OGL Mechanics and evolution

[maddman75]

I've been thinking lately about the OGL and one effect that hasn't come up. That of mechanics evolution. Meaning that like in Open Source software, the best mechanics are tried and tested, so that the players get the best rules out of the deal.

One reason I think this hasn't happened is the nature of the license. I mean even if I wanted to make a book using X company's mass combat or underwater rules, I couldn't advertise it as such. Even if everyone thought that company X's rules for this situation was the best around, there would be no way to know that company Y's sourcebook used their mechanics.

I think there needs to be another layer of licence, where companies or even individuals could put materials like this out there for others to use. Basically the same as the OGL, except it would allow an additional identifying disclaimer for the paticular mechanic. Thus we could say 'Uses XYZ publishing's mass combat rules!' in the advertisements and on the cover. Obviously, the companies would have to specify which mechanics were available for such statements. We don't need to see every feat, spell, and magic item available like this. But for rules that cover new ground, it really seems like the way to fly.

What do you think? Would this fly? Would anyone use it? Would it produce the results we want?

 

[Ranger REG]

As it stand, the only way you can cite sources (outside of Section 15) is through the permission of the Contributor.

But honestly, if you like the mechanics and it is OGC, I see no reason to not copy the mechanics into your product. IMHO, this is more convenient for your readers than the other approach in which they must buy the referred product, possibly in addition to Wizards' core game book.

 

[Mark]

Basically the same as the OGL, except it would allow an additional identifying disclaimer for the paticular mechanic. Thus we could say 'Uses XYZ publishing's mass combat rules!' in the advertisements and on the cover.

You can already do this and it only requires that you get permission to do so from the copyright holder. In some cases that might require a fee.

 

[maddman75]

Right - but what I'm suggesting is a license in addition to the OGL where this permission is implicitly granted. So that Company X wants its Mass Combat System or whatever to be widely adapted, they release it with the additional permission that it can be used in this way.

This would hopefully encourage the evolution aspect that is currently missing. Best if it was extendable, so maybe when Company Y puts out a sourcebook on aerial mounts, they can include the Comapny X Mass Combat System with rules for hippogriff and dragon riders, which Company Z can then use.

The point - same as the d20 STL. It would in theory boost sales of Company X's full version of these rules. So if you like what you see in the base rules you might buy Company X's Complete Guide to Mass Combat.

 

[Ranger REG]

You want to promote a another company's product, who may or may not choose to reciprocate? It's your call but they owned their PI, especially their trademarks, which may include the title of their product or product line.

You'll also have to think what this "promotion" is going to do for your consumer base. I mean do you really want to tell them that in order to use YOUR product they have to buy Company X's product in addition to Wizards' core game book?

 

[Mark]

Right - but what I'm suggesting is a license in addition to the OGL where this permission is implicitly granted. So that Company X wants its Mass Combat System or whatever to be widely adapted, they release it with the additional permission that it can be used in this way.

This would hopefully encourage the evolution aspect that is currently missing. Best if it was extendable, so maybe when Company Y puts out a sourcebook on aerial mounts, they can include the Comapny X Mass Combat System with rules for hippogriff and dragon riders, which Company Z can then use.

The point - same as the d20 STL. It would in theory boost sales of Company X's full version of these rules. So if you like what you see in the base rules you might buy Company X's Complete Guide to Mass Combat.

I think it is important to point out that the d20SL governs the use of the trademark and logos associated with it but has no additional tie to the actual OGC content. Also, by using the OGL you can not in anyway place any restrictions on the use of the OGC except what is explicit already in the Open Game License. What you are discussing seem to be tying together content and trademarks in a way that I do not think is easily viable, if at all possible. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your intent.

 

[am181d]

The areas you'll see growth in are the non-d20 books. Look at MUTANTS AND MASTERMINDS. It's only a matter of time before someone takes that d20-only rule from that system and carries it over to other projects.

 

[Mark]

The areas you'll see growth in are the non-d20 books. Look at MUTANTS AND MASTERMINDS. It's only a matter of time before someone takes that d20-only rule from that system and carries it over to other projects.

What d20-only rule are you discussing?

M&M is already experiemnting with a license, IIRC, that allows use of their trademark but I do not know if they are also requiring content to be coupled with the license.

 

[MThibault]

I don't think that it is the place of the OGL to dictate the sharing landscape to that degree. There are some publishers who wouldn't be in the d20 market if they were forced to share their trademarks. If the OGL mandated that certain trademarks must be shared (e.g. titles, campaign setting names, whatever) you would probably see more amateur and less professional content injected into the OGC pool. Is this entirely a bad thing? No. But it probably isn't the best way to grow the hobby.

That being said, there is nothing to stop publishers from including a separate viral license in their products to grant the sort of permissions you are talking about. I think it was Necromancer Games that PI'd the spell names in one book, but included a license that grants anyone permission to use that PI as long as it is only associated with the spell. (So you couldn't take a wizard's name out of the context of the spell and write short stories about him, for example.)

So I think that including a third license (after the OGL and d20STL) that specifies how and where the trademarks and PI can be used to cross-promote is viable option. It allows publishers to controll their trademarks and PI, while still allowing sharing and cross-promotion.

Cheers

 

[Aaron2]

This is an interesting question. For one, I know that there is a pirate-type sourcebook coming out that uses the Seas of Blood sail system in it. On the other hand, when making a new book, it is often more important to have a new take on the subject rather than just redoing what someone already has done. If, for instance, you like a particular open mass combat system, why are you making a book about mass combat systems then? Also, WotC still has great influence. If they release mass combat rules, your better off using those than any open ones.

On the other hand, I've noticed that more companies are open to being open. Alot of the early d20 books went through great pains to limit the amount of open material to the absolute minimum (i.e. stats of monsters but not names of monsters). I noticed that Bastion's Airships book is -entirely open-; every freakin' word. That's a good sign.


Aaron (rambling)