Use of Existing OGC by Publishers

[Psion]

Meaning, do you think that a book about, say, Dark Elves, would be doing itself a disservice if it were to incorporate OGC from, say, Plot & Poison and The Quintessential Drow?

As long as the author takes care to reconcile differences, I would not only call it a disservice, but I'd call it a boon. It helps create consistency and allows the end user more options with less hassle when you have consistent assumptions instead of a flurry or reinventions.

My happy ideal would be that when a good version of a concept is done, that other authors would recognize that instead of reinventing the wheel. Some authors have done that. Others have not.

An example that comes immediately to mind is the true ritual rules from Relics & Rituals. I have seen them in other books. I have seen other books that have their own ceremony and ritual rules that could have been MUCH improved if they chosen the ritual rules.

That said, I like Spellbound's ritual rules too.

 

[Ghostwind]

One of the challenges in using another company's open content is the determination of exactly what is and what isn't open content. On one end of the spectrum, you have companies like Bastion and Green Ronin, which tend to open up most if not all of the book's text as OGC. On the opposite end are companies that have their declarations so wrapped up in legal jargon that it boils down to only the actual game mechanics as they relate to the SRD are open (Mongoose and Malhavoc come to mind). Most publishers lie somewhere in the middle of this.

One of the things I found when writing Pale Designs was that most publishers are quite helpful when you contact them, explain exactly what you are writing and what OGC of theirs you want to use. If you need a clarification, that is the time to ask. For example, if they declare that all feats in product A are OGC and there is a paragraph of relevant flavor text directly below the feat's description, you can ask if it is OGC and if it is not, would they mind allowing you to use it as such? 99% of time, the answer will be that you can use it.

Now there is a prevalent feeling among publishers regarding supplying electronic files to writers who want to use their OGC. For the most part, they don't like it and here's why.

1. A huge amount of work went into creating the product in question and they don't really want to make it easy for others to reap rewards from that work without some measure of compensation, whether it be monetarily or just the satisfaction of knowing that someone took the time and effort to type the OGC in themselves from that product.

2. They don't have the time to try to physically separate the OGC text into a new file just for the writer.

3. There are concerns about piracy and the use of that file.

4. Some publishers do not fully understand the OGL and would rather not share the files to avoid possible issues down the road in terms of compliance.

5. Some publishers simply do not want anyone using their open content for any reason because they feel it is still representative of their work, period.

Now having said this, I reiterate what I said that most will be quite cordial about assisting if they can when you contact them by email. For Pale Designs, Clark Peterson (Necromancer Games) was kind enough to offer to double check my section 15 and OGC/non-OGC declarations for accuracy. I've since done the same myself for a couple of pdf publishers. It's all in the spirit of cooperation and promoting use of the license that makes it easier for everyone to write and use someone else's open content.

 

[BOZ]

hello, Monster Geographica?

 

[Psion]

Meaning, do you think that a book about, say, Dark Elves, would be doing itself a disservice if it were to incorporate OGC from, say, Plot & Poison and The Quintessential Drow?

As long as the author takes care to reconcile differences, I would not only call it a disservice, but I'd call it a boon. It helps create consistency and allows the end user more options with less hassle when you have consistent assumptions instead of a flurry or reinventions.

My happy ideal would be that when a good version of a concept is done, that other authors would recognize that instead of reinventing the wheel. Some authors have done that. Others have not.

An example that comes immediately to mind is the true ritual rules from Relics & Rituals. I have seen them in other books. I have seen other books that have their own ceremony and ritual rules that could have been MUCH improved if they chosen the ritual rules.

That said, I like Spellbound's ritual rules too.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Many good products make excellent use of OGC. Arms & Armor 3.5 for example, draws from a wide vareity.

Another example would be some Ennies products that were on the list or almost like Bastion's book of criticals or the Dweomercraft Familiars book.

What I don't like, are books that almost force you to own the other book. Haven't seen that too often, but some of those Green Ronin racial books certainly feel that way, especiall the Drow Fortress where it has ties to like three other books.

 

[jmucchiello]

An example that comes immediately to mind is the true ritual rules from Relics & Rituals. I have seen them in other books. I have seen other books that have their own ceremony and ritual rules that could have been MUCH improved if they chosen the ritual rules.

That said, I like Spellbound's ritual rules too.

First, not everyone owns relics & riturals (or spellbound). And second, I'm glad you admit the R&R rules are not the only viable rules.

 

[Scribble]

I think part of the reason people use little of another's ideas are that it feels weird. Think of it. Would most people rather be known for a a new cool concept or for using someone else's idea?

This should ultimately make D20 better. As more publishers wake up and start using each other's content, there will be less reinventing of the wheel, more inter-product compatibility and more time spent creating the new.

The wheel is reinvented all the time. Look at the difference between a wagon wheel and a modern perrelli tire.

I don't mind there being several different companies doing the same idea. It gives me options, and theoreticaly creates a better product as each company attempts to do it a little better then the next. It's like capitalism in a way.

If you look at other game systems, and previous editions to this game, when a rule for something comes out, that's it. If you don't like how it's handled your only option really is/was to do it yourself or live with what was put out.

With the new system, if people say they don't like a rule for something found in one place, you can be pretty sure another company will try to fill the gap.

I think eventually we'll get to the point, and we already are where we as the consumer will dictate the way we want things done. We'll simply find a set of rules we like, and won't bother with the others. They won't sell any, and will therefore stop making them. But people should always try, because it prevents stagnation.

I agree with the best use of the OGL is when you're designing a large project. Like the aforementioned Grim Tales.

Maybe we can look at the OGL as a way for DMs to find a "list" almost of a certain collection of rules that seem to fit a style?

 

[Psion]

First, not everyone owns relics & riturals (or spellbound). And second, I'm glad you admit the R&R rules are not the only viable rules.

Ah, but I have not see a third party product that didn't repeat the relevant rule or merely assumed you had it. What I speak of is the fact that if you do have, for example, the Witch's Handbook and Relics & Rituals and use them both, you don't have to worry about them not being consistent or redundant, nor do you have to rework one or the other to a system you feel is better.

 

[Garnfellow]

I imagine the use of OGL in published products as an evolving process, moving through several different stages:

Stage 1, Exploration. Woo Hoo! Here nothing is written, everything is new, everyone is trying out this crazy new d20 license. I think this stage encompassed the wild rush into virgin territories that happened after Wizards opened up its rules. You saw a ton of new and established companies jumping in with new products. Most independent designers at this stage were just starting to get a handle on the d20 system, so these products varied pretty widely in the quality of the game mechanics. However, at this stage, just about anything and everything for the brand new system sells.

Stage 2, Settlement. At this stage the market starts to settle down. Independent designers start to master the d20 system and companies start to establish their own territories within the market. Consumers become more discerning and start to identify the leading producers. Review websites start popping up. Very little OGL use at this stage, mostly limited to simplistic recycling of feats, spells, etc. into compendiums, with very little editing.

Stage 3, Conflict. As the market starts to get more and more crowded with product, growth slows and companies start butting up against one another. Lousy products, and often even some good products, don’t necessarily sell anymore. Here some companies begin to drop out of the market. You start seeing competing books from different companies that cover similar subjects. Most OGL uses are limited to companies referencing their own material, or by very small publishers trying to get some leverage into the market by using established OGL material.

I think at this point we are probably somewhere far along in Stage 3. I suspect the release of 3.5 really arrested this evolutional process for a time, as companies waited to see the effects the revision would have on the marketplace, and as some companies some went back and revised their backstock.

My guess is that the next stage will be something like Stage 4 – Consolidation. Here companies start looking backward at the existing library of OGL material. Designers begin to identify and reuse the best existing OGL material, regardless of source. During this stage I could also see companies start to merge together or form more alliances like the Interlink program, and begin actively reusing and sharing best-of-breed OGL material. You also start to see new and exciting combinations of mix-and-match OGL material from different sources.

I think at this point you will start to see compendiums of quality OGL material that not only collect the material, but also update and improve the original material. I think we may be starting to see some signs of Stage 4 with works like the Monster Geographia series, which culls all those freaking monster books for the best candidates and then fixes or updates the stat books.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Speaking as an author, I *looooove* using OGC, when just writing new stuff would be redundant. But this isn't a matter of re-publishing OGC, it's a matter of bringing into the fold things that add to my own product.

For instance: Tome of Horrors. I was writing something about the Chuul, and wanted to include some potentially associated monsters, and used the ToH's Monstrous Crayfish as something that could be associated with them. But more than that, I built on it...I added templates, gave ways for creatures to summon them, change into them, or treat them as animal companions. I made it particular to the Chuul focus of the product, but I used something from an outside source.

Without the Monstrous Crayfish, there is no doubt my product wouldn't have been as cool. I could've statted up my own monster, but why bother giving a person who owns both the ToH and my product (two fantastic purchases by an obviously discerning buyer. ) the same thing over again, in slightly different form? Why not encourage people to buy things that inspired me, much like a bibliography would?

It's the same way that a product can use Goblins, for instance, as a shared source material. I can use the ToH's monstrous crayfish the same way that anyone has used the MM's goblin. And that adds to the community as a whole, rather than coming up with 30 different kinds of goblin ever could.

It's for the betterment of everyone to use OGC, and to use it abundantly. It betters the game as a whole. It helps foster independance from WotC (which is only going to help the 3rd party). It means that rather than reinterpreting something ad nauseum, you're building on a shared base something greater than there was before. For instance, in the Chuul product, I included an NPC; if some author had my product and was writing a swampy adventure, maybe he'd be inclined to use my Chuul NPC as an emblematic aspect of the world, and maybe the Monstrous Crayfish would appear as an enemy encounter. So then, in everyone who plays that adventure, a shared experience results that is a synthesis of good ideas, and a shared theme, and people in the community begin talking about watching out for wizard-chuul in the same way they now talk about 1e Assassins or something. It adds to the world, to the community, to the game, and that's something that divided, we won't do, but united, we can (to get a little cliche about it!).