Can someone explain crippled OGC to me

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Well, here's an example. Malhavoc has been known to "mine" their OGC with closed content. Just check the designations in the Book of Eldritch Might, where all the mechanics are open, but the names of stuff aren't. So if you want to include a feat or spell from that book, you have to rename it, and maybe rework some of its write-up.

Now, they've cleaned that up a bit recently. A quick glance at the designation of open content from Arcana Evolved tells me that it's mainly the "in-game" stuff like names of places and people that are closed content, while the rules, spells, etc. are open. This is important to me as a purchaser of the system. Why? Because I want support. If I buy AE and much of the content is closed, it prevents 3rd party publishers from producing compatible products, like adventures. Not that I see too many of them jumping on the AE bandwagon, but at least the option is left open. If it's closed, nobody will be able to publish any AE products without Monte's personal permission, which might make people say "ah, screw it. I'll just write another book about dwarves," leaving AE with no 3rd party support.

So there's at least something like a reason that customers might want to buy open content, especially in campaign settings. It opens up the possibility for expansion material that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

 

[HinterWelt]

Well, here's an example. Malhavoc has been known to "mine" their OGC with closed content. Just check the designations in the Book of Eldritch Might, where all the mechanics are open, but the names of stuff aren't. So if you want to include a feat or spell from that book, you have to rename it, and maybe rework some of its write-up.

Now, they've cleaned that up a bit recently. A quick glance at the designation of open content from Arcana Evolved tells me that it's mainly the "in-game" stuff like names of places and people that are closed content, while the rules, spells, etc. are open. This is important to me as a purchaser of the system. Why? Because I want support. If I buy AE and much of the content is closed, it prevents 3rd party publishers from producing compatible products, like adventures. Not that I see too many of them jumping on the AE bandwagon, but at least the option is left open. If it's closed, nobody will be able to publish any AE products without Monte's personal permission, which might make people say "ah, screw it. I'll just write another book about dwarves," leaving AE with no 3rd party support.

So there's at least something like a reason that customers might want to buy open content, especially in campaign settings. It opens up the possibility for expansion material that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

I agree, this could be a reason but it is a kind of longshot. Not trying to belittle it but if I understand correctly you seem to be saying that, on the off chance a third party wants to publish support they can't (or wont). It seems the average customer would be more concerned with "Can I use what I have?" and the answer would be yes.

For the record, when I use OGL (an like any aspect of business you need to decide when to use it) my book is completely open. My System Ref is all open as well as our adventures.

Bill

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

Publicly or privately, I'd love to hear what you think of the OGC declaration from Mythic Heroes that has Yair's panties in a twist.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=160804

I've conceded it ain't great, so you won't offend me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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'm certainly amenable to being persuaded on that (interesting) interpretation.

And even more interested if it were to be a consensus reached by everyone publishing under the OGL.

 

[Hairfoot]

Despite flaws and abuses, I like with the OGC model.

With OGC, a generic worker drone like myself can independently write and publish PDF material based on the strength of concepts and ideas, rather than my mathematical modelling skills and ability to finance a publication print-run.

Being a roleplayer means you can develop unique characters without having to provide an entire novel or screenplay for the characters to inhabit. OGC means you can write up places, items and people without having to create a pen & paper ruleset for them, and without paying prohibitive licensing fees to WotC.

I respect the right of an author or business to claim the title "Spingelbottom's Brass Razoo" as their own creation, but if it's just a magic item using an SRD feat and spell, then its game-rule function was written by someone else, and the author has no claim to it.

My question is, what's the deal with modifying the D20 rules themselves? For instance, how does something like True20 relate to OGC? It's clearly D20 based, but alters the SRD rules significantly. Does Green Ronin's PI then cover only the names and flavour text, or all the modified rules as well?

 

[Psion]

I'm certainly amenable to being persuaded on that (interesting) interpretation.

And even more interested if it were to be a consensus reached by everyone publishing under the OGL.

Well, I am certainly not a lawyer nor do I have a law library at my disposal, but google provides an immediately serviceable substitute for the scope of this topic:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

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.

That seems pretty straightforward to me.

The only thing that the OGL buys you is access to "literary or pictorial expression" that is not normally accessible under copyright restrictions, as far as I can see. And, if your position/PI declaraction is being correctly represented here, that seems to be what the PI statement is denying. Meaning that you aren't really contributing any open content.

Again, As Far As I Can Tell/IANAL/etc.

 

[Nellisir]

A few thoughts of mine:
When I say "crippled content", I'm referring to a game mechanic or feature that I think ought to be OGC but either isn't or is so obscured as to be nearly useless.

My standard for judging is the SRD. If your OGC declaration would render parts of the SRD closed if applied to the SRD, then it's probably creating crippled content.

Crippled content isn't black and white. "unnamed" spells, monsters, or feats are fairly minor crippled. The declaration above that declared all text and all expressions of mechanics to be closed would be pretty heavily crippled; in my conservative reading, you've just closed off "longsword 1d8", and I'm certainly never going to attempt to use OGC from that book. You might say you're a nice guy, but that won't stop your lawyers from sending out the letter demanding that I stop using "longsword" in favor of "long sword".

It does matter to non-publishers who, as Yair said, want to be "legal". WotC has a formal fan-site policy that dictates how a fan site can be run. I've never seen or heard a formal policy from Green Ronin, or Mongoose, or Ronin Arts, or Bad Axe Games, or Malhavoc, or Emerald Press, and I think it would be crass and naive to assume their eternal goodwill. So despite not being a publisher, I keep my website OGL compliant and don't use or buy products that aren't a) useful in my game, AND b) contain excessively crippled content.

Getting back to the "dwarf" issue, here's an PI declaration that figuratively cripples "dwarf" (the bolded items in particular fail the SRD test)

Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version
1.0a: Any and all XXXX logos and identifying marks and trade dress, such as all XXXX product and product line names including but not limited to XXXX; any specific characters, monsters, creatures, and places; capitalized names and original names of places, artifacts, characters, races, countries, creatures, geographic locations, gods, historic events, magic items, organizations, spells, feats, and abilities;...

Note that "capitalized" and "original" are in addition to "specific"; the implication is above and beyond unique proper names of individual items or creatures and into racial or generic names. This particular PI declaration claims such names as duplicate, elemental trap, flight, and ghost weapon. A subsequent edition of this book did OPEN these names, so I'm not making a complaint, just an example here.

 

[pogre]

If I saw something I thought should be open content and was not marked as such I would not hesitate to use it. They could threaten me all they want - everyone knows if it is a close issue at all they are not going to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[johnsemlak]

Now, they've cleaned that up a bit recently. A quick glance at the designation of open content from Arcana Evolved tells me that it's mainly the "in-game" stuff like names of places and people that are closed content, while the rules, spells, etc. are open. This is important to me as a purchaser of the system. Why? Because I want support. If I buy AE and much of the content is closed, it prevents 3rd party publishers from producing compatible products, like adventures. Not that I see too many of them jumping on the AE bandwagon, but at least the option is left open. If it's closed, nobody will be able to publish any AE products without Monte's personal permission, which might make people say "ah, screw it. I'll just write another book about dwarves," leaving AE with no 3rd party support.

So there's at least something like a reason that customers might want to buy open content, especially in campaign settings. It opens up the possibility for expansion material that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

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.

 

[BSF]

If I saw something I thought should be open content and was not marked as such I would not hesitate to use it. They could threaten me all they want - everyone knows if it is a close issue at all they are not going to put their money where their mouth is.

*laugh*
Fair enough Pogre. But then again you do have a little more legal background than most of us.