it's also
not finalized yet. To do any less is to work against the interests of the
OGL development community and against the spirit of the OGL. You can't
freely use someone else's OGC and then try to prevent others the same
freedom without appearing to be a hypocrit. Please remember, this is not a
personal attack. It is simply my view on the issue.
You seem to be saying that the entirety of the value of an OGL product is
the OGC.
>I'm worried that your repository of stuff will lead to
>less open content.
I don't buy the "More freely available OGC leads to less OGC" theory. More
OGC that is available, the more incentive there is for developers to use it.
>If you post all the open content from a product then
>that will render the commercial version of the product
>of less value (or no value if you can get it all for
>free on the net) and may lead to people not offering
>new things as open content. Why make it open if people
>can then just get it on the net for free and
>circumvent buying the product? Thats the problem. I
>think the response would be to make stuff closed that
>would otherwise be open.
The value of an OGL product is not the OGC alone. It also gains value from
the graphics, layout, production quality, Product Identity and Trademarks
that make it up as well as those who purchase it and give it good reviews.
Sure someone can get the basic text of the PHB off the net, but how useful
is it to them in a text document with no page numbers to refer to, no
graphics, no layout and no character creation/advancement rules. Doesn't
sound very useful to me as a player or as a DM. The value of a product
comes form the sum of the aspects that make it up. Most people will find
that it is more useful to purcahse the actual product than to use the same
information downloaded from the net. There are always going to be people
who do not want to pay for your product, no matter what it is, but they
would get ahold of it for free, no matter what you do. These people won't
be customers anyway so you're not losing anything by them downloading your
OGC from a website.
>I'm not saying you can't do this with open content.
>You can, clearly. It is open content. The question is,
>should you? And if you do, what will the result be? I
>am worried the result will be less open content for
>the reason stated above.
Yes, you should. The result is that OGL developers will have easier access
to your OGC and be more inclined to produce their own OGC. Some people will
use the material without ever buying the product it came from, but there's
nothing that says you are required to purchase an OGL product to derive OGC
from it. You've even stated that you would send copies of the OGC to people
who request it so why bog down the process with this limitation?
>What is the point of a repository such as the one you
>propose? To help d20 designers, I imagine, not to
>defeat open content. d20 developers are not aided if
>this clearing house discourages open content.
Again, I don't think this will happen unless people start producting OGL
products with no value beyond the open content, in which case they probably
don't deserve to make any money off of them. If future OGL developers
continue to produce products of a quality level anywhere near the level set
by pioneers, such as yourself, I can't see this being a problem.
>How about this...lets do something like the short list
>of spells in the spell table in the PHB. Each one of
>the listed spells contains the spell name and a
>one-line description.
>
>Do the same thing with open content. Make a list of
>open items, spells, creatures, etc. Add a short
>description (like the short spell description). Plus,
>direct the potential d20 designer to the source of the
>open content.
This is an interesting idea. I think it would serve better as a quick
reference for OGL developers so they could get a brief overview without
having to read through the entire content os a Reference Document to find
what they need.
>You dont list all the stats so that it doesnt prevent
>any would-be purchasers from buying the product. What
>it does is give designers a list to read from to see
>if there is open content they might be interested in
>using without having to buy the product. They can then
>email the (c) holder for the full open content. We
>should all agree to provide the information to anyone
>who emails us (more about this below). This meets the
>two goals of providing a good clearinghouse of open
>content yet at the same time does not discourage the
>creation of more open content by making it all free.
A nice theory for the present when there are only a few OGL but who wants to
deal with answering hundreds of requests a day, a week or even a month as
the number of OGL developers grows? With this method, what would prevent
any person who just wanted to use that OGC to request the content without
buying the product it came from? Now not only are they using the material
without giving you any profit, but it is taking up your time to provite them
with the information.
>I just wouldnt want to see something that has a good
>purpose (compiling open material for d20 designers)
>turn into a bad thing (a place for losers to download
>chunks of product for free, thus killing the
>commercial incentive for people to create open
>content).
Under your proposed method, these losers could still get the material but at
a greater cost to you because it is taking up your valuable time to answer
their requests. I can only see this sort of closedness as a hinderance to
the developer.
>The fact remains that the profit motive will drive
>people to create products and thus increase open
>content. We dont want to destroy that.
We also don't want to create additional unnecessary hinderances to potential
OGL developers who may get fed up with it and turn away from Open Gaming.
>These are just concerns. I would like to hear what
>everyone else thinks. And I hope we can get past the
>"its open so its open, if you dont like it dont make
>it open" argument because that is the core of the
>problem--people might not make stuff open and I think
>we all want more open content.
I can understand the reasons for your concerns. I just feel that you are
overly converned and maybe a bit pessimistic which is your perogative.
>For example, I want Atlas games to put out their book
>of spells or book of monsters (just like I wanted SSS
>to do the CC and to do Relics and Rituals). That
>increases open content and enriches d20 and D&D. But
>what incentive does Atlas have (or SSS) to do that
>(taping professional designers and writers, paying
>them and putting out a cool book) if it will just get
>posted on the net for free?
They have the incentive of customers who are willing to pay for good
quality, well layed out products, product identity which cannot be leagally
reproduces on the net without theri permission, name recognition from the
Penumbra line, brand recognition from the D20 logo and the support of the
constantly growing Open Gaming Community.
>I think everyone will agree (even if you arent the
>biggest fan of the CC) that it is cool that third
>parties can put out books like the CC which add to and
>enrich D&D. Not just some college student posting a
>new prestiege class, but a whole professionally
>created book chock full of new monsters and feats,
>etc. That really adds to D&D and d20.
I can't agrue with that. :)
>For those publishers who agree to play ball like this,
>list the open content in the "abbreviated" format I
>proposed above. But if a producer wont play ball, go
>ahead an post the full open content from the product.
>
>That gives all d20 producers a chance to work together
>without destroying the profit incentive to create new
>open content.
Again, I don't care for this approach, I believe that it has far more
potential to discourage OGL developers than any potential benefit it might
give. I can't believe that the profit incentive for creating new open
content is destroyed by providing ease of access to OGC for developers. If
all OGL products were 100% open, then I could understand the cause for major
concern, but then I doubt many people would be interested in the OGL.
Chris
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
