Can someone explain crippled OGC to me

[Vocenoctum]

Actually, I think it is a perfectly good example. WotC simply choose not release the mindflayer stats at all because there ability to ignore the OGL completely permits it.
However, there are other mechanical substitutes for "illithids" out there. So the proper name vs. mechanical pieces difference is reasonable.

The problem with it, is you can use the stats for a mirror of vanity, but not call it a mirror of vanity. You can't use an illithid on either level.
The Whirlwind bottle is easier to do, it's a bottle, with a whirlwind. You can use the bottle with the whirlwind, but can't call it whirlwind bottle. WotC wanted to protect some names in the SRD, so Tensers Transformation doesn't mention Tenser, but it still has a name to use.

If it were about deciding which concepts were product identity, I'd agree with you, but it's about crippling OGC.

 

[BryonD]

I must admit I don't understand what I'm misinterperting about his designation. I've been spending a lot of hours the last day trying to understand it, and you're saying I failed - well, quite possible.
I don't understand how a posting a page of Ars Magica as OGC will contribute to exposing my misunderstanding, but since you apparently do understand the designation and think it will I'll take you up on your challenge. I'll post a page of Ars Magica as a fully OGC version shortly. (You'll excuse me if I choose a minor and short page, I have no intention of making Ars Magica's mechanics OGC.)

Just so long as it is unquestionably Ars Magica material. If you claim that you can take a competely non-open product and re-release as OGC without the publisher's permission, I think this is going to be a short dispute. To be clear, I KNOW that I can re-release every single bit of Mythic Heroes and be 100% compliant with the OGL. You said you could use Ars Magica in the same was as Mythic Heroes. For that to be true you MUST is effect be able to re-release ALL of Ars Magica, because I can re-release ALL of Mythic Heroes. So pick soem material that is representative of the entire product, as if you were going to do the whole thing. You do that and call Ars Magica's publishers attention to it. Get some OGL experts to agree that you have re-used AM and you are compliant at the same time. I'll do the Hero from MH.

You really up to that? (Cause you can not legally hold up your end.)

EDIT: How would you reference the source material in your Section 15?

 

[BryonD]

The problem with it, is you can use the stats for a mirror of vanity, but not call it a mirror of vanity. You can't use an illithid on either level.
The Whirlwind bottle is easier to do, it's a bottle, with a whirlwind. You can use the bottle with the whirlwind, but can't call it whirlwind bottle. WotC wanted to protect some names in the SRD, so Tensers Transformation doesn't mention Tenser, but it still has a name to use.

If it were about deciding which concepts were product identity, I'd agree with you, but it's about crippling OGC.

ehhh, I'll agree that there are some technical differences. I don't see them as relevant to the point of this thread. Just how I see it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

ehhh, I'll agree that there are some technical differences. I don't see them as relevant to the point of this thread. Just how I see it.

Definetly, but that's why I'd prefer them to just make everything OGC. I mean, I understand now wanting your work taken and you get nothing, but really, publishing wise, if a third tier book is only selling a couple thousand copies, how much would an off brand duplicate make?

PDF publishers like Wulf have seperate issues, since he doesn't want someone just copy/pasting from his product into their own and selling it for cheaper. I still doubt it'd happen, simply because Wulf is going to be generally better known than the other guy. IIRC, he remarked in a thread some time ago to the effect that he didn't mind folks profiting off his work, but he wanted them to work for it. (i.e. rewriting to comply)

 

[The Sigil]

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.

The meaning seems to have evolved since I first coined the term on the ogf-l mailing lists (unless I'm gravely mistaken, this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/ogf-l@opengamingfoundation.org/msg06225.html
is the first time the term was introduced - by myself - on Nov 28, 2001, so the term is now just about 4 years old).

I clarified my original intent here the next day: http://www.mail-archive.com/ogf-l@opengamingfoundation.org/msg06245.html

I thought I had already been clear on this point - "crippled" simply means that the Name of a Creature / Monster / Character / Item / Spell / Whatever is PI'd and therefore not OGC.
...
"Crippling" OGC by stripping the Name of the Thing from the OGC designation makes the OGC all but impossible to cross-reference (meaning I can't easily credit you so others can find your creation).

Since that time, the term seems to have evolved into meaning "OGC that cannot, for all practical purposes, be distinguished from non-OGC content and therefore is not really functional as OGC" due to (a) heavy intertwining of PI, (b) badly worded (intentionally or otherwise) OGC designations, or (c) non-existent OGC designations.

The term "Crippled" was chosen deliberately by me to point out that while, technically, stuff might be called "Open" by a strict interpretation of the license, it was, for all practical purposes, "Closed" for re-use, which (a) didn't allow me to properly research it when I saw it in a second-generation work - which was in fact my concern when I first used the term, as should be clear by my OGF-L post and (b) didn't really play well with the idea of Open Game Content to begin with... if you're going to be take advantage of and create a derived work from, the SRD, it doesn't seem ethical to make a poor OGC declaration to make sure that nobody can make a derived work from your stuff. In other words, it looked nice on the surface, but once you looked closer, you realize that its knees had been cut out from under it and it could not stand independent of the original work (thus making it "crippled" instead of "fully functional").

Four years later, it remains a huge problem in the OGL publishing world... and a pet peeve of mine.

--The Sigil

 

[BryonD]

I have no intention of making Ars Magica's mechanics OGC.

Re-reading I zeroed in on this.

You said:

I can use his content in the same way I could use an Ars Magica or Palladium book, he releases absolutely no content under the OGL.

If your second quote is true then either you can release Ars Magic mechanics or I can't release Mythic Heroes mechanics. I know I can release Mythic Heroes mechanics. So to hold up your end you must do the same with Ars Magica.

 

[BryonD]

The meaning seems to have evolved since I first coined the term on the ogf-l mailing lists

You got that right. There seems to be at least four different things that have been called crippled content.

1) Re-write it to use it,
2) Generally vague declarations,
3) PI names stacked onto OGC mechanics, and
4) SRD-derived material claimed as PI.

Maybe more. And each is distinct.
I don't like any of the above. But some are faily minor and some are pretty significant.

 

[bodhi]

That aside, yes, I would most certainly consider Mirror of Vanities, the War Throne, Tears of the Gods, etc to all be specific proper names, whereas dwarf and fireball all general public concepts. If we disagree then that means you are wrong.

Um, just to clarify, in your opinion, "fireball" is a general concept, while, say, "Ball of Fire" would be a proper name, which would be fine as Product Identity?

 

[Yair]

Alright, here we go.

Just so long as it is unquestionably Ars Magica material. If you claim that you can take a competely non-open product and re-release as OGC without the publisher's permission, I think this is going to be a short dispute. To be clear, I KNOW that I can re-release every single bit of Mythic Heroes and be 100% compliant with the OGL. You said you could use Ars Magica in the same was as Mythic Heroes. For that to be true you MUST is effect be able to re-release ALL of Ars Magica, because I can re-release ALL of Mythic Heroes. So pick soem material that is representative of the entire product, as if you were going to do the whole thing. You do that and call Ars Magica's publishers attention to it. Get some OGL experts to agree that you have re-used AM and you are compliant at the same time. I'll do the Hero from MH.

You really up to that? (Cause you can not legally hold up your end.)

EDIT: How would you reference the source material in your Section 15?

Sigh, you keep adding conditions, which is why it took me so long.
I've no intention of reposting the entirety (or even the basics) of Ars Magica as OGC, so I've settled on presenting the basic die mechanic, the basic spellcasting mechanic, and a basic spell. I think that's about the core of Ars Magica. (Well, Ars Magica is really a great game and EVERYTHING is so different that just taking a part of it really misses the whole thing, but I think it will do.)
I didn't make a full presentation, this is just a proof of concept. But I think it is clear from my example that I CAN convert it to OGC.
There might be small errors as well, and I actually changed a few things (but not consequential ones, just changes to better fit them into the SRD mindframe); it's late, and I didn't do it as a professional project. Again, this is a proof of concept.
BTW, I didn't release ANYTHING as OGC after all... I just said I could.
The Ars Magica in OGC form is in the attached file.

I won't be calling out experts or Ars Magica's publishers. I don't see how's that relevant. (And it's not like I'm releasing Ars Magica under the OGL.) I'm confident we have plenty of people to deal with such issues here.

I am not at all sure you can release the entirety of Mythic Heroes as 100% OGC. To the extent the you can, I am confident I can release Ars Magica as well.

I don't NEED to reference the source in my Section 15. I may be deriving ideas from Ars Magica, but I am not using any Open Game Content from it; it's right there in Section 6. The license doesn't require what it doesn't require.

If your second quote is true then either you can release Ars Magic mechanics or I can't release Mythic Heroes mechanics. I know I can release Mythic Heroes mechanics. So to hold up your end you must do the same with Ars Magica.

I can't seem to communicate my intention to you.
My claim is that game mechanics and concepts are not copyrightable and as such are not protected. Ars Magica is not protected from being converted into an OGL game, Mythic Heroes is not protected from being converted into an OGC game. If you spend the time and effort of rewording and rephrasing things, and just use the ideas, nothing is protected.
Of the two options you presented, the closest is the second. You can't release Mythic Heroes mechanics derived from its OGC since the work contains no OGC mechanics.

Edit: I used "Exploding" die terminology, as I believe it is in the public domain. Don't hold it against me, it's an easily changable detail.

 

[Ashardalon]

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.

As has been shown, this is among the easiest types of "crippled content" to work around. It does, however create other problems. Some, BardStephenFox has shown. Another is when the "best" name to call the creature, spell, or item is already taken this way. For example, most Scarred Lands products claim, among others, the names of creatures as PI. While that is quite well for names like na'heem, gelidiceph or ophidic giants (which can be easily renamed), why shouldn't I be able to use dire camel, grawling clacier or dragon lice, when these names are so much on the mark? (I suppose dire camel may fit the "dwarf as PI" concept.)