Can someone explain crippled OGC to me

[Vocenoctum]

It's a somewhat liberal reading, but it's not hard to argue that the word dwarf is among the "text and language used to describe the game mechanics", and therefore, Wulf's PI declaration actually does declare the dwarf as Product Identity. at bare minimum, it declares the phrase "Dwarf Racial Traits" to be PI.

Sort of, but I think "Racial Traits of Dwarfies" is a suitable use of his OGC, without being the "text and language" he use.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Im all for contributing. Most of the books I've done contain a heavy amount of OGC and as far as I can tell, the designations we use are pretty clear cut (though I dont write those designations myself, Ive read them and pointed out what I think should and should not be open).

As for "continually making their own material", I fail to see how that's any kind of a problem. Again, if someone buys something written by me, I consider it my obligation to have most of the book be new material.

The best example is the 8 different kinds of ship combat. A publisher could make his own ship combat book, competing with those other books, and then follow up products require his own book. Or, he could make original material that builds on 1 or 2 of those previous systems, noting which book it was and such. Certainly he's losing any potential sales from the hotly contested arena of ship combat rules, but he's also not spending effort reinventing the wheel and can present new material that builds on something already done.

Of course, most designers think their system is best (hopefully, otherwise they'd be knowingly publishing substandard material so you don't see that kind of mixture often enough. I (as a consumer) believe that is what the OGL is for, and I just don't see publishers doing it. If it's a small item like a spell or such, reprinting what's already done somewhere and adding new material is fine.

As an example, WotC has done plenty of books that are maybe 40% updated, 50% new and 10% reprint material, but it's fine with me. (those percentages are made up, so I won't argue them.

The concept of new material being bad smacks of Mike Mearls' recent comments about commercial PDFs somehow hindering "innovation", an argument I do not buy.

It's two different concepts IMO.
1) Continually reinventing the wheel just gets you more wheels, not nice new rims. (my point)
2) Seeing people that would have put material into public domain, instead sell the product, limits that materials viewing and reworking, and hinders it's acceptance and usability. (what I think Mearls point was)

In other words what Im saying is there is a happy medium. No I do not think all OGC (or even most) should be crippled. But I do think companies releasing under the OGL have a right to protect enough of their ideas (including proper names) so that they can retain control.

Don't get me wrong, protecting IP is very important. The example I'll use is the same as above.
Fireball= Generic open name
Tensers Transformation= IP Name, Closed
Transformation= OGC name for tensers Transformation

If a monster entry is going to be OGC, but not the name, they should provide an OGC name, IMO.

I think IP should be limited to proper names that are in some way campaign related, or specific stuff that is integral to the setting. In either case, close the whole thing, don't cripple it with no name or wonkyness.

I don't think we're really disagreeing much if any, I think it's just the medium we're using to discuss it. I won't go down the road again from other threads, but it just seems like a lot of publishers get defensive, and don't really appreciate the OGL. Yes there's a lot of contribution to the OGL's body of work, but I'm also of the mind that the OGL/ D20L has done more for the publishers involved than they did for D&D, as it were.

 

[BryonD]

Sorry, been away Christmasing.

Sigh, you keep adding conditions, which is why it took me so long.

No, I keep refining to make certain you live up the standard you set up yourself.

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.

Nope, sorry, you failed.
You converted a mechanic, yes, but I can still do 100% of MH and anyone can read it and go "Yep, that's Mythic Heroes, alright".

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.

It is 100% relevant. Nothing in Ars Magica is open and 100% everything in MH is open.

I am not at all sure you can release the entirety of Mythic Heroes as 100% OGC.

I am.

To the extent the you can, I am confident I can release Ars Magica as well.

Not legally you can't.

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.

Because you are inventing an intention that is irrelevant to Wulf's actions and falsely substituting it as a target for attack. I'm sticking to the reality at hand.

The work contains plenty of OGC mechanics.
Roll 2d6 drop the lowest and add that to a D20 Drive check is a mechanic and it is described in MH along with ways to use that mechanic in direct (read mechanical) relation to other mechanics. The ways to use action points and the way to mix certain uses together are all mechanics that are to either a trivial degree (shadowing) or completely 100% (the collective set of mechancis that defines a given archetype) new to Mythic Heros.

You have agreed that you can not fully reproduce Ars Magica. Aside from the completely trivial manner of need to re-word things, please identify any substantive thing in MH that you CAN'T reproduce.

I'll post my Hero shortly.

 

[DanMcS]

Nope, sorry, you failed.
You converted a mechanic, yes, but I can still do 100% of MH and anyone can read it and go "Yep, that's Mythic Heroes, alright".

It is 100% relevant. Nothing in Ars Magica is open and 100% everything in MH is open.

It doesn't have to be open. Game mechanics are not covered by copyright. That was Yair's statement; he can republish the mechanics of Ars Magica any way he chooses, because ideas are not copyrighted. He did so (I assume; I don't own Ars Magica).

You have agreed that you can not fully reproduce Ars Magica. Aside from the completely trivial manner of need to re-word things, please identify any substantive thing in MH that you CAN'T reproduce.

The rewording is the problem. The OGL is a license to allow someone else to use copyrighted material. Game mechanics are not copyrightable, but the text is. So Open Game Content is text that can be used by anyone else, under the terms of the license. By making the game mechanics but not the text "open content", Wulf has theoretically released a product that has no open content.

He hasn't really, of course, because the OGL specifies that anything derived from open content must be open content, which overrides his PI claim. He isn't clearly designating the open content, which arguably makes him in breach of the license, and anyone he references in his section 15 could apply for correction.

Trying to force a licensee of your OGL book to rewrite the text is missing the point of the OGL entirely. You don't need the OGL to rewrite someone else's rules and publish them, you could do that before the OGL was conceived of, under copyright law. Anyone could rewrite Grim Tales entirely, release it as an OGL product, and not reference it in their section 15, because they would not be using any text (open content) from it, just ideas. Ideas are not covered by copyright or by the Open Game License. Text is.

 

[madelf]

You have agreed that you can not fully reproduce Ars Magica. Aside from the completely trivial manner of need to re-word things, please identify any substantive thing in MH that you CAN'T reproduce.

It's true, he can't fully reproduce Ars Magica, because that would entail reproducing the text. He can't fully reproduce Grim Tales either, even under the OGL, because that would entail reproducing the text (and the text has been declared PI). In either case he can reproduce the ideas, concepts, and mechanics (without using the text), by the "completely trivial manner of re-wording things" because copyright law says so. Not because the OGL says so.

He can't use OGL open content from Ars Magica, because there is no open content released under the OGL for that game. But he can still reproduce the concepts, ideas, and mechanics from Ars Magica because those are not protected by copyright. He could do the same thing with Grim Tales, by ignoring the OGL and relying on what is allowed by copyright. So using the OGL to declare mechanics (sans text) as open content is simply pointless.


Quoted directly from the US Copyright website, under "WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?":

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Another bit from the US Copyright site directly addressing games:

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

 

[BryonD]

My version of the Hero

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes are supported, both by Malhavoc and by 3rd parties doing so with permission from the publisher.

Conversely, have there been examples of a Setting or similar product released under the OGL, and then supported by 3rd party products also released entirely within the bounds of the OGL (i.e. the 3rd party simply abided by the OGL and did not need to contact the original publisher at all)? I can't think of any, but I may be unaware.

From a player's point of view, it really seems pointless buy an product containing OGC simply because it might be supported by a later 3rd party product. In practice it doesn't happen very much.

Well, it's just an example of why one might care. I think that the lack of support for AE is due to lack of interest, but at least the potential for support is there. Maybe if it gets big enough we'll start seeing some 3rd party support, but I'm not holding my breath. I'd like to see more companies bring out AE-compatible adventures, or provide inexpensive enhancements for their D&D adventures that provide the stats and other changes required for AE and/or Iron Heroes. But first someone's got to decide that it's going to make some money...

 

[BryonD]

The rewording is the problem. The OGL is a license to allow someone else to use copyrighted material. Game mechanics are not copyrightable, but the text is. So Open Game Content is text that can be used by anyone else, under the terms of the license. By making the game mechanics but not the text "open content", Wulf has theoretically released a product that has no open content.

So you, and madelf, are saying that the OGL really offers NOTHING other that the ability to cut and paste verbatim text?

EDIT: Are you also saying that I could publish that exact file WITHOUT the OGL and there would be no chance to even get a court case going against me, much less win?

 

[DanMcS]

So you, and madelf, are saying that the OGL really offers NOTHING other that the ability to cut and paste verbatim text?

No. It also gives you a method to cite your sources and get yourself cited by others (section 15). It also gives a method to withold names and other designations you consider to be your creative marks (PI) from others who reuse your open content, sort of a poor-man's trademark.

More importantly, it indicates that you're a willing participant in publishing game material in a way that can be easily reused and improved by others to support a game we all know and love. If you're publishing under the OGL but you aren't releasing open content, you're really missing the point.

 

[BryonD]

No. It also gives you a method to cite your sources and get yourself cited by others (section 15). It also gives a method to withold names and other designations you consider to be your creative marks (PI) from others who reuse your open content, sort of a poor-man's trademark.

More importantly, it indicates that you're a willing participant in publishing game material in a way that can be easily reused and improved by others to support a game we all know and love. If you're publishing under the OGL but you aren't releasing open content, you're really missing the point.

It establishes a boiler plate for doing these things in a consistent manner. But those could all be done without the OGL.

They are all fine and good and in the spirit of the OPEN GAMING COMMUNITY. But they are not legal options that were not in existence before.