Lack of Use of OGL

[JoeGKushner]

So do any publishers want to tackle this one? Is there a particular rule, setting, character, or something else that you'd like to use (or would like to have used) in a product of yours? It seems that despite a fairly decent amount of OGL out there, that every publisher is determined to craft their own mold. I can understand this from an internal consistancy point of view but I'm wondering if there are other elements that play a part.

For instance, I'd love to see Fiery Dragon or Necromancer games do a module based in Freeport. Heck, I'd love to see Freeport in all the published settings, but that's a different bucket of fish.

Any publisher want to tackle this one?

 

[HellHound]

We do use OGC material in our products.

Librum Equitis used a small amount of 3rd party OGC, Gar'Udok's used significantly more, and even our latest product "Portable Hole Full of Beer" includes some 3rd Party OGC.

 

[Orcus]

When we publish Scott Greene's Creature Catalog (the name will be changed), it will be all OGC and will even include examples of how other publishers can use the monsters and what they have to do to comply with the license in their products!

Clark

 

[Monte At Home]

Very cool idea, Clark.

 

[Lizard]

I am of two minds about OGC. OTOH, I love the concept, and I want to see it used more. I would like to see a lot more sharing. On the OTHER hand, how would readers feel when they buy a "new" book and discover a LOT of it is material they've already seen?

Basically, you can count on a reader having access to anything in the core rules. You can't count on them having access to anything in someone else's rules. So, let's say you want to add new ritual spells patterned on the ritual rules in "Relics&Rituals". You either reprint those rules (annoying readers who own R&R) or you don't (making your new rituals useless unless someone goes out and buys R&R. Which, assuming you aren't Sword&Sorcery, means they get mad at you (for 'making' them buy another book) while not getting any of the extra money (it goes to S&S).

Frankly, I'd like to see an "OGC Compedium" by WOTC, maybe an annual, that includes "The best of..." Open Gaming Content released during the year. This would create a set of OGC which could be counted on to have wide distribution.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Well, now that modules are out of vogue I think there is less opportunity to use OGC from other companies. Its quite simple to use OGC in a module, whether a monster or perhaps a particular mechanic, than it is in another type of product.

I work almost exclusively on sourcebooks, for instance, and the point of a sourcebook is provide new options to players and DMs. Am I doing this by merely printing OGC rules from another source? I don't think so, and I don't think this is what is meant to be done. Certainly, if someone were publishing a pirate's handbook, I can see the utility of referencing OGC from Seafarer's Handbook, but I probably would not want to see a complete reprint of those rules. I was asked if I used Mongoose's Chaos Magic system in Spells & Spellcraft, and the answer was no. There is already an entire book devoted to that system, and while I could have expanded upon it I chose instead to present an alternate system that stretched the d20 System in a new way.

So the question remains in my mind, how much and what type of open content can reasonably be reused? Clark's idea is good, because it at least gets me thinking about using his stuff in my product, but monsters are probably the most portable type of OGC out there. I recently used something from the upcoming Denizens of Avadnu product from Inner Circle Games in a module I wrote for a magazine, for example.

I guess what it boils down to is I haven't yet been able to come to terms with what makes a good sharing of OGC and what makes for a repetitive product.

 

[Ranger REG]

I am of two minds about OGC. OTOH, I love the concept, and I want to see it used more. I would like to see a lot more sharing. On the OTHER hand, how would readers feel when they buy a "new" book and discover a LOT of it is material they've already seen?

That depends on the purpose of the book. If the book is a set of rules to play the game, then to compile the OGCs suitable for that game is great, since you don't have to fish out all the other books that have the same OGCs and carry them to your gaming session.

But if the purpose of the book is to be a rules supplement, then reprinting OGC might not be a good idea.

 

[Orcus]

"modules are out of vogue"

Someone forgot to tell our fans that, I guess. We still sell a ton.

As for a WotC compendium "Best of" that probably wont happen. Most people PI their OGC so that such a thing cant happen. In fact, that was one of the open content movement's biggest fear--that we small frys would publish something cool and WotC would pick the best and republish it. That would be incredibly damaging to the industry. The PI clause was added in part to prevent that. Plus Ryan assured us that it wouldnt happen.

Clark

 

[JoeGKushner]

When we publish Scott Greene's Creature Catalog (the name will be changed), it will be all OGC and will even include examples of how other publishers can use the monsters and what they have to do to comply with the license in their products!

Clark

The first part I'm not too worried about. Lots of companies are generating OGC, and some, like this one, are all OGC (Bastion Press Minions anyone.)

The second part though sounds like it has a lot of potential.

 

[d20Dwarf]

I didn't mean there is no room for modules, Clark. My point really was that modules are probably the best format in which to include OGC from other sources, and since the market isn't going to support the glut of modules anymore, that opportunity is somewhat lost.

Then again, I've never been involved in selling modules, so maybe retailers and consumers are still buying them in droves. What do I know?