Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 872939" data-attributes="member: 5724">This brings up several points that I was trying to talk about. I don't consider this a flame war, merely an exchange of idea. Now if you bring up my momma and her combat boots.... that's another matter... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"will be reused far more often" -- Well, you made that choice when you PI'd the name of the spell.  You're basically saying that you want people to ask you for your permission to use your spells. You demonstrate two contrary impluses here. You want to control the name of the spell in all its incarnations and therefore reap the benefits of that spell (fiscal and personal) that arise because it is published under the OGL while at the same time you want to make sure people don't simply rename it and "claim" it as their own.  When you PI the name you effectivly reduce your total effect because your "personal touch" has been removed via the PI. Sure you "own" the name of the spell. Big whoop te doo.  Its a pain in the butt to get permissions to use PI, so a lot of publishers will merely bypass your attempts to "control" your OGC via a PI'd name.When other publishers use your OGC and rename it you've lost many of the benefits you could have gotten by their resuse of your material. Effectivly, you're stabbing yourself in your back in the hopes that one day, your PI will make you a lot of money.example: You have a book called Sinistar's book of evil spells. Many of those spells have the name Sinistar in their title. As these spells get reused, most of them will maintain the original name because publishers don't change things unless they have to. Now whenever someone knows the spell "Sinistar's death ray" they'll associate the name with your book, were they ever to see it. This could, theoretically give you a sale you wouldn't have had had you PI'd the name Sinistar.The above scenerio applies to amost all d20 publishers. Very few of them have any real "brand" value attached to a spell name or monster name or any other such crippled OGC. One could argue they'd could have better success were they to open such stuff, but I don't have enough information to make a good argument on that end. I'm sure someone here does, if they want to spend the time to do it. I haven't glossed over any of it. I'm merely saying that your reasons for protecting your material have a detrimental effect on many of the advantages you have through using the OGL. Since you don't have any PI that has any monatary worth (nothing against you, almost no one is this business does have fiscal PI) you're limiting your exposure by crippling those who want to use your OGC. Also, there are a few, and I would say probably a growing number of consumers that are concerned enough about OGC to make that one of their purchasing decisions, all be it one low on the totem pole.My ethics are almost exactly like yours. I'm making a new PDF that contains a lot of OGC. I'm asking permission from each publisher because I like to do it that way. *see thread <a href="http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47354" target="_blank">http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47354</a> for the low down* But that's just me. The only time I can see using OGC being unethical would be the malicious use of OGC in an attempt to fiscally harm another publisher.  IE. If i took the entirely of Joe's book of enchantments and reprinted it and sold it for $2, thereby undercutting throwing dice games.joe b.</blockquote>

Verification