Can someone explain crippled OGC to me

[BSF]

Malhavoc's Book of Eldritch Might includes PI designations of "all character*, item, and place names, histories, and named events, as well as Malhavoc Press identifying marks and product titles." This seems fine at the outset, but look at the items.

There is the Bottled Whirlwind, which is a bottle that holds a whirlwind spell. Sure, if I wanted to use it I could call it something different. Maybe a Whirlwind Bottle? What about the Diving Sphere? Maybe I should call it a Diving Ball.

There are some great items in that book. Some of them are very creative, both mechanically and in terms of names/flavor. Then there are some items that are fairly bland. It wouldn't be very hard for somebody else to come up with the Bottled Whirlwind independently and then be accused of stealing PI and misusing the OGL, when they didn't.

I'm not passing judgement on how the OGL is being applied. If I want it bad enough, I can rework it however I like. But in some cases it seems like folks are being a little too protective.

 

[BSF]

*laugh* I guess I wasn't the only one thinking BoEM...

 

[Yair]

Um, what's left?

Nothing. Really, the work releases NO text as OGC. Only concepts.

It is the authors belief that the OGL supercedes copyright law, and that he can use the OGL to declare abstract ideas as OGC. If I understood him correctly, he released the work under the OGL without releasing any text as OGC. Only the concepts.
Some concepts. His designation doesn't really states which.

What the heck does "wholly derived" mean?

I have no idea. But it must be a clear to Monte Cook.

 

[BryonD]

Well, I can whip up examples of calling "dwarf" PI, or close to it. Consider The Book of Eldritch Might. It's legal designation isThis designation doesn't really release much as OGC, but more to the point it reserves as PI some rather broad names. Things like the Ring of Blue Conjures, Ring of Ebony Bolts, the Rod of Branding, the Book of Roses, the Mirror of Vanity (!), the War Throne, the Madness poison (!!), Liquid Power, Tears of the Gods.

Nope, I don't buy that.

I also really dislike the BoEM declaration. And I think for largely the same reasons you provided. BUT, none of the above takes a general concept that is fairly standard and basically public domain idea such as "dwarf" and tries to protect it. In your post you called out a difference between dwarf and illithid. I don't see how these are under the dwarf column.

Or consider Bad Axe Game's Gamemastering pdf. It's PI designation includesThis includes text that explains basic game mechanics, which I would put on a single level with "dwarf" in ubiquitousness and pith. For example,

I disagree even moreso in this case. To the contrary, the Bad Axe declaration protects nothing mechanical whatsoever. You may be irritated that his declaration requires some effort on the part those who would use his content. And that's your call. But there is no way you can say that protecting nothing at all is even to the level of protection illithid, much less dwarf.

 

[BryonD]

The BoEM series was my first thought, too. Every spell and magic item name, even relatively innocous names like "pierce", are declared PI.

Now that would be an example I'd put under "dwarf"

Um, what's left?

That totally eludes the point of the OGL AFAICT. It's a longstanding legal precedent that game mechanics are inherently not copyrightable. The only thing the OGL permits you to do that you couldn't already do is to re-use the text/expression.

I don't remotely speak for Wulf. Perhaps he will either agree with or correct me.

As I understand it all he is trying to protect is his own personal writing style and phrasing. The point is not to withhold OGC, as I think his older declarations would show his support for the concept. However, his concept is that to re-use it, it must be re-written in the subsequent author's own words. They can re-write every bit of it. None of it is protected. But a would-be wiki builder would be forced to do more than cut and paste the material.
He isn't intending to protect any mechanics.

I think it is much ado about very little, but so be it.

 

[Psion]

But there is no way you can say that protecting nothing at all is even to the level of protection illithid, much less dwarf.

Discounting the specific test you put forth, do you not see the problem with these sorts of declarations?

 

[wingsandsword]

The main reason I hate crippled OGC is that it breaks one of the basic models of the OGL, the idea that everybody is contributing to a pool of available mechanics and people can write supporting products for other people's products. There is a very specific case I'm thinking of, of a OGL game I love very much and is fairly popular with my gaming friends, but future support for it from it's maker is somewhat doubtful. Because it is from a company notorious for crippled OGC, it's virtually impossible to make a 3rd party suppliment for their book, so professional support for the game evaporates when the company stops putting out new books, so much for it being an "Open Game".

I, like many gamers, have the idea brewing in the back of our mind to publish our own campaign setting and homebrew d20 rules derivation to go with it one day. (Not a pay .pdf, mind you, just put it up on the web and let people enjoy it). Many things I would love to include in my setting and homebrew rules to go with it are from crippled sources, like a certain core character class and a certain player race. I'm afraid of putting it into my free .pdf because it's hard to know exactly (thanks to the vague descriptions) of what to remove and rename from such a thing.

 

[BryonD]

Discounting the specific test you put forth, do you not see the problem with these sorts of declarations?

I'm not a fan.

I agree that, regardless of intention, it runs counter to the idea of making as many products as possible work together. It doesn't help ME, that is for certain.
It bothers me far less than other kinds of cripple content. But that doesn't mean I'm offering a stamp of approval either.

 

[Crothian]

There is certainly a separate issue that game designers, by and large, seem obsessed with doing their own thing, regardless of what others have done before them.

But that really doesn't change BSF's point.

However, from the consumer stand point crippled OGC verse OGC that no one uses has the same result.

 

[BryonD]

However, from the consumer stand point crippled OGC verse OGC that no one uses has the same result.

I disagree. Non-crippled OGC is much more likely to contribute to better and more integrated product down the line.
If there was no OGC re-use at all, then you would be right.
But the small amount of re-use that there is improves my game.
You can't assume that a specfic instance of OGC would not have been re-used if it hadn't been crippled.