Faust-
I'm worried that your repository of stuff will lead to
less open content.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For example, in Crucible of Freya there are two new
magic items and two new deities. One magic item is a
candle of defiling (a favorite of evil clerics). This
might be how the entry on your clearinghouse would
look for that item in an abbreviated format:
Candle of Defiling: an evil item that allows evil
clerics to desecrate shrines to other deities. See The
Crucible of Freya, (c)2000 Clark Peterson, Necromancer
Games. [contact information]
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.
Improtant point: I'm not denying your right to post
all of the open content as it is, not in the fashion I
am urging above. The content is open. You are
certainly free to compile it.
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).
The fact remains that the profit motive will drive
people to create products and thus increase open
content. We dont want to destroy that.
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.
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?
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.
Faust, maybe you could do this. Give all d20 producers
a chance to play ball and to agree to provide the open
content in full to any d20 producers who ask for it,
even if they havent purchased the product. That
benefits producers so that they dont have to buy every
damn product just to see if they want to use the open
content.
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.
This is an interesting consideration, in my opinion.
And a paradoxical one. There has to be a solution to
this potential dilemma.
Clark
=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
