User talk:Kahz

Hello Kahz, welcome to the D&D Wiki. I do like the 5e Feats you added. Marasmusine (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2015 (MDT)

Hi Marasmusine, thanks for the welcome. I've been around for awhile, and added some stuff before (archetype/subraces/feedback), and been a big enjoyer of the content of the site :) I've got a lot more stuff to add, mostly content from the LGG that we've been working on. I've had some great feedback and discussion on balance and ideas from the previous stuff, which has been most enjoyable.

Is there anything I'd need to know when putting more content up?

Cheers, --Kahz (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2015 (MDT)

Yep, with page titles remember to leave in an identifier in parenthesis (e.g. Shadow Spray (5e Spell) rather than Shadow Spray). I've been retitling your entries, so don't be alarmed, they haven't been deleted or anything. Marasmusine (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2015 (MDT)

Ahh, no problems, it shall be done for all future entries. Should that be in the core name of the spell like I did with Darkbolt (as there was a 3.5 version), or is there another area I should add that to?--Kahz (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2015 (MDT)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I can tell you that core names can become disambiguation pages (as I have now done with Darkbolt) Marasmusine (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2015 (MDT)

TL;DR: Become more active in the community? Please do.

Hello! I noticed your comment on Marasmusine's talk page. (Because I'm creepy like that) I have a strong interest in growing this community, (because I'm crazy like that) so I have a pretty thorough reply for your query. (Because I'm pushy like that)

The best way to be involved is to keep doing what you're doing: making great content. But if you'd specifically like to help the community grow, the biggest problem, as you said, is balance. We need reviewers. People who, when they see something faulty, actually do something about it. There's generally 3 steps to do it politely, but sometimes it's fine to just skip a step or do them out of order.

1. Bring it up on the talk page. If nobody replies, and if nothing is done, for a few days...
2. Put a Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates on the page.
3. If nobody addresses the issue for a while more, you can either mark it abandoned or adopt it as your own and renovate the page.

We also need more design guides to give users some sort of standard to compare work to, for both creation and review purposes. 5e Race Design Guide and 5e Creature Design Guide are good examples of very new pages this community has been working on to try and put some sort of standard for balance and quality. We currently lack design guides for equipment, spells, feats, and many other things in 5th edition. If you go to a content page and see no design guide in its "see other" header, that means it doesn't have one yet. You really can just make one from scratch. (If you do decide to do this, tell other users about it so people notice and lend a hand. Sometimes we can be a little blinded by the noise from our watch lists.)

Aside from making more good content to drown out the bad, and helping us clean up the bad, you could always join in a community project. Right now, only admin are involved in the FB page. I'll leave further addition of editors to that project up to user:Jwguy, as he's the only person with the authority to do so. The other two projects are open to all though!

The magazine is cool. We're almost done the 4th issue, but we need people to go over the 3.5e content. I'm waiting for my new 3.5e books in the mail, but if you're familiar with it, I'm sure Marasmusine would appreciate the help, as he's head-editor of that project.

Of course, if you see any really good articles, or pages which you think could be the best the wiki could offer, you can try nominating them to become a featured article! It's best to bring a page up to FA quality before nominating it, but just nominating a subpar page can be enough to generate enough interest and advice that getting it there can be as simple as just catering to the complaints!

Then there's the SRD transcription projects for 5e, 3.5e, d20m, and pf. You'll need to ask User:Green Dragon about those projects, as he oversees that they are constructed up to legal code, accurate, and complete. I have no idea what state they are in, as I have barely touched that part of the wiki. I think 5e SRD is almost done, but I'm sure GD would appreciate someone going through and putting the finishing touches on the thing. (Like, I notice it has red links to content that doesn't exist in 5e for some reason, and some of the SRD pages are still appearing in the homebrew lists) Just make sure you have a very solid grasp of the OGL before you add new pages.

You could always start a new project, of course! There's lots of empty canvas here to work with. For example, I've been working on Dungeon Mastering, Elementary (DnD Guideline) for some time now on my own. I'm also currently working on an upgrade to the Featured Articles project in my subpages here. You can, theoretically, invent something entirely new on the wiki just because you want to. We do have an organizational method to our madness, and pages which don't fit tend to get some pretty harsh scrutiny once noticed, but in general if the idea is cool, people will find a way to work it into everything else.

Anyways, that's my textwall to you. I hope it was informative and mildly entertaining. Happy editing! --Kydo (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2016 (MDT)

Ahoy-hoy!

I've done some comment work stuff (not much) on 5e balance content so far, but not for awhile. Much of what I find for 5e involves heavy powercreep, especially conversions of content from earlier editions. I'm -very- versed in 5e and 3.5e, as they are/were the two editions I spent the most time in. I'm happy to hunt through existing 5e stuff and provide constructive critique and such, as that's where I'm currently delving.

5e SRD I know practically inside out, as I'm currently getting artwork stuff done for some DMsGuild content to put up for sale, and did a heavy amount of research on the mediums as to the content I wanted to use (since about 15% of what I wanted would be considered wizards intellectual property, the SRD became superfluous for my use). I'd be happy to hit up Green Dragon and assist in that process.

On posting content, I would be more than happy to chip in more content for 5e, but I'm not sure how it would impact if said content were to be posted on the DMsGuild at a later date? At the moment I have a 40 page book of 5e magical items being artworked (a total of 120 items), and am currently up to 50 pages on a Book of Elements (with the goal being something around 12 races / 5 backgrounds / 15 class archetypes / 30 magic items / 80 creatures / 50 spells), with an estimated total pages being 150-ish. This is content I am happy to upload on to this site, but it's also a collaborate effort with numerous others from the LGG, and if posting it here under the GNU license would void later content sale under the DMsGuild licensing requirements, I'm not sure I can force that out from the others (content, artists, etc). I'm not so well versed in copyright law as to be certain of anything, there.

Design guide wise, I can definitely see what I can think up as a written process. My LGG call me the granddaddy DM (due to experience, not age), and I have walked dozens of folks through balancing processes for 5e original content. A lot of my former players seem to enjoy delving into DMing their own groups, the content strain is hectic :)

For a digression, I often get -their- players contacting me, asking me to run balance checks on content they find, and enjoyably quite a bit comes from this site. I've even had a few link me to my own content asking for balance checks, and my laughter seems to only result in their confusion.

Something that is awkward here, though, is I'm not very fluent with the web mechanics for assigning templates, banners, and so forth. I'm a quick learner and can easily extrapolate processes and commands, but it's time consuming. Because of this lack of exposure, I'm not sure where I should go to learn the appropriate commands, would you happen to have a suggestion?

Lastly, thanks for the response, and the welcome, and for the TL;DR laugh :)--Kahz (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2016 (MDT)

This might sound trite, but the answer to every single question you had can be found in Help:Portal. In particular, read Help:Legal, Help:Editing, and Help:Precedent. As for how the GNU-FDL interacts with published DMGuild content, I'm not 100% sure. I'm going to do some research and get back to you. --Kydo (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2016 (MDT)

OK. I did some research. The legalese around all of this is getting kinda' grubby, but here we go.

1. The OGL and DM's Guild are 100% incompatible. Although it is possible to publish some content under both licenses, if it is simple enough, it would need to be published under each license separately. Like, you'd have to publish one version through the DMs Guild, and then publish it again on your own as OGL as a separate instance. Things get even more complicated once you get the GNU-FDL 1.3 involved.
2. Everything on this wiki is published under the OGL and GFDL at the same time. (There's actually more than one OGL, so even that is more complicated than you may think)
3. The GFDL does allow redistribution of the work, even for sale, BUT it requires that the GFDL be reproduced with the work (or made available from it) and a list of contributing authors be reproduced with the work (or made available from it).
4. That gets a little sticky when you want to redistribute content from the wiki, because, let's face it, things change here. Even if you follow the GFDL to the letter, a single edit from another user could render your redistributed work (and all extant copies of it) violate of the GFDL! As such, the work would also need a disclaimer noting the date of the final edit relevant to the redistribution, as the GFDL does not prohibit the redistribution of prior versions of a piece of content. Redistributing a timestamped version is the safest way to go, because they are, by definition, static.
5. Also, if you make any changes to the work prior to redistribution, it may be possible to call your work "derivative" and cite the wiki page as your inspiration source, as long as your changes are significant enough. In that situation, you could license the work however you want, it's nolonger legally tied to the original- it's yours. That is kind of an ugly grey area though. Lawyers have been arguing about how much change is necessary for something to be considered original/derivative/inspired rather than infringement, for over a century.
6. THE DUNGEON MASTER'S GUILD DOES NOT GIVE YOU A LICENSE. It gives you written and limited consent to use their copyrighted and trademarked material in your work, and gives you the right to make a profit from the sale of these works, but stipulates that your work be published through their approved channel and adhere to their product requirements. This means YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RELICENSE ANY WORKS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED THROUGH THE DUNGEON MASTER'S GUILD.
7. So, while it is possible to relicense GFDL content from the wiki to the DM's Guild as a form of redistribution, it is not possible to redistribute anything from there, in its original state, here.
8. And on that note, a comment about ethics seems to be in order. What is legal is not necessarily always what is right. If you choose to redistribute content from D&D Wiki for personal profit, you are kind of violating the trust of everyone else who was involved in the development of that work toward its final state. You're making a profit off of somebody else's work, even if their contribution was very small. Now, if you only redistribute a version of the work which has only your identity attributed to its creation, then there's really nothing wrong with that. Nobody's being hurt by it. But if you never even edited a page, and 30 other people are attributed as bringing it into existence, and you decide to redistribute it for personal profit... Well, while it is legal, (in a funky, murky, foggy, grey-area way) I think everyone would agree that would make you a colossal &$$#@!=. And I don't think anyone will ban me for calling such a person that on the wiki either!

I hope that answered your legal concerns. Remember that this is based on my original research and limited understanding of the legal documents involved here. You may want to ask User:Green Dragon for his interpretation of the situation. You should also submit a question with WotC for clarification of the licensing interactions here. --Kydo (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2016 (MDT)

So I called Wizards support to find out more. The guy says they're only informed about how their own licensing works, so he didn't actually know anything about the GFDL. However, he said that it sounds like a legal grey-area, and the best solution in such a situation is just to submit a request form. A request form resolves legally ambiguous situations with clear black-and-white solutions. There's a link to that form on this page. --Kydo (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2016 (MDT)

Woah, unexpected depth, thank you very much for the effort here!

Trite, perhaps, but also thank you for directing. This would be a case of not seeing the trees for the forest, I had not noticed the help portal link, despite now seeing the prominence of it. I'll devote quite some time to reading the content there-in and familiarizing myself with it.

All your points I previously understood (and perhaps didn't convey accurately on my part, due to late night typing syndrome), except for the interactions between the GFDL and DMsGuild allowances. I'll definitely submit a query through the link there to find out how that may interact.

I appreciate the comment on ethics, let me assure you that this will -never- become an issue. My means of employment is in medical information and documentation, storage, and legally approved release. I greatly understand the variance between what is right and what is legal, and you should always do the latter, and then apply the former. Ethical decision making is important :)

My intent will never be to take others content and attempt to make profit from it unfairly, and my question was merely to discern if the content I already am working on outside of this site could be posted here and not impact on later posting on DMsGuild. Agreed on the colossal !@#$ part of nicking stuff and claiming it as your own. I am seeking to publish -my own unique- content, with several conversions of older edition content updated to 5th, done myself and with several others from outside of this Wiki (and the Wiki's content), with each appropriately cited and profit shared. It is not an intention to draw from the wiki for my own gain. I hope that puts to rest any concerns you may have on this line, and if not, I am quite prepared to discuss this further to achieve that outcome, and if I cannot, I have no qualms about distancing myself from the Wiki to waylay any and all concerns possible.

Much appreciating the surprising amount of effort put in in such a short time, thank you once again.--Kahz (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2016 (MDT)

You're welcome. This was actually an issue I was concerned about when the DMs Guild first opened, but GD was pretty sure it wouldn't come up. Then it came up. I'm going to wait for his assessment of my response to you. If you get a reply from WotC regarding their legal recommendation, please inform us of their resolution. Once we have a clear picture of our legal relationship with that community, we will be able to update Help:Legal to explain it clearly for everyone. --Kydo (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2016 (MDT)

So, I got a response from Wizards. Their response is that they will not provide any legal advise, and recommend that I speak to legal counsel to determine this myself. So, I can't provide you any clear picture based on content posted under the GNU FDL that may/is later posted upon the dungeon masters guild at all, sadly. For the time being, I shall keep my to be published original content to myself, rather than risk breaking any licensing/etc, until I get around to consulting legal advice at a later date.

Dang, hoped they could give some clarity at all :/ --Kahz (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2016 (MDT)

D&D Next, or The Dungeon Master's Guild does not seem to attach licensing to their pages. So, unless you create a licensing page published as part of your contribution to The Dungeons Masters Guild do not use GNU FDL v1.3 content there.

Their mantra states:

“

Create, don’t copy. We reserve the right to stop publishing and selling your work if we think it goes against the spirit of the Dungeon Masters Guild program. All authors should respectfully use the content originally created by Wizards of the Coast or other Dungeon Masters Guild creators. For example, if a Dungeon Masters Guild author releases a trilogy of adventures, and another author takes those three adventures, compiles them, and republishes them as a single collection, without substantive original additions or changes, then we would stop publishing and selling that collected work because it adds no value to the Dungeon Masters Guild community content. It’s simply one author copying another author’s work and looking to make a royalty on it.

”

This family of sites does not discriminate against GNU FDL v1.3 pages. Take a look at Remarkable Races Pathway to Adventure: The Numistian for an example of how GNU FDL pages have been included alongside other published materials. In addition, D&D Wiki Magazine can also be found on DriveThroughRPG. Just make sure that you do not break any of the legal information, for example by re-licensing homebrew GNU FDL materials, and take into consideration what Kydo states above. We hope this answers your question. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2016 (MDT)

I'm not a lawyer, and this is my unqualified opinion only. I don't think there's a need for you to worry here (unless you solely want your work to be available as monetized) keep in mind three things:

• You can redistribute GNU FDL v1.3 content, even for money, as long as you follow all the license stipulations.
• For your own creations, you can apply a different license of your own choosing when you contribute new articles to this wiki.
• You will also maintain intellectual property rights of your own work, so if you contribute content to this wiki under GNU FDL v1.3, you can also distribute it elsewhere under another license of your choosing (though it doesn't invalidate the GNU FDL v1.3 copies, these will forever be licensed under GNU FDL v1.3).

The only reasons you wouldn't be able to post content here under GNU FDL, and then again on DMs Guild, would be if they had a specific policy or license stipulation against it. I can't find evidence of either (but then I can't find a licensing page at all).--SgtLion (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2016 (MDT)

Neat

Huh. I noticed you making a bunch of constructive edits and talk page edits, and it turns out just yesterday Kydo was helping you out. I guess I'll just stop by to say nice edits, I'm also around if you need, y'know, someone more British than Kydo ;3 <3 EDIT: I also just realised you came here through my thread to reddit, that's *really* cool. I promise you at least one cookie, one day. --SgtLion (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2016 (MDT)

Hi SgtLion!

Thanks for the compliment! At the moment I'm going to spend what time I can going through the spells you guys have up. Quite a large amount there, and those are some of the easiest to fix early since most of it just needs a wording change.

Cookies are awesome, I shall remember that promise.

While I've been around on the site for a year or two, the reddit page definitely opened up the door for my desire to contribute more to the quality content here, and I'm glad my edits and feedback are coming across as constructive. I'm a blunt person, and more often than not the constructiveness gets lost in translation :(

I look forward chatting more with yourself, and with the others already a part of the behind the scenes community here :)--Kahz (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2016 (MDT)