OGC and the Consumer

[Alzrius]

I find OGC to be important, despite being a consumer. I tend to check books after I buy them to see how much they're adding to the collective of stuff available by other publishers, but not before I make the purchase.

However, I find it interesting to note that, while people are quick to be critical of companies that don't release much OGC, virtually no one uses the material that has been released anyway.

Think about it, what was the last major product, beside the few "compilation" products out there (which are specifically designed to contain as much OGC from other books as they can), really uses any OGC from other sources? I can't think of many at all.

The thing of it is, publishers realize that it's a very tricky thing to use someone else's OGC. When you use new material, you have to ask yourself a basic question about reprinting it: will you just mention it where it applies, and trust that people have the material you're referencing (i.e., just list the reprinted-OGC feats, spells, PrC, all in the NPC stat block, etc.), or will you give full reprints of the entirety of the OGC you're using, just to be sure the information is readily available?

To quote Paul Simon, "any way you look at it you lose". If you opt for the former option, you get bashed by reviewers for utilizing material without explaining what that is, making some (or, heavens forbid, all) of your product somewhat useless without the other product you're drawing from. If you opt for the latter, then you get bashed by the reviewers for wasting space on printing material that has already been printed before, and your product gets passed over in favor of something else with more new material.

I think that the question of OGC is an important one, but to a large degree, most OGC never gets actualized anyway, unless its for a compendium or "ultimate" book, or an adventure specifically based on a certain product (which is usually the result of deals made between companies, so OGC tends not to be an issue much anyway).

 

[HellHound]

If you opt for the latter, then you get bashed by the reviewers for wasting space on printing material that has already been printed before, and your product gets passed over in favor of something else with more new material.

Actually, the reviews of my products which use OGC have been nothing but positive about this aspect. Even when the products go to print - see "Necromancer's Legacy" now for sale through MEG or at your FLGS for an example of using OGC in a product.

 

[Michael Morris]

As a fan and a purchaser OGC and the OGL are important for several reasons.

First, as Sigil said, if I want to put up a campaign website, I want to know that I'm not goint to get a C&D letter.

But I also think it's important because of the tone it sets. The OGL has created a unique and friendly community of writers, publishers and consumers. It allows a wonderful creative synergy to exist and build. To bite the hand that feeds one, by not giving back as much as one gets, is indicative of an attitude that I don't want to support with my money.

I second that sentiment. I wouldn't mind WotC sending a little C&D letter of their own to said publisher - either play by the rules or get off the boat.

That said, I'll admit that I'm running a little behind on my on SRD. The Dusk setting approaches the OGL the same way WotC does - items from my setting that I want to be open content are reproduced in a designated section of the site and in a designated form. I do this for a clarity, and because I have the space to do it. That said, almost none of the materials I've made up in the last 2 months have been added to that SRD - partially because they haven't been fully playtested, partially cause I don't have the time and partially because I don't intend to do it until 3.5e comes out when I ((nightmare)) update the whole site ((and I'm already getting ulcers thinking about it)). Most of the time the only changes have to do with the removal of example text, flavor text, but sometimes the changes are more significant.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: OGC and the Consumer

Well, it's not Mindscapes.

Is it that Psionics Companion thing? I don't own it, but it's obviously not either the Quint Books by Mongoose, nor the Psionics Toolkit by FDP.

- Psion, asking the tough questions

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: OGC and the Consumer

Well, it's not Mindscapes.

Is it that Psionics Companion thing? I don't own it, but it's obviously not either the Quint Books by Mongoose, nor the Psionics Toolkit by FDP.

- Psion, asking the tough questions

Well, I hope someone just gets over the pretense of protecting the release in question and share the information. It's obviously known about, and something that should be shared with the community. Knowing that it's a product involving Psionics, it can only be one of handful of items, regardless. I'm hoping it's not Malhavoc's psionics release, and actually assuming it's not...I would think the former architects of 3E would be wiser.

 

[Kerrick]

As a designer, I think buying products with OGC in them is very important, as it enables us to use it in our products. I like opening up a book and seeing "The following material is designated Open Gaming Content..." even if it's just a template or two, like in BoEM I.

I think that the question of OGC is an important one, but to a large degree, most OGC never gets actualized anyway, unless its for a compendium or "ultimate" book, or an adventure specifically based on a certain product (which is usually the result of deals made between companies, so OGC tends not to be an issue much anyway).

I think that's because a lot of people don't know how the OGL truly works (and I must admit, I'm one of them). While by definition we can use it without asking, it's still generally considered polite to let the original author know; some people either can't find a way to contact the original author, or don't know how to ask him, or are simply afraid to. Or they simply don't want to include "someone else's work" in their book, which is a shame, because there is a lot of good material out there that could be incorporated into other books and expanded upon or used to interlock with other material. Our first book, Crimson Contracts, included the variant rules for handling poisons found on Monte Cook's website. We asked for and received permission to use it, and we included credits and thanks to him for it.

...will you just mention it where it applies, and trust that people have the material you're referencing (i.e., just list the reprinted-OGC feats, spells, PrC, all in the NPC stat block, etc.), or will you give full reprints of the entirety of the OGC you're using, just to be sure the information is readily available?

In general, we just reference the item in question, but don't reprint it. Why? Because we want the reader to buy that product too. We're not forcing him to - if he doesn't want to buy it, he doesn't have to - but it makes for a more complete gaming experience. That is, all of the information he needs is in the book, but if you have another book, you can add more to it.

But I also think it's important because of the tone it sets. The OGL has created a unique and friendly community of writers, publishers and consumers. It allows a wonderful creative synergy to exist and build. To bite the hand that feeds one, by not giving back as much as one gets, is indicative of an attitude that I don't want to support with my money.

I agree, and so do the people I work with. Most of the content we put into our books will remain closed, however all of the content we put on our website (which will be quite a bit) will be OGC. We're rebuilding an entire campaign world, so we decided that rather than reprint all the changes to the core classes and races and such that would go into its own book, we would make them OGC and put them on the site - that way, anyone who wants to play in Shtar can just go to the site and get the basics. If they want the extras (details on cities, organizations, and other goodies), they'll have to pay for it.

 

[jgbrowning]

However, I find it interesting to note that, while people are quick to be critical of companies that don't release much OGC, virtually no one uses the material that has been released anyway.

Ok, i'm going to step out on a limb here....

I think that's because so many companies have IP'ed the titles to spells and monsters (two of the big 4 (feats, skills, monsters, spells) that make up the core of the game expansions). Personally, i find that this is not really open product, and view it as a way of sidestepping the open issue.

I understand its to protect their property. However i find closing (or effectively closing) much of one's material questionable behavior for people who's business is dependant upon another company's releasing open material. I view it as having the same faith in others that WoTC have had. Not that WoTC is an angel, or anything (and the reason for opening the game is to make more money off of it than you would have if it was closed, so its far from altruistic or other non-business concerns), but (if im understanding properly) part of the open business model is the exchange of product between the smaller companies in order to increase the overall exposure for the smaller companies. With the understood idea that more exposure should result in more sales.

As a consumer, it may not apparantly matter. Open material is probably not a concern when buying one item. In the long term, however, this lack of funtionality does reduce the consumers choice. You get a lot of companies "reinventing the wheel" instead of building upon what other companies have done (which is one of the ideas of OGC, if im understanding properly).

anyway, i'm a newbie in this market and just getting my feet wet, so hopefully i haven't stepped on too many toes...

joe b.

 

[The Sigil]

Ok, i'm going to step out on a limb here....

I think that's because so many companies have IP'ed the titles to spells and monsters (two of the big 4 (feats, skills, monsters, spells) that make up the core of the game expansions). Personally, i find that this is not really open product, and view it as a way of sidestepping the open issue.

I'm outspoken on this, but I agree there (though I happen to think the big 4 are feats, monsters, spells, and Prestige Classes - skills just don't get enough play to be "big 4" - and I would expand it to "big 5" by including magic items/properties).

I understand its to protect their property. However i find closing (or effectively closing) much of one's material questionable behavior for people who's business is dependant upon another company's releasing open material. I view it as having the same faith in others that WoTC have had. Not that WoTC is an angel, or anything (and the reason for opening the game is to make more money off of it than you would have if it was closed, so its far from altruistic or other non-business concerns), but (if im understanding properly) part of the open business model is the exchange of product between the smaller companies in order to increase the overall exposure for the smaller companies. With the understood idea that more exposure should result in more sales.

Agreed here too. I find it indeed interesting to note a comment by a reviewer who reviewed my most recent product here at ENWorld. The quote:

Chapter 8: Special Components. (14 pages) Special components are kind of like templates for items. This section includes lots of OGC material from the Heroes of High Favor series from Bad Axe Games. Like Chapter 7, this stuff is practically begging to be used. [5]

(As a side note, I've been considering buying the HoHF series from Bad Axe Games for a while, and the cool stuff included here has tipped the scales in Bad Axe's favor. That's why it's good to share quality content--everyone benefits.)

I found it very interesting to note that the reviewer went out of his way to mention that (a) he found it nice that the material was reprinted and (b) that because it was reprinted - and not merely referenced - he had enough information to go buy the originally referenced products. The OGL can - and should - amount to "free advertising."

As a consumer, it may not apparantly matter. Open material is probably not a concern when buying one item. In the long term, however, this lack of funtionality does reduce the consumers choice. You get a lot of companies "reinventing the wheel" instead of building upon what other companies have done (which is one of the ideas of OGC, if im understanding properly).

The only downside to the "re-invent the wheel" is a long and cumbersome Section 15, I guess, but that's a trade-off I'll happily make.

Originally posted by Kerrick
In general, we just reference the item in question, but don't reprint it. Why? Because we want the reader to buy that product too. We're not forcing him to - if he doesn't want to buy it, he doesn't have to - but it makes for a more complete gaming experience. That is, all of the information he needs is in the book, but if you have another book, you can add more to it.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but IMO this is a Bad Thing (TM). IMO, every d20 product out there should assume that the only other products the use owns are the 3 core rulebooks (the SRD) and be otherwise self-contained. Monte Cook mentioned that he tries to make sure his stuff is balanced with respect to those books, and not other stuff (there's too much other stuff to worry about anyway) and I think "self-contained" is a good mantra to follow as well.

I typed a long rant about blatant attempts to get money out of my wallet, but I cut it and decided to point out that the best way to get yourself cut off from my consumership is to make it obvious you're after my money by not re-printing stuff you reference (again, unless it is in the 3 core books). I know the point of a company is to make money or it goes under - just don't be so obvious about it. ;-)

I am very much like the reviewer I quoted - a well-placed reprint will do far more to convince me to by another product than will a reference implying I should go out and buy the product if I want to fully utilize everything presented. Perhaps it's because I see the first method as "positive reinforcement" (here's a goody... want some more?) versus a "negative reinforcement" (we want more of your money and we won't give you this stuff until you spend more).

--The Sigil

 

[jgbrowning]

I'm outspoken on this, but I agree there (though I happen to think the big 4 are feats, monsters, spells, and Prestige Classes - skills just don't get enough play to be "big 4" - and I would expand it to "big 5" by including magic items/properties).

--The Sigil

yep, thats true. its funny that i didn't even think of them. i don't use PrCs. i think i've had three players play a PrC since 3E came out. i tend to follow monte's core book balance only idea as well.

joe b.

edit: wow, i've never used a magic item outside the DMG either...

 

[Sagan Darkside]

I could care less.

As a fan of the game, I can see how it would be helpful to have an open community.

As a dm, I want a book useful to me. I don't care if it is useful to another publisher.

SD