Crippled OGC Questions

[JoeGKushner]

When looking over some books, as I've noted elsewhere, the names are PI but the stat block is OGC.

Now in some cases where I've seen OGC reused, the product put a note with where the OGC came from. How would you do that for something you've had to rename or do you do as some do and just put the listings in the back and let the reader worry about which piece came where on their own?

I guess I'm just wondering if you have to invent your own name, and in many cases for NPCs and monsters, background and apperance, why not just change the stats around and bingo, new monster with no thanks to original source?

 

[tensen]

Well as far as I know.. most of those instances have occured where companies want to keep their IP. Usually it is there so that you specifically ask the original company for use. Most likely they will grant you the use and specifically tell you what you need to denote (Which might be the specific new name for the feat or item.)

 

[Voadam]

Re: PI and OGC Question for the masters

When looking over some books, as I've noted elsewhere, the names are PI but the stat block is OGC.

Now in some cases where I've seen OGC reused, the product put a note with where the OGC came from. How would you do that for something you've had to rename or do you do as some do and just put the listings in the back and let the reader worry about which piece came where on their own?

I guess I'm just wondering if you have to invent your own name, and in many cases for NPCs and monsters, background and apperance, why not just change the stats around and bingo, new monster with no thanks to original source?

I've only seen Ambient products point out where their OGC came from.

If I were to use critter stats but not the PI name and I wanted to credit the original source, I would say OGC stat block for [new name] originally appeared in Bestiary X.

However, if you are taking the stat block and modifying it and adding in your own description and name, you still must credit the original monster source in your section 15.

 

[MThibault]

I think that you might need a separate agreement to indicate where your OGC came from.

Section 7 of the OGL states: "You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. [...]"

Even with the most open OGC declarations, the title of the work is usually retained as Product Identity. And the publisher's name is probably a Trademark, if not a Registered Trademark. So this section would kick in if you wanted to to indicate "compatability or co-adaptability" by refering to another product by name and by company name.

That being said, there are few reasons why a company would say "no" to such a request unless you had a shady, or cantankerous, reputation.

Cheers

 

[der_kluge]

What you refer to, is what is commonly referred to as "Crippled OGC". You see a great spell, and want to reuse it - but you can't because the name is PI.

Most publishers have moved towards a more friendly model in which the name of the monster, or spell, is open, just like the content of the monster or spell. And, if a publisher is still doing it the old "crippled" way, I would encourage them to consider changing.

 

[jmucchiello]

What you refer to, is what is commonly referred to as "Crippled OGC". You see a great spell, and want to reuse it - but you can't because the name is PI.

Crippled is too harsh a word here. You can still use the spell, it just needs a new name. What this does is difuse the spell. There is now the PI'd spell name for the spell and your new name for the identical spell. It's not crippled. It's more like a mutant strain of the same OGC.

The danger is that a customer could pick up your book and say "Hey this spell looks just like my favorite spell in that other book. What a rip off. I'm not buying books from this guy ever again since he steals them from that other guy."

PI in spell names (or other feature names) is just silly. I cannot understand why someone would not want me to refer to their work. I'd much prefer to say. "Wizard Dude can cast x, y, z, someone else's spell. Note: someone else's spell can be found in the tome other spells by such-and-such publishing." Unfortunately the license is not friendly toward that kind of construct (as MThibault notes above).

 

[JoeGKushner]

I guess my next question is why would publishers go this route. Unless they plan on doing novels, video games, miniature games or something along those lines, I'm not really seeing the point.

Is it to refer to it latter and you don't want the name watered down or ?

 

[MThibault]

Crippling your OGC by declaring spell and feat names as PI doesn't really serve much purpose unless you plan on licensing out, or reusing the material in other formats. And even then, if that long-shot pulls through, having the feat or spell name appearing elsewhere is probably not going to lower the value of your property. Not in the same way as releasing character names, city descriptions and other elements of a campaign setting will.

The mechanics just won't translate well, if at all, to other media. I mean, Hollywood isn't going to offer you a 3 picture deal on the strength of your Spell Names. I also doubt Tor is going to beg you for a 9 book novel-series based on your PI'd Feat names and descriptions.

On the other hand, I can understand fully why a company would want to hold a tight reign on the company name and product titles. If a company releases a lousy product that has one of your feats in it, and they put your product's title and your company's name in the preface for everyone to see then your name gets associated with a lousy product even if the one feat you contributed is the only good thing in the book.

The OGL requires that this information be buried in the Section 15 of the Legal Appendix, but I suspect that not many customers read the fine print. But without the restriction on using others patents and PI, an unscrupulous publisher could put your product's name on the title page or perhaps even the cover.

That can harm your reputation, maybe even your brand. I would definitely want to control who I am associated with.

Cheers

 

[philreed]

I have a different question regarding OGC. What about when a book doesn't designate OGC or PI? How do we determine what content is OGC?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Report them to Wizards of the Coast and let them take care of it.

I remember that one of AEG's books was missing the license and had a page glued to the inside cover. What was that Evil or something?