OGC and the Consumer

[EricNoah]

As a consumer standing in the store looking over a product, it matters to me basically not at all. It's not even something I normally think about.

As someone who has watched D20 System gaming develop from no more than an idea to the state of D20 publishing today, I find it interesting to know what is open and what is closed, but sort of in an "academic" sense.

I would find it a little disturbing or irritating if a company had a track record of proclaming certain content closed when, legally, they couldn't do so. That doesn't seem very honest.

 

[Storminator]

I really like it when the content is clearly marked on the page, not an arcane tiny type list on the last page of the book. I also like the designations to conform to the license. Other than that I don't care much.

PS

 

[Ranger REG]

As a gamer/consumer, it does not matter to me, even if the d20 product only has 5% OGC, the minimum required to carry the "d20 system" logo. What matters to me is that the product has a familiar resemblance of the rules system, just as it would be for a Vampire: The Masquerade gamer to be able to play Werewolf: The Apocalypse with little or no preparation.

But like EricNoah I have a fascination with the development of d20, Open Game License, System Reference Documents, and Open Game Content.

So while third-party OGC does not matter to me as a gamer, it fascinates me as an observer.

 

[kenjib]

Just a quick note -- I would venture to guess that people on this board are far, far, far, more likely to care about OGC issues than people not on this board.

 

[Mark CMG]

Just a quick note -- I would venture to guess that people on this board are far, far, far, more likely to care about OGC issues than people not on this board.

That's a fair observation, I would guess. To add yet another plateau to the formula, I'd venture that anyone with an internet connection has more interest than someone without an internet connection.

 

[HellHound]

Re: Re: Re: OGC and the Consumer

...Declaration of Open Content: 100% of this Product is Open Content subject to the Product Identity listed here: [Company Name], [Product Name], Psionic Gifts, all new feats, all new powers, all new items, all new prestige classes, all new organizations, [Subrace of] Elves. License to use these items can be acquired privately...

Heck, the company in question even DIRECTLY states that all material that is derivative of the SRD is Closed Content.

AS -FREAKIN'- IF.

(edit: here is the full quote from the copy I have)

"Declaration of Open Content: 100% of this Product is Open Content subject to the Product Identity listed here: [COMPANY NAME], [PRODUCT NAME], alterations to psionic combat, alterations to psion, alterations to psychic warrior, Psionic Gifts, all new feats, all new powers, all new items, all new prestige classes, all new organizations.

(emphasis on alterations mine)

 

[Mark CMG]

Mark CMG:

The product in question had been discussed on the OGL List prior to my joining; I checked the archives for it, so decided not to mention it there as a dead horse issue.

If it is the company I am thinking it is, I think they keep making changes and claiming they are in compliance but this post of yours shows clearly that they are not. It would seem it needs to be beaten further since that horse is decidedly not dead.

This thread isn't really intended to debate the subject, however; I'm just kind of curious how the average gamer views the OGC content of their purchases. I run a fan site that uses, modifies, coverts old material as, and produces new OGC, so, to me, Open Content is important. From the mail list, I understand how Publishers value Open Content, being as much (if not more) than myself.

I'm sorry if my own fervor has altered the tenor of your thread to something you hadn't intended. I think that may be a function of the example you chose, though, and perhaps a new thread that speaks more generally could keep this train on track. I've been to your site (it'as pretty damned cool) and I can say that from a small publisher's perspective I greatly appreciate your intentions and adherence to the OGL and d20SL where warranted. It speaks well of you, your site and the d20 movement.

But the thought did occur to me, which is the subject of the poll: What influence does Open Content quantity have on gamers that can use material, PI, and anything else they feel like without any ramifications? Is it ever a consideration? How many never thought about it until I specifically asked? Now that I've asked, will it be a consideration in the future? While the average gamer isn't effected by OGC by law (as fan projects and published works are), how many are effected by the "spirit" of the OGL as a matter of choice?

It is an interesting subject but I am afraid the the results will be skewed by this being the internet where more people are aware and, as kenjib points out, this being EN World where awareness is unusually high. Nonetheless, can't hurt to ask, right?

 

[Eosin the Red]

I am in the Monkey-Boy-Dont-Care category but if I see embrionic mistakes by a publisher I stay clear of all there products. If they can't figure out the basics, why should I believe they can generate rules I want to use. That list has surprizingly few people on it but one did publish a Psionic book of sorts.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I just want to respond as to why I said what I said.

As a pure gamer with no intentions of publishing in the near future...or far future for that matter using the d20 system...if a d20 book has OGC or not doesn't bother me at all. I don't care.

As for publishers, I totally understand why the need to specifically list what is, and what is not, OGC is a very important deal, and the example as presented in the post makes it clear that, even though the intentions of creating the psionics companion was good, and much of the book is a good book, the very fact that all of it is labelled as 100% OGC, and yet none of it is unless you get his specific permission, the author is IMO shooting himself in the foot for any future books.

 

[HellHound]

He doesn't just want permission is the thing, he ALSO wants people to PAY HIM to use the material in question. He's asking me the same thing I offered him for first print rights before he released the PDF in question to be able to use any of his OGC in any of my products.

In the end, it doesn't matter. As I have removed our upcoming PDF psionics product from our release schedule and am instead writing it for a print publisher, and won't be using any OGC from that source.