HalWhitewyrm
First Post
Amen! What is so hard about using boxes to delineate OGC? Some products are ok, but there are some that are just a headache waiting to happen! That shouldn't be the case.The Sigil said:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
AEG and OGL
- Thread starter enrious
- Start date
HellHound
ENnies winner and NOT Scrappy Doo
I'm not a fan of boxed OGL. In many situations, it looks clunky.
But MOST people are handling OGC much better now. Most say exactly what portions are OGC (such as all prestige classes, all monsters, etc) or at least what portions of what sections are (all spells except for the flavor text material appearing between the spell name and the spell school, all prestige classes except the flavor text appearing between the prestige class name and the hit die notation, all monsters except the text between the advancement range and the COMBAT entry).
In my second book, I was pretty restrictive with what I made OGC (ie: not spell names or monster names), but that is something I didn't do before or since, and something I don't intend to do again.
But MOST people are handling OGC much better now. Most say exactly what portions are OGC (such as all prestige classes, all monsters, etc) or at least what portions of what sections are (all spells except for the flavor text material appearing between the spell name and the spell school, all prestige classes except the flavor text appearing between the prestige class name and the hit die notation, all monsters except the text between the advancement range and the COMBAT entry).
In my second book, I was pretty restrictive with what I made OGC (ie: not spell names or monster names), but that is something I didn't do before or since, and something I don't intend to do again.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
My pet peeve with OGC declarations is wording the the following effect:
"All material directly derived from the SRD and all material that is already OGC by virtue of appearing in another OGC source."
In my mind, that translates as: "all material that the OGL requires us to delcare as open, never mind that we can't figure out what that is and proving derivation is well nigh unto impossible" and "if you have every other OGL product there is (or at least those in our Section 15) and can recognize the stuff we grabbed from it, well, that's OGC too but we're not going to bother to point it out."
That phrase, to me anyway, does not clearly delineate what is OGC because it requires either (a) a person to be able to prove that material is derived (what exactly does "rules-related" include, anyway) or (b) that the person have a pre-existing knowledge of all other Open Game Content (a relative impossibility, particularly considering the muddy declarations of OGC in the first place).
I guess I take issue with this phrase because in my mind there is a HUGE difference between "delineation of OGC" and "CLEAR delineation of OGC." This phrase really does absolutely nothing to clearly delineate OGC - it's basically a CYA thing - and is implicit in the OGL anyway. I have heard some publishers (can't remember who) say, "look, I don't want to make things easy to pick out - I want to put the onus on the reader to work for it so that people can't just rip out my OGC wholesale." I understand that, but IMO if you're that concerned, don't publish OGC to begin with. While it may be a justification for making the OGC hard to find, the very fact that you're doing so tells me you're not complying with "the clear delineation of OGC" provision. Or, to be more blunt...
Me: "Why don't you clearly delineate OGC?"
Response: "Oh, we delineate our OGC, we just don't want to make it easy for people to find it and rip it out."
Me: "You're dodging the question. I never said you do not delineate OGC... I merely want to know why you do not clearly delineate it."
Response: "Look, the OGC is in there... you just have to do some work to figure out what it is..."
Me: "You're STILL not answering the question... if I have to do work to figure out where it is, that's not CLEAR delineation in my mind!"
Response: "What is your problem? The OGC is there, you just have to look to find it."
Me: "Why will you not answer the question?"
Response: "The OGC is in there... we just didn't want to make it easy to find."
Me: "Doesn't the phrase, 'not easy to find' mean the same as 'unclear'?"
Response: "Not necessarily. Since 'clear' is not a well-defined term, legally speaking, we can choose to interpret it in whatever fashion we please. We interpret it to mean that if we have words that delineate some of our product as OGC, then we have satisfied the requirement. Clearly, there is a delineation, hence the delineation is clear."
Me: "What kind of argument is that? Can I not argue that words constituting a delineation are not necessarily clear? Does that not mean that a delineation can be unclear and therefore in violation? If they wanted you just to delineate it, they wouldn't have added the qualifier 'clear' in there, would they?"
Response: "You're not listening... we delineated our OGC."
Me (growing agitated): "No, you're not listening... your delineation is UNCLEAR. I'm not arguing that there is a delineation. I'm arguing that it is not clear what is delineated!"
Response: "Look, it's quite simple. If we delineate the OGC, we have satisfied the requirement to delineate OGC."
Me (red in the face): "The requirement ISN'T 'delineate OGC', the requirement is 'CLEARLY delineate OGC!'"
Response: "Well, our OGC is delineated... it's not our fault that you're unwilling to spend the time needed to find it."
Me: "If I give you a highlighter and ask you to mark all the OGC in your book - and not a single word that is not OGC, could you do it?"
Response: "Oh, no... I mean, even lawyers can't agree on what must and must not be OGC, so how could you expect us to tell you what is OGC?"
Me: "Does it occur to you that if you yourself can't tell me what is OGC, it logically follows that your delineation is unclear?"
Response: "No, not at all. There is OGC in there - somewhere - and it's up to the reader to find it - with paid legal counsel of course..."
Me: "Quit dodging the question! There is no question that a delineation exists... I am NOT referring to the word 'delineation.' I am referring to the word 'clear'... I don't even want to hear you talk about 'delineation,' I want to hear you talk about 'clear'... "
Response: "Look, the delineation is there. That should be clear enough for you. It's delineated, end of discussion."
Me: "AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!"
There are some really good examples of clear OGC declaration out there... from M. Jason Parent's examples above to Bastion Press' "all text except our company name" to "all spells, feats, and items" to "all boxed text" to "Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 8" to having the note "the text on this page is Open Game Content" on certain pages. There are also some pretty ugly ones, like the one mentioned above.
I don't require a publisher to do declare LOTS of OGC (though I'd like them to). I do require that the declaration to be clear, though. I consider myself reasonably intelligent (the usual way of interpreting terms in legalese is the 'reasonable person' - so in order for something to be 'clear', it must be clear to a reasonable and reasonably intelligent person), so I figure if I can't figure out a delineation, it's 'not clear' by definition. If a group of highly trained lawyers can't figure it out, it's certainly not clear by definition (right?) - I mean, if the experts can't do it, you don't expect average Joe to do it, and average Joe is the 'benchmark' for testing the term.
It was one thing when the OGL was new to get this wrong. However, the longer it is around, and the more examples - especially good ones - you have, the less tolerable it is to continue to get it wrong.
Publishers are absolutely getting better, on the whole about it, but there are still some who haven't been able to get it right... and again, with so many examples of "getting it right" out there now that again, it's not rocket science to do this and IMO, just like getting Section 15 wrong, there's no longer an excuse for not CLEARLY delineating OGC.
--The Sigil
"All material directly derived from the SRD and all material that is already OGC by virtue of appearing in another OGC source."
In my mind, that translates as: "all material that the OGL requires us to delcare as open, never mind that we can't figure out what that is and proving derivation is well nigh unto impossible" and "if you have every other OGL product there is (or at least those in our Section 15) and can recognize the stuff we grabbed from it, well, that's OGC too but we're not going to bother to point it out."
That phrase, to me anyway, does not clearly delineate what is OGC because it requires either (a) a person to be able to prove that material is derived (what exactly does "rules-related" include, anyway) or (b) that the person have a pre-existing knowledge of all other Open Game Content (a relative impossibility, particularly considering the muddy declarations of OGC in the first place).
I guess I take issue with this phrase because in my mind there is a HUGE difference between "delineation of OGC" and "CLEAR delineation of OGC." This phrase really does absolutely nothing to clearly delineate OGC - it's basically a CYA thing - and is implicit in the OGL anyway. I have heard some publishers (can't remember who) say, "look, I don't want to make things easy to pick out - I want to put the onus on the reader to work for it so that people can't just rip out my OGC wholesale." I understand that, but IMO if you're that concerned, don't publish OGC to begin with. While it may be a justification for making the OGC hard to find, the very fact that you're doing so tells me you're not complying with "the clear delineation of OGC" provision. Or, to be more blunt...
Me: "Why don't you clearly delineate OGC?"
Response: "Oh, we delineate our OGC, we just don't want to make it easy for people to find it and rip it out."
Me: "You're dodging the question. I never said you do not delineate OGC... I merely want to know why you do not clearly delineate it."
Response: "Look, the OGC is in there... you just have to do some work to figure out what it is..."
Me: "You're STILL not answering the question... if I have to do work to figure out where it is, that's not CLEAR delineation in my mind!"
Response: "What is your problem? The OGC is there, you just have to look to find it."
Me: "Why will you not answer the question?"
Response: "The OGC is in there... we just didn't want to make it easy to find."
Me: "Doesn't the phrase, 'not easy to find' mean the same as 'unclear'?"
Response: "Not necessarily. Since 'clear' is not a well-defined term, legally speaking, we can choose to interpret it in whatever fashion we please. We interpret it to mean that if we have words that delineate some of our product as OGC, then we have satisfied the requirement. Clearly, there is a delineation, hence the delineation is clear."
Me: "What kind of argument is that? Can I not argue that words constituting a delineation are not necessarily clear? Does that not mean that a delineation can be unclear and therefore in violation? If they wanted you just to delineate it, they wouldn't have added the qualifier 'clear' in there, would they?"
Response: "You're not listening... we delineated our OGC."
Me (growing agitated): "No, you're not listening... your delineation is UNCLEAR. I'm not arguing that there is a delineation. I'm arguing that it is not clear what is delineated!"
Response: "Look, it's quite simple. If we delineate the OGC, we have satisfied the requirement to delineate OGC."
Me (red in the face): "The requirement ISN'T 'delineate OGC', the requirement is 'CLEARLY delineate OGC!'"
Response: "Well, our OGC is delineated... it's not our fault that you're unwilling to spend the time needed to find it."
Me: "If I give you a highlighter and ask you to mark all the OGC in your book - and not a single word that is not OGC, could you do it?"
Response: "Oh, no... I mean, even lawyers can't agree on what must and must not be OGC, so how could you expect us to tell you what is OGC?"
Me: "Does it occur to you that if you yourself can't tell me what is OGC, it logically follows that your delineation is unclear?"
Response: "No, not at all. There is OGC in there - somewhere - and it's up to the reader to find it - with paid legal counsel of course..."
Me: "Quit dodging the question! There is no question that a delineation exists... I am NOT referring to the word 'delineation.' I am referring to the word 'clear'... I don't even want to hear you talk about 'delineation,' I want to hear you talk about 'clear'... "
Response: "Look, the delineation is there. That should be clear enough for you. It's delineated, end of discussion."
Me: "AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!"
There are some really good examples of clear OGC declaration out there... from M. Jason Parent's examples above to Bastion Press' "all text except our company name" to "all spells, feats, and items" to "all boxed text" to "Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 8" to having the note "the text on this page is Open Game Content" on certain pages. There are also some pretty ugly ones, like the one mentioned above.
I don't require a publisher to do declare LOTS of OGC (though I'd like them to). I do require that the declaration to be clear, though. I consider myself reasonably intelligent (the usual way of interpreting terms in legalese is the 'reasonable person' - so in order for something to be 'clear', it must be clear to a reasonable and reasonably intelligent person), so I figure if I can't figure out a delineation, it's 'not clear' by definition. If a group of highly trained lawyers can't figure it out, it's certainly not clear by definition (right?) - I mean, if the experts can't do it, you don't expect average Joe to do it, and average Joe is the 'benchmark' for testing the term.
It was one thing when the OGL was new to get this wrong. However, the longer it is around, and the more examples - especially good ones - you have, the less tolerable it is to continue to get it wrong.
Publishers are absolutely getting better, on the whole about it, but there are still some who haven't been able to get it right... and again, with so many examples of "getting it right" out there now that again, it's not rocket science to do this and IMO, just like getting Section 15 wrong, there's no longer an excuse for not CLEARLY delineating OGC.
--The Sigil
Last edited:
HalWhitewyrm
First Post
I think you have said it better and more thoroughly than I could. Thanks.
And yes, I agree, the above is my problem with the declaration of OGC in various products (notice above I didn't state AEG or FFG, or any publisher for that matter, it was more of a general statement).
And yes, I agree, the above is my problem with the declaration of OGC in various products (notice above I didn't state AEG or FFG, or any publisher for that matter, it was more of a general statement).
Cergorach
The Laughing One
Arnix said:
My definition "is" that when a publisher even now has the bad form to use "All material directly derived from the SRD and all material that is already OGC by virtue of appearing in another OGC source." (or it's variations), he just asks for people using more than 'clearly' defined OGL material.
I even would go so far as to say that when people 'disrespect' the community that much, by indirectly say "You figure it out!", i wouldn't be polite in using material and/or informing the company/individual. How can i show 'respect' to companies that won't show us any...
We actually should make a list with 'bad' OGL products that use this offensive line...
AEG:
Pretty save here.
Fantasy Flight Games:
Pretty save here.
Sword & Sorcery:
Pretty save here.
Necromancer Games:
Pretty save here.
Malhavoc Press (Sword & Sorcery):
The Book of Elderitch Might
The Book of Elderitch Might II
If Thoughts Could Kill
A better Job was done with Demon God's Fane, it took a bit more room, but most things where clearly marked by description.
Fiery Dragon Productions (Sword & Sorcery):
Nature's Fury
The Giant's Skull
Beyond All Reason
Of Sound Mind
Queen of Lies
Psionics Toolkit
Counter Collection I
Counter Collection II
Green Ronin Publishing:
I currently only have three products of this company in my collection (want them all ;-). Pocket Grimoire Divine (everything, but three words is OGL, excellent!), Assassin's Handbook (i wish everything was as clear as this!), Book of the Righteous (reasonable well defined).
Mongoose Publushing:
Some of their early books clearly defined open content by designating the entire page as OGL (everything that contained rules based material), other books have really
ty designations (sorry, but a +2 bonus to Dexterity is OGL, even if they don't say it is).
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Been sick for most of a week now, so I'm grumpier than usual (happens when I'm sick)...
I'm not going to be impolite to companies even when "they're impolite to me" - it's just not in my nature (though I may complain loudly
)
The problem as I see it is copy-catting - once one person uses something - good or bad - it usually gets copied without thought of whether it is good or bad. If you're going to copycat an example, make sure it is a GOOD example.
I could say more, but I really don't have much more to contribute.
So in summary, "please CLEARLY delineate your OGC" by which I mean "make it so easy that a 6-year-old could find it." No excuses accepted because we have good examples of how to do this out there.
--The Sigil
I'm not going to be impolite to companies even when "they're impolite to me" - it's just not in my nature (though I may complain loudly
)The problem as I see it is copy-catting - once one person uses something - good or bad - it usually gets copied without thought of whether it is good or bad. If you're going to copycat an example, make sure it is a GOOD example.
I could say more, but I really don't have much more to contribute.
So in summary, "please CLEARLY delineate your OGC" by which I mean "make it so easy that a 6-year-old could find it." No excuses accepted because we have good examples of how to do this out there.
--The Sigil
Last edited:
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
The Sigil said:
I don't agree with this definition of clear delineation, but I certainly agree that there's a lot out there that's not clear by any standard.
jmucchiello
Hero
I like Sigil's definition of clear but I could see you wanting it to be a 10 or 15 year old. Still, if you don't like "clear" to mean "a six-year old with a highlighter would make no mistakes", what do you prefer?CRGreathouse said:
Similar Threads
