Publisher Opinions of FFE Events?

[Horacio]

Sorry, but I still can't understand. What part of "use only stuff from the SRD, forget any other WotC book you have ever read" is so complicated to the writers and editors of FFE?

I mean, I am not a native English speaker, but even with my faulty English I can read and understand what OGL says. It makes clear that you can't use any copyrighted product that you haven't received explicit right to use. Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[HellHound]

Sorry, but I still can't understand. What part of "use only stuff from the SRD, forget any other WotC book you have ever read" is so complicated to the writers and editors of FFE?

But remember that the Greyhawk deities were in the first draft SRD that was released on the net. So if you have a copy of hte SRD that you refer to that you made back when this whole new license thing was brand new, you have a lot of data there that is not OGC.

 

[Leopold]

Sorry, but I still can't understand. What part of "use only stuff from the SRD, forget any other WotC book you have ever read" is so complicated to the writers and editors of FFE?

I mean, I am not a native English speaker, but even with my faulty English I can read and understand what OGL says. It makes clear that you can't use any copyrighted product that you haven't received explicit right to use. Is that so difficult to understand?

this i completely understand. Then it changed and WOTC made a big announcement over it. This in turn OUGHT (not using should here) to be picked up by a legalese/marketing/editor and go "Oh, can't use that stuff anymore!" and ripped it all out using a FIND>REMOVE or REPLACE.



Now if the books released were PRE-SRD change that's understandable. BUT! If they were post SRD change and then reprinted and never revised with the new standard? Something doesn't sound right...

 

[Horacio]

But remember that the Greyhawk deities were in the first draft SRD that was released on the net. So if you have a copy of hte SRD that you refer to that you made back when this whole new license thing was brand new, you have a lot of data there that is not OGC.

First, I considerer that all d20 publisher and even all d20 writer has the moral obligation to update his sources. Anybody with a minimum of interest is informed when SRD changes. There are mailing lists, there is EN World, there is Open Gaming Foundation web...

And second, they can't claim that they didn't know because they were warned, by people who bought the books, by reviewers, by lots of means.

I could excuse the error, even the multiple ones, but his claim of "Oh, OGL is so difficult to understand" when almost everybody besides them is doing it more or less ok, is simply too unbeliable. If they don't understand it is because they don't want to make the effort to understand it.

YMMV, of course

 

[smetzger]

1) The OGL is easy to understand. If you don't understand the OGL you need to have someone review your work for you that does understand.

2) Its a good thing for WOTC to enforce this.

 

[Samnell]

The Auld Grump, who doesn't find the OGL all that complicated ...

It's not. Ward's basically admitting he doesn't give thought one to stealing content from WotC and trying to rationalize it after they came down on him.

 

[FDP Mike]

It's inexcusable, really

First, to review a few comments about designers and editors:

Ghostwind:
Designers and editors are directly responsible for the content they use and should be responsible enough to know what is and what isn't useable under the terms of the OGL.


Scarogoth:
OK... I might just accept the designers bit, but editors? Um... No, no, no, no, no. This is exactly the sort of thing an editor ought to be highlighting, I'd've thought.


The Sigil:
The editor of a work can't be expected to be thoroughly familiar with every bit of OGC out there - he might not have heard of the source of a monster, and would have no way of knowing if it is OGC or not. Citing your sources is on the WRITER, not the editor - because no editor can possibly know all the possible sources the writer drew from.


HellHound:
It is unfortunate, but true that many designers fail to take into account the requirements of the Open Game License, not only at FFE but at other notable companies also.

I would also add that Developers are responsible for understanding the details of the d20 STL, the SRD, and the OGL. In fact, developers are perhaps the ones initially and ultimately responsible for such matters, for they oversee the entirety of a project and must (often) deal with the legal issues. The developer usually gets the manuscript before sending it on to the editor(s), so she is the primary line of defence (so to speak) against potential legal issues. Still . . . .

Editors should most definitely understand at least the basics of how the SRD and OGC work. True, one cannot expect a d20 editor to know all the OGC out there, but a d20 editor must have a pretty thorough enough knowledge of the SRD to recognize something that is not "core rules" and flag any such material accordingly. Companies are also responsible for establishing ways of indicating OGC, and editors must know such styles and use them accordingly. By this stage in the game, d20 editors (along with developers and designers) can offer little excuse for not acquiring a rather intimiate familiarity with the SRD, as well as the OGL and d20 STL (you just never know what some folks will try to get away with ).

Still . . . .

Jim Ward, via Ghostwind:
"There is no way in the world that designers and editors can be expected to do their job and keep track of the thousands of legal details the ogl dectates. These were honest mistakes that have caused Fast Forward to pull product off the shelves. Life happens.

Now that we have seen the mistake we can easily tell our people to design their own gods. The monsters that we used from MMII was a bonehead mistake I made and I'm still kicking myself. I looked for the OGL statement in the back of the book and didn't read any further in my enthusiasm for the ability to use new monsters [...]."

I do not know Mr. Ward personally, but what his words demonstrate to me is that either he cares very little for the details of the industry he works in or he chooses to remain ignorant of those details. Citing the "thousands of legal details" in the OGL is quite simply a very poor excuse: he obviously did not do his homework, and he made the choice to continue not doing his homework. Even if the legal details are legion, it's his responsbility as FFE's owner to ensure that his company meets its legal obligations. There's no playing fast and loose here. Moreover, designers and editors -- in the d20 and OGL climate -- are most certainly expected to "keep track" of legal details: this apparently onerous task is now part and parcel of publishing a d20 product. Period. FFE held the responsibility to know and enforce this requirement upon its developers, designers, and editors. Period.

Finally, I think the real problem is not so much using the names of Greyhawk deities (Jason addressed that issue quite expertly), rather it's the use of MM2 monsters. Honestly, any d20 publisher with even a bare bones understanding of the OGL would know that whatever is not in the SRD is unavailable as OGC. It's that simple and direct. "Bonehead mistake" or not, I can't sympathise with or pity Mr. Ward. On the one hand, he did not play fairly (i.e., he used closed content); on the other hand, he acted blindly when, by now, his eyes should be very wide open to how the d20 STL, SRD, and OGL work. I don't ever look at FFE products in the store (for various reasons), but learning that FFE used MM2 monsters (nearly) directly actually shocks me. I can't believe that a publisher would do this. (Ah, maybe I'm just naive .... )

Morevoer, I can't believe the sort of "life happens," almost flippant attitude that Mr. Ward takes regarding the OGL, the SRD, and OGC. For all the publishers out there who work hard to get the "thousands of legal details" right, seeing this attitude might feel a bit frustrating, if not utterly perplexing.

In any case, at least we know that WotC is vigilant regarding these matters.


Take care,
Mike

 

[Scarogoth]

Well, yes.

I can't put it all on the editors... though there is some fault there.

The editor of a work can't be expected to be thoroughly familiar with every bit of OGC out there

Well, I did say I could 'just' about understand the argument from the point of view of a designer. I, too, would hope that writers would check their sources to make the editor's life easier.

And whilst I accept nor expect that an editor might not know "every bit of OGC" that's out there, I would hope they would have a clearer idea of what is most definitely *not*.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

How about "Only work from stuff that's actually released as OGC, such as the SRD and NOT the PHB, DMG and MM?"

I like to put it this way - if it's in the SRD or designated OGC, it's usable; if it isn't, it isn't. It's actually pretty easy to check.

 

[Leopold]

I like to put it this way - if it's in the SRD or designated OGC, it's usable; if it isn't, it isn't. It's actually pretty easy to check.

or if ya gotta question, don't use it...