Buyer Expectations for OGL

[Sigurd]

Without disputing the right of publishers to protect whatever they created, what are buyer expectations for the treatment of material and the reuse there of?

When I look at D20 or OGL product should I be able to expect that it will contribute something ot the OGL\D20 universe? (I know OGL & D20 are not the same).

A PDF I bought says this of licensing:

Materials offered by XXXXXXX derived completely from the d20 System Reference Document are deemed Open Game Content in accordance with this license. Character names (other than those owned by Wizards of the Coast), histories, location names, artwork, works of fiction, logos (including the stylized representation of XXXXXX) and the identifying name "XXXXXX" are "Product Identity" and may not be reproduced without the written consent of the copyright holder.

As I read this, it reserves anything new as protected material while re-releasing only what WOTC has already released.

I can't help but think that if I had known they were this restrictive I might have been more inclined towards a Green Ronin product or to a publisher that was openly more generous to the creative process. Or stayed with WotC which at least set up the SRD. I should emphasiize that this particular publisher might be very generous upon being contacted - I don't know. My question really concerns basic framing of the D20 or OGL license.

Are we, as purchasers, not rewarding the generous publishers by not recognising them?
Would people appreciate a web site dedicated to collecting the licensing agreements of various publishers? How many people would want to consult this website before making a purchase?

 

[Emiricol]

I fully expect that ALL mechanics material (as opposed to settings, names, places, etc) will be OGC, flavor text NOT included. If mechanics aren't OGC, I'll never buy from that company again, unless it's something that I KNOW will be all fluff, like setting info (which wouldn't be OGC anyway).

OGC is just too useful for my purposes for me to go wasting money on companies that don't do it. Almost all of my huge, huge collection has lots of OGC I can use for my campaigns.

 

[argo]

As I read this, it reserves anything new as protected material while re-releasing only what WOTC has already released.

Well, I don't know what PDF you're talking about but reading that little blurb you quoted I understand it to mean that they are releasing all their game mechanics as OGC while reserving names, histories, artwork, works of fiction and logos. In other words they are releasing all the "crunch" while reserving all the "fluff", which is what I usually expect from OGL publishers.

The point of the OGL was to get everybody to start sharing the same system, not the same setting.

Later.

 

[Alzrius]

This may sound blasphemous, but I find that Open Game Content receives a lot more love than use.

To explain, I've seen lots of threads like this, where people are concerned that some products don't release enough OGC, or that the OGC that is released isn't accessible enough and should have something like a free website where it can be viewed/downloaded. This, however, ignores the fact that a significant (I'd say the majority) of OGC never gets reprinted in other products.

Simply put, the idea of a product or company that doesn't release enough OGC seems to be more about principles than practicality.

 

[woodelf]

Without disputing the right of publishers to protect whatever they created, what are buyer expectations for the treatment of material and the reuse there of?

When I look at D20 or OGL product should I be able to expect that it will contribute something ot the OGL\D20 universe? (I know OGL & D20 are not the same).

A PDF I bought says this of licensing:

As I read this, it reserves anything new as protected material while re-releasing only what WOTC has already released.

Well, it's sorta poorly worded, assuming you copied it verbatim (minus the company names). However, it probably is intended to release either all game mechanics "derived from" existing OGC, or just plain all game mechanics.

I can't help but think that if I had known they were this restrictive I might have been more inclined towards a Green Ronin product or to a publisher that was openly more generous to the creative process. Or stayed with WotC which at least set up the SRD. I should emphasiize that this particular publisher might be very generous upon being contacted - I don't know. My question really concerns basic framing of the D20 or OGL license.

Are we, as purchasers, not rewarding the generous publishers by not recognising them?
Would people appreciate a web site dedicated to collecting the licensing agreements of various publishers? How many people would want to consult this website before making a purchase?

Anyway, i dunno about "we", but i know that I pay a lot of attention to OGC and PI declarations when making my purchases. They don't make the decision all by themselves, but are one more thing i factor in. I'm not gonna buy material that doesn't interest me, but i might decide between stuff that's good enough based on whether or not it's OGC. But i only really apply that standard to D20 System stuff, not other RPGs. And that's because D20 System (at least, as usually instantiated) is really a bit on the too-crunchy side for me, so it needs a little something extra to get my money, and the ability to reuse and build upon it is that something extra.

I fully expect that ALL mechanics material (as opposed to settings, names, places, etc) will be OGC, flavor text NOT included. If mechanics aren't OGC, I'll never buy from that company again, unless it's something that I KNOW will be all fluff, like setting info (which wouldn't be OGC anyway).

OGC is just too useful for my purposes for me to go wasting money on companies that don't do it. Almost all of my huge, huge collection has lots of OGC I can use for my campaigns.

Why? That is, prior to the advent of the WotC OGL and the D20SRD, did you expect that, when they got around to releasing OGC, it'd only be the crunch? Or is this a conditioned response, where that has simply become the expected behavior? I'm still frustrated that as often as not, the cool stuff [in an open-content RPG book] that i wish i could build upon is not OGC, and usually fluff.

In other words they are releasing all the "crunch" while reserving all the "fluff", which is what I usually expect from OGL publishers.

The point of the OGL was to get everybody to start sharing the same system, not the same setting.

True. But the point of open-content development is to get everybody sharing [well, collaborating, really]. Period.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't buy much non-WotC material, but when I have I havn't even bothered to look. I don't really care one way or the other.

 

[arscott]

A few points to make:

1) At bare minimum, I expect a better OC/PI declaration than this. the OGL requires that you designate open content. Simply saying that "Everything in this book that is open content is open content." is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the rules.

2) I also expect at least 5% of the product to be open content, as per the d20 System Licensce. If they don't have enough open content, they're not allowed to call it a d20 product.

3) The "derived completely" wording is in and of itself troublesome. What they write in there makes it sound like "anything we copied and pasted from the SRD". But even if something was derived only partially from the SRD, it still has to be open content. This generally includes most usefull Crunch, as Feats, Skill, Classes, Spells, and Creatures are part of the SRD. Even alternate rule sets you'd probably be drawing at least partially on the SRD. (For instance, Black Company's magic system is OCG because it uses skill checks, or Grim Tales' magic system because it makes use of caster levels and ability damage.)

Out of curiosity, which pdf is this?

 

[twofalls]

This hasn't ever been a factor in my deciding to purchase a product. It sounds good, play to the ethical publishers, support them and to hell with the bastards who aren't doing nice. However what matters to me in the end is what I find useful in my game. I purchase from a broad base of hardback publishers (hardback books being an important distiction to me) and haven't ever seriously considered their licences before this thread. I'm with Thirdwizard, its just not very important to me.

 

[Michael Tree]

I really don't care. I'm not a publisher, so whether or not the content of a book is open is completely irrelevant to me.

Now, in principle I prefer publishers to release open content, because if it's good or innovative I'd like other publishers to pick up on it. But, as Alzrius mentioned, that almost never happens anyway, so it's mostly a moot point. But even if it that were common, openess content still wouldn't influence my decision to buy.

 

[Ranger REG]

Without disputing the right of publishers to protect whatever they created, what are buyer expectations for the treatment of material and the reuse there of?

When I look at D20 or OGL product should I be able to expect that it will contribute something ot the OGL\D20 universe? (I know OGL & D20 are not the same).

If you mean "Contributing" new original rules and designate them as OGC? It would be a sweet bonus but not necessary nor expected.

It's how they use existing OGCs that makes me want to use or play their game products.

For example, no one wanted the first d20 superhero rpg, The Foundation, that came out in 2000. Yet Steve Kenson & Green Ronin did a OGL/SRD-based superhero rpg, Mutants & Masterminds, that is more appealing and more freeform, a new way to use existing OGCs.