OGC and the Consumer

[Ghostwind]

I'm going to address this from two different perspectives.

First, as a consumer, whether or not the subject is OGC has no bearing on my home campaign or personal gaming stuff. I freely buy closed content products (Wotc, Kenzer) as well as OGC stuff. The key issue here is quality of overall work and its application to my needs.

Secondly, as a writer/publisher, OGC does matter considerably. I am always on the lookout for good material that is open content. One of the big "problems" in the industry is choosing to protect names like spells and monsters but not the stats. To me, this is worthless in terms of useability because I will now need to not only get permission to use but make sure it is included in a special closed content section. I understand why a publisher would want to do this if it would indicate product identity (such as a proper name like Melf), but it still is a pain. In an ideal world, publishers would simply not worry about it and produce 100% OGC. But only a few do this and I fully understand why.

OGC is there for a good reason. It lets others re-use quality material in their publications without having to resort to re-inventing the mechanic just for their purposes all over again. After all, if there is a feat or ability from another shource that meets your needs, why not use it instead of trying to develop a similar one that doesn't sound like an exact duplicate? There is no way we could have made the poisons as comprehensive in Pale Designs: A Poisoner's Handbook without there being so much OGC. Yeah, it does make for one heck of a long Section 15, but that's the price you pay for using the license to its fullest extent. So now you can see how OGC content matters to us writers, publishers, and folks who post content on the web in the long run.

 

[Desdichado]

It's important to me, because I'm an unashamed hombrewer who "kitbashes" my homebrew from a variety of sources. If I can't post the extra rules on my campaign website, then it's a real pain to use the stuff, IMO.

 

[Danyon Dehlmari]

Well, here's the way I see it-

There are *many* publishers who go to great lengths to make sure that there products are clear in their designations. Many publishers it would seem wish to contribute to the open gaming movement as much as possible. To me, such is a great thing. Honestly? You bet I do look at a company's designations and how much open content they have.

Why? Because it does reflect to a degree IMHO, what they want to give back to the very community they are selling to. Monte Cook, Bastion, MEG, Ambient, Natural 20 Press, S&SS, Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, and many others (forgive me for not naming you all) go to painstaking lengths to give their best.

Yes, it does burn me up when I see a new publisher make mistakes and barely works to correct them or will not heed the advice of people like Clark Peterson, Ryan Dancey, or others who have been in this industry for a quite awhile.

It's just sad.

 

[Arnwyn]

Average gamer/consumer? I couldn't give a flying fig how much OGC there is in a product. It doesn't affect my buying decisions at all. (And no, I don't do websites and stuff like that.)

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Not everything should be OGC, but it's important to me as a consumer because it means that if one publisher comes up with a cool bit of OGC, other publishers can take it up, and potentially make it something of a standard for d20/OGL publishers. That way, a standard is encouraged, while the OGL still encourages new OGC to be created.

 

[Danyon Dehlmari]

Not everything should be OGC, but it's important to me as a consumer because it means that if one publisher comes up with a cool bit of OGC, other publishers can take it up, and potentially make it something of a standard for d20/OGL publishers. That way, a standard is encouraged, while the OGL still encourages new OGC to be created.

I agree with you whole-heartedly!

 

[MThibault]

Re: Re: Re: Re: OGC and the Consumer

Well, I hope someone just gets over the pretense of protecting the release in question and share the information.

Someone already has done so in this thread, although it was done without fanfare.

You can check the "teasers" or "demos" of the products on the short-list -- they include the OGL and copyright designation for free.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I never even thought about it until now. So I guess it's not an issue as it hasn't influenced my buying at all.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.)
[/B]

Hey, that is cool!

As a matter of convenience to the end user, we put OPEN CONTENT at the bottom of each PAGE that is OGC-- so you get the names and everything attendant to the crunch to go along with it.

We seperate out the non-open stuff onto its own pages, which I think amounts to about 10%-20% of any given Bad Axe book. Certainly, 100% of the game-applicable content in our books is now and ever shall be Open.

Someone else above said it already, but I agree and will reiterate. The end user may not notice OGC at the shelf, or in the short term, but it is counter-productive for publishers to eschew each others' Open Content. It leads to the fracturing and stratification of the market and of the "shared rules experience" that the license was designed to eliminate-- and that will impact the customer in the long term. We don't need to see our hobby wither on the vine-- AGAIN-- due to unhealthy competition.

Wulf

NOTE: Don't get me wrong, I'm all for competitive systems, just NOT within the same d20 licensed ruleset!

 

[Psion]

It is important to me for two reasons, both of which have been alluded to.

First, my game world is my Labor of Love. I lived through the Rob Repp period of the internet. Those of us who were told that we did not have the right to promulgate our worlds were infuriated.

The OGL/d20 STL is a breath of fresh air in comparison to those early days. I can put my game world on the web (even maybe publish it, though no plans to make money) complete with game details and not have to worry about some overzealous netrep come knocking on my world.

That being the case, I think twice before including anything in my world that would require me to edit my game material.


Second, the OGL represents a great promise to me. This may also be a result of my early internet days, but I found much of the stuff out there that was of very low quality, and lots of reinventing the wheel. Open content allows the best ideas an implelementations to survive and get used in other works. As the saying goes, two heads are better than one, and the freedom to use lots of imaginative ideas (and their associated game mechanics) and forge them into a greater whole is a great boon.


That being the case, I really give the nod to those compainies that have taken the time to identify great material and reuse it, as well as those who have been brave enough to submit their material as OGC without attempts to create PI names and whatnot.