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

[The Sigil]

Misrepresentation...

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.

Agree completely.

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.

I apologize if it seemed as though you are being misrepresented... I was trying to provide concrete examples for my arguments on ambiguity the first example off the top of my head was some of the BoEM (I) spells. I can't cite a lot of examples in products I didn't think were good enough to buy... that I'm using the BoEM as an example tells you I think it was good enough to buy.

I didn't mean to single you out, and apologize if it seems that way.

--Spencer "The Sigil" Cooley

 

[The Sigil]

Why not?

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...

Be careful with your terms... it can be a little confusing...

OGL material is "all stuff published using the Open Gaming License" - this can include OGC material (see below), Product Identity (essentially, the stuff that makes your world or brand unique - protected by copyright as normal, but something you kind of put a "highlighter" to), and "material that is neither of the above" (i.e., protected by copyright as normal).

OGC material is "all stuff that is designated as Open Gaming Content" (i.e., others can use it) within OGL material.

There is, IMO, entirely too much use of Product Identity (PI) designation (as Chris said, some people claim everything on earth and sky as PI). Claim "Elminster" as PI, claim "Faerun" as PI, do not claim "all NPCs" as PI (what makes your Barkeep #3 such an integral part of your world). You should go the "neither of the above" route with most of the stuff you want to protect.

That said, I would love to see two things (in my ideal world)...

1.) All "modular" and "rules-crunchy" things - and here I am specifically thinking of spells, feats, prestige classes, monsters, and items (magic or mundane, weapons, armor, alchemical or otherwise) - really ought to be 100% OGC - INCLUDING THE NAME (and BTW, if you don't want a proper name in your world to become part of this, do us all a favor and find a different name for the spell - nobody would really care if it were "Effulgent Epuration" instead of "Elminster's Effulgent Epuration"). The description (a simple paragraph or two) should probably also be OGC for ease of use.

2.) All "flavor text" things that are not "rules-crunchy" - and here I am specifically thinking of quotes by characters, expository fiction about a character or world beyond the simple paragraph or two, details about culture, explaining "how to add this to your campaign," plot developments in an adventure, and so forth - don't need to be OGC.

3.) Also, either shade or box all OGC or all non-OGC (at the option of the publisher) for ease of differentiation (don't use different colors or it won't copy well, don't use different fonts or it may be difficult to tell - remember the six-year-old with a highlighter test).

I don't expect my ideal world to be everyone else's ideal world, but there it is.

--Spencer "The Sigil" Cooley

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Actually several products are d20 products and do not reference the SRD at all this includes CoC, WoT and SWRPG.

You're missing the most obvious defining characteristic of every one of your examples: They are all published by Wizards of the Coast.

WOTC is under no obligation to produce under the terms of their own license. Kingdoms of Kalamar may be another example, but it is produced under license (not the OGL) with WOTC.

At such point as you find a d20 compatible product from a 3rd party publisher that does NOT include the OGL, l would expect a landmark legal decision on the way.


Wulf

 

[Lizard]

From a chat with Chris Pramas.

Link: http://www.d20reviews.com/interviews/pramaschat.htm



So this looks great for gamers but kind of bad for the sales of other publishers. It's certainly covered by the OGL, but at the same time it doesn't seem like "playing nice" to me, but as I'm not a publisher perhaps I just don't understand.
.

It's playing fair. It's playing by the rules. It's what the OGL is all about. Any publisher not willing to see their open content used by others shouldn't publish under the OGL. It's that simple.

To my mind, the greatest *problem* with the OGL has been the lack of 'code reuse'. How many autofire gun rules do we need? How many incompatible vehicle combat systems? How many "Modern Soldier" core classes?

 

[Lizard]

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

INow, which has more REAL value? Whichever one pays better, right? Well, (assuming Beethoven was still alive), I will pay Beethoven voluntarily (i.e., "you can use my music and if you want to pay me great, if not, that's fine too") LONG before I will pay the copyright for the Beatles stuff ("we have a gun to your head and you must pay us").

Cool.

Since I am a generous and open-hearted soul, I will assume that you are not a hypocrite, and that all your dealings with others are on the "I do the work, you choose whether to pay me" model.

In such a case...my apartment needs cleaning, the catboxes need changing (badly), and we might be moving soon, so I need everything boxed, packed, and labelled. You will do this. Be aware that, since I am a geek, this is a highly non-trivial task. You will sweat.

I will choose whether or not to pay you when you're done. My decision will be based solely on my whim, not on the quality of your work. The total amount paid will likewise be based on my whim, and may be a penny or a thousand dollars.

See you there. Bring your own work gloves, BTW. And be careful around Cricket...he's cute and cuddly, but he'll sever your throat in an instant if you're not careful. Psycho kitty.

 

[der_kluge]

If you have any further questions about the Pocket Grimoires, I'd be happy to answer them.

Chris, I have a question about Pocket Grimoires -

When can I get my copy??

 

[MEG Hal]

Few things from us....
1) Interludes: BEtB had a feat from Brad Bemis and it was in FanCC's NBoF as well, but we did go direct to the source, Brad.

2) Bluffside has all new stuff but we like the FanCC so put the logo on our title page, and we are in the process of trying to get a FanCC Netbook of Bluffside going, so anyone interested drop me a line .

3) We have been asked by a few to have our stuff used and have never said no, in fact we would love Chris to "borrow" from us, and I also want my copy!!!

 

[smetzger]

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

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.

Just reference the specific 'person' that contributed the specific feat you are using.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

Just reference the specific 'person' that contributed the specific feat you are using.

I don't know that that's permissable.

I am curious what Hal means by "going direct" if Brad's first publication under the OGL was within the NBoF. Wouldn't that necessitate the entire Section 15 of the Netbook?


Wulf

 

[tensen]

The way the Netbook reads is that it is a compilation of those seperate documents. At least thats what it appears they chose to do. Therefore each of those documents exists to be able to be utilized seperately.. even if the only place they exist is on the author's hard drive, and never distributed seperately.


Now.. if the Netbook only included seperate lines in the Section 15 for those authors that specifically requested it.. and you wanted to use something from the Netbook that didn't have a seperate line of its own.. you'd have to use the whole section 15.


The only one problem with the issue of using the seperate document out of the Netbook.... you definitely will need to contact the author... because there is always the possibility that the particular feat in the netbook is a derivative.. and not exactly as the spell/feat/whatever existed in its original form. And that would be a fun legal twist to deal with if you just tried quoting it from the Netbook and not getting the original from the author.