Purchasing and OGL/OGC Awareness

[Dragongirl]

All I can say, is the Tome of Horrors will be 100% OGC (next month). The only closed part is the Credits section where Clark and I cite the first appearance of the converted monsters (it contains a lot of WotC IP stuff).

Not that he is tooting his own horn, or suggesting you go buy it or anyting like that.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Which even with R&R2, you still get a good 50/60 percent.

True, but I've started to make it habit to wait 6 months after something's been released before even asking, and it's usually 3-6 months before it even appears on my boards. As my stuff is posted for free, I've found myself leaning this way over asking immediately. Of course, there's a lot more material to work with now than before, but I figure it's probably a good idea to give a product time to sell. As Aedon's foundations are now more "solid" than they were previously, grabbing material isn't so much of a priority.

Don't worry, though... I'll be asking about R&R2 when the time comes.

I would agree that there has been considerable progress to this point, but (and this is a sore spot for me) I am still a bit frustrated at SSS's recent work on this regard... I thought they took a huge step forward with the "goodie license" for spell names in R&R I, but was grossly disappointed when that license was not present in CCII and R&RII (I thought not including it in their later works was a step backwards).

True; But I found myself changing names even with the goodie license, mostly so I could write up some history on the individual named.

Yes, a book of spells may be 50% OGC but if that 50% is the spells and there is no provision for use of the spell names (either by declaring them OGC or including a "goodie license") that is equivalent to 0% OGC for me.

Uh... Why?

 

[EricNoah]

I don't look at OGC when determining a potential purchase.

 

[The Sigil]

Yes, a book of spells may be 50% OGC but if that 50% is the spells and there is no provision for use of the spell names (either by declaring them OGC or including a "goodie license") that is equivalent to 0% OGC for me.



Uh... Why? [/B]

Because if I have to change the name, what good does it do? IMO, reusing OGC serves two purposes: (1) it lets me use stuff I like and (2) it's a "free plug" for the product I pulled it from.

Of course I can use the stuff, but I can't give the original product a "free plug." Maybe it's me, but if I find something useful, I want to refer the reader of my stuff back to the original.

Perhaps a concrete example will help:

In the orignial "Bob's Spells and Stuff by ABC Publishers" we find:
Bob's Spell of Magnificent Twinkness (PI)
Description: blah blah blah (OGC)

Now, if I want to use this, what do I do? I have to do:

Some other Name of Spell
Description: Blah Blah Blah
and in my section 15 I have a reference to
Bob's Spells and Stuff by ABC Publishers.

Somebody reads my book, likes it, and wonders what I used from Bob's Spells and Stuff... he figures it must be a spell, but when he looks in the index of BS&S, he doesn't see "Some other Name of Spell" and thus can't reference the original.

It simply makes the reference largely useless.

Or more poignantly, what happens when people try to look up "Sword" in the PHB and can't find it (because it's "Mordenkainen's Sword" there). Without the ability to cross-reference and easily trace the "line of derivation", the Section 15 becomes mostly for show and has little practical use.

It boils down to, "why don't you want me to refer other people to your product? It's free advertising!!!" I guess I just don't understand that one.

--The Sigil

 

[Grazzt]

Not that he is tooting his own horn, or suggesting you go buy it or anyting like that.

Just my shameless plug. Sorry.

 

[Buttercup]

The extent of my concern about OGL/OGC is that I think good thoughts in Ryan Dancey's general direction every time I shop for D20 stuff.

The amount of OGC in a product isn't a factor in my purchasing decisions though. I suppose, should I ever post campaign notes on the web, I would have start thinking about it.

 

[Monte At Home]

As a professional, I look at that material, but mostly just out of idle curiosity. If I'm looking for material for my own game, it never enters into it.

If I didn't work on game products at all, I'd never pay the slightest bit of attention to it. If it works in my game, who cares?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Sigil: Okay, that makes sense now... Although, I must admit, I've generally cranked out a full list of what was used from which source. For instance, Aedon has its own Martial Artist Class, but we've aquired a few items compliments of CBG from Beyond Monks. Thus, we are able to indicate exactly which part of the class was taken from or based on their material. But in a downloadable pdf, it's kinda sensible; Expense and the perception of "wasted space" would be an obvious factor in not doing so in a printed work.

Still, it makes me feel good that I can plug other products; In fact, I recommend buying the products rather than use the version I put into my documents since 90% gets run through the Aedon Balance Filter. Not saying the material wasn't balanced, just that Aedon balance isn't in-line with Core balance, and most of the material has received some measure of tweaking (prereqs added, abilities re-ordered, minor adjustments for flavor, so on and so forth). I also do it to indicate what I've gotten from other posters and what's converted from previous editions (again, though, indicating that the ABF was active).