Open Gaming Should Mean Open

[mamba]

Instead of reinventing the wheel over and over again because some subclasses (or classes like artificer) are closed content, publishers can built upon the set pieces and support them.

if I were a 3pp, why would I reinvent the Artificer instead of some entirely new class. This seems to be an an argument for having all classes available (so you can create subclasses for all of them) more than for having all content available.

 

[Reynard]

As a professional writer your demands that my content be available to everyone for free means I can no longer be a professional. Virality doesn't necessarily mean it's good for the people who labor.

So, you are saying that if you actively choose to sell a piece of work that is based on material from an open license, and you yourself publish your work under the open license, you don't want your work to be open because you think that will harm your ability to make a living? I am not sure I follow. Once again, I refer you to the people and organizations that have successfully embraced Open Gaming as professionals.

 

[Reynard]

I think folks mix up two concepts here. SRD = developer tool. Free rules document = awesome. They are not the same thing, and they have different functions.

It can be frustrating as a designer to have to reinvent the wheel because WotC decided to leave something out that is fairly commonly in use. That is a development issue, not a "awesome free stuff!" issue.

 

[Morrus]

It can be frustrating as a designer to have to reinvent the wheel because WotC decided to leave something out that is fairly commonly in use. That is a development issue, not a "awesome free stuff!" issue.

What is the use case you’re imagining here? If you’re writing a 5E compatible product, why do you need to reprint the core subclasses?

 

[Reynard]

What is the use case you’re imagining here? If you’re writing a 5E compatible product, why do you need to reprint the core subclasses?

I am not imagining anything. I have done freelance work for 5E books where the leads wanted stat blocks for NPCs with subclasses that weren't included in the SRD. That is a huge PITA, increasing my effort and time investment without adding a single penny to my paycheck.

 

[Morrus]

I am not imagining anything. I have done freelance work for 5E books where the leads wanted stat blocks for NPCs with subclasses that weren't included in the SRD. That is a huge PITA, increasing my effort and time investment without adding a single penny to my paycheck.

But 5E NPCs don’t include subclasses. They use the same format as monsters.

I suppose if a publisher wanted to make some pregenerated characters they might need that text. But simply rewording it isn’t particularly arduous.

As for why you weren’t getting paid for your work, I don’t have any insight into that.

 

[bedir than]

So, you are saying that if you actively choose to sell a piece of work that is based on material from an open license, and you yourself publish your work under the open license, you don't want your work to be open because you think that will harm your ability to make a living? I am not sure I follow. Once again, I refer you to the people and organizations that have successfully embraced Open Gaming as professionals.

No. I haven't said that. I'll use the CC BY because it's a stable license with clear rules and enables a creator to control their creations in ways that the ORC doesn't seem to.

And I'd refer you to the fact that Paizo doesn't pay a living wage in the state where they are headquartered.

 

[Reynard]

But 5E NPCs don’t include subclasses. They use the same format as monsters.

I suppose if a publisher wanted to make some pregenerated characters they might need that text. But simply rewording it isn’t particularly arduous.

This project did indeed include pregenerated characters.

As for why you weren’t getting paid for your work, I don’t have any insight into that.

I got paid -- by the word, as is usual in this business. So having to do that extra work does not mean extra money.

 

[Reynard]

No. I haven't said that. I'll use the CC BY because it's a stable license with clear rules and enables a creator to control their creations in ways that the ORC doesn't seem to.

And that's your right. All I am saying is that I think people who use Open material to profit should Open their stuff in return.

And I'd refer you to the fact that Paizo doesn't pay a living wage in the state where they are headquartered.

Nice irrelevant shot there. Do you think I am stanning for Paizo? I'm just pointing out they have embraced actual Open gaming, and that is a good and ethical thing from my perspective.

 

[Morrus]

I got paid -- by the word, as is usual in this business. So having to do that extra work does not mean extra money.

Well, this is way off topic for the thread, but you're saying you'd have preferred to copy and paste stuff rather than write stuff for your client, given that they paid you the same either way? I'm just not sure I see what the problem is. Writing words you're being paid for isn't 'extra' work it's just 'the' work. I'm not sure it's WotC's job to write your commissions for you.

I think I'm just misunderstanding some context here.