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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1492804" data-attributes="member: 6398">Think of it this way: If there is a "spirit" of the OGL, it is the opening of game rules for redistribution by other sources, which the OGL permits and promotes, while protecting the artistic investment (fiction, backstory, art, etc.) and corporate image (logos, icons, company names, etc.) under the umbrella of Product Identity. If the "spirit" of the OGL is about anything else, it's not mentioned in the OGL itself. Here's an example: In my own works, I make it clear where Closed Material ends and OGC begins.  I do my best to minimize PI within the OGC.  I make OGC re-use easy, simple, and clear. Yet my big project of the day (after cleaning up the first draft release of the Aedon Bestiary) is to transcribe a set of alternate magical abilities from a book that has the previously mentioned "Rules are OGC, text is not" condition on it. Who has the "spirit" of the OGL in mind: Me or this particular publisher? Now, here's a question: If I went through this entire book and "uncrippled" everything in it, effectively making a 100% OGC resource from it, am I going against the "spirit" of the OGL by transcribing all the rules from a single book or am I going with the "spirit" of the OGL by opening up content that was previously difficult to re-use? To which I add: Those who believe that they can in any regards, either through the law or by way of preaching morality and ethics, retain control of Open Content after they have opened said content is fooling themselves.  Open Content is part of a "shared body of work" and what can or can't be done with that content is dictated not by some vague, subjective view of what is right and wrong, moral, ethical, petty, or sleazy, but by the license that everyone that has released material under has agreed. No, it's not.  The person going over the speed limit is breaking the law and trying to say "I only broke it a little" to get out of their ticket.  By contrast, reproducing/redistributing OGC is not against the law because the OGL is written specifically to permit and promote that very course of action. And this is effected how? Question: How many people that didn't buy the Manual of the Planes now have access to Planar Rules because WotC themselves uploaded the material? Question: How many people that didn't buy the Epic Level Handbook now have access to Epic Rules because WotC themselves uploaded the material? Question: How many people have downloaded illegal copies of entire books, copyrighted material and Product Identity in-total, rather than obtaining the OGC material in a legal manner (which inlcudes SRD-styled downloads)? Every publisher should be concerned about their books being scanned and circulated via p2p programs (and pdf publishers have it especially hard in this sense, as their material doesn't need to be scanned); none of them, however, should be concerned with rules-transcriptions being circulated within the bounds of the OGL because those bounds were agreed upon by them when they included the OGL in their work. Heck, there's a company out there (can't remember which) that released the OGC part of their book prior to the release of the actual book (firearms rules, I believe), and re-use of those rules were already in motion when the book hit the shelves.  I can't remember what product it was, but it would be interesting to see if their sales figures were effected by this or not. The term is "crippled"...  "Broken" is for bad rules that don't work well with the rest of the rules. Now, as for a company turning draconian over this issue, it would actually put that company into a poor light.  After all, they are profiting from Open Gaming but they are hesitant to add to Open Gaming.  Do you really think such a business model is good for Open Gaming to begin with?  I'd argue that basing the production of OGL'd products in the hopes that your material won't be reproduced and not planning your business model with that inevitability in mind isn't taking the realities of the situation into proper consideration.  They would seem to have made the error of believing that Open Gaming is a company-only playground and that terms and conditions apply to Open Gaming that are not in any way, shape, or form manifest within the license itself or projected by any controlling entity within the community. Bad for those that have that perception, you mean, as they have obviously established a business model that assumes some degree of control over their OGC that they don't really have.  Which returns to the point I've made a dozen times: Make the non-OGC portions of your work viable beyond the reproduction of the OGC-portions, and the product will survive longer, better, and stronger. If anything, the most viable way to publishers to "cap off" the lack of control is to permit co-adaptability statements (Ex: "This adventure requires rules from Skull & Bones by Green Ronin.").  This would provide the publisher with a safety-net of sorts; the re-user, instead of reproducing the rules content, is able to simply make the declaration and then build off of the source.  There are several examples of this, such as GR's M&M Superlink, and the pending Fields of Blood license.  How many people would love to see such a thing for Malhavoc's Arcana Unearthed? There are a lot of books that I would rather make references to (dozens of them, in fact, plugging them through my material while benefiting from their OGC without having to reproduce it).  But the granting of such permission is currently the exception, not the norm, and that's in the hands of the companies, not the fans. Honestly?  More power to them.  No one should enter into a legal agreement they don't like. By the same coin, however, they shouldn't complain about an agreement they made while fully aware of the implications ahead of time. No, it doesn't.  This is like saying that php-Nuke is useless because part of the original team broke away and started Post-Nuke.  The worst that will happen is that WotC will turn away from contributing to the rather large body of work that, aside from the occassional Core update, isn't really supported by them very much to begin with.  If a few uptight people go with the "Well, D&D isn't that anymore, it's this..." mentality, so what?  They, too, are walking away from a large body of work in favor of a smaller, more limited body of work, and that's their loss, not ours. Even though I doudt 4E won't be Open, here's my prediction in regards to what will happen if such is the case: D&D will stop being the "leader" brand name and fall to the wayside as the d20 System and Open Gaming remain friendly to OGL Publishers and fansites.</blockquote>

Verification