Talk:Open gaming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ground rules[edit]

Anyone who adds anything should please cite a credible source, which should not consist of a blog, a post to a discussion forum or Usenet, and if it's a personal website, it should only be used as a source if the edit is about the website's owner. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anything that is deleted should be brought to talk for discussion. If everyone sticks to the policies, there should be no need to re-protect it, but I will if the reverting starts again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
How many blogs need to talk about something before the cumulative evidence means that it probably does indeed exist? Because User: has now twice reverted the addition of the "Dark Dungeons" game to the list of retroclones demanding a citation for its existence. A Google search shows multiple relevant (to the "retroclone" and "old-school-renaissance" community) blogs discussing the game, and multiple discussion board threads discussing it. Such a search also shows up the print-on-demand publisher's page where the book can be bought on its first page. Given the blog-and-board nature of the retroclone community, what further evidence of the game's existence needs to be cited for it to remain as an entry on a list (a list, I note, on which most other entries are also completely uncited)? (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish to make note of the following, identified in the above link:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1.the material is not unduly self-serving; does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Each identified acceptable measure when applied to is as follows:

1. The Dark Dungeons website identifies when, how, and why the publication is created. Other than 2 links directing the reader to the P-o-D publisher and a single link directing to a PDF of the document, there is no manner of self-directed advertisement. Additionaly, the content of the article simply identifies the game's existence and identification as a "retro-clone" and in no way tries to infer that the game is in any way better or worse than any of the other identified games.

2. Neiter the article (as was previously edited) nor the website make any third-party claims.

3. The existence and categorization of the game is directly related to the game.

4. The website has no contradictory detail which would give anyone reason to doubt the authenticity of the material presented--additionally multiple additional blogs of varying degrees of popularity within the RPG-oriented community point to this site as the originating source for Dark Dungeons.

5. The article uses this source for a grand total of two out of 108 lines--certainly not the primary source of the article.

Based on the Wikipedia standards of identifying "reliable sources", the webiste ( qualifies as a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia under EVERY SINGLE EXCEPTION CRITERIA! Can DD now be placed back into the article? Thank you.

Gawain VIII (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dominion Rules[edit]

Imho, Dominion Rules 2.0 use an open game license not just an open supplement license. I also added it to the Open game list. 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing: Organization[edit]

I would like to suggest that we re-organize this article slightly. The article currently has this organizations, which is a bit meandering:

   1 Overview
   2 Open Gaming Licenses
       2.1 Open Supplement Licenses
   3 Open Games
   4 History
       4.1 Open Gaming License
           4.1.1 Open Gaming Foundation
       4.2 Other licenses
           4.2.1 The Fudge Legal Notice
           4.2.2 October Open Gaming License
   5 References

I think the subject (and the article's current content) lends itself to being organized like so:

   1 Overview
   2 History
       2.1 The Fudge Legal Notice
       2.2 Open Gaming License
           2.2.1 Open Gaming Foundation
       2.3 Reactions to the OGL
           2.3.1 October Open Gaming License
   5 References
       5.1 Open gaming licenses
       5.2 Open games
       5.3 External links

What do folks think of that? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take silence as approval, I guess. I'll work on the reorganization tomorrow. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-27 T 06:41:30 Z

I've reorganized the article along the lines of my suggestion above. While I was at it, I added a few more examples and external links, and rewrote a few sections for clarity. You know, I think this is a damned good article now. I'm not sure what else I would want to change. I'm certainly open to suggestions, though. Thoughts, anyone? -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-27 T 23:03:08 Z

Introductory section[edit]

EVERY section should be present in the table of contents (that's technical writing 101), and in order for that to happen, the first section MUST have a section header. If there is more than one section, and if any of those sections have headings, then every section, including the first one, should have a heading. But since Wikipedia policy apparently contradicts proper technical writing practice, and since "Bluemoose" seems intent on enforing this misguided policy, I have revised the introduction. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-1 T 16:40 Z

Wow, take a look at every other article in Wikipedia, take a look at the guidlines. As I always say to people like you; do you honestly think everybody else is wrong and you right? or do you think it is possible that maybe you are wrong? Martin 20:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I did take a look at the guidelines. Up to a year ago, they specifically stated that the first section should have a header named "Overview". And yes, most people are wrong. Not everyone, but most people. That's one of the reasons why editng a factual document (like an encyclopedia) by "consensus" is doomed to failure. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-3 T 21:15 Z
If most people are wrong, how do you explain yourself? In general, I mean. As in, what if you agree with "most people" on something? Are you suddenly automatically wrong because you agree with the majority? Do you suddenly become "right" if you disagree with the majority - on ANYTHING? Such as, for instance, murder being wrong? The majority may not always be right about absolutely everything, but they are inherently not going to be wrong about absolutely everything either, simple statistics should tell you that much. Don't make generalizations. Especially not generalizations that basically say "I'm always right, everyone else is wrong, wrong, WRONG because they don't do things like I say they should, even though what I'm saying they should do is something trivial and based completely off of a subjective standard" (whether or not to include a first section called "Overview" is indeed subjective, as many articles may well suffice just fine with having the "overview" in the introduction, if the concept is simple enough) See 'cause those? Make you sound kind of like an asshole. I say this even as someone who in the case of this specific article (you're not even arguing specifics though, you're arguing generalizations, and articles on Wikipedia can by no means all fit the same exact, identical format nor should they), would agree that there should be an Overview section given that the concept needs more of an in-depth overview to give the reader a good grasp of it, since there's really somewhat too much general information to really fit into the intro. That said, WTF man? You say "That's technical writing 101". This isn't a technical manual! This is a general reference encyclopedia! Why on Earth are you applying the specific standards of one style/format of writing to another? That very little sense. In any case, if you really feel the whole project is "doomed to failure", well, leave. Criticism is one thing, but anal-retentive idiocy is another entirely. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Glad to see you haven't posted in months, if that's the way you feel about the project. Still boggles my mind how many people bother to post when all they want to say is "Wah! Wikipedia sucks! The whole idea of Wikipedia sucks! Everything about this site sucks! Why are you all wasting your bloody time here?" . I mean, isn't it a far bigger waste of time to bother to post on a site JUST to complain about how others are wasting their time by using the site? Given that it's not even a commercial site?
Nice rant, anonymous user. As for most people being wrong, you say, "Glad to see you haven't posted in months..." Thank you for proving my point so succinctly. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-04 19:36Z

"May Apply"[edit]

The phrasing about license definitions and specifications that "may apply" to open gaming licenses was unfortunate, in that it was not clear what was intended by the text. It "may apply" in that it applies to some licenses, and not to others -- not in that it may not apply ever, anywhere. As such, I've replaced that phrasing with what I think is improved phrasing to the more explicit effect that it applies to some licenses. If you give the list of licenses following that paragraph a look, you will surely see that every single one of those definitions and specifications (open content, free content, copyleft, and copyfree) is represented by at least one of the articles in the list. I am dismayed by the fact that the first reaction many people have to phrasing they find difficult or suboptimal is to delete, rather than improve; the edit of mine to eliminate the ambiguous "may" in favor of clearer phrasing is an attempt to improve the quality of the article rather than merely delete things that are not perfect. - Apotheon (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I also notice that the person who deleted the passage (after initially adding useful information to it) failed to abide by the guidelines at the top of this talk page, where we are directed to add a note to this page when something is deleted from the article. - Apotheon (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The deletion note is from 2005, and cover a different context. Not sure it applies, but it "may" :). The reason I deleted the list, and still think its a bad idea to have a list, is that neither open content, free content, copyleft, or copyfree makes an claim that they define what "open gaming license" is. Now we can always try to start define "open gaming license" ourself by looking on what licenses they use and then add one or many of the above labels to them, but is it the correct thing to do? Is it verifiable? It also mean we need to make sure the list has every possible label that match one of the used licenses so to not make anyone feel left out (example: share-alike). So yes, my first reaction (rather, second but that's beyond the point) is to delete the problem and work with information that can directly be verified by linked sources. If someone still think its a good idea to keep the list, please make a short case here on the talk page for each label you think should be added, and which license can be said to be under that label. That should help somewhat to limit the size of the list that need to be maintained. Belorn (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think that one necessarily needs to state that a definition covers a specific case (gaming) when it is a pretty clear superset (e.g., "open content"), or when it is about as clearly a subset (e.g. "share-alike" or "copyleft"). As for the idea of "share-alike" being left out, I think one of two conditions applies here: either it is effectively synonymous with copyleft, or it should simply replace copyleft here as a non-software reference to the same basic concept (depending on whether you differentiate between the two by the inclusion of the "source" distribution requirement of copyleft licensing). I also think this reasoning, apart from being pretty self-evidently applicable, provides a clear guideline to determining whether a given license-type definition or specification qualifies. - Apotheon (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
What is important is that every claim we make in the article is wp:verifiable, that is all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. Currently very little in the article is sourced at all, so when ever we add something it really do need to be sourced. The current statement is that the term "open gaming license" is older than Open Gaming Foundation. If that is true, there should be a source to that fact, and then we have something to actually say on the definition of the term. We need to backup the claim that "any license that permits re-use, modification, and redistribution of content can be considered an open gaming license". Failing that, we should fall back on what can be verified and that is Open Gaming Foundation, so far.Belorn (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
By contrast, I think that things don't get much more "verifiable" than being self-evident -- and that, if we toss out that qualification for verifiability, we have no basis on which to build even one article for Wikipedia. It's like saying we can't use a word without first having a definition of the word (in terms of other words) in place -- which effectively disallows the use of language. I do agree that we should find and use sources as much as we reasonably can, but I do not agree that we should delete every sentence (or even clause) that does not have a reference mark beside it. As for the statement about the age of the term "open gaming" (not license, per se; I have no source for that), Ryan Dancey's "most dangerous column" actually refers generally to the term in a manner that establishes it as predating the foundation at the same time that he talks about the formation of the foundation. - Apotheon (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Okey, did a little research. While the current text state that there is no definition on "open gaming license", the Open Gaming Foundation do claim to have one[1], and thus limiting the type of licenses to copyleft. What other sourced claims are there on the definition of open gaming license? It would be best to simply write the different peoples claims, and then let the reader decide on the conclusions.Belorn (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Open Gaming Foundation's definition does not, in fact, require an open gaming license to be copyleft. The simple application of a license that (like the copyfree MIT/X11 License) requires itself to be included with all future copies achieves the effect of "ensur[ing] that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future." All that requirement means is that a license like the WTFPL -- which actually allows itself to be removed from a work -- would not qualify according to that definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotheon (talkcontribs) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While I can slightly understand how one can read the text in that way, its quite obvious by the statements made around OGL and the organization that created Open Gaming Foundation, that they talk about copyleft. ref1, ref2, ref3 all talk about copyleft being the concept that Wizards of the Coast modeled after. In that light, a prohibition against "action taken on behalf of a 3rd party" that takes away the rights provided by the license is hard to be read in any other way than a copyleft concept. If you have any source that speaks to the contrary, please provide them, otherwise I will reword the current text to reflect those sourcesBelorn (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding ref1, it's worth noting that Ryan Dancey appears to have a fairly superficial acquaintance with the precise definitions of terms like "open source" and "copyleft" as members of the free and open source software communit(y|ies) use these terms, so his use of the term "copyleft" should be taken with a grain of salt and not assumed to be rigorous. If anything, the uses of "copyleft" in ref2 (and of "open source", to a lesser degree) are even less accurate or applicable, as in the case of claiming that open source software as a whole relies on copyleft, or that copyleft "prevents anyone from directly profiting from the work of another person" (a patently false claim for rigorous uses of the term "copyleft", as demonstrated by actual events). It is further worth noting that, if one accepts that the Open Game License is an open gaming license, the one use of the term "copyleft" directly contradicts the effect of the OGL in practice, which contains language that provides substantial wiggle room for publishers of derived works to not only fail to provide secondary derivations under the terms of an open license, but also to restrict modifications of the original (see the expansive "product identity" clauses in the text of the OGL and how it is applied in many products, such as pretty much everything d20-system related that was published by Privateer Press). The long and the short of it is that it seems that most references to the term "copyleft" in the context of open gaming come from Ryan Dancey having heard something about the use of the term, misinterpreting it, and applying it liberally, plus other people reading what he had to say and running with it to even less accurate results. As such, I'm of the considered opinion that we should not define "open gaming" as requiring "copyleft" because we should try to adhere to the actual generally accepted definitions of the term by people who deal in works licensed under such terms on a daily basis, and the definitions employed in Wikipedia articles themselves. - Apotheon (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I've rewritten the relevant paragraph about definitions to present the OGF definition in context. Hopefully that adds clarity to the matter that simply deleting it would not. - Apotheon (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with what you have written there (as definitions outside of OGF's) as substantially correct, it smacks to me of original research. Unfortunately, it would probably be hard to substantiate with a reference. Though this has been a topic of discussion on various fora, it's not something that gets covered much in reliable sources. Maybe there is something in interviews with figures like Ryan Dancey or the like that may support this? - Sangrolu (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
"the term is used more expansively without notable comment". Interesting conclusion, but lacks source. From where did you get that impression, and can it be sourced?Belorn (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As a term primarily used by 1) a small number of notable figures in a relatively small publishing industry and 2) a relatively large and growing grass-roots movement, it is exceedingly difficult to establish citations according to Wikipedia's policy requirements for reliable sources. Despite this, there is quite heavy use of the term across the industry and in community discussions that sets an expectation and a common practice "standard" of sorts. My impression, then, comes from my involvement in the gaming community over a period of decades across a wide range of venues both online and offline, and from the statements of some of the aforementioned notable figures (e.g. Ryan Dancey and Monte Cook). I wouldn't call that "original research", but it definitely qualifies as an "observation" that is not well documented. - Apotheon (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

History need sources[edit]

This section lacks any sources which makes improving the quality of the text or clarify vague sentences guesswork. Had hoped that System Reference Document could help here, but it too lack any sources. Is there any data source that talks about the history of open gaming beside Wikipedia?Belorn (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's the Ryan Dancey reference, and the Monte Cook piece The Open Game License as I See It, Part II is also relevant. Given the fact that Monte Cook was one of the core developers of the first game to be released under the Open Game License itself (D&D 3.5), and is now a contributor to probably the most popular and successful "open game" in current active development (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game), I think we should be able to uncontroversially reference him as an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotheon (talkcontribs) 11:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree. This is not the time to be picky about sources. Will read them through later today and add what I can see.Belorn (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There are additional sources I hesitate to recommend because I wrote them myself, and I am at this time probably not even remotely "notable" in the RPG industry and community (unless I woefully underestimate the strength of some influence I have had without noticing). Unfortunately, the relatively small size of the RPG industry even after decades of its existence makes the discovery of "reliable" sources on its history difficult to find, especially with regard to more recent developments (such as the appearance of an open gaming movement in the last decade or so). Given the fact that the movement and its community appear to still be growing -- and that they are certainly consolidating to some extent, working their way into much of the commercial RPG industry, and showing no sign of going away or losing their relevance -- I am inclined to believe that efforts should be made to provide more information about the subject rather than less where questions of verifiability and notability arise. - Apotheon (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2012 edits[edit]

Hey folks,

I did a sweep through and tried to improve the article. I'll hopefully come back to it in a few days and see what else I can add—in the meantime, please let me know if you've got any suggestions. --Sanglorian (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

circe vs. 1w6[edit]

You keep circe from worldforge but remove 1w6, why?

Note: I ask of my own accord: I am the author of 1w6, which has been published under GPLv3 for several years - and has been printed in the booklet of the karlsruher roleplaying days 2010 and now has 3 distinct releases. I saw this article due to people visiting 1w6 from here, and frankly I am quite pissed to see it deleted again. Essentially the only free copyleft works you left in the article are OGL ones (no real copyleft), dominion (under a non-standard license) and circe under GPL. And that is far from representative of open gaming. Draketo (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: That I am the author of 1w6 is what keeps me from adding it again. I’d add it without link to itself, but with a reference to the text describing the background and effects of choosing the GPLv3: [2] Draketo (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

History all seems to be from one book[edit]

So it seems that the entire history section is just dropped from the book Game Preview which was published the same time as the original edits to this page. This appears to be a published and researched book of games with many of it own sources. But, it does seem like the author may have taken the language from Wikipedia (or possibly vice versa, but honestly I can't tell either way).
Basically does anyone think this works for the (very) needed citation in this section? Or does it look like it's a no go? MrGWillickers (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)