D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[prosfilaes]

Show me the tons of evidence that demonstrates it's the OGL that is the source of their success, as opposed to the people running Paizo.

That's an absurd division. Any number of things vitally contributed to their success; their publication in English, their choice to incorporate in a capitalist country instead of a communist country, etc. Nothing is the source of their success as opposed to everything else. A Great Man analysis tells you that everything is done by Great Men, but a real analysis of history tells you that's a very superficial analysis and that things are complicated.

Look at Malhavoc Press for a counter-example (and also for an example of a company that did well without being particularly free with it's own content).

The license on The Book of Experimental Might is pretty much the same as on any Paizo book. Malhavoc Press was primarily a D20 company and had above average freedom on their content for a D20 company (which is not being saying much, in my opinion). As for Arcana Evolved, they simply weren't playing in the same ballpark as Paizo's Pathfinder, and certainly didn't "do well" in the sense that Paizo did well.

 

[Mistwell]

That's an absurd division. Any number of things vitally contributed to their success; their publication in English, their choice to incorporate in a capitalist country instead of a communist country, etc. Nothing is the source of their success as opposed to everything else. A Great Man analysis tells you that everything is done by Great Men, but a real analysis of history tells you that's a very superficial analysis and that things are complicated.

He said there was tons of evidence to support a causal link between being an open game, and their success. I am asking, in different ways, for some of that evidence. I am not getting any responses that provide any evidence. A discussion of sophistry isn't helping. Still waiting for that evidence he claimed to have, which he seemed to think was self-evident.

 

[Morrus]

He said there was tons of evidence to support a causal link between being an open game, and their success. I am asking, in different ways, for some of that evidence. I am not getting any responses that provide any evidence.

OK, Mark, calm it down, eh? You're not in a courtroom. You know he was talking opinion, and there can't possibly be any such public evidence, and this is just a D&D messageboard. You're just trying to force him to back down, which is a long way from chivalrous, let alone courteous. Leave it, eh?

 

[Nellisir]

The license on The Book of Experimental Might is pretty much the same as on any Paizo book.

Then you haven't actually compared the two. There's a serious difference.

Malhavoc Press was primarily a D20 company and had above average freedom on their content for a D20 company

No. Malhavoc was one of the most restrictive. No creature names, magic item names, spell descriptions, class descriptions, class ability names, or any new mechanics, and poor identification of reused OGC.

 

[Morrus]

No. Malhavoc was one of the most restrictive. No creature names, magic item names, spell descriptions, class descriptions, class ability names, or any new mechanics, and poor identification of reused OGC.

Yeah, Malhavoc was responsible for the phrase Open Vague Content back in the day. A lot of that was stuff Mike Mearls worked on, too, which might lend a slight shadow to the "Mearls' career was created by the OGL" optimistic viewpoint. We'll see, I guess! I hope to be able to produce stuff for 5E.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah, Malhavoc was responsible for the phrase Open Vague Content back in the day. A lot of that was stuff Mike Mearls worked on, too, which might lend a slight shadow to the "Mearls' career was created by the OGL" optimistic viewpoint. We'll see, I guess! I hope to be able to produce stuff for 5E.

The first time I became aware of Mike Mearls was through the Mongoose line of Quintessential books (which a friend had bought and was trying to convince me to use), but he'd already worked on a bunch of books for Necromancer Games, Swords & Sorcery and AEG! It was a few years until he started working for Malhavoc.

I just sorted the linked items on Mike's RPG Geek page by published date... and was reminded of how prolific he was.

Cheers!

 

[Nellisir]

Yeah, Malhavoc was responsible for the phrase Open Vague Content back in the day. A lot of that was stuff Mike Mearls worked on, too, which might lend a slight shadow to the "Mearls' career was created by the OGL" optimistic viewpoint. We'll see, I guess! I hope to be able to produce stuff for 5E.

A slight shadow at best. The common thread was Malhavoc, not Mearls. He worked for other companies and the declarations always followed the company line.

Bastion Press was the first company I remember really going full-on 100% OGC with their content. I always appreciated that. No ambiguity in their declarations.

 

[Mistwell]

OK, Mark, calm it down, eh? You're not in a courtroom. You know he was talking opinion, and there can't possibly be any such public evidence, and this is just a D&D messageboard. You're just trying to force him to back down, which is a long way from chivalrous, let alone courteous. Leave it, eh?

OK, fair enough. Sorry for belaboring the point to death.

 

[prosfilaes]

Then you haven't actually compared the two. There's a serious difference.

Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version
1.0a: Any and all Malhavoc Press logos and identifying marks and trade dress, such as all Malhavoc Press product and product line names including but not limited to
The Complete Book of Eldritch Might, The Book of Hallowed Might, and Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved; any specific characters, monsters, creatures, and places; capital-
ized names and names of places, artifacts, characters, countries, creatures, geographic locations, gods, historic events, magic items, organizations, and abilities; any
and all stories, storylines, histories, plots, thematic elements, and dialogue; and all artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, illustrations, maps, and cartography, like-
nesses, poses, logos, or graphic designs, except such elements that already appear in final or draft versions of the System Reference Document or as Open Game
Content below and are already open by virtue of appearing there. The above Product Identity is not Open Game Content.
Designation of Open Game Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, the following portions of The Book of Experimental Might are designated as
Open Game Content: the class tables and “Class Features” sections in Chapter One; the feats in their entirety in Chapter Three; the names, spell parameters (range,
duration, etc.), and game mechanics of the spells in Chapter Five; the magic items in their entirety in Chapter Five; and anything else contained herein which is already
Open Game Content by virtue of appearing in the System Reference Document or some other Open Game Content source.

Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open
Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
(Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content or are in the public domain are not included in this declaration.)
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as
def ined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced
in any form without written permission.

You know, I actually opened up the Experimental Might PDF to look at the OGC declaration before I made that statement. I recall that as a master of clarity and openness among OGC declarations; take, for example, Mongoose's "Abjuration"

All text paragraphs and tables containing game mechanics and statistics derivative of Open Game Content and the System Reference Document are considered to be OGC. All other significant characters, names, places, items, art and text herein are copyrighted by Mongoose Publishing.

I remember Mongoose to be pretty bad, but looking around they varied quite a bit; Chaos Magic actually has footers on pages saying "the text on this page is considered Open Game Content, but Ultimate NPCs

All text is to be considered Open Gaming Content. All other significant characters, names, places, items, art and text herein are copyrighted by Mongoose Publishing.

which leaves me no clues as to what they intended. In a sea of completely unclear declarations, I think that Experimental Might one comes in above average; relatively clear and not seemingly trying to block everything conceivably blockable.

 

[Nellisir]

You know, I actually opened up the Experimental Might PDF to look at the OGC declaration before I made that statement. I recall that as a master of clarity and openness among OGC declarations;

"...and anything else contained herein which is already Open Game Content by virtue of appearing in the System Reference Document or some other Open Game Content source."
This means literally any piece of text, anywhere in the product, could be OGC. Or not. That's not clarity. It was once proposed as a tongue-in-cheek litmus test that OGC could only be considered clearly identified, as required by the license, if an elementary school child with a highlighter could mark all the OGC content.

Quick, pop quiz! Are the spell templates in Arcana Evolved OGC? They use and modify mechanics that are Open Game Content. What about the concept and format of spell templates?*

We've got no common frame of reference. You think "all text" is confusing, and "anything which is, is, and anything which isn't, isn't" a model of clarity. It's certainly a unique perspective.

I don't know what you've got for a library, but Malhavoc was considered vague, and Mongoose was well-meaning but often confused as all heck. They actually withdrew and destroyed one product (printed. hardcover. destroyed. I kinda regret selling my copy now. It was soooooo terrible) because the OGC abuse (and general editing) was so abysmal. You're pulling from the bottom of the bin and comparing two rotted apples. There are a lot of other companies with better and clearer declarations than either of those.

For instance, this is an actual "master of clarity and openness", from 2004 (probably 2002, actually, but it was revised in 2004 so I can't be certain). This was standard for Bastion Press.

The entire contents of Spells & Magic v3.0 is considered Open Game Content, except for the cover, artwork, and other graphics. The cover, artwork, and graphic elements are considered Product Identity of Bastion Press, Inc.

That's how you do it.

*Answer: No, and yes. I actually had to email Mr Cook to clarify this. AE fails the schoolkid test.