The OGC Challenge

[JoeGKushner]

So I'm reading through various things of FFE and notice that many of their products aren't too clear on what exactly is and isn't OGC. Then I'm getting ready to do a review for When the Sky Falls (great book btw) and looking at OGC..."class advancement tables and class features, spell parameters and game mechanics, statistics and Combat text.." Now from my limited understanding of this, that means things like spell names and monster names aren't covered. Bad.

Now here's the challenge. If as a publisher/owner you want the names to be closed content, no problem. Provide an OGC variant.

People, including publishers apparently, scream and moan and cry that WoTC isn't opening up enough material but then we've got several publishers who are vague or very, perhaps over, protective of their material.

My question, would providing an OGC variant be too much trouble? I'm hoping not.

Challenge #2. Make your OGC material as clear to note as possible. If anyone has to contact you for anything, it's not clear.

I think that's a pretty simple statement right?

 

[jaerdaph]

Challenge #2. Make your OGC material as clear to note as possible. If anyone has to contact you for anything, it's not clear.

Amen. I can think of a popular d20 publisher who falls into that category now, and their OGC declarations used to be spelled out clearly and that made it so easy to follow. They do great stuff, but there is absolutely no way to easily tell from the actual product alone what is and isn't OGC anymore without having to contact them directly.

One of the mantras of the d20 movement has been always "send a courtesy notification to the publisher, even though it isn't required when you use their OGC", and I wholeheartedly agree. But I'd like to add another mantra - declare your OGC so someone doesn't have to contact you to ask "is this OGC or not?" before they send the courtesy notification. Having to ask this goes beyond a simple clarification request, IMO. Simply stating that "rules and mechanics derived from the SRD are OGC" just doesn't cut it. And I would think that clearly pointing out what is and isn't OGC in a product would better enable that publisher defend their Product Identity and intellectual property rather than keeping it vague.

Two companies I think get A+ marks on OGC and PI declaration: Fantasy Flight Games and Necromancer Games/Sword and Sorcery.

Ditto to your first challenge as well.

 

[Blacksad]

Re: Re: The OGC Challenge

Two companies I think get A+ marks on OGC and PI declaration: Fantasy Flight Games and Necromancer Games/Sword and Sorcery.

Isn't that E.N. Publishing & P.J.Reed instead (they provide almost all of their text as OGC)

In fact, most publisher clearly label what is and isn't OGC, Malhavoc is more an exception than the rule (compared to AEG, Oriflam, Privateer Press, S&S, Green Ronin, Mongoose , FFG, RPGObjects, etc...). They clearly label what is and what isn't OGC (though sometimes ypdating the section 15 is forgotten).

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, Atlas games (WWW.Atlas-Games.com) seems to have a good, clear, concise way of differentiating between open and closed game content for their upcoming Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary. An example of the page layout is at http://atlas-games.com/bestbook.html I wouldn't mind seeing this layout used more often. Though my favorite is in Mongoose's Seas of Blood and Quintessential fighter, where every page was labeled, seperately, as open content.

The Auld Grump

 

[Grazzt]

Re: Re: The OGC Challenge

...and Necromancer Games/Sword and Sorcery.

Heh. Clark is very clear and concise about declaring OGC in all of Necromancer's stuff. Its easy to find and easy to see what is and what isnt open.

I agree some publishers seem to do it quite well and others seem to be kinda vague about it. And I dont know if jaerdaph and I are thinking of the same popular D20 publisher or not, but he is correct, one of the ones that used to be really clear about labeling their OGC and closed stuff has been getting more and more vague lately.

 

[kingpaul]

Now here's the challenge. If as a publisher/owner you want the names to be closed content, no problem. Provide an OGC variant.

I think that R&R did this very well with the spell names. Spell names were PI'd, but there was a special license right in R&R that allowed people to use the spell names.

Challenge #2. Make your OGC material as clear to note as possible. If anyone has to contact you for anything, it's not clear.

The problem with this is, as I'm sure you've seen, is that people argue over what "clear" means. I think that The Sigil has the most demanding one: give a book and highlighter to a 6-yr-old...if they can highlight *all* the OGC material in the book, you've done your job. The worst, IMO, is the "all things derived from the SRD and other available OGC is OGC"; that is just plain ugly as the onus is on the reader.

 

[jaerdaph]

Yes, there's definitely many other publishers with exemplary declarations of OGC and PI.

Another one - AEG, but I give them an A-, only because they never seem to include the title of the current product in section 15. Drives me nuts Seriously though, they do a good job of it as well.

 

[jaerdaph]

Re: Re: Re: The OGC Challenge

I agree some publishers seem to do it quite well and others seem to be kinda vague about it. And I dont know if jaerdaph and I are thinking of the same popular D20 publisher or not, but he is correct, one of the ones that used to be really clear about labeling their OGC and closed stuff has been getting more and more vague lately.

We probably are, but I don't want to name names. I will add, however, that I have absolutely no doubt in my mind of this publisher's good integrity.

 

[jaerdaph]

Re: Re: The OGC Challenge

The problem with this is, as I'm sure you've seen, is that people argue over what "clear" means. I think that The Sigil has the most demanding one: give a book and highlighter to a 6-yr-old...if they can highlight *all* the OGC material in the book, you've done your job. The worst, IMO, is the "all things derived from the SRD and other available OGC is OGC"; that is just plain ugly as the onus is on the reader.

I agree. Another mantra we hear - "design only using the SRD, not the core books". I'd like to add "designate OGC and PI on the assumption you won't get a courtesy notification."

Again, I believe in the courtesy notification of OGC use. I also believe publishers should maintain an open dialog for OGC *clarification* requests. But IMHO, OGC *identification* requests should never have to be made.

 

[Blacksad]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The OGC Challenge

We probably are, but I don't want to name names. I will add, however, that I have absolutely no doubt in my mind of this publisher's good integrity.

Nobody has doubt on his integrity regarding the d20 movement:

It's Malhavoc! Why don't you want to name it?