Can someone explain crippled OGC to me

[Crothian]

But publishers seem to not use even the most open OGC anyway. So, since publishers seem to perfer to make there own things why does it matter if previous OGC is crippled or not?

 

[Psion]

But publishers seem to not use even the most open OGC anyway.

I certainly see less re-used than I feel should be (I own 8 different seafaring rulebooks now...), but some offer -- and use -- plenty. Frex, DMs Directory of Demiplanes use appropriate creatures from ToH and ToH II like Lava Children, Magma Wierds, and Time Flayers. And need I reminds you of books like Arms & Armor, Feats, Ultimate Prestige Classes, etc.? And Phil Reed and a few other authors have dipped deeply into the OGC vat that is Unearthed Arcana.

 

[BSF]

But publishers seem to not use even the most open OGC anyway. So, since publishers seem to perfer to make there own things why does it matter if previous OGC is crippled or not?

Because the principle is still a sound principle. Right now creative folk are still busy being creative. Let's face it, there is a huge societal hurdle to overcome regarding creativity and reusing somebody else's work.

The easiest place to begin the process of leveraging OGC is probably in adventures. Create an adventure using monsters from the SRD and Tome of Horrors, sprinkle some treasure items in there, perhaps a magic item or two from something by Ronin Arts, add in a scroll with a spell from an EN Publishing product, create an NPC that can be rescued using ST Cooley's Enchiridion of Mystic Music so the NPC can help the heroes complete the quest, give the BBEG's bodyguard a variant class from TheLe's Unorthodox series, the bodyguard coats his weapons in a poison from Blue Devil's Poisoncraft product, and the BBEG isn't a cleric, she is a Priest from Lion's Den's Priest of the Celestial Spheres. (How was that for a painfully long sentence?) This would be a clever reuse of OGC that would make a very different adventure without being so wildly divergent to be hard to use. The designer would have had to focus on the creation of the adventure. Not the creation of new creatures, magic items, spells and classes.

But some people would feel like they took the easy way out and weren't very creative. All they did was steal a bunch of material from other creative folk. That's a shame. It still doesn't detract from the priciple of the OGL though. Uncrippled OGC still leaves that opportunity, regardless of whether people are currently using it.

 

[Crothian]

I certainly see less re-used than I feel should be (I own 8 different seafaring rulebooks now...), but some offer -- and use -- plenty. Frex, DMs Directory of Demiplanes use appropriate creatures from ToH and ToH II like Lava Children, Magma Wierds, and Time Flayers. And need I reminds you of books like Arms & Armor, Feats, Ultimate Prestige Classes, etc.? And Phil Reed and a few other authors have dipped deeply into the OGC vat that is Unearthed Arcana.

Yes, there are some books that and people that reuse material. But these are more the exceptions as you point out yourself on the many book of seafaring. But there are books set up to be used by others like OGL Ancients which I like and use that no one does.

 

[BryonD]

Yes, there are some books that and people that reuse material. But these are more the exceptions as you point out yourself on the many book of seafaring. But there are books set up to be used by others like OGL Ancients which I like and use that no one does.

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.

 

[Yair]

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?

I think generally it would be considered acceptable to remove proper names and similar setting-specific elements, but not general names and titles. Consider how useless the SRD would be if "Fireball" and "Gnoll" and "Goblin" and so on would all be released without their names. No one could refer to them as such, just imagine a race book on Dwarves that referred to them as "Those Stout Little People". It's one thing saying the "Illithid" name is PI, it is another to say that "Fireball" is.

Let me add my voice to the "I care" chorus.
While it is true that publishers rarely use other's content, they sometimes do and that's great. Better than nothing. If the crippled-OGC barriers were lower, I suspect we would have seen a bit more of that too.
I just recently purchased a product which I knew contained content from another company, partly because I thought the rules were good and I was looking forward to seeing them in a non-crippled form (the original company is infamous for crippled OGC). It turned out the new version was even more crippled, but that's another story.
That is not why I really care about crippled OGC, however.

I care about crippled OGC for two primary reasons:
1) I think it's not nice to cripple OGC. I think it's spitting into the well you're drinking from, I think it's abusing what was given to you freely, I think it twists and brakes the OGL for selfish greed, I think it is an insult to the OGC you are building on and those who released it. I think it's morally abhorrant.
2) I actually want to publish my gaming stuff legally - not commercially, just legally. I can't, when that stuff is predicated on closed content; I can when it based on open content. Anything that isn't open is therefore substantially less useful to me. For example, in my latest OGC-based campaign I could post extensive treaments of the religion, races, and similar background for my players to read before the game, or refer to between sessions. This was useful.
I think this second reason is fairly rare, but there it is.

For all these reasons, I tend not to purchase products that I know contain crippled OGC.

 

[BryonD]

I think generally it would be considered acceptable to remove proper names and similar setting-specific elements, but not general names and titles. Consider how useless the SRD would be if "Fireball" and "Gnoll" and "Goblin" and so on would all be released without their names. No one could refer to them as such, just imagine a race book on Dwarves that referred to them as "Those Stout Little People". It's one thing saying the "Illithid" name is PI, it is another to say that "Fireball" is.

Do you have any example in mind where someone has done something comparable to calling "dwarf" PI, but not comparable to "Illithid"?

I'm seriously curious.

 

[Yair]

Do you have any example in mind where someone has done something comparable to calling "dwarf" PI, but not comparable to "Illithid"?

Well, I can whip up examples of calling "dwarf" PI, or close to it. Consider The Book of Eldritch Might. It's legal designation is

The "New Monster Template: Magical Construct" and all material wholly derived from the d20 SRD is hereby designated as Open Game Content, in accordance with this license. The following elements in this book are hereby identified as "Product Identity": all character*, item, and place names, histories, and named events, as well as Malhavoc Press identifying marks and product titles....

This 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.

Or consider Bad Axe Game's Gamemastering pdf. It's PI designation includes

The specific text and language used to describe the game mechanics in this work.

This includes text that explains basic game mechanics, which I would put on a single level with "dwarf" in ubiquitousness and pith. For example,

Experience Point Awards
The experience point award for a given encounter are relative to the characters’ level. The relative experience point award per character level is:
300 (chi/rho) per level

 

[Psion]

Well, I can whip up examples of calling "dwarf" PI, or close to it. Consider The Book of Eldritch Might.

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

The specific text and language used to describe the game mechanics in this work.

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.

 

[MerricB]

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.

What the heck does "wholly derived" mean?