TheRPGSite

This might be a crazy-ass idea, but I've been looking at the d6 License, currently up for sale.

I'm a big proponent of Open d6, and was really looking forward to that.  I think d6 is a great system with a lot of flexibility.  In any case, there are so many gamers here that I really esteem--James, Doc, jrients, clash, Bill, and so many others.  

What I am thinking is that we see who'd be interested in being part-owner, determine what shares would be and all that, and make an offer for the d6 License.  In essence, we'd all be stockholders--electing our officers, deciding who's going to run things, and basically run a fan-based company on the principles of openness, open gaming, open ideas, great customer service, and making what gamers want.

I'm not saying we'd make a dime; but we could keep d6 going, ensure the license is open, and maybe make some things that would make folks happy.

Clearly, there's a lot more to think about on this and even more to hash out, but think: we could have a part in saving something for everything I think deserves to be saved.  Open licenses--new games out there--just read this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11226)!  The ideas are there, the talent is there, and I think the desire is, too.

In the end, we could have a stake in keep a dream alive.  And making whup-ass gaming products by fans, for fans.  Introductory games, classics revisited--open submissions!

So, I know there's a lot of items to hash out and plenty to think on, but who wants to get out there with me and give it a shot?

I'm nowhere near to being one of this site's great luminaries, but I'd contribute.

Aye, I'd contribute. Great idea Zach. Allows each of us to do some part, even if a small part, to foster the dream.

Grubman over at tbp said,

Quote from: grubmanWell, I have to admit I find this thread sort of depressing, and a bit disgusting. Hellsreach was a fairly regular poster on this site, and while we all bump heads sometimes, he was always a pretty stand up guy who put his love of the hobby slightly before his business suit. To see some people brushing off the demise of his company (and to an extent some of his dreams) and circling his properties like vultures really makes everyone look crass and self centered. Lets show some class and respect for a fellow gamer who tried to bring back the properties he loved, and to share them with all of us.

If you are of a serious business mind, get in touch and make a serious offer, and stop with the stupid "I'll throw in a few bucks" comments. This is a real legal business transaction.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Wolfen Pundit  View Post
Let's talk hard numbers. What would be an appropriate amount for just the D6 license?

Is $10,000 anywhere close? $15K?

Because, let's be honest, from a strictly financial viewpoint, you'd be throwing your money into a sinkhole.

But I would consider it if I had a dedicated partner to go in with. :D

QuoteOriginally Posted by Endless Flight  View Post
$10,000??

I think you need to take at least a zero off of that.

As someone who has tried to acquire a few properties myself, I would suspect that the D6 property is worth anywhere from $3,000-25,000. Hellsreach is just the kind of guy who might sell it for less to someone who has proven to be serious about their love for the system and devotion to the hobby, just because that is the kind of guy he is. But, I've heard that SJG is poking around for the property, so you'll be competing with the big dogs (if that info is correct). $1,000 is pocket change, even for a small-time printer (hell, it cost $150 just to get art for my 32 page lulu book...and that was cheap for the quantity I got, some illustrators charge $60-$150 for a color cover alone), and so I wouldn't insult Hellsreach and waste his time with such silly offers. You'll also most likely want to pay a lawyer to dot your I's and cross your t's, so throw in a couple hundred more for that.

Ah crap. I get his point, but I think over here the OP is a serious one.

Most people who've posted about d6 seem to like the rules, but don't think that it has much 'brand value'.

Given that, is it worth considering a 'clone'?

I've never been a D6 fan. But if a group of people from this site were to purchase the license as a group, I would be willing to create a forum specifically dedicated to the game on this site for the purposes of discussion, promotion, and development of new D6 games/settings.

RPGPundit

I can't see SJG wanting WEG.

d6?  If SJ wanted a simple d6 based game it wouldn't take much to trim down GURPS for the job.

TORG?  If SJ wanted a gonzo multigenre mashup he could easily commission one for GURPS.

Blood Shadows?  If SJ wanted a mystical noir setting he could ask Ken Hite to write one (how cool would that be?)

Master Book?  If SJ wanted a detailed universal system...

Given how little SJ is willing to direct resources in the direction of GURPS I can't imagine he'd want to take on WEG.  Maybe he's a huge closet Blood Shadows fan or something but beyond that I can't see the motivation being there.

I'm afraid $10000 is a pretty hefty sum for a fan buyout process.  I suppose it's pretty unlikely that Hellsreach would cut a deal with his Septimus preorder crowd to give them shares in a d6 open fan buyout even if that would virtually cut the price tag in half.

edit*Junta...Good lord what was I thinking...SJ probably came in his pants when he heard WEG was for sale...on the other hand he might well sell off the other properties cheap.

wither Bug Eyed Monsters?

Does WEG have other board games?

I'd be up for participating in this but I don't know if the geezer would go for it.

Got any business heads in the collective?

Zachary, while I'm not in a financial position to put money in the pot for the IP, consider me in as a writer.

Pax et bonum,

Dale Meier

Count me in as one of those "supportive of your idea, but can't give money," types.

Well, on the subject of the license, after some preliminary talks, I think our initial bid would need to be around $2-3k.  That's something that could conceivably be divvied up into $100 stakes or so.

So, publishers/writers/business men out there?  We'd need a public face, writers, layout folks--I know as I keep saying there's a lot to hammer out, but where's the interest level?

Colour me interested, with quite a few caveats.

Another point that i think would have to be looked at despite the logistics and business side, is thinking about what we'd do with it. I think that it'd be a good idea to include a rough 2 year 'plan' as to what we'd release and include that in any bid that (probably won't ;)) be made.

If the rpgsite were to gain this property, I'd support it with some volunteer work. However, at this point - and it's early days of course - I struggle to see some sort of collective emerging from here to put up a viable bid.  

In my experience of amateur and collective efforts of this nature, they only succeed when driven by a motivated and talented leader. We need a person with vision and drive to organise the whole thing. We need to see a serious proposal.

Quote from: The_Shadow;227065In my experience of amateur and collective efforts of this nature, they only succeed when driven by a motivated and talented leader.

You're right, we need to have a battle royale at Gencon, winner gets final say in D6 decisions.
 
I've heard that zachary has wickedly pointed elbows.
 
I can probably go in for a $100 or so if things coalesce into a real deal. A possibility is to vote a chair with votes based on shares.  Ideally, a couple thousand more than the purchase price would be raised.  Non-shareholders could contribute and kibbitz but the final say in things would have to come down the chair or a vote to keep things from bogging down and going off in disparate directions.

You can count me in Zachary.

The important thing to find out is wether or not all of the d6 IPs come in the deal. I'd imagine they would be, but it should be clarified. Junta, D6, and Torg are not the biggest IPs but they do have some value and we could keep them alive via PDF and Lulu and maybe make some profit on them.

Heh.  Interestingly enough we had the same idea over at Spooky Outhouse:
http://www.spookyouthouse.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=168

(That's the forum setup for the podcast by the Fear the Boot alumni members)

Quote from: StuartWe should take up a collection. :D

Or form some sort of unwieldy company where everyone who puts in $20 gets to be a member / officer.

Zachary, how are you planning on collecting up everyone's money for this? Fundable.org seems to be a sensible way to do this sort of thing, since they only take people's money if the pre-arranged target is met, but they take a 10% cut; on the other hand, if you cut out the middleman and just collect money yourself via PayPal you'll have to spend a while making sure everyone gets a refund if the deal falls through.

FWIW, I'm willing to throw in $50 (maybe more if the deal looks especially likely to succeed) and I'm also willing to do some writing for it in my spare time. But the money hinges on us having a reliable method of a) getting the money to where it needs to be and b) getting our money back if it all comes to nothing.

Quote from: Mcrow;227067Junta, D6, and Torg are not the biggest IPs but they do have some value and we could keep them alive via PDF and Lulu and maybe make some profit on them.

Are we talking about buying D6 or buying WEG? The latter might be more of a headache despite the other licences as it might mean assuming various debts.
 
Even without the former licenses, could you get away with doing a D6 space opera and a D6 paranormal investigators? That way you could recycle the best mechanics and older players would get the connection wthout those license fees and royalties.

I think if we are going to take a serious shot at this we need to decide on atleast a basic structure.

$50/share. Owning one share gives you a vote when voting for the board of directors, but does not give you general voting rights.

Contributors who own at least 2 shares gain the additional right to vote on all voting situations that come to the board.

The board is elected from all shareholders with two or more shares owned. Each share owner gets one vote.

All matters involving creating products,  licenses, and expendatures of company money will be voted on.

It is the job of the board to manage the day to day operations though they can enlist others to assist them.

Just my suggestion.

Quote from: Nicephorus;227073Are we talking about buying D6 or buying WEG? The latter might be more of a headache despite the other licences as it might mean assuming various debts.
 
Even without the former licenses, could you get away with doing a D6 space opera and a D6 paranormal investigators? That way you could recycle the best mechanics and older players would get the connection wthout those license fees and royalties.

That's what I'm asking. Gibson many not be willing to sell each unit seperately. You might have to buy WEG just to get d6, which would probably be out of our league.

Quote from: Mcrow;227076That's what I'm asking. Gibson many not be willing to sell each unit seperately. You might have to buy WEG just to get d6, which would probably be out of our league.

Gibson has specifically said on the WEG forums that he anticipates that the properties will get sold off piece by piece to a bunch of different companies. So he seems entirely open to the idea.

Quote from: Warthur;227078Gibson has specifically said on the WEG forums that he anticipates that the properties will get sold off piece by piece to a bunch of different companies. So he seems entirely open to the idea.

Good, that makes things easier.

So if people put in their $, we buy d6, and d6 gets turned into Open d6 -- what would the company, board, el presidente, etc be responsibe for doing?

If it's a honest to goodness open system, rather than a d20/GSL type license, what ongoing duties and work would the "company" be performing?

Honestly curious. :)

Quote from: Stuart;227084So if people put in their $, we buy d6, and d6 gets turned into Open d6 -- what would the company, board, el presidente, etc be responsibe for doing?

If it's a honest to goodness open system, rather than a d20/GSL type license, what ongoing duties and work would the "company" be performing?

Honestly curious. :)

Yeah, that is the question. If you plan to just make it open, then people would be throwing their money down the tube. Might as well setup a donation fund.

Quote from: Stuart;227084So if people put in their $, we buy d6, and d6 gets turned into Open d6 -- what would the company, board, el presidente, etc be responsibe for doing?
 
If it's a honest to goodness open system, rather than a d20/GSL type license, what ongoing duties and work would the "company" be performing?
 
Honestly curious. :)

That's a good question.  Would you even want to go through the trouble of an open system?  Maybe just publish D6 books - it would be easier without competition and the company could always work with anyone who has a good idea.  Would the rights for any D6 books (without lapsed IP) come with the purchase?  Those could be sold in pdf and pod to get money back.

Quote from: Nicephorus;227091That's a good question.  Would you even want to go through the trouble of an open system?  Maybe just publish D6 books - it would be easier without competition and the company could always work with anyone who has a good idea.  Would the rights for any D6 books (without lapsed IP) come with the purchase?  Those could be sold in pdf and pod to get money back.

I would say we would have to not make it totally open but instead maybe have a small license fee. I would think that if you buy the rights to d6 you would get the files for all of the d6 brand books (space,fantasy, adventure..ect). Yes, those could still make some money back through POD and PDF but I suspect that the sale would include all of the books he has already printed. It sounds like there are a considerable amount of books left.

Quote from: Mcrow;227094I would think that if you buy the rights to d6 you would get the files for all of the d6 brand books (space,fantasy, adventure..ect).

I would think so but those details would have to nailed down prior to handing over money.  It wouldn't be the first time that someone bought less than they thought they did.

Quote from: Nicephorus;227095I would think so but those details would have to nailed down prior to handing over money.  It wouldn't be the first time that someone bought less than they thought they did.

The first thing everyone here needs to agree on must be what the deal must include for it to be a go.

For me it would have to include:

All the files./rights for the D6 brand books and all hard copies of them he has.

Quote from: dar;227008Grubman over at tbp said,

I think Grubman is incorrect.  

Emotional attachment != value in the business world.  The value of a property is directly related to how much potential revenue you expect to get from it.  

Here's a quick way to figure out how much a product is worth, commonly used as a rough estimation tool in business (for stable, established products): take the average of the last 5 years worth of profit and multiply it by 10 and add the salvage value of the assets.

Now, Eric has flat-out said that D6 has done nothing but lose money.  He even wanted to release it as a free, open system.  So all D6 is really worth is salvage value.

I think the $1,000 figure is a much more accurate estimation of the D6 value (if not lower) than Grubman's figure.  In fact, the idea that a product line that has repeatedly lost money over the years being worth $25K is so laughable, I can't believe Grubman suggested it.

EDIT: OK, after reading the thread a bit more, I see Grubman meant $25K for all of WEG.  That still sounds high, considering almost all of the properties have repeatedly lost money, but I'm unfamiliar with Junta and how well it sells.

Game mechanics can't be copyrighted, only the stylistic representation of them- i.e the "fluff". Just look at the recent discussion of the various products coming out that are compatible with 4th Edition D&D that don't have any official sanction from WotC.

The point is, there's nothing stopping any of us from whipping up our own D6 compatible material right now.  True, you can't start selling Star Wars stuff (unless it was a parody), but even if you bought the official D6 rules or WEG, you couldn't make new Star Wars stuff anyway.  

I guess I'm a bit confused about what buying the rules set would allow you to do that you can't do right now.

Quote from: jgants;227099I think Grubman is incorrect.  

Emotional attachment != value in the business world.  The value of a property is directly related to how much potential revenue you expect to get from it.  

Here's a quick way to figure out how much a product is worth, commonly used as a rough estimation tool in business (for stable, established products): take the average of the last 5 years worth of profit and multiply it by 10 and add the salvage value of the assets.

Now, Eric has flat-out said that D6 has done nothing but lose money.  He even wanted to release it as a free, open system.  So all D6 is really worth is salvage value.

I think the $1,000 figure is a much more accurate estimation of the D6 value (if not lower) than Grubman's figure.  In fact, the idea that a product line that has repeatedly lost money over the years being worth $25K is so laughable, I can't believe Grubman suggested it.

EDIT: OK, after reading the thread a bit more, I see Grubman meant $25K for all of WEG.  That still sounds high, considering almost all of the properties have repeatedly lost money, but I'm unfamiliar with Junta and how well it sells.

Yeah, that was my thought $1k-$2k including all the previously printed copies of the books. Nothing more. From his rant it looks like he sold about 600 copies/year so has abou 2500 of each core book left.

Quote from: wulfgar;227101Game mechanics can't be copyrighted, only the stylistic representation of them- i.e the "fluff". Just look at the recent discussion of the various products coming out that are compatible with 4th Edition D&D that don't have any official sanction from WotC.

The point is, there's nothing stopping any of us from whipping up our own D6 compatible material right now.  True, you can't start selling Star Wars stuff (unless it was a parody), but even if you bought the official D6 rules or WEG, you couldn't make new Star Wars stuff anyway.  

I guess I'm a bit confused about what buying the rules set would allow you to do that you can't do right now.

That is a good point Wulfgar.

It might be cheaper to pay someone, say Hinterwelt or the like to come up with a knock-off system.

Quote from: wulfgar;227101I guess I'm a bit confused about what buying the rules set would allow you to do that you can't do right now.

(assuming ownership of old books)
1. Right to call it official D6 on whatever product the company makes
 
2.  right to copy large amounts of text from existing products without fear of issues.
 
3. Rights to sell older books.  It would be good to know the sales figures of books/pdfs of the generic D6 items.  It looks like the pdfs are way overpriced.

d6 does have some brand recognition, no?  It might not be a white-hot property at the moment, but there are enough people who love the system that, with proper marketing and management, it could become a viable line.

I look at the d6 books I picked up on its re-release, and they're bland.  The covers aren't all that exciting, the interiors are poorly done (the background shading in the Fantasy book makes text near the bottom of the page nigh unreadable), the text is full of typos and bad grammar that even MS Word could have picked up, and there was no reason to release three different core books for the system.

I'd be willing to stake $100, even a bit more, to see if it could be done properly.

(edit: pretty much what Nicephorous said...I take too long to post)

Quote from: Mcrow;227097The first thing everyone here needs to agree on must be what the deal must include for it to be a go.

For me it would have to include:

All the files./rights for the D6 brand books and all hard copies of them he has.

That sounds like a fair proposition.

Quote from: Nicephorus;227107(assuming ownership of old books)
1. Right to call it official D6 on whatever product the company makes
 
2.  right to copy large amounts of text from existing products without fear of issues.

Yeah, these are the two biggest things. It would be a lot easier to reproduce the d6 books.
 

Quote3. Rights to sell older books.  It would be good to know the sales figures of books/pdfs of the generic D6 items.  It looks like the pdfs are way overpriced.

Eric said that he has sold 2500 of each of the core books in 4 year so that's about 625 books/ year.

PDFs, Fantasy & Space are silver picks on rpgnow. From what i've been able to find out by talking to some publishers, a silve pick would mean that in four years he sold about 150 copies each of those. Adventure seems to be the better seller and is an electrum pick is probably over 200 copies.

Quote from: KenHR;227108there was no reason to release three different core books for the system.

I'd be willing to stake $100, even a bit more, to see if it could be done properly.

(edit: pretty much what Nicephorous said...I take too long to post)

I agree, if a new printing of the system were to be done it should be a one volume rulebook with possibley some PDF supplements with more genre specific stuff in them. Reprinting the basic rules in all three books was bone-headed and was part of the huge printing costs that sunk the ship.

I'd be interested if:

i) A deal can be worked out which is better value than doing a clone, and

ii) If it's run as a worker cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Cooperative) (briefly, one member = one, non-transferable share = one vote).

No doubt there'd be more people on the WEG forum interested in this idea?

What if an existing company wanted to buy d6, and intended to support it?

ie are people only interested in buying d6 'to keep it alive', or even if it was going to be bought by someone anyway?

Quote from: jgants;227099I think Grubman is incorrect.  

Emotional attachment != value in the business world.  The value of a property is directly related to how much potential revenue you expect to get from it.  

Here's a quick way to figure out how much a product is worth, commonly used as a rough estimation tool in business (for stable, established products): take the average of the last 5 years worth of profit and multiply it by 10 and add the salvage value of the assets.

Now, Eric has flat-out said that D6 has done nothing but lose money.  He even wanted to release it as a free, open system.  So all D6 is really worth is salvage value.

I think the $1,000 figure is a much more accurate estimation of the D6 value (if not lower) than Grubman's figure.  In fact, the idea that a product line that has repeatedly lost money over the years being worth $25K is so laughable, I can't believe Grubman suggested it.

EDIT: OK, after reading the thread a bit more, I see Grubman meant $25K for all of WEG.  That still sounds high, considering almost all of the properties have repeatedly lost money, but I'm unfamiliar with Junta and how well it sells.

I am with jgants here. Listen up people, he speaks reason. D6 is just not worth it. I said in another thread I would need to see 5 years of sales and I meant it. Even at that, I would not be convinced. Also, remaindering your books in this industry is kind of brutal. To get $1-3 on a $40 book is not unusual and you might get less.

$1000 for d6...I would be surprised. I would avoid a stock purchase unless it is extremely low price or there is some sort of big surprise in the sales data. It creates liability and we would be better off with some sort of POD approach.

Now, if Zach's 2-3k number is right for d6, all I can say is ouch.

Bill

I would be interested if some of the issues raised upthread can be answered satisfactorily.

I'd contribute.

Seanchai

Throwing my money into a sewer would be a better investment.

What and who exactly would buy the game? Is 'therpgsite' incorporated in some state somewhere? Who controls it?

I should qualify my statement above by saying with a crapload of ifs, I would contribute. That was not clear. Also, I would be willing to do layout or writing or even offer up any settings that interest the collective.

Bill

Quote from: JDCorley;227138Throwing my money into a sewer would be a better investment.

What and who exactly would buy the game? Is 'therpgsite' incorporated in some state somewhere? Who controls it?

It wouldn't be owned by the RPG Site, it would be owned by a bunch of users from the rpg site.

So...same question remains. Who controls the project? Who are you (collectively, okay) asking people to pile money into the hands of for this exercise in wasting hard-earned dough? Will there be some business entity? Who controls it? How?

Quote from: JDCorley;227144So...same question remains. Who controls the project? Who are you (collectively, okay) asking people to pile money into the hands of for this exercise in wasting hard-earned dough? Will there be some business entity? Who controls it? How?

Read the thread. We have discussed a possible structure, this is less than 24 hrs old so give it time.

One side thought:

Be sure to get the StarWars miniatures game thrown into the package.

It's an excellent ruleset and would be very easy to adapt to an Advanced Heroquest type game that is actually compatible with the miniatures battles, which would probably outsell d6 supplements in the current market.

Especially if you went the route of producing a crossover game that also handled fighter and captial ship actions in a more boardgamesque fashion than current sf battle games.

I might even be interested in buying in at that point.

Quote from: HinterWelt;227139I should qualify my statement above by saying with a crapload of ifs, I would contribute. That was not clear. Also, I would be willing to do layout or writing or even offer up any settings that interest the collective.

As for me, I'm happy to help out with posts about business advice, valuation, estimation, marketing ideas, etc.  But I wouldn't invest my money simply because I invest money to make money, and the risk here is too high.

I'm thinking it's not an investment.  It's a gaming purchase intended to keep a beloved system available and supported in some form rather than seeing it vanish into oblivion in some package buyout by a big player trying to get Junta.

Quote from: HinterWelt;227132Also, remaindering your books in this industry is kind of brutal. To get $1-3 on a $40 book is not unusual and you might get less.

Yea, remaining books wouldn't be worth much.  They would have to be sold at a massive discount or remaindered to avoid warehousing issues.  Even with a sale, someone would have to be paid to package and ship things.

Quote from: Nicephorus;227157Yea, remaining books wouldn't be worth much.  They would have to be sold at a massive discount or remaindered to avoid warehousing issues.  Even with a sale, someone would have to be paid to package and ship things.

Yes, that's an issue. If it were a couple hundred of each, I could warehouse them myself but we are probably talking about close to 7k books. That would require getting a warehouse/fullfilment service and it wouldn't be cheap for that amount of books.

What about matching stock purchases with product?  It might not add too much to the buyout cost to hire someone with a double garage to store and ship the books until they were liquidated.

When I supported Zach in the other thread, and half-joked that the RPG site should buy d6, I was not clear on one aspect.

If anyone is really serious about doing this, you have to immediately write off the $100 (or whatever). It's gone. This isn't an investment. This isn't vanity publishing. This is akin to going into a store and buying something you intend to consume.

Now in this case, it has other (to me) interesting opportunities - like creating that Open D6, and seeing Doc smile. I think it's smart to determine the actual corporate/collective structure, to avoid hassles and help the decision making process.

But the actual value of that $100 probably is closer to $10 in share value in the long run - perhaps $1. It's like paying to have the opportunity to do some hard work.

As others mentioned, it might be better to determine if there's a good way to independently create an Open D6, then spawn products off of that.

And guys - even with all the books, IMHO, and it's an admittedly less-than-informed guess, if you pay more than $1,000 for all of the D6 properties, you're probably paying too much. As others have said, unless there's a surprise in the books someplace, using the relatively standard mergers and acquisitions valuations, there's no there there. You're buying some back stock that apparently has little value (and no profit) and rights to a rule system of which anybody could apparently make their own version.

In summary, it's not an investment, it's a purchase to be consumed. How it gets consumed is the question.

I might be interested in investing and participating.

But I don't believe in open licenses. They're effective only when attached to a prestigious game that made an impact of some kind and currently, D6 is anything but "hot".

I'd be much more interested in releasing new, kickass D6 games and taking it from there.

But honestly, it sounds like the structure to own d6 would be m ore complicated than just the operation of a standard game publisher. Plus, is it even possible to set this up internationally, or is this reserved for US citizens?

Sure, this not really an investment as much as an intervention. People should know that there is a 99.9% chance you'll never make back any of your $100 share. OTOH, there should be an agreement in hand before any purchase should happen that outlines what would be done in the case of a profit.

Maybe see if a current business is willing to partner in some form? Maybe we figure out a way to pitch in with an established company that wants to buy and own the lions share... and manage... :o

As far as running a business, I'm not willing to do that again any time soon.

I would be interested.  I have some business experience. I have layout experience. I have sold product for Tri-Tac. And I have done some game writing.  I am however, relatively cash strapped at the moment. But I would be willing to put in stake money if we get enough people to buy into the pool.

Now, you can avoid the OGL issue by simply allowing a free license with caveat strings attached. This will allow people to publish under their own banner, if the game meets the criteria for professional production and content that will not get us sued.  So if we approve the product, you get the license (and all the appropriate graphics and can utilize the elements of the rules). Or we can be the clearing house for all products that are submitted to us (thus sold as PDFs).

The catch to this is that the company would need to be run by committee. If we incoroporate, which seems much like what we are going, everyone would get to be a stock holder to appoint a CEO (for daily ops), CFO (for daily ops), and a Chief Editor. Those that are shareholders would work as a board/ committee towards  which projects the coporation would do.

This would add Incorporation fees to the price of buying the D6 license.

In addition to these costs, there would be an additional cost, lets call it another 100 dollars to be used for production costs. This of course would not cover everything, but it would move us past a bunch of people holding a license to people committed to actually doing somethign with it.

If there are 9 or more people willing to pony up 200 dollars on something that is just for the fun of it, as it will probably not generate anything close to that level of return, I would sign up.

I might suggest we run as a non profit, with the state goals of preserving our hobby's history and to move past games into the mainstream of the hobby, as well as advancing the art of roleplaying. This will avoid tax headaches down the line, but will require better accounting that we would probably want.  Thus there would be two sets of additional fees, incorporation and the non profit addendums.

Quote from: dar;227173Maybe see if a current business is willing to partner in some form? Maybe we figure out a way to pitch in with an established company that wants to buy and own the lions share... and manage... :o
 

Or at least find a gaming company willing to do warehousing and fulfilling at reasonable prices

Quote from: jgants;227151As for me, I'm happy to help out with posts about business advice, valuation, estimation, marketing ideas, etc.  But I wouldn't invest my money simply because I invest money to make money, and the risk here is too high.

Like I said, many "ifs". As to risk, well, you just described the RPG industry. Possibly, any industry where creative endeavors combine with luxury items. My preferred approach, as I outlined before, would be to have d6 go open and then make products based on the open d6 license. Far less risk and I have a proven business model for that.

Bill

I will certainly express interest in contributing my services as a writer.

I am much less likely to contribute as a financial investor since I've got my seccond kid on the way. Priorities and all that.

Quote from: Consonant Dude;227166I'd be much more interested in releasing new, kickass D6 games and taking it from there.

This.

As far as contributions beyond purely monetary, I'd be willing to do some writing and editing (especially the latter).

My dumb idea:

Public Domain - Fundraising to put it into the public domain.  Get Eric to say he'll release it that way for $XXX, and then slap that bitch on fundable.

Then it belongs to everyone.

Quote from: Mcrow;227067You can count me in Zachary.

The important thing to find out is wether or not all of the d6 IPs come in the deal. I'd imagine they would be, but it should be clarified. Junta, D6, and Torg are not the biggest IPs but they do have some value and we could keep them alive via PDF and Lulu and maybe make some profit on them.

As a side note, I talked to Eric about the two vaporware D6 books (Vade Mecum of Magic and Otherwheres) and he said neither one was complete. I don't know if they're part and parcel with the D6 IP, but it might be a good idea to just let those fade away into the mists rather than face a fight over authors' rights.

With regard to planning how we're going to handle the line, my first thoughts are to follow Pinnacle's lead on Savage Worlds – do a rulebook that has all the rules you need and can give you a taste of multiple genres, then follow up with one or more "toolkits".

The alternative would be to unify all three rulebooks, plus add some of the generic rules from Star Wars – namely damaging weapons and armor (from the 2nd ed. R&E rules), computer hacking (from Cracken's Rebel Field Guide), jury rigging (from Galladinium's Fantastic Technology), droid construction (from Cynabar's Fantastic Technology: Droids), and martial arts (from the SpecForces Handbook).

Finally, add me to the list of potential editors as well as being a potential writer.

Pax et bonum,

Dale

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227189My dumb idea:

Public Domain - Fundraising to put it into the public domain.  Get Eric to say he'll release it that way for $XXX, and then slap that bitch on fundable.

Then it belongs to everyone.

This is an interesting idea. I wonder what Eric would think?

Bill

Quote from: Mcrow;227148Read the thread. We have discussed a possible structure, this is less than 24 hrs old so give it time.

Sure, we have "discussed" it, but without someone to make a decision, why does a discussion matter?

I'm all for d6, d6 is a great system and I even bought the generic d6 book the FIRST time around.  And I'm all for getting it out into the public's hands, that is, paying the holder to dump it rather than buying it and trying to run it with some kind of bizarre Internet committee of well-meaning fuckheads with no clue about anything.

If you do decide to do it that way, I will be chief fuckhead, send the money to me, small bills please.

Quote from: JDCorley;227196Sure, we have "discussed" it, but without someone to make a decision, why does a discussion matter?

I'm all for d6, d6 is a great system and I even bought the generic d6 book the FIRST time around.  And I'm all for getting it out into the public's hands, that is, paying the holder to dump it rather than buying it and trying to run it with some kind of bizarre Internet committee of well-meaning fuckheads with no clue about anything.

If you do decide to do it that way, I will be chief fuckhead, send the money to me, small bills please.

Well, since we're all fuckheads why don't you take your snarky attitude and get the fuck out?

Like I said this is not even 24 hrs old at this point all we can do is guage intrest. If and when there is enough interest we can start organizing it.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227189My dumb idea:

Public Domain - Fundraising to put it into the public domain.  Get Eric to say he'll release it that way for $XXX, and then slap that bitch on fundable.

Then it belongs to everyone.

If this were a viable option I'd suggest considering this Creative Commons license instead of full public domain:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

It's basically public domain -- but you need to attribute the work to the original game designers -- list the original authors on your credits page.  Which seems very fair, and good karma. ;)

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227189My dumb idea:

Public Domain - Fundraising to put it into the public domain.  Get Eric to say he'll release it that way for $XXX, and then slap that bitch on fundable.

Then it belongs to everyone.

That I would contribute to.

Buying it, no, it's commercially worthless in my view and I wouldn't want to contribute to the resulting heartache.

But funding it for release to public domain I would support.

Well, i have to say that i was more interested in, say, half a dozen or so guys and gals with the relevant skills, interest and investment funds and the relevant business experience buying the rights and publishing old stuff and writing and releasing new stuff - not a nebulous group of forumites. Am i in the minority there?

As part of the public domain idea, have all the actual books still unsold be released from an airplane as it flies over the countryside.  :)  

Note: Not trying to snarky, just silly.

Quote from: One Horse Town;227203Well, i have to say that i was more interested in, say, half a dozen or so guys and gals with the relevant skills, interest and investment funds and the relevant business experience buying the rights and publishing old stuff and writing and releasing new stuff - not a nebulous group of forumites. Am i in the minority there?

Well, since we seem to be kicking ideas around I will give my preferred go. I would prefer to see d6 enter the public domain somehow. Then, Dan, Mike, Dr. Rotwang, Zach, Clash and I (and anyone else interested) team up to write, layout, print, release as PDF/through distro/POD cool d6 books in a collective effort. That would be neat on several levels. Proven writing/editing/layout skills. Proven business model. Proven blogoshere presentation.

But I could be alone on that.

Bill

Quote from: wulfgar;227206As part of the public domain idea, have all the actual books still unsold be released from an airplane as it flies over the countryside.  :)  

Note: Not trying to snarky, just silly.

And a serious reply. If Eric really has 7500 books he could remainder them to Titan Games or the like for about $1 a piece and cover his refunds for Septimus. Then, without any external parties, he could release d6 Open on his own. I do not know if he would go there though.

Bill

I like Levi's idea.

My problem is , knowing how people are when dealing with games they love, I doubt we could ever get a group together that could agree on enough of the issues and also come up with the money needed.

The two good ideas are e1-Levi's idea  or #2-clone it


#1- Has a chance to succeed and is the most simple
#2- A lot of work but could be done.

Quote from: One Horse Town;227203Well, i have to say that i was more interested in, say, half a dozen or so guys and gals with the relevant skills, interest and investment funds and the relevant business experience buying the rights and publishing old stuff and writing and releasing new stuff - not a nebulous group of forumites. Am i in the minority there?

That would be my preferred route as well.

Quote from: HinterWelt;227207Well, since we seem to be kicking ideas around I will give my preferred go. I would prefer to see d6 enter the public domain somehow. Then, Dan, Mike, Dr. Rotwang, Zach, Clash and I (and anyone else interested) team up to write, layout, print, release as PDF/through distro/POD cool d6 books in a collective effort. That would be neat on several levels. Proven writing/editing/layout skills. Proven business model. Proven blogoshere presentation.

But I could be alone on that.

Bill

Sounds ok to me.

Quote from: Mcrow;227210I like Levi's idea.

I've emailed Hellsreach to ask about the viability of such a concept.

Quote from: Mcrow;227210I like Levi's idea.

My problem is , knowing how people are when dealing with games they love, I doubt we could ever get a group together that could agree on enough of the issues and also come up with the money needed.

The two good ideas are e1-Levi's idea  or #2-clone it


#1- Has a chance to succeed and is the most simple
#2- A lot of work but could be done.

You know, as much as I hate the idea of taking someone elses idea, I do like the flexibility of cloning. I think it would be viable especially if we then released it as open. I would not want to do it while WEG still had life but ...

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;227218You know, as much as I hate the idea of taking someone elses idea, I do like the flexibility of cloning. I think it would be viable especially if we then released it as open. I would not want to do it while WEG still had life but ...

Bill

Yeah, in the end I would like the clone option better just because I'm thinking Eric will want more for d6 than people will be willing to pay/donate. Of course it would be kind of a low blow while WEG is still kicking.

I'm starting to like the fundable idea.

The reason I like it is cause it means potentially leveraging the chaos and efforts of the folks that want to do things but may differ on details. I like it cause it means that we can contribute and let it fly on its own or not. I like it cause it means Eric gets out sooner than if he were to open it (for lots of reasons, sympathetic and not).

Ya know the fundable idea, and some of the other ideas here don't need the approval of everyone here or a majority. People can go off and just do some of these ideas and see what works. See what Eric would accept as an offer.

edit: duh... it's already happening.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227189My dumb idea:

Public Domain - Fundraising to put it into the public domain.  Get Eric to say he'll release it that way for $XXX, and then slap that bitch on fundable.

Then it belongs to everyone.

Damn you, Levi. That makes too much sense. Stop it. Just. Stop. It.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227216I've emailed Hellsreach to ask about the viability of such a concept.

Just a warning - you'll be waiting a while for an answer as he's going out of town for a week for vacation (http://www.westendgames.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4630).

Pax et bonum,

Dale

Quote from: Ezekiel Slayer;227242Just a warning - you'll be waiting a while for an answer as he's going out of town for a week for vacation (http://www.westendgames.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4630).

"But right now I couldn't give two F-
...Arby's French-Dips about that because I'm going on vacation.  So... suck that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-8hQh6hdnI)."

Hey Dale!

Uh... yea... this place...

Nice to see you here.

I am considering offering $1000 for D6.   I don't see the value of paying more than that because clones would be easy enough to create and I don' feel like competing against something I bought.

I would be interested in a collective BUT I would want to see how the collective was structured and how we would defend against clones before throwing down any cash.  For a collective, I would throw down a hundred or two at most.

But Levi the Public Domain Commie Hippie has the best plan.   I would throw $20 bucks into that plan.   Public Domain would save everyone from the clone issues, license issues and disagreements within any collective.

There is no way that D6 is worth $10k.  I can not see Bloodshadows or Shatterzone worth more than a few hundred dollars.   Dead settings in a shrinking market are not worth multi-thousand dollars.

Wow. a vacation. Must have some money.

'Magine that.

I'd contribute to the public domain plan.  I think that once it's open, than people who have a love for the system could start creating awesome settings or converting existing settings to it and either sell or give them away.

Quote from: Spinachcat;227253Public Domain Commie Hippie

Damn it, I've been made!

<.<

>.>

...............................>.> V&

Quote from: Spinachcat;227253Public Domain would save everyone from the clone issues, license issues and disagreements within any collective.

Yep.  And has the benefit that you could use the content inside other licenses.  Want to put that d6 rule in your OGL game?  Do it.

Quote from: James J Skach;227254Wow. a vacation. Must have some money.

'Magine that.

Don't be an ass. The man needs to get away from this stress, clear his head, and come back fresh. You don't like it? Fine, that's your opinion. Just let him do what he needs to do to get the job done right. It doesn't make him a criminal. It makes him human like the rest of us.

Pax et bonum,

Dale

Quote from: Ezekiel Slayer;227261Don't be an ass. The man needs to get away from this stress, clear his head, and come back fresh. You don't like it? Fine, that's your opinion. Just let him do what he needs to do to get the job done right. It doesn't make him a criminal. It makes him human like the rest of us.

Pax et bonum,

Dale

Game designers aren't human and don't need to be treated as such. We are assembled in a factory in Poughkepsie.

Bill (GD#10299483)

Well, whichever way this goes, I'd be happy to do some editing and writing.  I do have some experience in technical writing and can keep a deadline.

Quote from: HinterWelt;227264Game designers aren't human and don't need to be treated as such. We are assembled in a factory in Poughkepsie.

Bill (GD#10299483)

Really? I thought the assembly plant was in Sheboygan. No, wait, that was the one for GMPCs... The Rent-a-Zillas stomped that place real good. :D

Pax et bonum,

Dale

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227189My dumb idea:

Public Domain - Fundraising to put it into the public domain.  Get Eric to say he'll release it that way for $XXX, and then slap that bitch on fundable.

Then it belongs to everyone.

My favorite idea yet. I'd readily contribute to that. I mean, like now. Today.

Seanchai

Quote from: Ezekiel Slayer;227261Don't be an ass. The man needs to get away from this stress, clear his head, and come back fresh. You don't like it? Fine, that's your opinion. Just let him do what he needs to do to get the job done right. It doesn't make him a criminal. It makes him human like the rest of us.

Pax et bonum,

Dale

You're, uh, kidding, right? I mean, I didn't call him a criminal. I didn't even imply it. If you're inferring it, that's your deal, not mine. Of course it's my opinion - I'd go so far as to say it's only my opinion, or whatever term you want to use to diminish it's importance.

It's not an issue of whether I like it or not - it never even rose to that level in my thinking. I have no feelings about it. Mr. Gibson does not owe me anything. I have a sum total of one very old WEG Master Book. It was just interesting to me in an ironic way.

Being very cash strapped at the moment, I know I had to save for an entire year to go on vacation in August that's essentially a requirement as a 50th anniversary gift for in-laws. So I feel for the guy. I just find it very mildly interesting that amidst all the talk of being so cash strapped (something with which, as I mentioned, I can empathize) there's enough for vacation.

Unless, of course, he means a vacation wherein he stays put but mentally disengages - that's another issue altogether. But that doesn't seem to be the case given the brief description - however it's still not out of the realm to "go out of town" and still no spend much money to do so (for example, staying at a relatives house or something).

I honestly did not mean it as some sort of "criminal" behavior or something he doesn't have a right to do - whether he "needs" it or not.

The only way I could support something like this is as a non-profit foundation in the interests of releasing the game into the public domain or a GPL or Creative Commons document license (NOT OGL, OGL isn't open enough for a venture of this type).  Treat any monies as donations to said non-profit, with the agreement that if the bid fails by some set date, all donations are refunded and the foundation is shut down.  

Treating it as some kind of corporation or investment is foolhardy, because it's simply not worth it.

Quote from: J Arcane;227276The only way I could support something like this is as a non-profit foundation in the interests of releasing the game into the public domain or a GPL or Creative Commons document license (NOT OGL, OGL isn't open enough for a venture of this type).  Treat any monies as donations to said non-profit, with the agreement that if the bid fails by some set date, all donations are refunded and the foundation is shut down.  

Treating it as some kind of corporation or investment is foolhardy, because it's simply not worth it.

I don't follow your comment on the OGL. How is it restrictive?

Bill

Quote from: J Arcane;227276Treat any monies as donations to said non-profit, with the agreement that if the bid fails by some set date, all donations are refunded and the foundation is shut down.

Right.  Fundable already exists for this purpose.  LINKY (http://www.fundable.com/)

Everyone pledges, nobody spends.  If the mark is hit, Fundable takes all the money and delivers it.  If not, nobody spends anything.

No new "organisation" required.  Creating a new institution is a hassle, and it's one that isn't actually required.

Quote from: HinterWelt;227278I don't follow your comment on the OGL. How is it restrictive?

OGL isn't especially restrictive, but does have some barriers to open use:

1: You need to learn what you can and cannot do - what "open content" is and isn't.

2: You must release to the license; you can close the content, but the license goes in.

3: It cannot be easily combined with other licenses.

...Those are by no means insurmountable barriers.  However, they are barriers.

Quote from: HinterWelt;227278I don't follow your comment on the OGL. How is it restrictive?

Bill

The OGL is a complex license that is in part designed to cover the ass of a commercial company still trying to sell a product.  It's unnecessary and overly complicated for a non-profit effort targeted at releasing the game to the public in an open fashion.

If there's no benefit to OGL vs CC or public domain, why bother with the added complexity of the OGL?

Quote from: Stuart;227283If there's no benefit to OGL vs CC or public domain, why bother with the added complexity of the OGL?

Because most RPG publishers have been talking in terms of Licensing so long that it's ingrained in the conversation.

Quote from: J Arcane;227282The OGL is a complex license that is in part designed to cover the ass of a commercial company still trying to sell a product.  It's unnecessary and overly complicated for a non-profit effort targeted at releasing the game to the public in an open fashion.

Exactly my point, Stuart.  Thanks.

Quote from: James J Skach;227274Unless, of course, he means a vacation wherein he stays put but mentally disengages - that's another issue altogether. But that doesn't seem to be the case given the brief description - however it's still not out of the realm to "go out of town" and still no spend much money to do so (for example, staying at a relatives house or something).

I was reading it as more of a "spending a weekend visiting relatives" type of weekend getaway, not "I'm heading off to Vegas".

Quote from: James J Skach;227274You're, uh, kidding, right? ...

I honestly did not mean it as some sort of "criminal" behavior or something he doesn't have a right to do - whether he "needs" it or not.

Sorry if I sounded so very harsh. I'm a little touchy on the whole WEG topic right now, especially since a certain person on the WEG forums is casting aspersions on the response to the flameout by RPGNet's modsquad.

When the new D6 books came out, myself and a friend of mine saw a lot of potential to get into the industry. We were working hard on some projects which we were going to submit to WEG, but then things went downhill and we watched the calamity from afar. Eventually, we put things on hiatus, and then on the shelf, and eventually went our separate ways.

Add to it that WEG's Star Wars RPG was the game that got me back into the hobby during the "satanic panic" of the 80s, and you can see how it can affect a person.

It's nothing personal - it just stings a bit right now.

Pax et bonum,

Dale

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227281OGL isn't especially restrictive, but does have some barriers to open use:

1: You need to learn what you can and cannot do - what "open content" is and isn't.

2: You must release to the license; you can close the content, but the license goes in.

3: It cannot be easily combined with other licenses.

...Those are by no means insurmountable barriers.  However, they are barriers.

You can run it as pure open licensing. Yes, you need to include the license but it has all the credits in it as well (o.k. the sources) of previous books. Still, I am not so much in favor as use it as a default and easy to understand license.

Quote from: J Arcane;227282The OGL is a complex license that is in part designed to cover the ass of a commercial company still trying to sell a product.  It's unnecessary and overly complicated for a non-profit effort targeted at releasing the game to the public in an open fashion.

This is different from my understanding of your original objection. The OGL can be made entirely open with no PI and simply stating everything is OGC. But yes, you could sum up "This document is free for all copying, use in other products and the original writers give full non-exclusive rights to any who wish to use it." in a small blurb at the beginning of the document.

Quote from: Stuart;227283If there's no benefit to OGL vs CC or public domain, why bother with the added complexity of the OGL?

In part, I use it because it makes sense to my reading. Also, it allows a lot of flexibility in what I wish released or not released. I also use it because other documents use it that I use (True20).

Thanks for the clarification,
Bill

Oh, silly me...another thing I can contribute: if this becomes a commercial enterprise and there is an intention of selling product via a website or similar, I work for an organization that provides credit card processing to merchants nationwide.  We have an excellent buy rate and I know I can get us a very good deal.

(edit: doesn't look like it's heading that way, but the offer is out there, regardless; matter of fact, if you're doing anything with credit cards now, PM me.  I can always use a sale.)

QuoteThis is different from my understanding of your original objection. The OGL can be made entirely open with no PI and simply stating everything is OGC. But yes, you could sum up "This document is free for all copying, use in other products and the original writers give full non-exclusive rights to any who wish to use it." in a small blurb at the beginning of the document.

But see that's the thing, most of the verbiage of the license is all about ass covering clauses like the PI business that are aimed at commercial products, whereas what I'm suggesting is something more akin to a GNU type project for which such complexity is not useful or in line with the goals I would wish to see out of this project.  

In fact, I think the GPL would be more in keeping with what I would wish to see, because it's essentially anti-OGL/PI, in that it is designed to encourage total openness of content, and thus would ultimately serve to create a viral effect that could potentially see D6 expand in a way that it couldn't on it's own as a commercial or even centrally authorized entity.  

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd want to see this become a truly open source project, as opposed to the pale reflection of that ethos the OGL provides.

I'm with J Arcane on this one.  Let's open it up properly so people can really do stuff with and for it.

I think this thread has spawned a lot of good ideas--I'm really interested in the Fundable and GPL aspects.

I have a friend who's also looking into purchasing WEG or the d6 license, and he's been following this as well.  I think we're still in the discussion part of everything, but I'm curious what Eric thinks about the proposals thus put out there.

I really think, purchased by one guy or for everyone, the amount of accessibility to the system is what really interests me here.

EDIT: Can someone give me an informed opinion as to the merits and differences of CC vs. GPL?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227189My dumb idea:

Public Domain - Fundraising to put it into the public domain.  Get Eric to say he'll release it that way for $XXX, and then slap that bitch on fundable.

Then it belongs to everyone.

Your dumb idea isn't, Turtle Guy.

Quote from: J Arcane;227320But see that's the thing, most of the verbiage of the license is all about ass covering clauses like the PI business that are aimed at commercial products, whereas what I'm suggesting is something more akin to a GNU type project for which such complexity is not useful or in line with the goals I would wish to see out of this project.  

In fact, I think the GPL would be more in keeping with what I would wish to see, because it's essentially anti-OGL/PI, in that it is designed to encourage total openness of content, and thus would ultimately serve to create a viral effect that could potentially see D6 expand in a way that it couldn't on it's own as a commercial or even centrally authorized entity.  

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd want to see this become a truly open source project, as opposed to the pale reflection of that ethos the OGL provides.

Jarcane, honestly, I am not fighting for the OGL. All these things are just tools for me. Also, I am not trying to harass you but I am honestly interested.

That said, we come back to "not open enough". How so?

I have released products, like my ISCR which is my SRD, that is entirely open....except for some art and the layout. This is done for copyright reasons. Is this the CYA you are referring to? That said, if someone wanted, they could make it entirely open by just saying "All materials, art, layout and content is considered Open Game Content" and then in their PI section say "There is no Product Identity in this document". Voila! No closed content. Absolutely extensible.

I guess I am just not understanding the objection. That said, I really do not care what license, no license, public domain or whatever as long as it is clear what is usable and how to use it.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;227207Well, since we seem to be kicking ideas around I will give my preferred go. I would prefer to see d6 enter the public domain somehow. Then, Dan, Mike, Dr. Rotwang, Zach, Clash and I (and anyone else interested) team up to write, layout, print, release as PDF/through distro/POD cool d6 books in a collective effort. That would be neat on several levels. Proven writing/editing/layout skills. Proven business model. Proven blogoshere presentation.

But I could be alone on that.

Bill

Dear Bill:

No you aren't.

Sincerely,

--R!

I think for the sake of internal compatiblity there would have to be restrictions on the form the rules take.  Nobody wants d6 to become the kind of mess Fuzion wound up being.

Here's a Creative Commons license that might be relevant:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

Quote from: Zachary The First;227345EDIT: Can someone give me an informed opinion as to the merits and differences of CC vs. GPL?

Briefly:

Public Domain means you give up all rights to something -- it enters the public domain, and anyone can do anything with it.

Creative Commons lets you choose one of several licenses that span the gap from public domain to full copyright. They're written in plain english and are easy for people to read and understand. In addition to allowing people to redistribute a work, you can also choose whether you will allow them to remix/modify the work, whether they can do so for commercial purposes (or only non-commercial) and whether derivative works are required to follow the same license.

The GPL (Gnu General Public License) says you can redistribute and remix the work, but it must be released under the same license.  It's basically like one of the more restrictive of the Creative Commons licenses.

I like CC because it's actually an entire family of licenses, it can include specific legal clauses based on your jurisdiction, it's easy to understand, easy to setup ( http://creativecommons.org/license/ ) and Google and other search engines index CC content which can improve your search engine ranking.

Unless you're releasing software, I wouldn't use the GPL.  Unless you have a reason to do so (like being required by a publisher) I wouldn't use the OGL or associated licenses.

Creative Commons has a great website with lots of good examples.
http://creativecommons.org/

I mentioned that Google works with CC, but so do other big sites like Deviant Art, Flickr, Yahoo and a couple of others.  You can search CC licensed content here: http://search.creativecommons.org/

Quote from: Age of Fable;227358Here's a Creative Commons license that might be relevant:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

We've got a pretty international community here... I'd say this one:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Okay, I'm gonna go official:  Bill's pitch makes me go like this:

(http://www.salitreplaza.com.co/salitrehtml/imagenes/saps/enamorado.gif)

QuoteThat said, we come back to "not open enough". How so?

The GPL is set up to encourage stuff to be reintroduced back into open content.  The OGL is designed to discourage that, especially as regards the concept of "Product Identity".

Basically, when you take a GPL product, and modify it, you're required to then share those modifications under the GPL also.  It means that new innovations on the original code base will get reintroduced back into the open stream, and it thus enables a lot more continuous development process, and a greater sense of open, free community.

The OGL and the PI clauses do not have that effect.  There's nothing that really encourages or requires new changes and new ideas to be reintroduced back into the open form.  Sure you can put out a product and just declare nothing to be PI, but you and I both know that it doesn't often work like that.  It's essentially designed to allow businesses to take what they want, sell it, and not have to give anything back to the community.  

I think that the GPL would result in a more organic, free process, and I think that a product like D6 that has at this point largely not done so well in more traditional retail forms, could potentially thrive on that kind of openness and free exchange of ideas and rules.

If you want the "you can use it and build on it, but you have to share what you build" concept of the GPL, but in a more readable form, I suggest this license:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Edit:  I should add though -- I think that's a good license for a fan-based community around a game.  I can't see any publishers putting effort into it though.  I think releasing it without the Share-Alike option would be better.

Quote from: J Arcane;227370The GPL is set up to encourage stuff to be reintroduced back into open content.  The OGL is designed to discourage that, especially as regards the concept of "Product Identity".

Basically, when you take a GPL product, and modify it, you're required to then share those modifications under the GPL also.  It means that new innovations on the original code base will get reintroduced back into the open stream, and it thus enables a lot more continuous development process, and a greater sense of open, free community.

The OGL and the PI clauses do not have that effect.  There's nothing that really encourages or requires new changes and new ideas to be reintroduced back into the open form.  Sure you can put out a product and just declare nothing to be PI, but you and I both know that it doesn't often work like that.  It's essentially designed to allow businesses to take what they want, sell it, and not have to give anything back to the community.  

I think that the GPL would result in a more organic, free process, and I think that a product like D6 that has at this point largely not done so well in more traditional retail forms, could potentially thrive on that kind of openness and free exchange of ideas and rules.

This is true when it comes to rules/systems/mechanics.

But how am I protected if I want to simply use the mechanics married to a setting/other creative avenue and then sell it? If I'm required to release the setting material as essentially public content, I've no IP.

Now this can work in the software industry because there are other ways to generate revenue - support is the usual avenue. How do you do so with something like d6?

It's not that I think one way or the other is best. But they do have different complications to address.

I have to say, the "fundable fund to buy D6 and make it public domain" is my favourite idea so far. But there is one thing we need to consider:

What if we hit our Fundable target (at which point we throw in our money), and Eric sells D6 to someone else? Say, we raise $2000 and some overenthusiastic D6 fan with big ideas has come up with $2500, or something like that? Sure, whoever organised the Fundable fund could just refund everyone, but Fundable takes a 10% cut of all successful funds.

Here's the way I would think it would work:

1: The people co-ordinating the Fundable drive talks to Eric about the idea, agrees a price with him, and signs a contract with him. The precise wording will need to be worked out with a lawyer. (Whoever wants to co-ordinate the Fundable drive will probably have to pay for this out of their own pocket, but maybe someone with connections can get a favour out of someone.) The contract will be along these lines:

- Eric agrees to sell D6 to the folk running the Fundable collection, provided that they are able to raise the agreed price over the course of the Fundable collection, and that the money gets to him within, say, a month of the Fundable collection ending.

- Eric agrees that he will not sell the D6 system to any other party unless the Fundable collection fails to raise the required cash by the deadline.

- The people running the Fundable agree that as soon as the rights to the system are transferred to them, they will immediately release the rights to the public domain, or produce a Creative Commons-based or OGL-based SRD for the D6 system within, say, a year of receiving the rights. If they fail to do this it is agreed by both parties that the rights to the D6 system will be shunted into the public domain. (This clause is mainly to reassure people tossing money into the Fundable pot that the people co-ordinating the fundraising will make good on their promise.)

2: If the above is achieved, then a Fundable fund is set up - whoever does this must remember to multiply the price agreed with Eric by 1.1, to account for the 10% cut taken by Fundable! (If the price is exactly divisible by 9, this will ensure a nice round number - so if the price is $900, the Fundable fundraiser will look to raise $1000, if it's $1350 then the fundraiser will look to raise $1500, and so on.) They will also make public the exact wording of the contract they have entered into with Eric, so that people know precisely where their money is going to go. They will also make public the precise way in which they intend to release D6 into the wild - public domain, creative commons, OGL, whichever.

3: If the fund fails, then nobody loses any money (except whoever paid the lawyer to draw up the contract), Eric gets to go sell the D6 system to someone else, and we all go home. If it succeeds, money is transferred to Eric pronto, the rights (and, if it was included in the negotiations, the stock and so forth) are transferred to the co-ordinators, and all's fine and good.

I reckon a plan such as the above has a very good chance of working. Greg Stolze has managed to produce nine supplements for REIGN in this manner (at $1000 - minus Fundable's cut - a pop, so he's earned $8100 this way), and those funds are filled almost entirely by the various posters and lurkers on his website's forum. There are only three tricky parts: choosing which terms the new, open D6 system will be released under, getting Eric to agree to the plan, and working out what to with all the old stock.

Quote from: J Arcane;227370The GPL is set up to encourage stuff to be reintroduced back into open content.  The OGL is designed to discourage that, especially as regards the concept of "Product Identity".

Basically, when you take a GPL product, and modify it, you're required to then share those modifications under the GPL also.  It means that new innovations on the original code base will get reintroduced back into the open stream, and it thus enables a lot more continuous development process, and a greater sense of open, free community.

The OGL and the PI clauses do not have that effect.  There's nothing that really encourages or requires new changes and new ideas to be reintroduced back into the open form.  Sure you can put out a product and just declare nothing to be PI, but you and I both know that it doesn't often work like that.  It's essentially designed to allow businesses to take what they want, sell it, and not have to give anything back to the community.  

I think that the GPL would result in a more organic, free process, and I think that a product like D6 that has at this point largely not done so well in more traditional retail forms, could potentially thrive on that kind of openness and free exchange of ideas and rules.

I believe I understand your point better. You would like to force people who use the d6 to use the same open license. I do not know that I agree with your evaluation but it is immaterial to the thread.

As I said, it does not matter to me as long as I can use the d6 system.

Bill

Edit: I did not want to be too negative but I will agree with James. I feel very deflated over the idea that my setting material would be forced into the GPL in this manner. It makes Roma problematic. I would prefer the OGL or some version of the CC license. And just as a point, any game I release via OGL has the system bits being Open. To me, that is the place where it makes sense. My research and setting info should be mine, what makes a product HinterWelt.

Then again, I guess it depends on the goals of the effort.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;227368Okay, I'm gonna go official:  Bill's pitch makes me go like this:

(http://www.salitreplaza.com.co/salitrehtml/imagenes/saps/enamorado.gif)

Thanks Doc. Just a variation on Zach's original post. I do think it has potential though.

Bill

Quote from: James J Skach;227373This is true when it comes to rules/systems/mechanics.

But how am I protected if I want to simply use the mechanics married to a setting/other creative avenue and then sell it? If I'm required to release the setting material as essentially public content, I've no IP.

Now this can work in the software industry because there are other ways to generate revenue - support is the usual avenue. How do you do so with something like d6?

It's not that I think one way or the other is best. But they do have different complications to address.

For one thing, I find the utility of most electronic versions of gaming rules and game books to be rather limited, so if nothing else if you're determined to through good money after bad on a game that's largely bombed at the market, the simple act of selling it in a bound book provides added value over freely distributed versions.

I would also quibble with what seems to be some misunderstanding on the nature of the GPL, in that you still retain copyright over your own contribution to a resulting derivative work, you're simply required to license said copyrighted material under the GPL in exchange for using someone else's copyrighted material.  Similarly, anyone else who makes use of your own contributions is themselves required to offer that same free license.  

It's not like you have no right to your IP, but you also don't have a right to simply take someone else's IP and do whatever you want with it without giving anything back.  I consider that a fair exchange in my book.

Quote from: Stuart;227359The GPL (Gnu General Public License) says you can redistribute and remix the work, but it must be released under the same license.  It's basically like one of the more restrictive of the Creative Commons licenses.

I like CC because it's actually an entire family of licenses, it can include specific legal clauses based on your jurisdiction, it's easy to understand, easy to setup ( http://creativecommons.org/license/ ) and Google and other search engines index CC content which can improve your search engine ranking.

Unless you're releasing software, I wouldn't use the GPL.  Unless you have a reason to do so (like being required by a publisher) I wouldn't use the OGL or associated licenses.

Creative Commons has a great website with lots of good examples.
http://creativecommons.org/

I mentioned that Google works with CC, but so do other big sites like Deviant Art, Flickr, Yahoo and a couple of others.  You can search CC licensed content here: http://search.creativecommons.org/

Thanks, Stuart--I'm fairly familiar with Creative Commons, just wasn't sure of its merits vs. the GPL, which wasn't overly-familiar with.

Quote from: J Arcane;227380For one thing, I find the utility of most electronic versions of gaming rules and game books to be rather limited, so if nothing else if you're determined to through good money after bad on a game that's largely bombed at the market, the simple act of selling it in a bound book provides added value over freely distributed versions.

I would also quibble with what seems to be some misunderstanding on the nature of the GPL, in that you still retain copyright over your own contribution to a resulting derivative work, you're simply required to license said copyrighted material under the GPL in exchange for using someone else's copyrighted material.  Similarly, anyone else who makes use of your own contributions is themselves required to offer that same free license.  

It's not like you have no right to your IP, but you also don't have a right to simply take someone else's IP and do whatever you want with it without giving anything back.  I consider that a fair exchange in my book.

I am just not following. Sorry.

So, I retain my copyright. To what end? I can't tel anyone that they can or cannot copy my work in toto. They could take my work and use it for their own right? I speak from ignorance here and am asking an honest question. Is there a way I can make money using this license? If someone can just take my work and publish a free version then it will be much more difficult. Not impossible but more difficult. The differences in software publishing and RPG publishing are not insignificant.

Again, the huge caveat is the goal of the effort. If it is not to get publishers on board but to have fan material blossom then I would see little use to any licensing. If it is to encourage publishers then I think we need to understand the GPL better and be able to see the clear path to making money while using it.

Phil Reed and a few other publishers used to get incensed about the OGL and its "openess". People would take their work, repackage it and sell it little changed. This is a problem with any open system. My point was always that if you wanted to protect your work you need only define what you were willing to have others use. The objection would then follow that it was not being used in the spirit of the OGL (take and improve). Sorry, I just don't subscribe to that. People will take all they can and use it to their gain. Sorry, got off on a rant there. Suffice it to say that I have not seen folks say the OGL is not open enough, usually the other direction.

Bill

Quote from: J Arcane;227380I would also quibble with what seems to be some misunderstanding on the nature of the GPL, in that you still retain copyright over your own contribution to a resulting derivative work, you're simply required to license said copyrighted material under the GPL in exchange for using someone else's copyrighted material.  Similarly, anyone else who makes use of your own contributions is themselves required to offer that same free license.

I have to second Bill's honest question. When you say I'm required to license the IP under the GPL, is that not the same as saying I'm required to release it into the public domain? If I do that, how do I retain my rights?

Now, you (and I) may think it's only fair that if Party A uses Party B's freely available work (released through the GPL), that Party A should do the same and release it without restriction. But I could see the other side that says if Party B wants to release material freely, but Party A feels their addition is worth something more than the GPL requires (free), Party A should be able to do so.

And if I read Bill correctly, he's saying that the advantage of the OGL is that it allows each contributor to make that determination.

Then again, IANAL. So these really are honest questions. Does it really boil down to a possible difference of opinion about the morality and scale of "open" (and the relationship between the two)?

My preference:

Creative Commons > Public Domain > OGL > License > GPL

Quote from: J Arcane;227380I would also quibble with what seems to be some misunderstanding on the nature of the GPL

This is the largest problem with GPL and Creative Common licenses.

Simply because they are licenses?  They require that the would-be user of the property go out of their way to find out how they can be used.  And they do not combine with other licenses.

These are barriers, and being barrier-free is why Public Domain makes me hot.

Emphasis mine:

Quote from: Warthur;2273741: The people co-ordinating the Fundable drive talks to Eric about the idea, agrees a price with him, and signs a contract with him. The precise wording will need to be worked out with a lawyer. (Whoever wants to co-ordinate the Fundable drive will probably have to pay for this out of their own pocket, but maybe someone with connections can get a favour out of someone.) The contract will be along these lines:

- Eric agrees to sell D6 to the folk running the Fundable collection, provided that they are able to raise the agreed price over the course of the Fundable collection, and that the money gets to him within, say, a month of the Fundable collection ending.

- Eric agrees that he will not sell the D6 system to any other party unless the Fundable collection fails to raise the required cash by the deadline.

- The people running the Fundable agree that as soon as the rights to the system are transferred to them, they will immediately release the rights to the public domain, or produce a Creative Commons-based or OGL-based SRD for the D6 system within, say, a year of receiving the rights. If they fail to do this it is agreed by both parties that the rights to the D6 system will be shunted into the public domain. (This clause is mainly to reassure people tossing money into the Fundable pot that the people co-ordinating the fundraising will make good on their promise.)

2: If the above is achieved, then a Fundable fund is set up - whoever does this must remember to multiply the price agreed with Eric by 1.1, to account for the 10% cut taken by Fundable! (If the price is exactly divisible by 9, this will ensure a nice round number - so if the price is $900, the Fundable fundraiser will look to raise $1000, if it's $1350 then the fundraiser will look to raise $1500, and so on.) They will also make public the exact wording of the contract they have entered into with Eric, so that people know precisely where their money is going to go. They will also make public the precise way in which they intend to release D6 into the wild - public domain, creative commons, OGL, whichever.

The bolded bits: Why are those there?

Eric agrees to simply place the text of the books in the public domain if the target is met, and to make them available for free download for a period; say, a month.  If the target is met?  He does so.  Everyone that wants to grabs them, rips out the text, and those that wish to do so share it online (I'd be one of those) in their preffered form.  

Release as text files?  Two or three days, tops.  As neatly-formatted PDFs?  A couple of weeks, maybe - Speaking for myself, I'd be running hot to put out a tidy, all-public PDF of that text within the first week, and keep it out there.

Everyone that wishes to go further then takes the text and makes whatever they want, and releases it however they like.

So long as anyone at all keeps hosting the "straight dope", it stays out there.

I gotta hand it to you Levi, that's pretty slick!

Quote from: HinterWelt;227387Is there a way I can make money using this license?

You are remembering we're talking about D6 right?  A game that has consistently failed to make any money outside the context of one licensed property?  I'd honestly be surprised if you, or anyone else for that matter, could remotely make any kind of profitable enterprise out of the game regardless of license.  

QuoteIf someone can just take my work and publish a free version then it will be much more difficult.

If there are printers out there that will publish something I give them in book form for free out of the goodness of their heart, I'd sincerely like to know about them.  

I look at this from a practical perspective.  If I am to invest in a project l expect some kind of return on it.  It's already been well established that this is not liable to provide financial returns, and so instead I feel it is in my right to at least expect creative returns.  

Releasing said material in a fashion that allows any random jerk to scoop it up, exploit it for their own ends, without giving anything back to the community they took it from in the first place, does nothing for me.  I don't think that's fair at all, especially if we're talking about me actually paying out money to open it up in some fashion.  

Share and share alike, that's all I'm saying here.  I'm also saying there's a potential with something like this to actually do something new and exciting with the concept of open licensing that hasn't been implemented before, and could wind up creating something really awesome.  I've been continually disappointed with the way so-called "open gaming" has actually worked out in practice, because the potential of true open gaming is incredible.

I realize you're a businessman, and all you want to see or consider is how you can turn a profit on it, but try and look at it from the perspective of someone who knows he isn't going to get one, and would prefer to see some other benefit stem from it in place of monetary ones.

Quote from: J Arcane;227395Releasing said material in a fashion that allows any random jerk to scoop it up, exploit it for their own ends, without giving anything back to the community they took it from in the first place, does nothing for me.  I don't think that's fair at all, especially if we're talking about me actually paying out money to open it up in some fashion.

A significant proof of real, true openness is that some of the people involved will do things with it that you do not like, I do not like, someone else does not like.

And others will do things that you do like, I like, others like.

GPL is a form of control.  Just.  Let.  Go.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227396A significant proof of real, true openness is that some of the people involved will do things with it that you do not like, I do not like, someone else does not like.

And others will do things that you do like, I like, others like.

GPL is a form of control.  Just.  Let.  Go.

Why should I give money to a project if someone else is going to turn a profit on it while I get nothing in return?

Would you donate canned goods to a "charity" that was instead taking the cans of tuna and selling them at a market and pocketing the cash for their own ends?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227393The bolded bits: Why are those there?

Why is the bit about the lawyer there? Well, I thought that was obvious: because it would be dumb to draw up a contract without legal advice, and without some kind of contract between the relevant parties any Fundable drive is going to have trouble getting off the ground because of people who don't necessarily know any of the primary actors personally saying "How do I know you guys are on the level?"

This is particularly important in the wake of all the bad feeling generated by the Septimus preorder debacle.

QuoteEric agrees to simply place the text of the books in the public domain if the target is met, and to make them available for free download for a period; say, a month.  If the target is met?  He does so.  Everyone that wants to grabs them, rips out the text, and those that wish to do so share it online (I'd be one of those) in their preffered form.

That is arguably a far easier way to structure the deal. It does, however, require Eric being willing to have anything more to do with WEG and its properties whatsoever beyond selling them to interested parties. If he's willing to keep the WEG site up for a month after the books go up for free download, then that's fine, but given how disillusioned he is with the entire thing I'm not sure how much we can expect from him beyond "here's the rights, here's my signature on the dotted line, and here's your receipt. Have a nice day."

Quote from: J Arcane;227397Why should I give money to a project if someone else is going to turn a profit on it while I get nothing in return?

Would you donate canned goods to a "charity" that was instead taking the cans of tuna and selling them at a market and pocketing the cash for their own ends?

The charity isn't doing that, though. It's setting up a little market stall with a sign saying "free tuna", and giving the cans out to anyone who comes along. It's up to the people who take the cans what they do with them.

Sure, someone might come up to the stall, snatch a can, and start trying to sell it to people. But when there's a free tuna stall in arm's reach, they're not going to get very far doing that. No, they'll need to dress it up a little, maybe incorporate it into a meal or empty it out and use the empty tin as a hand puppet to entertain you or find a way to turn tuna oil into rocket fuel. Suddenly, you have a bunch of tuna chefs and puppeteers and a tuna-based economy springing up around that stall, but the beauty of it is that the stall is still there and if you don't want to give anyone any money whatsoever, no matter how awesome the thing they've done with their can of tuna is, you can always go grab a can of tuna and do your own thing with it.

That's the ideal that the "open" ethic pushes towards, anyhow.

Quote from: J Arcane;227397Why should I give money to a project if someone else is going to turn a profit on it while I get nothing in return?

Would you donate canned goods to a "charity" that was instead taking the cans of tuna and selling them at a market and pocketing the cash for their own ends?

I would donate money to a charity that gave me an infinite amount of tuna, regardless of whether or not someone was selling nice hot tuna patties they made with their free tuna, yes.

As for "OMG.  Someone will reprint it an an inflated price without adding anything"?

No, they won't.  Or, at least, it'd be stupid.  Because, if nothing else, I'd personally slap that bitch on Lulu, buy it yourself, printed-at-cost, public domain intact, the second I could format it.  I hopefully wouldn't even be the only one.  If they wanted to compete with that, they had best bring some value of their own to the table.

Let the "value added for money" people compete, on a level field, with "value added 'cuz I felt like it".  If they really and truly do bring added value?  Above and beyond what others want to put out for free, in a feel-good continued cycle of sharing?  Awesome.  People will pay for it.

If they don't?  Too fucking bad for them.

Either way?  No problem.

QuoteThat's the ideal that the "open" ethic pushes towards, anyhow.

The "free as in beer" misunderstood version of it adopted by the gaming imdustry does maybe.

The "free as in speech" version that the original open ethic it was ostensibly borrowed from does not, however, and it is that ethic that I think is woefully underexploited in the world of game design.

This is a sterling opportunity to change that.

Quote from: Zachary The First;226997This might be a crazy-ass idea, but I've been looking at the d6 License, currently up for sale.

I'm a big proponent of Open d6, and was really looking forward to that.  I think d6 is a great system with a lot of flexibility.  In any case, there are so many gamers here that I really esteem--James, Doc, jrients, clash, Bill, and so many others.  

What I am thinking is that we see who'd be interested in being part-owner, determine what shares would be and all that, and make an offer for the d6 License.  In essence, we'd all be stockholders--electing our officers, deciding who's going to run things, and basically run a fan-based company on the principles of openness, open gaming, open ideas, great customer service, and making what gamers want.

I'm not saying we'd make a dime; but we could keep d6 going, ensure the license is open, and maybe make some things that would make folks happy.

Clearly, there's a lot more to think about on this and even more to hash out, but think: we could have a part in saving something for everything I think deserves to be saved.  Open licenses--new games out there--just read this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11226)!  The ideas are there, the talent is there, and I think the desire is, too.

In the end, we could have a stake in keep a dream alive.  And making whup-ass gaming products by fans, for fans.  Introductory games, classics revisited--open submissions!

So, I know there's a lot of items to hash out and plenty to think on, but who wants to get out there with me and give it a shot?

Hi guys, I don't have time to scroll through 17 pages of posts, but just thought I'd say that I love the d6 System.  There are a few things I'd like to streamline (especially chargen), but I'd do Vice Squad: Miami Nights d6 if I could and probably Dreamwalker Revised d6 as well.  

If anyone cares.  :)

Pete

Quote from: J Arcane;227402The "free as in beer" misunderstood version of it adopted by the gaming imdustry does maybe.

The "free as in speech" version that the original open ethic it was ostensibly borrowed from does not, however, and it is that ethic that I think is woefully underexploited in the world of game design.

On the other hand, it's worth noting that most of the applications out there which have really pushed the open source idea into the foreground - Linux, Firefox, etc. - have been free as in both.

Actually, Linux is a really good example: even though many Linux distributions are "free as in beer", there've been several that aren't, but manage to do just fine for their creators anyway. And I would argue that game systems - especially those that don't come bundled with an implied setting, like the D6 system - are very much like operating systems. If you come up with a cool world to run with D6 (cool software to run on the operating system), damn right people will pay for it. If you can't come up with anything decent to do with it? That's your problem.

EDIT TO ADD: I would stress, by the way, that I totally sympathise with people's concerns about using something like the GPL with this, which requires you to make everything open. Since the added value people are going to be bringing to the table is probably going to be almost entirely based on setting, it might be worth coming up with a licence along the lines of "system stuff is completely open, setting stuff is as open or closed as the inventor wants it to be".

Quote from: Warthur;227404On the other hand, it's worth noting that most of the applications out there which have really pushed the open source idea into the foreground - Linux, Firefox, etc. - have been free as in both.

Actually, Linux is a really good example: even though many Linux distributions are "free as in beer", there've been several that aren't, but manage to do just fine for their creators anyway. And I would argue that game systems - especially those that don't come bundled with an implied setting, like the D6 system - are very much like operating systems. If you come up with a cool world to run with D6 (cool software to run on the operating system), damn right people will pay for it. If you can't come up with anything decent to do with it? That's your problem.

EDIT TO ADD: I would stress, by the way, that I totally sympathise with people's concerns about using something like the GPL with this, which requires you to make everything open. Since the added value people are going to be bringing to the table is probably going to be almost entirely based on setting, it might be worth coming up with a licence along the lines of "system stuff is completely open, setting stuff is as open or closed as the inventor wants it to be".

If you're aware of any Linux operating systems that utilize modified GPL software and do not subsequently make the resultant source code available under the GPL, I advise you to contact the EFF or the original copyright holder of the prior work immediately so that appropriate legal action may be taken.

Quote from: pspahn;227403Hi guys, I don't have time to scroll through 17 pages of posts, but just thought I'd say that I love the d6 System.  There are a few things I'd like to streamline (especially chargen), but I'd do Vice Squad: Miami Nights d6 if I could and probably Dreamwalker Revised d6 as well.  

If anyone cares.  :)

Pete

Of course we care, Pete!  That's part of the point of the thread.  And Dreamwalker d6 sounds badass!

Quote from: J Arcane;227395You are remembering we're talking about D6 right?  A game that has consistently failed to make any money outside the context of one licensed property?  I'd honestly be surprised if you, or anyone else for that matter, could remotely make any kind of profitable enterprise out of the game regardless of license.  

We need to make something clear out the gate. Eric failed to make money. There are a crapload of possible reasons. If D6 has a customer base, you can make money on it. I am confident I could make money. Maybe not boatloads but another piece of the strategy. It is quite doable if you understand the market, understand your business, and know how to use marketing to make profitable products. I am even more confident that with help from folks like Zach, Clash, Dan, and Rotwang that we can do some great products on top of it.

Quote from: J Arcane;227395If there are printers out there that will publish something I give them in book form for free out of the goodness of their heart, I'd sincerely like to know about them.  

I do not even understand the words you typed.

Quote from: J Arcane;227395I look at this from a practical perspective.  If I am to invest in a project l expect some kind of return on it.  It's already been well established that this is not liable to provide financial returns, and so instead I feel it is in my right to at least expect creative returns.  

So do I? That is what I am talking about...or do you mean the buying d6 and setting it free part? Again, I am not real clear where you are going with this.

Quote from: J Arcane;227395Releasing said material in a fashion that allows any random jerk to scoop it up, exploit it for their own ends, without giving anything back to the community they took it from in the first place, does nothing for me.  I don't think that's fair at all, especially if we're talking about me actually paying out money to open it up in some fashion.  

What if the random jerk makes a game you like? Or generates rules then OGLs them for another publisher to use? I mean, you realize, this is not about a fan making something and needing licensing. It would be for publishers. Ultimately, the rules would be available as Levi mentioned to everyone equally. The question would be do you want more publisher involvement or less? Do you want the publisher to retain rights or not? I mean, the d6 rules would not have a corporation oversite in the current manner we are discussing it so a fan or forum could be cranking out acres of material unfettered. In fact, if we went Levi's route with public domain for the rules then each creator would retain their copyright and the ability to give it away if they like or not.

Quote from: J Arcane;227395Share and share alike, that's all I'm saying here.  I'm also saying there's a potential with something like this to actually do something new and exciting with the concept of open licensing that hasn't been implemented before, and could wind up creating something really awesome.  I've been continually disappointed with the way so-called "open gaming" has actually worked out in practice, because the potential of true open gaming is incredible.

I realize you're a businessman, and all you want to see or consider is how you can turn a profit on it, but try and look at it from the perspective of someone who knows he isn't going to get one, and would prefer to see some other benefit stem from it in place of monetary ones.

Dude, I did not insult you. Why do you feel the need to insult me? I thought we were having a useful conversation here. I will stop bothering you.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;227410In fact, if we went Levi's route with public domain for the rules then each creator would retain their copyright and the ability to give it away if they like or not.

If they made changes, yes.  They would immediately gain copyright, which they would need to waive if they wanted their stuff to join the public stuff.

Of course, they'd need to deal with assholes like me, who would be asking "Hey, is any of this public?" the instant they announced their release.

I suspect some of them would bow to that social context, and add to the "common property" a little bit as they went, because it would get them free attention.  Others wouldn't, of course.  Their call.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227400I would donate money to a charity that gave me an infinite amount of tuna, regardless of whether or not someone was selling nice hot tuna patties they made with their free tuna, yes.

As for "OMG.  Someone will reprint it an an inflated price without adding anything"?

No, they won't.  Or, at least, it'd be stupid.  Because, if nothing else, I'd personally slap that bitch on Lulu, buy it yourself, printed-at-cost, public domain intact, the second I could format it.  I hopefully wouldn't even be the only one.  If they wanted to compete with that, they had best bring some value of their own to the table.

Let the "value added for money" people compete, on a level field, with "value added 'cuz I felt like it".  If they really and truly do bring added value?  Above and beyond what others want to put out for free, in a feel-good continued cycle of sharing?  Awesome.  People will pay for it.

If they don't?  Too fucking bad for them.

Either way?  No problem.

Honestly, that is all I am shooting for. I do not want to be forced into making all my Roma setting public/open because I chose to do a d6 conversion. As to offering up material, I will make this pledge here and now, any mechanics in books I publish will have open mechnics. You will be able to cut an d past things like equipment, wepaons and all other mechanical bits verbatim into your books. Just credit me and HinterWelt.

But yeah, you already have folks reprinting the D20 SRD when it was free for the downloading. Some value add in formatting and bookmarking but still, you will get that. My hope is that it will be more of a case of getting publishers interested in putting out polished material. For that to happen, you need a means to make money on it (whether indirectly like Levi or directly like money grubbing scum such as myself). Now, if it is going to be a non-profit effort, then you need only force a "You can use this for non-commercial endeavors". If there is money to be had, someone will clone it.

Bill

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227412If they made changes, yes.  They would immediately gain copyright, which they would need to waive if they wanted their stuff to join the public stuff.

Of course, they'd need to deal with assholes like me, who would be asking "Hey, is any of this public?" the instant they announced their release.

I suspect some of them would bow to that social context, and add to the "common property" a little bit as they went, because it would get them free attention.  Others wouldn't, of course.  Their call.

Sorry, the changes point was implied. The point I am concerned about is now you are talking like a gatekeeper. Is this what you are going to do? I don't know if you mean it as such but I don't want to help create some "social awareness a gunpoint" kind of thing. Make it open, let people do with it as they will, comment on it sure. Stalk those that flaut your ideals and harass them into complying with your ideals...not cool.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;227414Stalk those that flaut your ideals and harass them into complying with your ideals...not cool.

Okay, I should restate that.  Apologies.  In actuality?

What I'd likely be doing is saying "If anything in your new product adds to the common property, please let me know, so that I can point at it and scream good things at the top of my lungs, on my little soapbox."

More flies with honey, a positive context kicks the shit out of a negative one, etc.  I won't deny that I would want to see some social pressure, but I'd prefer that my share of it be as close to purely positive as I can.

The post you're quoting is me letting my mouth run a couple minutes ahead of my brain.

QuoteDude, I did not insult you. Why do you feel the need to insult me? I thought we were having a useful conversation here. I will stop bothering you.

I'm not insulting you.  I'm simply responding to your own rhetoric.  You have consistently framed your responses in this thread in the context of business utility and profitability, and it would seem to be your chief interest in the subject given your statements thus far.  If you intended to give some other impression, how am I to help that you did not convey as much with your actual words?

Simple assumptions like "It would be for publishers" make that abundantly clear.  I don't want something for the publishers.  There's enough games out there already that are licensed in a fashion to benefit publishers.

I want to see something for the gamers.  I want to see the promise of open gaming finally realized on the same level it has been in the Linux world, and I see this as a singular opportunity to do so.  I want to see the kind of collaborative effort and design that a true open source methodology and philosophy can create.  

To be blunt, and in this case I apologize because I am bordering on insulting, but the last thing I'd want to see come from something like this is a bunch of hasty conversions of some existing work to the system.  I'd rather see new and creative and interesting things done with it, and shared with others who then take those things and make new and interesting things with those, and so forth.  

It's been my dream for a long time to see something like this, and here I think we have the possibility to make something like that happen, and I'd rather not see it squandered and the system relegated to the dustbin by repeating the same outcome every other so-called "open gaming" project has experienced.  

I want to see the Linux, the Sourceforge, of gaming, and starting with a core seed like D6 would be the perfect foundation to build something like that.  Instead what I'm seeing is people just looking to see how the can make a buck off it, and that saddens me, because it rather defeats what I see as the whole point behind making it an open licensed project.

Quote from: J Arcane;227421To be blunt, and in this case I apologize because I am bordering on insulting, but the last thing I'd want to see come from something like this is a bunch of hasty conversions of some existing work to the system.

...

Quote from: J Arcane;227421I want to see the Linux, the Sourceforge, of gaming, and starting with a core seed like D6 would be the perfect foundation to build something like that.

You are aware that something like half of the things on Sourceforge have 0-1 total downloads, ever - that they include your "hasty conversions"?  And that commercial entities taking an interest in Linux is what is pushing it into the realm of the very, very serious.  Right?

I'm not sure how to express this one clearly.  But, from my perspective, an open model that excludes a free and sharing community is a dud (GSL).  Equally, one that excludes the common model of commercial opportunity is also likely a dud (GPL).

It is possible to have the cake and eat it, too - to have a vibrant community of shared commons where some of the most dedicated creators monetise their involvement.

Quote from: J Arcane;227421I'm not insulting you.  I'm simply responding to your own rhetoric.  You have consistently framed your responses in this thread in the context of business utility and profitability, and it would seem to be your chief interest in the subject given your statements thus far.  If you intended to give some other impression, how am I to help that you did not convey as much with your actual words?

O.k. so you are just not bothering to read what I write. On at least two posts I have said we need to determine if what the goal of this effort is, publisher involvement or not. If you do not want publisher involvement then forcing them to open all content in their products if they use the d6 system will most likely do it. Not for sure, but very likely. A more flexible solution might be better in terms of inclusion of publishers and fans. Note: this is not the only goal but one that applies to the licensing issue.

As to "my rhetoric", I am a publisher and this is a business to me. That said, I can think outside my little square. Also, you are not impressing me with your reading skills. I have discussed a lot of possibilities ranging from outright purchase by a collective to public domain buy out by donation. I think I have shown some flexibility here. On top of it, I have discussed possible projects with people. You wish to paint me as some capitalist pig drooling at a chance to rape the peasants for their naivete then go for it. I am not waving any flags here. Can you say the same?

Quote from: J Arcane;227421Simple assumptions like "It would be for publishers" make that abundantly clear.  I don't want something for the publishers.  There's enough games out there already that are licensed in a fashion to benefit publishers.

Really? You think that I am advocating a closed license for publishers...

Quote from: J Arcane;227421I want to see something for the gamers.  I want to see the promise of open gaming finally realized on the same level it has been in the Linux world, and I see this as a singular opportunity to do so.  I want to see the kind of collaborative effort and design that a true open source methodology and philosophy can create.  

Why do I feel I am in church here...;)

Quote from: J Arcane;227421To be blunt, and in this case I apologize because I am bordering on insulting, but the last thing I'd want to see come from something like this is a bunch of hasty conversions of some existing work to the system.  I'd rather see new and creative and interesting things done with it, and shared with others who then take those things and make new and interesting things with those, and so forth.  

Sorry you find my work trite. I'll offer you a refund...

Quote from: J Arcane;227421It's been my dream for a long time to see something like this, and here I think we have the possibility to make something like that happen, and I'd rather not see it squandered and the system relegated to the dustbin by repeating the same outcome every other so-called "open gaming" project has experienced.  

I want to see the Linux, the Sourceforge, of gaming, and starting with a core seed like D6 would be the perfect foundation to build something like that.  Instead what I'm seeing is people just looking to see how the can make a buck off it, and that saddens me, because it rather defeats what I see as the whole point behind making it an open licensed project.

Well, I will graciously bow out at this point. I leave you to your work then.

Bill

Come back Bill! :bawling:

If it were released as Public Domain, someone (eg. J Arcane) could choose to make a first contribution / addition and then release that new product under the GPL.

Seems like a good compromise to me.

Quote from: J Arcane;227421I want to see the promise of open gaming finally realized on the same level it has been in the Linux world, and I see this as a singular opportunity to do so.  I want to see the kind of collaborative effort and design that a true open source methodology and philosophy can create.

Wasn't Fudge created like that?

Quote from: Stuart;227360We've got a pretty international community here... I'd say this one:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

this is the one that allows you to make derivative works, allows you to sell them commercially, and allows you to retain the rights to what you create, but requires you to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" - which in this case would presumably be something like "This book uses the free d6 rules, which can be downloaded from...".

Quote from: Age of Fable;227460this is the one that allows you to make derivative works, allows you to sell them commercially, and allows you to retain the rights to what you create, but requires you to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" - which in this case would presumably be something like "This book uses the free d6 rules, which can be downloaded from...".

It could be -- I guess that's still to be determined.  You could have a standard line like that, or you could say the names of the original game designers had to be included on the credits page.  Either way, I think it's a good license if you want some more formal acknowledgment, but otherwise want it as open as if it were in the public domain.

Quote from: pspahn;227403Hi guys, I don't have time to scroll through 17 pages of posts, but just thought I'd say that I love the d6 System.  There are a few things I'd like to streamline (especially chargen), but I'd do Vice Squad: Miami Nights d6 if I could and probably Dreamwalker Revised d6 as well.  

If anyone cares.  :)

Pete

man i love those two Miami games you did.
D6ing them would taste sweet, but i already use those with Savage Worlds.
not to threadjack, but ever consider doing it with Savage?
free license with approval: http://www.peginc.com/Licensing.html

back on topic: i was going to originally use D6 for the Miami games. it would still be a good fit. such cinematic 80's awesomeness awaiting to be had.

dave

J Arcane:

The concern HinterWelt is raising is a valid one. If Barker wanted to do a d6 Tekumel, would that mean Tekumel would become part of the d6 GPL? Would a d6 Harry Potter game mean Rowling would lose the IP to the GPL? In other words, why should anyone release anything if they lose their IP when they do so?

On the other hand,

HinterWelt:

You've said you would be willing to release any rules/system modifications or creations. How do you ensure others do so as well, so as to get the creative effects you get with a GPL?

For a concrete example, let's consider Quidditch. Ideally, the rules of the game, the number of players, the size of the pitch, how you win Quidditch, should be protected IP. On the other hand, system issues, like pilot broomstick, spot small fast moving object, use bat while flying etc. should be open, so that Bob can take those rules and add jousting from Wendy's game and come up with broomstick jousting, Amanda can take the broomstick rules and modify them for asteroid belt racing, Raul can take her asteroid belt racing rules and come up with gravity-repulsor asteroid soccer (use gravity repulsors to push asteroids through goals) etc.

In other words, how can you protect the Potterverse and Tekumel and Roma Imperious author's IPs while keeping rules open?

Quote from: apparition13;227486In other words, how can you protect the Potterverse and Tekumel and Roma Imperious author's IPs while keeping rules open?

Separate documents.  With separate terms of use.

Quote from: apparition13;227486you would be willing to release any rules/system modifications or creations. How do you ensure others do so as well, so as to get the creative effects you get with a GPL?

Bill can correct me if I'm wrong, but he wasn't addressing that. In other words, I don't think Bill cares to force the next person in the chain to release rules/system modifications. He leaves that choice to that person.

And that's the point of something like the OGL (not that I'm putting up a standard and saying that's the solution); each person who creates something based on what's open can decide whether or not what they added is now part of the public domain - on a piece by piece basis.

In the end, I like Levi's approach if it could be done, because then it's a voluntary contribution with the specific goal of getting all of the material into public domain, and then everyone can decide what they want to do with it on an individual basis. If J wants to create a d6 core under the GPL in the hopes that it will spawn the environment he prefers, he can. If Bill wants to convert his settings to d6 and sell them, he can. If I want to make a copy of one of the d6 genres for print and see if I can sell it, I can (and I'll fail, of course, because anyone can do that themselves!).

Of course, I would have to put my Levi filter on so that when I put things out for money I didn't have to listen to him berating me to make it free! :D Eh, doesn't matter, I'm not a publisher.

QuoteYou wish to paint me as some capitalist pig drooling at a chance to rape the peasants for their naivete then go for it. I am not waving any flags here. Can you say the same?

OK, where the FUCK did that come from?  Clearly we are done here because clearly you're determined to read everthing I say in the worst possible fashion. If you're just going to twist my words to try and paint me as some frothing looney instead of honestly engaging the conversation then please, leave by all means.  

QuoteIn other words, why should anyone release anything if they lose their IP when they do so?

Sigh.  It's already been explained that this isn't actually how the damn GPL works, do I really have to explain it again?

Quote from: HinterWelt;227410If D6 has a customer base, you can make money on it. I am confident I could make money. Maybe not boatloads but another piece of the strategy. It is quite doable if you understand the market, understand your business, and know how to use marketing to make profitable products.

I fully agree with Bill.  Trying to compete with WotC or WW for layout, art and gloss is financial suicide.  Big print orders are suicide.   Putting out more Genera in a market overdosed with Genera is suicide.  

D6 is awesome not because of existing fans, but because it is a stupidly simple system to learn and play.   Chargen is 15 minutes for noobs.  Survivability is good.  The core mechanic is "roll dice and add them up versus a target number or opposed roll".

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227425It is possible to have the cake and eat it, too - to have a vibrant community of shared commons where some of the most dedicated creators monetise their involvement.

Yup.

Again, this is why I prefer either total ownership of D6 or the public domain idea.  If the system is PD, then everyone copyrights their product just fine and has the choice to PD whatever part of their project they like or not.   All these open licenses are mostly wank.   Game mechanics are not source codes and what CC systems works in software does not necessarily work for TT games.

Quote from: J Arcane;227525Sigh.  It's already been explained that this isn't actually how the damn GPL works, do I have to explain it again?

I'd be interested in hearing it.

The GPL is a license for software, so I'd also be interested in examples of media that have been released under the GPL.

Also, there are common criticisms of the GPL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Criticism ) that echo what Bill has been saying.

QuoteSome software developers have found the extensive scope of the GPL to be too restrictive. For example, Bjørn Reese and Daniel Stenberg describe how the downstream effects of the GPL on later developers creates a "quodque pro quo" (Latin, "Everything in return for something"). For that reason, in 2001 they abandoned the GPLv2 in favor of less restrictive copyleft licenses.

Quote from: Stuart;227527I'd be interested in hearing it.

The GPL is a license for software, so I'd also be interested in examples of media that have been released under the GPL.

Also, there are common criticisms of the GPL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Criticism ) that echo what Bill has been saying.

As was explained once up thread, the GPL does not entail a surrendering of copyright.  You still retain the rights to your own work, you do not "surrender your IP", you're simply required to share your contribution if you wish to make use of someone else's.  The very example that you cite from Wiki there would not even be possible if this were not the case.

It's share-and-share-alike, just like the Creative Commons license you linked to, but with considerable more legal backing and history.

Quote from: J Arcane;227533As was explained once up thread, the GPL does not entail a surrendering of copyright.  You still retain the rights to your own work, you do not "surrender your IP", you're simply required to share your contribution if you wish to make use of someone else's.  The very example that you cite from Wiki there would not even be possible if this were not the case.

It's share-and-share-alike, just like the Creative Commons license you linked to, but with considerable more legal backing and history.

GPL is older, and thus more history.  I'm not sure if I'd agree on the amount of legal backing though.

That point aside, would this not be the scenario:

d6 is released under GPL

I take d6 then add MySetting and release the new game under GPL (because I have to).

Then you can take d6 *and* MySetting and create d6 and MySetting plus yourStuff and you release than under GPL.

All well and good... unless I don't want to let other people create works based on MySetting.

Yes, I still have copyright to MySetting and I can continue to do things with it.  I'm the only one who can release fully copyrighted versions of MySetting.  But anyone can also release MySetting or derivatives as long as it was under the GPL.

So if JK Rowling released d6 Harry Potter under the GPL, I could turn around and release Harry Potter Generation 2: Electric Boogaloo as long as it was also GPL.

Since JK Rowling (or whoever else has an IP they don't want to give up) doesn't want to let anyone and everyone do that, they won't release their setting for the d6 system.

Are there any story / settings that have been released under GPL?  I think it's almost entirely software... since it's a software license.

Edit:

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's share-and-share-alike, just like the Creative Commons license you linked to, but with considerable more legal backing and history.

I think if d6 was released under Creative Commons it should be with the Attribution license, and not with the Attribution + Share Alike license.

Quote from: J Arcane;227533It's share-and-share-alike, just like the Creative Commons license you linked to, but with considerable more legal backing and history.

Are you eating your own dogfood yet?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227573Are you eating your own dogfood yet?

What the fuck?

You know what, forget it.  If this actually goes anywhere beyond a bunch of internet rambling, you all can officially count me out of any contribution.

I'm sorry you're all so goddamn close minded you can't consider the potential in something like this, I really am.  And I'm especially sorry if you manage to drag down a game I enjoyed with this kind of attitude.  

I'm done.

Quote from: J Arcane;227583What the fuck?

*Shrug*

I don't see how it's a rude question.  One of the fundamental expectations of every other healthy GPL community, which is what you say you want, is that you practice before you preach.

You want a GPL discussion?  That question is part of the discussion you want.

Hi all,

I deleted some of my original post because I want to get straight to the point:

1.  I am very interested in contributing to a large group that purchases d6 (provided that it will allow us to publish material in d6, and not *require* that any of our setting material be made open).

2.  If anyone is forming a small group to make a bid for d6, I ask that you contact me.  I would be interested in joining a small group if that is the direction it goes...:)

3.  Provided we are able, I am hopeful to release a d6 version of our upcoming "Universe Project".  Many of you mention an interest in writing for d6... we will continue to hire freelance writers for that project (the pay isn't great, but we do pay cash upon delivery).

William
ComStar Games
http://www.comstar-games.com

Quote from: ComStar;227593Hi all,

I deleted some of my original post because I want to get straight to the point:

1.  I am very interested in contributing to a large group that purchases d6 (provided that it will allow us to publish material in d6, and not *require* that any of our setting material be made open).

2.  If anyone is forming a small group to make a bid for d6, I ask that you contact me.  I would be interested in joining a small group if that is the direction it goes...:)

3.  Provided we are able, I am hopeful to release a d6 version of our upcoming "Universe Project".  Many of you mention an interest in writing for d6... we will continue to hire freelance writers for that project (the pay isn't great, but we do pay cash upon delivery).

William
ComStar Games
http://www.comstar-games.com

William--

I've stated it before here, and we've talked about it before in PMs at the WEG boards, but you can count me in as a writer and editor.

Pax et bonum,

Dale Meier

So if we were going to talk numbers...  how much do people think the fundable project should set for the ransom amount for d6?  $5,000?

Perhaps we could have some bonus for anyone that pays up something like $500 or more (like a free copy of all the d6 system materials from the core books in either .doc or .rtf)?

William
ComStar

Quote from: ComStar;227635So if we were going to talk numbers...  how much do people think the fundable project should set for the ransom amount for d6?  $5,000?

Perhaps we could have some bonus for anyone that pays up something like $500 or more (like a free copy of all the d6 system materials from the core books in either .doc or .rtf)?

William
ComStar

This would be a factor for Eric to say, at least initially. Negotiation would be at the heart of such talks and not necessarily only set by Eric.  A lot would depend on any offers he is getting from other groups.

Bill

Okay..:)

This idea seems to be being talked about on a number of forums... it seems that we should all work together on it (since most of the fora seem to be having the same basic idea).  Then perhaps a 'spokesperson' could approach Eric with the idea?

Given Eric's previous interest in OpenD6, I think he may like this idea.

William

Quote from: ComStar;227639Okay..:)

This idea seems to be being talked about on a number of forums... it seems that we should all work together on it (since most of the fora seem to be having the same basic idea).  Then perhaps a 'spokesperson' could approach Eric with the idea?

Given Eric's previous interest in OpenD6, I think he may like this idea.

William

William,
I think Zach and Levi both have emails into Eric at this point. Some point in the distant middle of this thread and I think they mention it on the WEG thread. I just wonder if the folks on RPG.Net and EnWorld will be doing the same. I agree we should have one voice. Zach or Levi both seem quite capable of selling the idea so which ever is interested or has the time should run with it. I need to write about squirrels.

Bill

I also have time and am happy to assist in any way...:)

William
ComStar

As I mentioned over at WEG, I'm in for the Fundable project so long as it goes Public Domain.

Well I would be interested in helping out in some form, I have worked with the Avenger side of the Comstar pack and also with Cubicle 7 so could help out with things.

If there is a real serious interest in WEG then colour my interested.

Rog.

It would be good to see what things aside from d6 Erik might also be willing to  let follow the Fundable -> Public Domain model.  (eg. Paranoia)

Paranoia is released by Mongoose Publishing ATM.

Quote from: Roger Calver;227693Paranoia is released by Mongoose Publishing ATM.

Is it licensed to them, or did they buy it outright?

I dont know for sure, but they do have a good range of products out for it.

Edit : Its a license of theirs, http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/news/news_item.php?pkid_news=175

Quote from: Stuart;227359Unless you're releasing software, I wouldn't use the GPL.

I would second that. Though I'd use CC or OGL before either.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe OGL is a complex license that is in part designed to cover the ass of a commercial company still trying to sell a product.

Heh. I work with the GPL in software. It certainly has some wrinkles.

Anyways, the OGL is fairly well understood by a certain segment of the industy. I was surprised to learn that there are still some folks out there who don't get the idea of LICENSING your work, but that would apply to the GPL or CC, too.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe GPL is set up to encourage stuff to be reintroduced back into open content. The OGL is designed to discourage that, especially as regards the concept of "Product Identity".

That's ironic. The fact that the OGL lets you hold back things you don't want to share is LESS restrictive from the viewpoint of the person actually publishing from it. As an end user, you might see that as more restrictive, but the supposed restrictions you are talking about here don't amount to anything if the person decides not to release anything at all because the license won't allow release of only a portion.

Personally, I think CC or OGL are the way to go because they are specifically designed for artistic works, leaning towards the latter because it would let you mix the content from the body of existing OGL gaming works already out there.

Quote from: Roger Calver;227695I dont know for sure, but they do have a good range of products out for it.

Edit : Its a license of theirs, http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/news/news_item.php?pkid_news=175

It is a licence of theirs, but it is very definitely not licensed from West End Games. A group of the original designers got together and bought back the rights to Paranoia the first time West End declared bankruptcy.

This, incidentally, is why Mongoose were able to get away with the thorough (and laser-accurate) trashing of the latter-day WEG Paranoia products, from the Secret Society Wars onwards - the people who actually own the rights to Paranoia, Mr Costikyan and Gelber and Goldberg and the rest, entirely agree with the assessment.

Now that you say this it did remind me of reading something awhile ago about that.

So with that out of the question from WEG what of thier IP's are worth taking on ?, IMHO the only one with any value would be Torg the others could/can/are be done by other publishers - generic fantasy, sci-fi or even pulp are around and without the bagage that would come from WEG.

That said there is a possible value in obtaining things from WEG, it all comes down to the $£$ attached.

Rog.

All I can say is I hope something happens with D6.

I would hate to see some company buy the license just to sit on it, for reasons others have mentioned, like if it a competing system and they buy it just to kill it.

That would suck

In truth I cant see that happening, just due to the simple points that it would (of course) cost money.
A company/band of companies or people would have an extra edge and in hope have the extra punch to make the buyout.

Rog.

Quote from: Roger Calver;227894In truth I cant see that happening, just due to the simple points that it would (of course) cost money.
A company/band of companies or people would have an extra edge and in hope have the extra punch to make the buyout.

Rog.

There is truth to what you say.  While it is not impossible, it is probably unlikely that it will happen.

I think there is too much interest in getting the license now that the chances of it actually happening is thin.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;227189My dumb idea:

Public Domain - Fundraising to put it into the public domain.  Get Eric to say he'll release it that way for $XXX, and then slap that bitch on fundable.

Then it belongs to everyone.

Even my broke ass would find a few bucks for that!
Just one little conceit: Put the names of the donors on the rules. It can even be in 4 point font, it just has to be there.

Going along Williams (Comstar) rough figures $5000 with 50 people involved comes out at $100 a pop or £50 in "real" money ;)

It comes down to the return on your outlay, I know stupid comment but all true in the end, I can see if this in handled by one/some of the "larger" companies who have shown interest then this may work - in the end IMHO it really comes to what you are looking for in the end run, by that I mean not the d6 system as such but spin off product.

D6 has worked in the past as a major player in the systems race (back in the mid 80's) and in truth I fell it has more to give if handled right, use it for what it does and not making it something it isnt - fast and furious is what it does best and a setting that plays off that style is a best match for it.

Rog.

Quote from: Roger Calver;227996Going along Williams (Comstar) rough figures $5000 with 50 people involved comes out at $100 a pop or £50 in "real" money.

That is crazy money.  All of WEG's properties are not worth 5k in the current RPG market.   They are DEAD properties.   It does not matter how much popular WEG may have been in the 80s or 90s.   The only consideration that matters is today's market.

I fully agree that D6 is an excellent generic engine - especially for cinematic play and especially for noobs, but while the RPG hobby is doing okay, the RPG industry is a shitastic mess.

$1000 for full personal control makes sense to me because I agree that paired with two different good settings, you could see your money back in two years.   $200 to be part of a publishing collective where you get all the benefits of the collective and the D6 property makes sense to me.   But to just throw something into the public domain as a charity for old time's sake is NOT worth three lobster dinners.  

And we are talking about lobsters drowned in butter and garlic sauce!!

Quote from: Spinachcat;228124And we are talking about lobsters drowned in butter and garlic sauce!!

That's a very good point.  Especially if you get the nice biscuits with it.

Hey, I dont know the correct figures here but quoting from an earlier post.

Quote from: Spinachcat;228124That is crazy money.

I'm confident that $2,500 could be raised via fundable, and fairly swiftly to boot.  I suspect that donations would likely range from $10 (casually awesome people) to $200 (hardcore wanna-do-this people).

Beyond that mark, I get steadily less certain.

I've already got the C-note I intend to donate set aside on my budget.

Quote from: Spinachcat;228124That is crazy money.  All of WEG's properties are not worth 5k in the current RPG market.   They are DEAD properties.   It does not matter how much popular WEG may have been in the 80s or 90s.   The only consideration that matters is today's market.

I fully agree that D6 is an excellent generic engine - especially for cinematic play and especially for noobs, but while the RPG hobby is doing okay, the RPG industry is a shitastic mess.

$1000 for full personal control makes sense to me because I agree that paired with two different good settings, you could see your money back in two years.   $200 to be part of a publishing collective where you get all the benefits of the collective and the D6 property makes sense to me.   But to just throw something into the public domain as a charity for old time's sake is NOT worth three lobster dinners.  

And we are talking about lobsters drowned in butter and garlic sauce!!

A big part of this will be dependant on:
1. How much Eric thinks it is worth.
2. How much other bidders are offering
3. If people view this as charity as opposed to a business venture. (Hint: It would be a charity).

From above, 1 is the key factor. If Eric think the rights to d6 are worth 5K and that is it...well, honestly, I hope he can pay his rent with d6s cause I do not think anyone would pay 5k for just d6.

Any way, it will be interesting to see how he responds to Levi and Zach.

Bill
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;228136(Hint: It would be a charity).

Yep.  Though, notably, one from which a number of (individually quite small) business activities might spring.

Someone please send me a PM if anything ever comes of this plan; I don't want to keep having to check here to see whats up, especially since it seems like thus far we're 20 pages in and "fuck all" is what's up aside from a lot of talk.

If a group from this site get the D6 license, in whatever capacity, and want to have a forum dedicated to it, get in touch with me.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;228144Someone please send me a PM if anything ever comes of this plan; I don't want to keep having to check here to see whats up, especially since it seems like thus far we're 20 pages in and "fuck all" is what's up aside from a lot of talk.

If a group from this site get the D6 license, in whatever capacity, and want to have a forum dedicated to it, get in touch with me.

RPGPundit

It's going to be a week or more before we get any response from Eric since he's out of town. Several people have contacted him about his various  lines.

In short, that's why "fuck all" is where we're at.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;228131I'm confident that $2,500 could be raised via fundable, and fairly swiftly to boot.

I am uncertain of that number.   There is that big moment of truth when you have the mouse poised over the PAY button.  

Years ago, I was involved in fundraising for disabled kids and getting millionaires to follow through on public pledges they made (and got cheers for) was a nightmare.   Somehow 30% of them could never return our calls.  

BTW, this has been an interesting 20 pages of fuck all.   Levi's public domain idea should be implemented for other dead IP as well.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;228142Yep.  Though, notably, one from which a number of (individually quite small) business activities might spring.

Agreed but I am saying people really need to understand this is not a business venture. If it is, you need to tell me because what I have gotten out of it is you put some money up so that Eric will be able to release d6 to the PD and thus avoid having to take a bid from a company looking to close the system. If you don't believe in that idea, and expect to get money back well, I think you will have some unhappy people.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;228164Agreed but I am saying people really need to understand this is not a business venture.

Yeah.  People primarily hitting the button "for business reasons" would need to stop and think about that one.

People going "Hey, cool, I could make what I want!  Oh, and maybe I'll make five bucks!  But more importantly, I can make what I want!!!" are in pretty solid territory.

(For myself, if I was looking for the money, I'd have spent this time talking up my other stuff; it stands a much more solid chance of returns - my own stuff stands to make me tens and tens of dollars, I tell you.)

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;228166Yeah.  People primarily hitting the button "for business reasons" would need to stop and think about that one.

People going "Hey, cool, I could make what I want!  Oh, and maybe I'll make five bucks!  But more importantly, I can make what I want!!!" are in pretty solid territory.

(For myself, if I was looking for the money, I'd have spent this time talking up my other stuff; it stands a much more solid chance of returns - my own stuff stands to make me tens and tens of dollars, I tell you.)

It should be clear that the primary goal is to make the system availible to tinkerers and publishers alike. Do with it what you like. Go ahead and try to make tens and tens of dollars, if you can.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;228166Yeah.  People primarily hitting the button "for business reasons" would need to stop and think about that one.

People going "Hey, cool, I could make what I want!  Oh, and maybe I'll make five bucks!  But more importantly, I can make what I want!!!" are in pretty solid territory.

(For myself, if I was looking for the money, I'd have spent this time talking up my other stuff; it stands a much more solid chance of returns - my own stuff stands to make me tens and tens of dollars, I tell you.)

Mostly I am talking about people saying "Well, I just wont invest in anything that does not give a good return". I think the very language there shows a misconception of where this effort is going. No one is going to make their money back on this "investment". They might make money after everything is done and they can put out d6 material but that is unrelated to this effort.

Of course, that is just my take on it.

Bill

Quote from: Spinachcat;228156I am uncertain of that number.   There is that big moment of truth when you have the mouse poised over the PAY button.  

If I believed that every statement of "I'm in!" would translate to serious money (serious, in this tone, meaning something like fifteen bucks)...?

I'd be "confident" around the $3,500 mark.

But I don't believe that they would all really make that translation.  A bit over half, sure, as a rough eyeball from my days working charity pledges.  Maybe I'm too much of an optimist.

I haven't been following this thread completely, just glancing at it periodically, so if this has been mentioned or suggested before then forgive me, but my opinion is that now would be a good time to take an accounting of how many folks might be willing to "invest" (read donate) whatever amount in freeing up D6 for some kind of public domain type application. Perhaps a thread solely dedicated to getting a "headcount" of folks and what they might be willing to throw in the pot. That way a reasonable estimate of the amount available might be waiting for Eric after the week off. Just a suggestion.

Put me down for up to US$50.

Quote from: Sigmund;228189I haven't been following this thread completely, just glancing at it periodically, so if this has been mentioned or suggested before then forgive me, but my opinion is that now would be a good time to take an accounting of how many folks might be willing to "invest" (read donate) whatever amount in freeing up D6 for some kind of public domain type application. Perhaps a thread solely dedicated to getting a "headcount" of folks and what they might be willing to throw in the pot. That way a reasonable estimate of the amount available might be waiting for Eric after the week off. Just a suggestion.

That would be tricky to compile fully - I've been talking with people on a number of forums, and over a few media.

For myself?  I'd start with ten.  Then come back in a while, and if it's moving along, drop another ten.  And so on.  I wouldn't likely go higher than, say, thirty or forty, though.

For the record, I make little money being on disability and that whole government ass-raping I get every 4 weeks but I'd toss in $30 for this to go Open. I know someone will do something cool with it, even if it is just a revamped Ghostbusters system. I loved that game and actually ran a 4 month campaign with it (the only long-term GB campaign I know of).

-=Grim=-

As I've mentioned on the WEG forums, I'm "in" for $500.

Zach, I think this is an awesome idea, but just remember that if your name is on this, you'll violate your elligibility to be an ENnies judge.  Something to think about.

Quote from: Xath;228299Zach, I think this is an awesome idea, but just remember that if your name is on this, you'll violate your elligibility to be an ENnies judge.  Something to think about.

Yep, I know.  If it goes public domain, it wouldn't be in my name.  And it sounds like Public Domain or something to that effect is the way folks are leaning.  Something to keep an eye on, though.

Just thought of something: what would happen to existing d6 material that's apparently being sold on drivethrurpg and similar sites? Or rather, what would happen to the money?

Quote from: Age of Fable;228417Just thought of something: what would happen to existing d6 material that's apparently being sold on drivethrurpg and similar sites? Or rather, what would happen to the money?

Whatever is happening to it now.  Everyone owns = anyone can profit, if they're able.  In whatever way they can manage.

Yeah, Scott Palter and Jerry Grayson would still be making the bucks for their stuff, and I'd assume that Eric would still get payouts for any sales of the actual core books from WEG, as would any other author that has published works up for sale.

Just saw this:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=406791

Hi,

My name is Mark Reed and I am working with several Podcasters/Game Designers to spearhead a legitimate bid for the D6 license. There are a lot of ways we can go with the license, so I am going to present our current thoughts on how to proceed. We welcome your feedback on these thoughts as our primary concen is to do what is in the D6 system's best interests. I am cross posting this in several forums to reach the maximum number of fans.

At a high level, our intention is to Open D6 as soon as we can create an SRD and get licensing language together. Now what does it mean to be Open? We are looking at several models right now, though we have several to follow including the OGL, Savage Worlds, Creative Commons. What Open does not mean is a fully public domain product. There will be a company tasked with overall guidance of the license and ensuring quality., What we are trying to avoid is having a flood of D6 products of varying quality, which helped to diminish the impact of the OGL on D20.

What is does mean is that we are going to reach out to you the fans and give you/ask you to publish D6 materials. We will have graphics artists, layout people, and professional editors on the team who can provide their services at a fair rate, but who know the system and will be interested in ensuring the hightest quality product. We will also be ensuring quality by allowing developers to submit the books for review. If they are serious attempts at game design and are not just a book of spells, classes, etc. that are off the charts, they will have the option of becoming "Official D6 Products." Being an official product is a signal to consumers that this book has been vetted and plays nice with other D6 products.

Designers will always have the option of going it alone. You will have a copy of the D6 SRD for reference, but will lose out on the Official D6 Products logo which means that your product will ntot be reviewed. Still, we will not revoke the ability to use the D6 system for your own Projects and for your own profit.

It may be a bit early as we hope to win the bid, but start thinking of your game world. If you have any questions, please post here or email me at groovecast(AT)gmail(DOT)com
__________________
Heroic Journey Publishing
heroicjourney@gmail.com

Now the talent here could do a much better job. The catch is, do we want to make our own boat or float with them OR others.  

Perhaps instead of bidding against each others, these groups should be working together...

If the people that Levi and Zachary and so forth are happy with the model being presented by these people - whereby anyone can make D6-compatible products, but only people whose products get approved by the review team can bear the logo - then I say it's completely worth it to join forces with these guys: competing bids can only drive the price up, while co-operation makes raising the asking price much easier.

Heck, it might even be smart for people who aren't 100% happy with the approach proposed to get involved with the dudes in question anyhow, for the sake of influencing them.

A couple of problems that I can see with their approach are

a) what if there aren't enough people prepared to review systems for quality?

b) what if there are enough people, but they're also involved in putting out their own stuff, leading to a conflict of interest?

QuoteIf they are serious attempts at game design and are not just a book of spells, classes, etc. that are off the charts, they will have the option of becoming "Official D6 Products."

What does 'off the charts' mean in this context? Do they mean just copied off already-released D6 products?

EDIT: I've also asked this on the rpg.net thread.

(not related to the other group preparing a bid)

Given that anyone can make a clone, and can prepare an 'official' logo (especially given that the name of the line, D6, is in common use as a general term), is making a bid partly in order to do right by the current owner of D6, kind of a 'thanks for trying'?

I'm not sure I see the value in something being an "official d6 product" at this point.  Unless the company plans to put money into marketing it's not something I'd bother to put on my own games.

Quote from: Mark ReedWhat we are trying to avoid is having a flood of D6 products of varying quality, which helped to diminish the impact of the OGL on D20.

This fear is so unfounded.  First of all, there is no way that D6 is going to attract the quantity of creators as D20 did.  And second, D20 really didn't suffer from the glut of poor product out there.  The good product sold and good D20 stuff stuck.  The bad stuff went away.  

This is just a control freak mentality and may end up limiting D6's full potential to propagate and grow.

Quote from: Warthur;229019If the people that Levi and Zachary and so forth are happy with the model being presented by these people - whereby anyone can make D6-compatible products, but only people whose products get approved by the review team can bear the logo - then I say it's completely worth it to join forces with these guys: competing bids can only drive the price up, while co-operation makes raising the asking price much easier.

Having talked with them for a bit:  They're decent guys.  Some of them want very much to be open to some degree.  The question is one of degree.

For my own very personal self, I operate almost entirely in the public domain these days, so I'm not so interested in a license.  However, for most people, so long as Open means Open, that's a non-issue.

They don't seem fully organised yet, though.

Quote from: walkerp;229298This fear is so unfounded.

Not only that, it sounds like they are setting themselves up for work with little payoff in editing/reviewing work.

Quote from: walkerp;229298This fear is so unfounded.  First of all, there is no way that D6 is going to attract the quantity of creators as D20 did.  And second, D20 really didn't suffer from the glut of poor product out there.  The good product sold and good D20 stuff stuck.  The bad stuff went away.  

This is just a control freak mentality and may end up limiting D6's full potential to propagate and grow.

I think that is a good point. The market will sort out what is and isn't good. Poor products generally will not devalue a system unless there are a high % of poor products.

Quote from: Jamfke;228274As I've mentioned on the WEG forums, I'm "in" for $500.

Jamfke, I have some Nigerian emails for you...

Quote from: Mark ReedThere will be a company tasked with overall guidance of the license and ensuring quality.

Even WotC with all its resources knew that this was an impossible idea to do with D20.   And these kids are going to review every D6 product for free?   Not gonna happen.  This plan is made of fail.

Quote from: Mark ReedBeing an official product is a signal to consumers that this book has been vetted and plays nice with other D6 products.

Uhh...no.   Let's put down our crack pipes and realize the D6 market is itsy bitsy and will stay itsy bitsy until a whole load of marketing dollars changes that fact.  

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;229324They're decent guys.  Some of them want very much to be open to some degree.  The question is one of degree.

They are going too Open.  If they want an Official D6 brand, they need lots of quality products out in short order that sits on shelves in a common block.  OGL-style is the wrong way to achieve this.   A Collective where the publishers are vetted is their better bet.   Then, you can farm new talent out as freelancers to the vetted publishers and if successful, these freelancers could later buy in as they are vetted.

I still prefer your PD plan.

Quote from: Spinachcat;229576I still prefer your PD plan.

Me too.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;229604Me too.

Me three.

Bill

Quote from: Spinachcat;229576Jamfke, I have some Nigerian emails for you...

Is it lake front property?

Quote from: HinterWelt;229608Me three.

Me four.

From what I could see, most people on the rpg.net thread seemed to disagree with them.