The OGC Challenge

[jaerdaph]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The OGC Challenge

Nobody has doubt on his integrity regarding the d20 movement:

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

Because that wasn't who I was thinking of Seriously, it is somebody else I am thinking of.

But I don't want to get into a "process of elimination" thing, so I'll just shut up on the issue now.

 

[Blacksad]

From the latest Malhavoc book designation of open game content: "Subject to the Product Identity designation above" 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."

It's getting better and better, the book of eldricht "magic" as it was released before getting it's first update, had the worst OGC designation from malhavoc, with the "all derivative game content from the SRD is open"

Who is the other publisher who do this? I'm curious

PS: by the way "when the sky fall" is a great theme book on meteor strike (kind of like the theme book on traps or evil, where you can find prestige class, new spell, feat, and last but not least discussion on how to use this in your campaign).

 

[The Sigil]

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.

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. They are not. I long ago coined the term "Crippled OGC" for such things - because if you have to rename it when you re-use it, it doesn't really allow someone to find the original in the original source.

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

Agree. If you don't want your major NPC "Bob" to have his name become Open Game Content, then don't call your spell, "Bob's Nifty Spell" just call it "Nifty Spell" and leave the names open.

That's why I try VERY hard not to designate any text as closed except for company names, names of real human beings, product names, and e-mail addresses in my works. (I do close company names, names of real human beings, product names, and e-mail addresses since I don't want them bandied carelessly - ESPECIALLY e-mail addresses ).

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.

I think the best quote I've heard on this came when I met Jim Butler (of Bastion Press) at GAMA. He said something to the effect of, "let's be realistic. Hollywood is never going to glom onto our stuff an pay us millions of dollars, so why bother protecting it? Let's just let everyone use it." {It doesn't really cost us anything.}

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

No. I am currentlly putting together a database of spells from every OGC source I have and am renaming them as needed - I hope to soon have them available/searchable from a webpage. Renaming the spell takes an extra 20 seconds, tops.

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

As has been mentioned, I like my "6-year-old with a highlighter" rule... on the quote attributed to Einstein, "if you can't explain something to a reasonably intelligent six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." So I postulate, if you can't make your OGC declaration clear enough for a reasonably intelligent six-year-old, you don't understand the declaration yourself. And if you, who are making the declaration, don't understand it, how can you expect anyone else to, much less for it to be "clear?"

I think that's a pretty simple statement right?

Yup.

--The Sigil

 

[Darrin Drader]

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.

I completely agree with those two. I also think Bastion Press is pretty good about both designating OGC and opening up as much material as possible as OGC. Green Ronin also does a good job of designating OGC.

I'm of the opinion that opening up as much material as possible as OGC is a good thing, especially when it comes to rules expansions. For example, there will soon be 3 D20 mass combat systems on the market. All will be different. Had this been tackled by a company at an earlier time and the system opened up as OGC, assuming it is good, the smart companies would use that material and then all players would be using the same rules standard system for this purpose.

Of course that may be just a pipe dream of mine. I know that some players will actually buy more than 1 version of the rules covering a particular topic just to be able to say which one is better.

 

[jmucchiello]

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

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?

Joe, you are a reviewer. You have the power to make companies think about this by making a point about it in your reviews. I'm not saying you should dock points for bad OGC declarations but in the opening paragraph or closing paragraph a note to those who care about OGC would go a long way toward raising the awareness level among review readers. Maybe some of them will start to use that information before they buy. Until a significant portion of the buying population cares about good OGC declarations there is only honor (or misplaced paranoia) standing between doing it right and being lazy about it.

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

Me, too. 100% everytime except company names and product titles.

 

[jaerdaph]

From the Open Game License:

8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.

This leads me to ask could the companies that are using these "vague" declarations of OGC be considered out of compliance? Is this in fact a breach?

And what does "clearly indicate" actually mean? I assume a court would look at this and apply the "reasonable person" standard (sorry, Sigil - I don't think we could get the courts to buy the "six year old with a highlighter" standard ). Can a "reasonable person" tell what the OGC is in the products that use these "vague" declarations?

Or am I just stirring up trouble?

 

[The Sigil]

This leads me to ask could the companies that are using these "vague" declarations of OGC be considered out of compliance? Is this in fact a breach?

IMO, yes. There is some discussion in the publishing community as to whether or not it is in breach but the general leaning appears to be towards "yes."

And what does "clearly indicate" actually mean? I assume a court would look at this and apply the "reasonable person" standard (sorry, Sigil - I don't think we could get the courts to buy the "six year old with a highlighter" standard ). Can a "reasonable person" tell what the OGC is in the products that use these "vague" declarations?

I think it means exactly what it says. If I read your OGC declaration, I should be able to look at any part of your book and tell you, "that is OGC" or "that is not OGC." If we apply the "reasonable person" standard instead of the "six-year-old" standard, we could still use the "highlighter" standard. If I grab Joe off the street, he should be able to look at the OGC declaration, then look at, say, word 5 of sentence 3 of paragraph 2 on page 12 of a work and tell you whether or not he can highlight it a OGC. If he can't do it while referring to the OGC declaration, the declaration is not clear.

IMO, "clear" means that if I have the OGC definition in front of me, I should be able to point to ANY part of the work and tell you, "this is OGC" or "this is not OGC." If I can't tell, it's not clear by default.

And I think the answer is, "no," a reasonable person CANNOT tell what is OGC in the vague definitions cited.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

double post. I blame it on the boards being hiccup-y.

--The Sigil

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: The OGC Challenge

I completely agree with those two. I also think Bastion Press is pretty good about both designating OGC and opening up as much material as possible as OGC.

Since most of their stuff is "100% of text is OGC" - yeah, that's pretty clear. (Don't know about the Oathbound stuff, I'm thinking of the non-world-specific stuff).

J

 

[Samothdm]

OGC and AEG

To further muddy the waters, this is part of AEG's Rokugan Section 15 (I don't have the book with me at work but this is the gist of it) regarding what is OGC from that book:

"Anything derived from Oriental Adventures that is already OGC"

So, I take out my Oriental Adventures book and look for something in there talking about what's OGC (knowing full well that the book is closed content). Nothing. Not even the typical note at the beginning of most WotC books that states "The contents of this book are closed content. Nothing in this book is Open Game Content."

So, I'm left to wonder:
a) Is this a mistake in Rokugan or,
b) Did they write their Section 15 for Rokugan assuming that maybe some day WotC will open up portions of Oriental Adventures and they wanted to be prepared?

I just thought of Option B, above, but maybe I just answered my own question. Or am I missing something, and are parts of OA open, like the Samurai, Shugenja, etc?

And, if those classes aren't open through OA, are they open now since Rokugan includes slight variants of them?

Okay, I'm confused again. How does that work?