Mythusmage on Crippled OGC

[Numion]

Still, it's pretty sad that shenanigans like this prevent the d20 community to fully gain the benefits of the open movement. I think it would serve the publics interest to have development of the system as an open project instead of every publisher reinventing the wheel each time.

This way d20* system (and D&D in all but name) could be divorced from the evil corporate masterminds at WotC


Well , not the d20 license, since that can be revoked, but rather meaning the OGC and stuff .

 

[Psion]

That's not crippled OGC. Crippled OGC refers to obscure declarations of OGC which make it hard or impossible for someone to determine what is OGC and what isn't.

I've never heard anyone complain about clearly marked IP, such as spell names and the like.

I have.

 

[JoeGKushner]

To be blunt, as a consumer, I don't think it's effected me one bit.

I've seen comapnies go out and do their own thing and I've seen companies do compendiums.

I've enjoyed both and will continue to do so.

When Mike Mearls begins his Wikki for OGC material, we'll see what happens with the crippled content but until then, it's really irrelevant.

 

[Voadam]

To be blunt, as a consumer, I don't think it's effected me one bit.

I've seen comapnies go out and do their own thing and I've seen companies do compendiums.

The effect for consumers is most likely to be on compendiums.

Most publishers won't use other's materials if the OGC designation is written poorly and on its face excludes material that should under the OGL be OGC or is vague enough for rules stuff not to clearly be OGC. They risk possible legal action and significant sanctions (pulping of books) if they use closed content material and are called on it.

This means that compendiums will exclude material from those crippled OGC sources unless they are also the company issuing the original crippled OGC.

There are still plenty of compendiums, but I would not expect them to have much from crippled OGC sources.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The effect for consumers is most likely to be on compendiums.

Most publishers won't use other's materials if the OGC designation is written poorly and on its face excludes material that should under the OGL be OGC or is vague enough for rules stuff not to clearly be OGC. They risk possible legal action and significant sanctions (pulping of books) if they use closed content material and are called on it.

This means that compendiums will exclude material from those crippled OGC sources unless they are also the company issuing the original crippled OGC.

There are still plenty of compendiums, but I would not expect them to have much from crippled OGC sources.

But if the compendium still meets it's page count/size requirement and is still good, as a consumer, does it matter to me?

Once again, I'm thinking the answer is no.

 

[Pinotage]

Most publishers won't use other's materials if the OGC designation is written poorly and on its face excludes material that should under the OGL be OGC or is vague enough for rules stuff not to clearly be OGC. They risk possible legal action and significant sanctions (pulping of books) if they use closed content material and are called on it.

Isn't it the responsibility of the original publisher to designate it correctly and clearly? Could another publisher then not ask them for clarifications and so still gain access to the material?

Pinotage

 

[Psion]

I think the biggest effect is has is that it prevents cross pollonation and mutual support. I.E., it is successful at doing what those who do it want it to do: prevent reusing their material.

I think that naming does have a deleterious effect in this sense. I can't make a collection of NPCs and list spells or classes that have closed names. You wouldn't know what I was talking about. That forces me to reprint the spell if I think its appropriate for an NPC.