Open Game Content Designation: Who does it best?

[Psion]

In addition to the others mentioned, I think Fantasy Flight Games and Necromancer Games do a clear and concise job of it.

I don't think FFG is especially exemplary. They use that dreaded "derived from the SRD" statement, which I HATE HATE HATE.

A good example not a lot of people are mentioning is AEG. AEG states both the details and their intent. The spell out chapters and sections, and put a statement that it is their express intent that all classes, skills, feats, spells, et al., are OGC.

 

[jaerdaph]

I don't think FFG is especially exemplary. They use that dreaded "derived from the SRD" statement, which I HATE HATE HATE.

That's a phrase directly from the OGL. They then go on to specifically state which portions of their work are and aren't OGC. Material derived from the SRD, or their own original OGC, always "lives" in those sections. If they left it hanging at just that phrase like another popular d20 publisher does, then I'd agree with you.

A good example not a lot of people are mentioning is AEG. AEG states both the details and their intent. The spell out chapters and sections, and put a statement that it is their express intent that all classes, skills, feats, spells, et al., are OGC.

The only thing about AEG that drives me crazy is that they never seem to include a copyright notice in section 15 for the current title.

 

[jgbrowning]

Thanks, Joe. I can't imagine a simpler way than ours (OPEN CONTENT at the bottom of every page that is OGC) except to go 100% open content-- I have respect and awe for the folks that go 100%.

I'd like to go 100% but two things bother me:

1) wholesale rippage and republication and

2) I spend way too much friggin time slaving over that fluff text to just give it away.

Wulf

Two very valid concerns. We thought long and hard about opening A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe but came to a few decisions.

1. If someone's going to rip and republish, that person will be utterly vilified by everyone else in the industry. A bad reputation will kill you fast.

2. Those who rip and don't republish, but merely distribute, would usually do so anyway, whether the material is open or not.

3. I want other publishers to use my material. I think its good and would love to see MMS:WE in a bunch of section 15's.

We didn't go 100% open with our Party of One products just because we're holding out on the illusion that we may sell them to a traditional paperback fiction house. We couldn't do that if they were open.

joe b.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

3. I want other publishers to use my material. I think its good and would love to see MMS:WE in a bunch of section 15's.

Agreed. I like when other folks find my stuff useful. I try to keep my design work fairly simple and "fluff-free" for reasons of portability.

2. Those who rip and don't republish, but merely distribute, would usually do so anyway, whether the material is open or not.

This isn't one of my major concerns, but you are 100% correct here, too.

1. If someone's going to rip and republish, that person will be utterly vilified by everyone else in the industry. A bad reputation will kill you fast.

I disagree here-- the vast majority of the gaming public is not aware of the OGL, let alone the squabbles of the publishers. Retailers and distributors wouldn't care-- in fact, they're far more likely to side with the larger, well-established publisher: They'll sell more. (Reflections on this in no small part due to Ryan Dancey's recent "Phase II" comments...)

A large publisher could easily run roughshod over any number of smaller publishers, taking material left and right and regurgitating it to the mass market, and suffer no appreciable backlash. Joe Gamer isn't reading the Section 15 (heck, he doesn't even read ENworld! Gasp!).

What, specifically, could the community of publishers do about it? Nothing, really. There are already some (IMO) who have a less than stellar reputation amongst their peers.

Wulf

 

[jgbrowning]

I disagree here-- the vast majority of the gaming public is not aware of the OGL, let alone the squabbles of the publishers. Retailers and distributors wouldn't care-- in fact, they're far more likely to side with the larger, well-established publisher: They'll sell more. (Reflections on this in no small part due to Ryan Dancey's recent "Phase II" comments...)

Yep. Many customers aren't looking at the 15 or reading E.N. World. Or anything on the net for that matter. Which I find truly mind-boggling given the general audience for DnD.

A large publisher could easily run roughshod over any number of smaller publishers, taking material left and right and regurgitating it to the mass market, and suffer no appreciable backlash.

Wulf

True again, i'm just not sure to what extent. I know that were a large publisher to take a small guy's PI and put it out they wouldn't have to much of a hard time defending themselves as making an honest, stupid mistake. And by the time they rectifiy their mistake, they'd already made most of their profit. I, personally, wouldn't have enough money to have a lawsuit to begin with that would probably cost in the same ballpark as the profits from what I'd be sueing over. It doesn't matter if what they're doing is illegal if it's not fiscally wise for me to defend my stuff. The liscenses have also yet to be tested in court, and I have no idea how that would turn out.

You, however, may be in a different boat. I would imagine you probably are, or if you're not now, you will be soon if you keep putting out good stuff.

joe b.

 

[jmucchiello]

A large publisher could easily run roughshod over any number of smaller publishers, taking material left and right and regurgitating it to the mass market, and suffer no appreciable backlash. Joe Gamer isn't reading the Section 15 (heck, he doesn't even read ENworld! Gasp!).

But Joe Freelancer is reading Section 15. He is reading gaming website. What freelancer would submit work to this villanous publisher if it was known to run roughshod over the little guys? If a big company were to take all of the 100%ers works and republish them for nothing, A) Their source of 100% OGC would dry up faster than a desert mirage, and B) Backlash among the freelancers would make it hard for them to find good writers to create new material. Large companies can only survive on open calls for so long.

I wouldn't want to see it happen but I like to think I can rely on the other freelancers to stick it to a company that ran roughshod over me.

 

[trancejeremy]

Atlas has the shaded box, as Hellhound mentions, Avalanche shows what type of border they put around OGC at the front of their books, and Bastion makes everything but the artwork (basically) OGC.

I always had trouble with Avalanche Presses designations because the difference between the borders of the boxes for open content isn't all that different than the borders of the boxes with closed content.

For instance, in "I, Mordred" (the only one I have handy), the boxes are identical, except 2 of the little rings in the corner of the box are a slightly darker color. It's like trying to read a marked deck of cards. (And like anyone is going to borrow OGL from Avalanche Press, as their poor grasp of the d20 rules is second only to Fast Forward)


Anyway, Atlas is probably the best.

 

[FFG Greg]

I don't think FFG is especially exemplary. They use that dreaded "derived from the SRD" statement, which I HATE HATE HATE.

The "derived from the SRD" statement is just a catch-all to cover the bases. We don't use it by itself. We list the things that are designated as OGC and *then* add that "any game rules derived from the SRD are OGC." I'm not sure why you would "hate" it, but this kind of *addendum* is merely prudent and responsible.

Greg
FFG

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I know that were a large publisher to take a small guy's PI and put it out they wouldn't have to much of a hard time defending themselves as making an honest, stupid mistake. And by the time they rectifiy their mistake, they'd already made most of their profit. I, personally, wouldn't have enough money to have a lawsuit to begin with that would probably cost in the same ballpark as the profits from what I'd be sueing over. It doesn't matter if what they're doing is illegal if it's not fiscally wise for me to defend my stuff. The liscenses have also yet to be tested in court, and I have no idea how that would turn out.

I suppose it's fortunate then that there are 'attorney-enthusiasts' mixed in amongst several of the game companies, including my own. I don't think it would be as hard for you to defend as you think. The OGL has teeth-- untested, as you point out, but there are some among the community who would be interested in seeing what would happen from inside the legal process.

Backlash among the freelancers would make it hard for them to find good writers to create new material. Large companies can only survive on open calls for so long.

I'm with you. But on the other hand, principles don't pay the bills. I suspect that most freelancers still do it for the love, and would be willing to take a principled stand, but you never know...

One or two or a half-dozen established freelancers may feel that they personally are treated respectfully enough that they can turn a blind eye to whatever happens to the PDF "amateurs" producing the bulk of those 100% OGC products. How far down the totem pole does an author have to be before you'd turn down a writing contract with a big publisher?

As for Bad Axe, we are now and ever shall be a "small" publisher mostly because that's how I like it. There's no real push to be a "big" publisher, because even the big publishers, measured against the security of my day job, are no big deal.

Wulf

 

[jgbrowning]

I suppose it's fortunate then that there are 'attorney-enthusiasts' mixed in amongst several of the game companies, including my own.
Wulf

Heh. I had completely forgotten about those guys... Yeah, I imagine they would be rather interested and willing to try things out for less than the going rate. Hopefully, we'll never need to to however.

Didn't know you were concentrating on remaining a smaller publisher. We're pretty much doing the same thing. I rather enjoy doing this and wouldn't want to ever have the "got to get back to work" feeling that eventually comes around the corner for any job.

...and well, I'd stay and chat, but I've got to get back to work.

joe b.