Can someone explain crippled OGC to me

[johnsemlak]

I've heard this phrasea lot over the years. I understand it basically means when people publish d20 stuff and word their d20 license in such a way no one can use their stuff. Can someone explain how this is done?

I know this is sensitive issue for many here, so I'd request in advance that we not attack specific publishers--I just want to know what the term means.

 

[Yair]

All the d20-compatible works are released under the Open Game License (OGL). (This includes more than d20 System works, which also abide by the d20 System Trademark License (d20STL).) A section in that license (Section 8) states that the publisher must clearly indicate which portions of the work he is distributing as Open Game Content (OGC).

Only material that is published as OGC can be used by others under the OGL, so any material NOT indicated as OGC cannot be used by anyone wishing to expand upon or use it in some public manner.
The most common practice is to publish rules-related text as OGC, maintain certain key phrases ("The Barenlands", "Mad Gnome Games", and so on) as Product Identity (making it is very clear these AREN'T OGC), and stay silent on other large portions of the work, making them not OGC by omission (such as the fluff story elements, or the text putting the rules in context in the setting).

Crippled OGC is when the text explaining what is OGC is so vague, and/or the OGC text is so interwind with non-OGC text, that extracting just the OGC portions from the work becomes impossible. The phrase's meaning also extends to cases where the designation is simply not inclusive enough, not releasing as OGC something that should be released under the OGL - but this is somewhat an extension of the term and will not be accepted by all.
For example, a publisher might say that "all game mechanics derived from OGC in this work are OGC". That's meaningless, you have to guess which parts of the text are OGC and which are not, and there is practically no way to reliably extract all the OGC text from it.

Crippled OGC is often very stringy, to the point where many believe it violates the OGL's obligation to release all material derived from OGC as OGC. The designation is also often vague and obscure, in contradiction to Section 8's requirement for a clear indication. It is also ungenorous and unkind. All this means it isn't very popular amongst those advocating or sympathetic to an Open Source-like movement. Or just decent folk.
Crippled OGC allows the publisher to release works without risk of it being republished or parts taken and used without his consent. Anyone wanting to publish stuff derived from his material must contact him and arrange it, just like in normal copyrighted work, as if the OGL didn't exist. This is of great financial benefit, and so you'll find many good publishers publishing crippled OGC.

I am not a lwayer. This is just my view of the subject.

 

[HinterWelt]

I've heard this phrasea lot over the years. I understand it basically means when people publish d20 stuff and word their d20 license in such a way no one can use their stuff. Can someone explain how this is done?

I know this is sensitive issue for many here, so I'd request in advance that we not attack specific publishers--I just want to know what the term means.

Yair has stated my understanding of the usage. The part I have never understood is why players care? I mean, I can appreciate if someone is passionate about open licensining or the like but OGL licensing does not affect a customer's ability to copy content for campaign notes, there own reference or use. As with any product, you canot distribute product legally anyway.

So, the short of it is a delcaration of the Open Game Content in such a way that it is difficult or impossible to re-use that content in another OGL product.

As always, IANAL

Bill

 

[SWBaxter]

I've heard this phrasea lot over the years. I understand it basically means when people publish d20 stuff and word their d20 license in such a way no one can use their stuff. Can someone explain how this is done?

Here's an example (with no names, since it's a fairly widespread practice): I've seen a fair number of products that declare the proper names of creatures as product identity, while making the stats open content. That makes it difficult for anybody but the PI owner to use those critters in compliance with the OGL, even though almost everything you'd need to use them is open - that "almost" is the killer.

Usually, this is the result of trying to protect some proper noun as a copyright, presumably because the author believes it has some value beyond the d20 world.

 

[DanMcS]

Yair has stated my understanding of the usage. The part I have never understood is why players care?

The OGL has led to a huge boom in available products. Many of them are awesome. They only exist because the OGL lets publishers derive material from already-published works.

Someone who is publishing off this goodwill using the OGL, but crippling their OGC so no-one else can use it in the future, is actively trying to poison the well. Any cool ideas they come up with can't be re-used by others, because of their crippled declarations. They are reducing the possible future amount of awesome game material that will be available to gamers, just because they are selfish. I don't want this to happen, so I don't buy their products, and I discourage my friends from doing so.

 

[BryonD]

The OGL has led to a huge boom in available products. Many of them are awesome. They only exist because the OGL lets publishers derive material from already-published works.

Someone who is publishing off this goodwill using the OGL, but crippling their OGC so no-one else can use it in the future, is actively trying to poison the well. Any cool ideas they come up with can't be re-used by others, because of their crippled declarations. They are reducing the possible future amount of awesome game material that will be available to gamers, just because they are selfish. I don't want this to happen, so I don't buy their products, and I discourage my friends from doing so.

Actually, it is impossible to really do as you have suggested.
They may be able to require a minor additional step, and in some cases even intimidate some would-be publishers from bothering.

But no one can actually reduce "the possible future amount of awesome game material that will be available to gamers".

 

[BSF]

To build on an example, I release a monster called BSF's Stingy Monkey with stats, including a new ability called No Backsies, then write up a great description of the history, ecology and combat tactics of the Stingy Monkey. My OGC designation is that stats are OGC, but names of feats, spells, abilities and monsters is not.

Now perhaps another publisher wants to reuse BSF's Stingy Monkey. It's a pirate game, with ninjas and dinosaurs, so it is a great iconic world. The Publisher starts looking at it and realizes that reusing BSF's Stingy Monkey means renaming the creature, and then stripping out the 23 references to other non-OGC material in the description. Publisher is frustrated and does this. Gets product to final editting when it is pointed out that the publisher is still using No Backsies as the name of the special ability. The problem is that the No Backsies mechanic has been reused for a spell effect now, and three additional monsters were created with the No Backsies ability.

Publisher is _really_ glad that the mistakes were caught in the final edit rather than after release. But now the product is delayed and the Publisher goes over everything one more time because maybe there is another violation somewhere in the product. Publisher now kind of regrets having even tried to use BSF's Stingy Monkey. Even after all the changes are in place, the Publisher realizes that some people will look at the newly renamed monster with the newly renamed ability and some customers will think it is just a blatant ripoff of BSF's Stingy Monkey. Because not all the customers realize that the mechanics are OGC but the names aren't. And while there is clearly a reference in the Section 15 of the OGL, those customers won't look at it anyway. They will just go to BSF's forums and start posting how Publisher is a rat and stealing BSF's Stingy Monkey without even giving BSF credit.

Crippled OGC doesn't make content impossible to reuse. It just puts up hurdles to doing so. Maybe the names are useful IP, maybe they aren't. If I designate BSF's Stingy Monkey as IP, I can reuse the name for any system mechanics I like. Maybe that has value. But it does place that obstacle into the reuse concepts of the OGL.

Why do customers care? End user customers really don't. Except that with crippled OGC, they are unlikely to see those cool things reused in other products. With an OGC crippled BSF's Stingy Monkey, you would only see it in products that BSF produced. You wouldn't see it in a module for our hypothetical pirate/ninja/dinosaur game world.

Personally, I would rather see cool things get reused and become part of the collective shared experiences of gamers.

 

[Psion]

Yair has stated my understanding of the usage. The part I have never understood is why players care?

Well, I care because it creates a more diverse and less cross compatible market, and it works against "survival of the fittest" in rules. If publisher A creates a race, class, magic system, vehicle system but publisher B found it easier to re-write a system from scratch than re-use stuff from publisher A, a consumer who likes the ideas in product by both may find similar but incompatible concepts in either book, requiring them to adapt the material.

 

[johnsemlak]

Here's an example (with no names, since it's a fairly widespread practice): I've seen a fair number of products that declare the proper names of creatures as product identity, while making the stats open content. That makes it difficult for anybody but the PI owner to use those critters in compliance with the OGL, even though almost everything you'd need to use them is open - that "almost" is the killer.

Usually, this is the result of trying to protect some proper noun as a copyright, presumably because the author believes it has some value beyond the d20 world.

I had believed that keeping names as PI was considered acceptable. If a monster's name is closed but the stats are completely open, why can't anohter publisher take the statbloc and attach a different name? Isn't this similar to the named spells from the PHB?

 

[Psion]

Now perhaps another publisher wants to reuse BSF's Stingy Monkey. It's a pirate game, with ninjas and dinosaurs, so it is a great iconic world. The Publisher starts looking at it and realizes that reusing BSF's Stingy Monkey means renaming the creature, and then stripping out the 23 references to other non-OGC material in the description. Publisher is frustrated and does this. Gets product to final editting when it is pointed out that the publisher is still using No Backsies as the name of the special ability. The problem is that the No Backsies mechanic has been reused for a spell effect now, and three additional monsters were created with the No Backsies ability.

Publisher is _really_ glad that the mistakes were caught in the final edit rather than after release. But now the product is delayed and the Publisher goes over everything one more time because maybe there is another violation somewhere in the product. Publisher now kind of regrets having even tried to use BSF's Stingy Monkey. Even after all the changes are in place, the Publisher realizes that some people will look at the newly renamed monster with the newly renamed ability and some customers will think it is just a blatant ripoff of BSF's Stingy Monkey. Because not all the customers realize that the mechanics are OGC but the names aren't. And while there is clearly a reference in the Section 15 of the OGL, those customers won't look at it anyway. They will just go to BSF's forums and start posting how Publisher is a rat and stealing BSF's Stingy Monkey without even giving BSF credit.

Crippled OGC doesn't make content impossible to reuse. It just puts up hurdles to doing so.

Precisely. If you make it so it would be as much or more work to re-use it than it would be to write your own, OGC looses its value as OGC.