"Poaching" OGC

[Roudi]

Considering that Modern20 is already designated PI, you shouldn't use it in the first place (other than in Section 15 Copyright Notice), at least not without securing permission from PI owner.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Vig's intentions (if I understand them correctly) is to encourage other publishers to support Modern20, on the caveat that they ask him for the right to use the Modern20 PI as an indication of compatibility. Since one can't use PI without asking, one would have to ask Vig's permission... and thus give Vig the opportunity to ask to review the product first before giving his seal of approval. And one really can't create a support product for Modern20 without the ability to use the term "Modern20" (outside of S15 citation, and really, a citation in the S15 is not an accepted indicator of compatibility to the majority of consumers)

Also, Nellisir and Hal make prudent points. It's not a quantity. It's more a matter of intent.

 

[Urizen]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Vig's intentions (if I understand them correctly) is to encourage other publishers to support Modern20, on the caveat that they ask him for the right to use the Modern20 PI as an indication of compatibility. Since one can't use PI without asking, one would have to ask Vig's permission... and thus give Vig the opportunity to ask to review the product first before giving his seal of approval. And one really can't create a support product for Modern20 without the ability to use the term "Modern20" (outside of S15 citation, and really, a citation in the S15 is not an accepted indicator of compatibility to the majority of consumers)

Hehe..

That's pretty much what I said too.

 

[Ranger REG]

Dude, you're trying to quantify something that has no defined measure. Gareth pointed it out above, this is all about common courtesy. If you are using some OGC from a product, fine; if you use some OGC and derive something to it, add some extra value, even better; if you grab a significant amount of OGC from a product, repackage it without any added value, that's poaching.

Hmm. Maybe I should stop myself before I ask how one quantify "added value."

 

[Vigilance]

Hmm. Maybe I should stop myself before I ask how one quantify "added value."

Again, this isn't my concern, nor do I think it should be.

In a rules-heavy product like Modern20, you have two choices: make the vast majority of it open, or attempt to cripple the OGC by doing crap like labeling every feat name PI.

Given that I think that practice is crap, you might be able to determine why I didn't do it.

The truth is, as OSRIC has proven, there isn't much so totally new that it can't be reverse engineered or simulated from another OGC source.

Rules are hard to protect. If I wasn't ok with that, I wouldn't write rules.

Other publishers react to this by trying to make it a pain in the ass to use their OGC. I think that's silly so I don't do it.

Maybe that makes me dumb in your eyes. You entered this conversation expressing that opinion, that 90+% OGC producers were "dumb".

I've tried to enlighten you why I don't think it is dumb to the best of my ability.

Chuck

 

[Ranger REG]

Maybe that makes me dumb in your eyes. You entered this conversation expressing that opinion, that 90+% OGC producers were "dumb".

I've tried to enlighten you why I don't think it is dumb to the best of my ability.

I apologize for that remark.

I guess poaching OGC is a lot like card-counting in casinos. Not exactly illegal, but it can hurt their respective business.

 

[Vigilance]

I apologize for that remark.

For the record, I didn't think you meant ME specifically and I didn't take personal offense or anything, I just don't think it's always dumb to release a product with a high amount of OGC under all circumstances.

Now, when I'm designing a campaign setting, I protect a lot more. IP is edition-proof, and that gives it a unique value worth protecting. If you look at, say, Blood and Relics or Blood and Fists, you'll find a fair amount protected.

I just don't like intentionally crippling things that should really be OGC and avoid doing it intentionally.

I guess poaching OGC is a lot like card-counting in casinos. Not exactly illegal, but it can hurt their respective business.

That's a good analogy, because it has more to do with the casino than the game, if you follow my meaning.

 

[Ry]

Now, when I'm designing a campaign setting, I protect a lot more. IP is edition-proof, and that gives it a unique value worth protecting.

I think there's a place for OGC settings and flavor - specifically, making something 100% OGC can be a nice way to frame a collective project if you have numerous contributors. That way a lot of different people can add to the project but everyone can take what they want back out. It's a shortcut from making complex legal arrangements to a similar effect, so it allows more casual contributors to jump in and out of the project.