Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 253431" data-attributes="member: 1254">About the &quot;clearly designate&quot; concept, that sure has been done lots of different ways.I will say this, I do know many publishers (myself included) who for a long time took the position that when WotC officially releases everything then we will be broader in our OGC designations. I certainly adopted that belief. Becasue remember a ton of the OGC we use is under a gentleperson's agreement and is REVOCABLE AT ANY TIME. Later I loosened up <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> and started doing really broad OGC designations. But that varies product to product. In fact, you will see that just about everything in Tome of Horrors is OGC (except for some stuff we got permission from WotC to use, which of course we then do not have the right to contribute as OGC).So dont be so quick to judge publishers that dont just say &quot;its all OGC&quot; until WotC finally releases all their stuff officially. I have done that (its all OGC except for these 8 words) on occasion, but not on every occasion.Plus, there are some real problems with many of the suggested ways to declare OGC that many who are critical of publisher propose as a solution. For example, the grey box method or the &quot;its in italics its OGC&quot; method. In either of those, if you leave a Spot check (DC 20) out of the grey box or not in italics, you are in violation. It is easier to be in compliance by a more general designation.Clark</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orcus, post: 253431, member: 1254"] About the "clearly designate" concept, that sure has been done lots of different ways. I will say this, I do know many publishers (myself included) who for a long time took the position that when WotC officially releases everything then we will be broader in our OGC designations. I certainly adopted that belief. Becasue remember a ton of the OGC we use is under a gentleperson's agreement and is REVOCABLE AT ANY TIME. Later I loosened up :) and started doing really broad OGC designations. But that varies product to product. In fact, you will see that just about everything in Tome of Horrors is OGC (except for some stuff we got permission from WotC to use, which of course we then do not have the right to contribute as OGC). So dont be so quick to judge publishers that dont just say "its all OGC" until WotC finally releases all their stuff officially. I have done that (its all OGC except for these 8 words) on occasion, but not on every occasion. Plus, there are some real problems with many of the suggested ways to declare OGC that many who are critical of publisher propose as a solution. For example, the grey box method or the "its in italics its OGC" method. In either of those, if you leave a Spot check (DC 20) out of the grey box or not in italics, you are in violation. It is easier to be in compliance by a more general designation. Clark [/QUOTE]

Verification