It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?

[kenjib]

I think the one issue at hand is that the OGC material is probably going to be from products where the main spurt of buying from distributors has already passed and they likely will not be losing money from having their non-new items being used elsewhere.

And of course, this keeps out the logical conclusion of production/distribution that the internet provides... what happens to the producers/distributors that are in it to make money when some fanboy can undercut their costs by providing the information for free over the internet (legally, I might add... anything a Publisher can do in a book with the OGL, anyone can do on the web with the OGL).

Our summer release of SpellDecks is going to include spells from other publishers. It is our experience that our counterparts have typically been enthusiastic about inclusion into the product.

Thanks for all of the great replies thus far. I think it's very interesting and love to hear everyone's input on the matter. It's a great thing for the consumer so long as it doesn't adversely impact the industry.

The two quotes above are more examples of what I mean by saying that the production and distribution channels are becoming the primary revenue streams. Combined with the Green Ronin books, each of these four channels can have the same content but distribute in different format.

On a theoretical level the end user does not differentiate so much based on content here since it is all the same. He choses his preferred method of production/distribution and buys product based on their advantages:

1. From Author/Original Publisher: This source has the advantage of getting the content first. To take advantage of this strong advantage they must compensate the author, thus obtaining first "dibs" to his material.

2. Information Collection and Organization: This is the service that Green Ronin is providing. Green Ronin gathers disparate information and collects it in a convenient, encyclopedic, format which makes it easy to reference, locate, and collect.

3. Freely Copyable Distribution: The internet netbook phenomenon allows people to provide one of the strongest incentives in the capitalist market - it's free! The biggest drawback is that this format has arguably the worst production value - not only is it most likely amateur, but many people strongly prefer real books. Personally, if I want to actually read something, let alone use it for gaming, I want a print copy. Printing it myself is potentially costly and extremely poor quality.

4. New, Limited Availability, Collectable, or Novel Format: I don't fully understand what "Spelldecks" will entail, but it sounds like a novel format that will provide utility and a new way at looking at/using the same data. If I understand correctly the key asset here is in presentation and production value.

Now, where this breaks down is that since the OGL does not require 100% open content, additional power is given to #1 since he can withhold some of the content. However, since the publisher usually gets all of the rights to material once again, it's not the author that has the power here, except for how he can leverage his services against the publisher. As seems apparent from this thread, however, there seems to be a lot of room for legal wrangling over the definition of derivative material. Now think about what would happen if the OGL did require 100% open content?

I think this book is one of the first signs that the information wars have hit this segment of the market at a fundamental level and that's why I think it's fascinating. The only other issues I can think of as significant to some degree (no value judgement implied - just significance) are the proliferation of pirated materials on peer-to-peer and the rise of PDF publication/ESD. I think that the battle over intellectual property rights are one of the most important things going on in the industrialized world right now. Information is power and everyone wants to own the bottleneck. It'll shape the future for years to come.

How can the industry evolve and adapt to this changing landscape? What are some other ways that data can be tailored to the user so as to generate revenue streams?

One example: There is a huge amount of material out there and not enough time for most gamers to adequately evaluate it all. Imagine a subscription service that can take into account a specific user's preferences, buying habits, and game style, and provide for him a compendium of all game material that will be of interest to him? Filtered data is a very valuable asset if done well. It's one of the reasons (and only one) that communities like this are so popular.

Again, it's all in distribution and production, so where is the author's place in this? He must find a place or the quality of data will degrade in a terrible way. He can have the advantage of first-run access, of user feedback and communication with customers, of streaming content, of updates/errata, of data integrity verification, etc. These are services that nobody else can provide at the same level of quality. Think subscription - possibly advertiser subsodized.

I strongly believe that the very nature of media publishing is going to look very, very, different in 10 years, and that we will hit some big growing pains soon now, but what do I know? I'm just a peon.

Again, very interesting stuff. It's hard for me to have a strong opinion because it's all so much in flux right now, but I love hearing what everyone else thinks. I'm still not sure what my ideal situation is, but I do know for sure that the DMCA is not a part of it.

 

[Vuron]

Now I'm not absolutely sure about this but from my understanding of the copyright law no rules mechanics at all are protected. Only IP can be in effect be protected by copyright. Thus I can create a dice game with a cup that in effect mimics yahtzee and as long as proper names are not used I am completely within the law.

This can be applied towards d20 mechanic by saying that any publisher could do products that do not reference directly IP property of WotC but could in theory be compatible with d20 mechanics. This is largely how companies during previous incarnations of DnD managed to create products that in effect offered expansion rules to DnD. What the OGC and D20 license in effect do is help codify and assist in producing 3rd material that supplements but does not infringe on WotC's IP.

Now I might be somewhat in error but I'm relaitively certain that the essence of my argument is correct

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?

Why can't you protect the mechanics? If I have created a new mechanic that is not covered in the SRD, does it automatically become OGC?

Can you protect mechanics? Well, that's a larger issue that harkens back to the reason the OGL exists in the first place. I don't want to get into that here. Suffice to say the question is moot once the OGL is governing the situation. If you use the OGL, you essentially give up your right to even try to claim the mechanics.

Perhaps I introduce a new energy type, "steam," which does heat damage but inflicts half damage on creatures with the fire subtype as well due its "wet" nature. The new "steam" descriptor is obviously a mechanic. Is it original work (and therefore I don't have to make it OGC) or is it derivation (and therefore automatically OGC)? I can make the argument that it is either one, therefore it is ambiguous, and the "derived from the SRD" is NOT a useful designation of OGC.

Spell descriptors and energy subtypes are a staple of the SRD, as are creature sub-types and their resistances. Congrats! You've just produced Open Content, clearly derived from the SRD.

It really must be derived from the SRD if it is to have any relevance to the d20 ruleset whatsoever. Basically, if it's "rules" it's probably OGC. If it's "fluff" it is probably protectable as PI. It is not as hard to prove derivation as you think. "Compatible with d20" is a pretty good litmus test, unless you want to try to convince da judge that you came up with some new rules-related terms which just coincidentally dovetail into the d20 ruleset. (And that's going to be impossible to do if your product has a d20 label slapped on the front of it and the OGL reprinted at the back.)

I agree with you that "derived from the SRD" is a lazy way to designate open content. It doesn't serve anyone's interests, since a publisher is likely to know the difference. All you are really doing is confusing the issue for the untrained end-user.

*ROTFLMAO*
That was brilliant! This is also a potential caveat with "later generations" of d20 collections, I might add. As an example, look at the Fantasy Netbook Community Council's Netbook of Feats (an ENWorld Hosted Site)... the Section 15 itself on that sucker is a page or two long... if you use just ONE feat from this, you have to include the whole Section 15.

I understand that some publishers have used feats from the Netbook (Bluffsides? Anyone know for sure?). I am curious to see if they have updated Section 15 correctly, incorrectly, or if there is simply a work-around.


Wulf

 

[kenjib]

Hi Nicole and Chris,

Thanks for posting. You caught me mid-post. I'm convinced. It looks like a good thing all around and I apologize for the apprehensive tone in my initial post. I think these books are going to be massive sellers. Their utility is very hard to beat.

I'm very interested on how this will play out and how this concept will be expanded on in the future. I still think that it's a huge can o' worms.

-Kenji

 

[Monte At Home]

On the subject of legal versus moral:

Obviously, there is no legal requirement for someone to come in contact with someone else to use their open content in a product under the license. And I'm not thrilled with the use of the word moral in this context either.

But I can say that this industry is far too small not to talk to each other as a common courtesy. There's just no reason that someone should discover their own material in someone else's book by surprise. There's just no reason that an author shouldn't get clear and proper credit.

(And again, I'm not worried about any of this when it comes to Chris' upcoming books.)

On Open Content in the BOEM I and II:

I'm being somewhat misrepresented. In BoEM II, for example, both of the new classes, the feats, the meat of the spells, the unholy riven, and the majority of the prestige classes are all open.

 

[Cergorach]

Maybe i'm just simple...

When a publisher includes the OGL liscence (generally at the back of a book), one has to assume that the publisher is using the D20 system as it's gaming system (AEG is an exception, but they clearly indicate what's D20 and what's not). When one uses a mechanic that is plugged into the main system (D20) and can't be used either independendantly or is clearly marked as being for a different gamesystem, it must (IMHO) be derived from the main system (D20). How can you write a plugin that is clearly dependant on it's main system (D20) and not use the SRD (OGL), if the SRD (OGL) is referenced in the creation of the plugin, it's automatically derived from the work isn't it.

Has there been any discssion we can reference about this subject?

 

[drnuncheon]

On the subject of legal versus moral:

Obviously, there is no legal requirement for someone to come in contact with someone else to use their open content in a product under the license. And I'm not thrilled with the use of the word moral in this context either.

Yeah, OK, my bad. I couldn't think of a better way to put it than a 'moral obligation', to distinguish it from a legal one - although that might seema bit heavy-handed to some folks.

My point was that while nobody would throw someone in jail for this, they might think it was quite rude - in essence, making it a social obligation. 'Common courtesy' is probably the phrase I really was looking for.

J

 

[Vuron]

Actually several products are d20 products and do not reference the SRD at all this includes CoC, WoT and SWRPG. In this case these are stand alone games that while they share mechanics in common with the rules discussed with the SRD are not covered by the OGL. In this case you cannot reference these materials in a 3rd party product although you could in theory generate feats and rules that replicate the system entirely without using any IP material.

So in theory a 3rd party could create a system that mimics "channeling" from the WoT however they could not reference any of the "fluffy" bits found within.

 

[Cergorach]

On Open Content in the BOEM I and II:

I'm being somewhat misrepresented. In BoEM II, for example, both of the new classes, the feats, the meat of the spells, the unholy riven, and the majority of the prestige classes are all open.

Might i enquire why not all gaming material is open? I'm not saying "You BAD! Ugh!" I love the materials, but would love them more if they where all OGL...

I'm also a bi curious why not more publishers are making not a greater distinction between description and mechanics. It shold be rather simple with 90% of the subjects and it would probably clearify any problems people have with OGL material...

 

[The Sigil]

I understand that some publishers have used feats from the Netbook (Bluffsides? Anyone know for sure?). I am curious to see if they have updated Section 15 correctly, incorrectly, or if there is simply a work-around.
Wulf

I strongly suspect they did the work-around by going to the original author... I know for sure that they used a Feat authored by Brad Bemis in their Interludes product, and only credited him, without using the whole of the NBoFeat's Section 15.

I also happen to know that many of the Thunderhead Games folks were involved in the genesis of the FANCC, so most of them know each other... many of TG's higher-ups were early officers in the FANCC (then the DnDCC) and Brad Bemis was the founder.

Thus, I would not be at all surprised if Hal Greenberg and Jim Govreau (Thunderhead Games co-founders) were able to contact Brad Bemis (I know they worked with him closely in their time with the FANCC around the first quarter of 2001, so they are familiar with each other) to get an "orginal" version of the Feat with a VERY short Section 15 (the SRD and Brad himself).

--The Sigil