Ringing the Cowbell - A D20 Question

[Hussar]

In the recent thread about designing modules, people were asking why WOTC couldn't open up some of its material to the OGL and allow d20 publishers to use that material in modules. Not a bad idea, but, really, I have to ask, what's in it for WOTC? If WOTC allowed, say, the PHB 2 to be used in adventures, D20 publishers could then use the popularity of that book to sell their product. Which, in turn, might spur more sales of the PHB 2.

Maybe.

But, instead of leeching off of WOTC's popularity, why don't the d20 publishers actually take a moment to help eachother. Because the individual d20 publishers are so small, any effect they would have on a WOTC product would be comensurately small. However, consider for a second the enormous library of OGC material there is out there for publishers to draw from.

Looking at my own shelf, I see three Creature Collections, two Tome of Horrors and a Denizens of Avidnu. There are more monsters in those books than anyone could possibly use in twenty modules. Yet, every module that comes out, you almost never see anything from another publisher.

Consider the following adventure for a second. I freely admit that I suck at adventure design, but, just bear with me. A local important figure is last seen at the Dancing Bull (Mystic Eye Games, Urban Blight) and turns up missing the next morning. The party is hired to find this important figure. They enter the Dancing Bull and after whatever find the trail leads to a slaver ship run by Captain Whiskers, a slitheren rat man (Creature Collection Revised). Giving chase, the party embarks on a ship provided by the town to run down the slavers. The chase leads to a remote island where unspeakable rites are being performed on the slaves (AEG's Secrets).

Ok, the adventure maybe sucks, but you get the idea. I've used material from three different publishers, all OGC. Not only do I make a module that people might want to buy, but I tie it into other d20 products in the hopes that those who bought those books will buy my module. And, it's generic enough that those who have never bought those books won't overlook it. In other words, I have made my module that much more attractive. The other d20 publishers win in this situation as well since they get free advertising for their books. As a publisher I win doubly since I don't have to do the grunt work developing new creatures and other crunchy bits. I just use what's available.

I'm obviously missing something here. To me, this seems a very obvious idea. There are thousands of monsters, classes, PrC's, feats, spells, races, whatever that are OGC. Why is this resource being ignored so that everyone can reinvent the wheel? Why does publishing a book, be it sourcebook or module, automatically mean that the material must be 100% unique?

((Steps off his soapbox, still ringing his cowbell ))

 

[Baron Opal]

I have only seen one example of this. There were a couple of Necromancer Games adventures that used the Scarred Lands ratmen, and a couple of other critters from Creature Collection. There was a time when I pitched a couple of ideas to the Necro Games owners, and they mentioned that they had a gentleman's agreement concerning the Creature Collection books. This was a few years ago, however.

 

[trancejeremy]

I guess mainly because publishers don't want to use something that a player/DM won't have, or use the space in the product to reprint it.

With something like the PHB or the Complete books, then a lot of people will have that.

Feats probaly could be reprinted: OTOH, classes, particularly base classes (which I want opened up from the WOTC books) would take up at least 2-3 pages each.

For another, so many d20 publishers simply filled out Section 15 of the OGL improperly, which makes it pretty much impossible to use.


Plus, you can't advertise a book as using open content from another product, unless you get another agreement with the copyright holder of the other product. So it's not really free advertising for any of the companies involved, unless you do some extra work.

 

[Roudi]

why don't the d20 publishers actually take a moment to help each other?

Amen!

The brief answer to your metaphorical question is "ego."

Some publishers do work well together (see some of the bigger PDF publishers, like RPGObjects, Ronin Arts, and Adamant Entertainment), and I do see some OGC changing hands (I was honoured when Ronin Arts used my own OGC in two products).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I guess mainly because publishers don't want to use something that a player/DM won't have, or use the space in the product to reprint it.

This still annoys me about the Necromancer Games products that were praised for doing this. WotC can guess that a customer will have Book X and reference it and have a better chance of being right than a smaller publisher can. (Although it's worth noting that even Paizo reprints all the relevant non-core stuff they use, bless 'em.)

Having said that, if smaller publishers would reprint the required material, that'd be great and serve as an ad for the source they drew the stuff from. (It'd be interesting to see how many people picked up Tome of Horrors III or Denizens of Avidnusafaskjasdf because of how well they were each represented in Year's Best D20 2004, to see if such an inclusion really does work as an ad.)

 

[Hussar]

I was thinking of Paizo as I wrote this. Dragon, and especially Dungeon, either prints full stat blocks or reprints the necessary bits from whatever supplement they are drawing from (usually). Why can't d20 publishers do the same? If you add a new 20 level class to a module, for example, how much cost does it add to add two or three pages? Considering those two or three pages cost the maker zero to design because he's lifting it wholesale from OGC. And, if you are going the pdf route, adding 3 pages costs zero truly. All it takes is the time to cut and paste into your document.

And, three pages for a PrC or core class is only if you follow the current WOTC format. There's nothing saying you have to do that and cannot condense the material. Besides, most d20 material isn't written in that format. To make it three pages long, you'd actually have to add considerable material.

I hate it when publications reference other books without reprinting. I would much rather they either didn't or reprinted the material so I don't have to hunt around for it. All referencing does is annoy me that they want to flog their other product in the one that I bought. When Dragon had a string of Ecologies from non-core products, I voiced a complaint, and judging from a letter printed in the recent magazine, I wasn't the only one.

I think assuming that someone has book X is a thinly disguised method of advertising book X in a book I did buy. Reprinting is much better IMO.

 

[arwink]

I was thinking of Paizo as I wrote this. Dragon, and especially Dungeon, either prints full stat blocks or reprints the necessary bits from whatever supplement they are drawing from (usually). Why can't d20 publishers do the same?

Because Paizo can direct you back to the original source if you want more information on the content of the stat block, d20 Publisher's can't (unless they get permission from the original publisher). The OGL wont do it, because it's viral by nature - I can use one concept from the Complete Book of Eldritch Might, for example, and end up with six entries in the OGL because they all have to be there.

I'm not saying that OGL publishers shouldn't be looking at re-using things, but there are reasonable limitations and problems that stop them from doing so with the same ease that a company like Paizo does.

 

[jmucchiello]

trancejeremy hit every bullet point for why reuse of OGC is hard:

1) you can't help people find it without getting permission. Sure, most publishers say they grant permission easily, but you still need to secure it in writing if you want to be safe legally. It does not take zero time to secure this permission.
2) most OGC is not in compliance with the license because most section 15s are woefully incorrect.
2a) even if someone does it correctly, you can't tell if it is correct just by looking at it.
3) there are an equal number of potential customers who will be turned off by a) reprinting the material from the other book, as will be turned off by b) not reprinting the material.
4) Even when in compliance, copying the text of OGC without editing is not possible. You always need to rewrite it so that your product maintains consistant voicing/phrasing. And there is a bunch of OGC which disallows copying the text verbatim, so you would have to rewrite that anyway. (Rewriting is something of a best practice with OGC since it doesn't seem as "lame" as just copying/pasting laziness.)
5) If you don't reprint, you have to hope that lightning strikes twice and the buyer not only bought your limited run book, but also purchase 1 or more other limited run books. Likely? Not really.

I think assuming that someone has book X is a thinly disguised method of advertising book X in a book I did buy. Reprinting is much better IMO.

Reprinting is much better? Always? Or just to a certain degree? If the stuff I use requires that my reprinted material is 10% of my book is that okay? 20%? 50%? An adventure with all borrowed monsters, a borrowed class central to the theme of the adventure, and a bunch of spells and feats could easily be 50% adventure and 50% reprinted material. So now half the book is material the writer won't get paid for (there goes his incentive to reuse) and if its a PDF, I can't really charge full price based on length since 50% of that length will be viewed as padding to some potential customers.

It's all a big headache. The OGL looks like it has flaws, but I think those flaws are well designed to allow OGC to promote wizards books without allowing too much material to flow outside of wizards material.

And Roudi is also correct. Ego plays a large part as well. Most RPG writers started writing RPG material because the existing RPGs did not meet their needs. Being an RPG writer just assumes thinking you can do it better than all the other RPG writers.

 

[francisca]

If WOTC allowed, say, the PHB 2 to be used in adventures, D20 publishers could then use the popularity of that book to sell their product. Which, in turn, might spur more sales of the PHB 2.

Maybe.

Or maybe not. If I had a look at the back cover of an accessorie, and it told me it *required* me to have the PHB2 or Complete books, I'd probably put it down and not purchase it, as I have no desire to purchase the PHB2 or any of the Complete books, for example.

Even worse, if I bout something, then later found out 20 pages into it that it required the PHB2 or something else along those lines, it's likely that would be the last purchase from that publisher I would ever make.

 

[Hussar]

Reprinting is much better? Always? Or just to a certain degree? If the stuff I use requires that my reprinted material is 10% of my book is that okay? 20%? 50%? An adventure with all borrowed monsters, a borrowed class central to the theme of the adventure, and a bunch of spells and feats could easily be 50% adventure and 50% reprinted material. So now half the book is material the writer won't get paid for (there goes his incentive to reuse) and if its a PDF, I can't really charge full price based on length since 50% of that length will be viewed as padding to some potential customers.

But, this is what happens anyway with most adventures. Many adventures use SRD monsters. Heck, the World's Largest Dungeon is 1500 pages of NOTHING BUT reprinted monsters. There is nothing in there that isn't derived from the SRD. I'm fairly sure that a large chunk of most modules is reprint anyway. Certainly stat-blocks. And, from a monsters point of view, you only need the stat block anyway.

As far as Section 15 goes, then, well, I can't really comment on that. Is it really that difficult to follow? The arguement I'm seeing is that it's hard to do because you need permission in writing. Is this really that difficult? Shouldn't it be two emails?

Besides that, some might see it as padding, others wouldn't. In any case the developer is saving a large chunk of time investment by reusing material. This would greatly mitigate the costs of developing the product.