jcompton Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Background The Crossmod Banter Pack (CBP) was started to provide a central clearinghouse for banters which take place between two or more mod-created NPCs, allowing interaction between said NPCs without tying the content to one NPC mod or the other, or requiring one NPC mod to be installed in a certain sequence relative to another NPC mod. One of its organizational features is that it requires express consent be given by the authors of all involved NPCs before it will publish any new content. That feature is the subject of this position paper. Position I have long opposed that organizational feature on the grounds that it affords a special status to mod content above and beyond that granted to core game content. Few, if any, modders have expressly sought the permission and approval of Bioware before publishing mods which augment or change core game content. The idea that a modder is deserving of greater consideration is distasteful to me and I can find no sensible moral basis for it. My stance is that content is content, and all is fair game. Furthermore, I assert that the "mutual consent" system demonstrably produces banters in both limited quantity and limited quality. Some modders choose not to participate for fear of their characters being compromised, some (myself included) have distanced themselves out of reluctance to lend credibility to the "permission" system at all. And the depth and interest of the subject matter explored in "approved" banters has tended to be limited--many reduced to glorified pattycake sessions between two characters whose authors were afraid to dig deep for fear of alienating one another. Recent Silliness Relatively fresh from his latest momentous return to modding, Moongaze (known now as "Moongaze II: The Richard Donner Cut") attempted to withdraw permission for NPCs and crossmod banters already in the pack, stating as his reason his contempt for one of the CBP maintainers. To their credit, the CBP maintainers swiftly denied his request. However, the episode was rather embarrassing and put in sharp contrast the weakness of the "permission" system--it can be based on as little as spite. Despite the fact that nothing actually happened, I assert that this put the nail in the coffin of the "permission" system, which has not generated a terribly inspiring body of work in the years it has been in operation. When I Say "Freeze", I Do Not Mean "This Is a Stickup!" I propose, therefore, that development of CBP be immediately frozen. Mothballed. Suspended. No new submissions be accepted for it and no new editions be published except in the highly unlikely event that a bugfix be made. Its maintainers would direct authors interested in creating crossmod content to an alternate venue. They may see fit to create it, or use one of the existing banter-related mods if appropriate. Such a venue would have a strong, theoretically detached editor or editors whose goal would not be to protect anybody's feelings about a particular character or characters, but to aid submitting authors in refining their content, as needed, to produce more interesting and engaging content. They would reject or suggest changes to something which is pointless, disjointed, far too verbose, wildly out of character, etc. etc. "But, Crockpot, aren't you just replacing the approval of the second mod's author with the approval of this uber-editor?" you ask. The major difference in my mind is that "single writer plus theoretically detached editor" is far more likely to turn out something of substantial interest than "two authors hesitantly feeling each other out for stuff each will let the other get away with in a banter." "But, Crampart, I don't believe there is any such thing as a detached editor in our contentious little circle. I certainly wouldn't trust you to edit my NPC's words!" you say. Perhaps not. I still suspect that even a modestly flawed editor in the single-author system would produce better content than the current "permission" system does. It would also make it far more realistic for a third party (one not involved in the creation of any mod NPC) to develop intriguing content for the NPCs, as they would be free from the requirement of seeking out both/all mod NPC authors involved. Between the wider talent pool and the emphasis on quality, rather than permissibility, I suspect players will be far better served. Link to comment
Kulyok Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Well, "theoretically detached editor" is still your weakest point. But it was well worth the wait, though I would rather have CBP open for more submissions. Link to comment
jcompton Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Well, "theoretically detached editor" is still your weakest point. Accepting all submissions blindly is an alternative, although it would only meet the "quality" problem partway. (BTW, if you're all wondering what this is doing here, they asked me to.) Link to comment
the bigg Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 You should host a Bullshit Free Crossbanter mod at PPG if you want to give weight to your words. Also, congratulations to Baronius for giving {self-esteem,credibility} to Moongaze and indirectly starting this drama. Link to comment
theacefes Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 My two cents. My opinion has always been that yes, a mod is basically something that tweaks with a copyright in itself. We aren't paying Bioware but then again, we ARE promoting their games in a way and we don't sell our mods, so I'm guessing that's why no one is coming after us. But wouldn't the actual writing in the mods specific to our original NPCs be considered the author's property? Since we can't make any money off our mods, the only thing we really have going for us is just credit that we wrote it, which should be more than enough for anyone since we aren't getting sued. I always feel a tad uncomfortable when I see people writing crossmod for my characters. I didn't spend hours on a hobby for people to play and enjoy my mods so that someone else could come along and write crappy dialogue between their own characters and mine. That's why when it comes to crossmod, I just volunteer RPing via IM or IRC. This way both parties are happy because they got to write their own characters. So, sure...if we go ahead and say that the credit from the unique NPCs belongs to their modders, and the modders want to suddenly pull any banters from the CBP, then I say go ahead. But the rule has to apply to everyone and in that paves the way for a crappy mod. Or....we can suck it up and remember that it's just a hobby, we aren't making money, and there are a million more productive things we could all be doing. In the end, who cares? What if someone out there DOES go and write some fanfic on Auren Aseph. What am I going to do...seriously? Throw a tantrum? Scary. Link to comment
jcompton Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 You should host a Bullshit Free Crossbanter mod at PPG if you want to give weight to your words. In theory the original Banter Pack was always supposed to do this, but it never came to pass, and seeing that I wasn't really doing anything with the concept, Grim started up the CBP. Anyway, on the one hand I don't really think I need to be in the market for a Porsche in order to point out that building one with an enormous multicolored shark fin on the center of the hood would be a terrible idea. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of a sort of Miracle On 34th Street outcome where I get deluged with mail and have no choice but to act. That's not the outcome I'm specifically gunning for, however. I always feel a tad uncomfortable when I see people writing crossmod for my characters. I didn't spend hours on a hobby for people to play and enjoy my mods so that someone else could come along and write crappy dialogue between their own characters and mine. You seemed to be saying in the first two paragraphs above this that as you are designing for pride only, and not for pride-plus-money as Bioware did, you are entitled to greater consideration from your Fellow Modder than you afford to Bioware. I can follow the thread of your reasoning, but I cannot agree with it. If the idea of your work being publicly tinkered with makes you uncomfortable, then don't publicly tinker with the work of others. That people do not appreciate the asymmetry of this position astounds me. Link to comment
lennon Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 You should host a Bullshit Free Crossbanter mod at PPG if you want to give weight to your words. In theory the original Banter Pack was always supposed to do this, but it never came to pass, and seeing that I wasn't really doing anything with the concept, Grim started up the CBP. Anyway, on the one hand I don't really think I need to be in the market for a Porsche in order to point out that building one with an enormous multicolored shark fin on the center of the hood would be a terrible idea. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of a sort of Miracle On 34th Street outcome where I get deluged with mail and have no choice but to act. That's not the outcome I'm specifically gunning for, however. I always feel a tad uncomfortable when I see people writing crossmod for my characters. I didn't spend hours on a hobby for people to play and enjoy my mods so that someone else could come along and write crappy dialogue between their own characters and mine. You seemed to be saying in the first two paragraphs above this that as you are designing for pride only, and not for pride-plus-money as Bioware did, you are entitled to greater consideration from your Fellow Modder than you afford to Bioware. I can follow the thread of your reasoning, but I cannot agree with it. If the idea of your work being publicly tinkered with makes you uncomfortable, then don't publicly tinker with the work of others. That people do not appreciate the asymmetry of this position astounds me. I got involved in a debate of this nature once before, and backed off. I may have changed my mind. I think that we should publish our mods under an 'attribution-only' licence, this allows others to modify our stuff. I suspect that the underlying bioware licences mean we have to publish under a de-facto no-commerce clause. I know some of us think that no-derivs is better than share-alike, if only for maintenance purposes. I no longer agree. If some one admires one's work enough to try to improve it, one should be pleased, even if you feel that the improvement is marginal. You can always force them to fork the code and keep one's own work pristine and original. Interestingly, the cross-mod banter pack confuses this, as non-original authors can add/change the stories written by others. Link to comment
CamDawg Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 For the most part, I'm in agreement here with JC but I would like to make a couple of points as well. I have long opposed that organizational feature on the grounds that it affords a special status to mod content above and beyond that granted to core game content. Few, if any, modders have expressly sought the permission and approval of Bioware before publishing mods which augment or change core game content. The idea that a modder is deserving of greater consideration is distasteful to me and I can find no sensible moral basis for it. My stance is that content is content, and all is fair game. The idea that mod content is sacrosanct from third party changes while original content is not is silly. However, I think there is a distinction to be made in terms of mod vs. original content. There are many motivations for modders to mod--for me it's fun, a chance to give back some enjoyment to the community that spawned the mods I enjoy, a way to keep my coding skills sharp, and to challenge myself creatively. Whatever diverse motivations we may have, the developers had them plus one--they were paid. It's the same line of thought that causes fans at a professional sports event to abuse the players but refrain from the same behavior at a high school contest. I agree with the thrust of your argument, but these are non-trivial differences. As for the rest, I think it's important to mention respect. If I wish to write some banter with an NPC, I think it's important to be courteous and ask the author. I don't, however, think a 'no' from the author should automatically nix the idea, but it should be weighed as a factor in whether to proceed. Any mod with multiple contributors can fall into this trap--by requiring explicit permission (instead of simply encouraging it) it leads to the mod being held hostage to random acts of dickery. I'm not sure I buy into the argument that quality is inherently better (it al comes down to what happens in practice), but the openness would make it a lot easier for a greater quantity of material and reduce the potential for silliness. Link to comment
jcompton Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 There are many motivations for modders to mod--for me it's fun I follow what you're saying here, but the implication seems to be that it's okay for an author to take the stance that if some random person puts unfitting words in the mouth of a character that author created then that author has somehow "had their fun ruined." I'm not denying that can and has happened in people's minds, but I don't think it's reasonable, either, and I don't think it's reasonable to guard people from it. I appreciate the point about not heckling the JV team while booing the pros as lustily as you choose, but in my mind that's a separate issue--I don't think writing for somebody else's character is nearly comparable to heckling*. It's a creative act which in itself is neither "naughty" nor "nice." It just is. As for the rest, I think it's important to mention respect. If I wish to write some banter with an NPC, I think it's important to be courteous and ask the author. I don't, however, think a 'no' from the author should automatically nix the idea, but it should be weighed as a factor in whether to proceed. Again, I don't think it should be seen as a matter of respect, because once the content is in the game, it should be treated equally. An uncomfortable analogy, but once you're distributing your work, I don't think you're the JV to Bioware's pros--now you're the twelfth man on the squad. Expectations may be lower, but you've still made a conscious decision to run with the big boys. Nobody forced you to. (There's also some sort of "Adaptation is the sincerest form of flattery" argument to be made here as well.) I do think that asking permission but then turning down the probably-inevitable offer of collaboration could be extremely uncomfortable, even moreso than simply presenting the mod author with the fait accompli. I know that pretty much everybody reading this is imagining some sort of horror scenario which makes them cringe and decide that perhaps the permission system is the right way to go after all--"God, what if Jason wrote a Tsujatha/Redemption Irenicus banter?" or whatever. I should remind you that there are people who think I shouldn't be allowed to write for Bioware NPCs, let alone my own NPCs, and God forbid somebody else's. But what can they do? They can say, "He sucks, don't download his mods." Which is precisely what I would expect to happen if I did in fact write some Tsujatha/Redemption Irenicus banter of poor quality. And good on you for saying so. Let's not forget, people, that Valygar was once modified to be a greenish white guy because a modder didn't believe there were black people in the Forgotten Realms. There's no "permission" system that can prevent that kind of wacky. But players are certainly welcome to roll their eyes and give it a miss. My point is--chances are, if you're truly being objective, any writer you would deny permission to write for your own character probably wouldn't do a good job with anybody else's, either. But we don't get to make those kinds of decisions. Modders who do bad work with your character will get the same kinds of negative reviews and disdainful treatment they get from all of their other bad work. The fear that someone is going to maliciously make your character say ~I am a doodoohead~, thereby poisoning players' opinion of the character and "ruining your fun" is difficult to justify. The chaff, as it usually does, will sink to the bottom of the pond and go largely unnoticed and uncelebrated. I'm not sure I buy into the argument that quality is inherently better (it al comes down to what happens in practice) I can't prove to you that the existing CBP material would have been better if it was written by an individual author who didn't have to worry about obtaining permission/clearance, but I can at least testify from my own experience that I'm pretty sure Keto's material got stronger after Blue and I weren't actively collaborating. We were/are both pretty sensible people, but we would get off on stupid, pointless tangents, have difficulty getting on the same track to do good character conflict, and so forth. I see the same thing when I look at CBP and I blame it largely on the Problem of Permission. * - Chastising me for my heckling-of-amateurs habits would ideally be a different thread. Link to comment
Sorrow Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Let's not forget, people, that Valygar was once modified to be a greenish white guy because a modder didn't believe there were black people in the Forgotten Realms. There's no "permission" system that can prevent that kind of wacky. But players are certainly welcome to roll their eyes and give it a miss. Is there a forum topic for that mod or a website or something ? Link to comment
Kulyok Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Where has Domi's post gone? Damn, I want a delete button, too. Link to comment
Gabrielle Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Ah a witty sarcasm thread. Unfortunately I am out of both momentarily. Link to comment
Gabrielle Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 ................................. Link to comment
CamDawg Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Don't you have a whole site for yourself where you can save stuff like this? We were actually having a useful discussion about good ways to manage multi-author projects before you arrived. Link to comment
Gabrielle Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Since when? A topic that is laced with sarcasm is far from being a useful discussion about good ways to manage multi-author projects. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.