Use of Existing OGC by Publishers

[Arcane Runes Press]

That's interesting... I hadn't thought of that. However, I agree with Crothian that the average gamer who is not interested in publishing probably doesn't read the Section 15 anyway. I often turn to it pretty quickly because I'm always interested to see how much, if any, OGC people are using from other sources. I suspect that's the exception to the rule, though.

Agreed. But I think publishers sometimes get so caught up in the business side of things that they don't consider how little the average gamer cares about such matters. It's a bit of blindness which isn't really that different from the competitive games in other industries - human nature, I suppose.

 

[Conaill]

You know, I brought up this very topic a couple of months back, and got blasted by a number of authors and publishers for daring to suggest that someone writing a book on a specific topic should check what has already been published on the topic...

I had really hoped that the d20 movement would lead to increasing quality and standardization towards a set of "best" rules. Instead, the default trend seems to be towards a fractioning into a myriad incompatible rule sets.

Let me see if I can dig up that discussion...

Ah! Here you go:

Deconstructing class abilities for purchase with XP

In a nutshell, the thread dealt with The Sigil's "Buy the Numbers" PDF product, a system to deconstruct class abilities into a point-buy like character design. I pointed out that BESM has had a similar system out for quite a while. Sigil replied he wasn't aware of BESM and that as a designer, he felt he had to "exercise a bit of willful ignorance". I expressed my strong dislike of designers excercising "willful ignorance" because it goes against the principle of the OGL. And from there the you-know-what hit the fan...

Anyway, interesting discussion, and it touched upon a lot of the questions raised here. It very clearly pointed out to me the differences in attitude between game designers and their customers regarding the OGL, and that the OGL/d20 in many aspects is failing to encourage what many of us had hoped it would...

 

[Bloodstone Press]

I agree that more and more publishers are doing it, and it is a good thing.

Remember, just a couple of years ago, there were NO d20 rules for Mass Combat, or Ships, or dog fights, or stone age adventures, or horror or a lot of other stuff. Then we went through a period where several different companies tried to address these needs, and did so with varying degrees of success. Now we are in a stage where the cream is rising to the top.

Those rule sub-sets, feats, and spells that are good are being reprinted and built upon, some even endorsed by WotC. Those rules and ideas that are not so good tend to be left behind.

I anticipated this a long time ago, which is why when I started out, I wrote books full of crunchy rules that could be easily exported to any other game or to any other published work. Today, however, my product lines are moving more towards intellectual properties, campaign settings and other cool things that you can build with all the cool d20 rules we have all made in the past few years.

In fact, I have been looking forward to this time since 2001. I knew the first few years would be a tough slog through a lot of aimless spells, feats, prestige classes, etc. But, I used to say, once there is a bunch of that stuff out there, we will be able to sift through all the best d20 rules, pick what we like, and build totally cool new stuff with it.

That is exactly what 1948 is. It incorporates several rules from other publishers. Why should I waste my time coming up with rules for Dog Fighting when the guys at RPG Objects already did it? Why should I bend my mind trying to come up with some sort of "leader" PrC when the Game Mechanics' "Commander" is just what I'm looking for (with a few tweeks, of course)? I'd rather use the pieces that are already invented to build something new. Why re-invent the wheel when I can use a pre-existing one to invent a car?

It's the best thing about d20, if you ask me. It helps the game in *so* many ways. It saves the game designers a lot of time, and it makes the best ideas available in every book.

On the other side of the coin, there are some publishers, especially new ones, who still want to re-invent the wheel. I’m not going to speculate on their motives.

Consider what things will be like in a few more years....

 

[jmucchiello]

I look at it from the potential buyer's point of view. As a buyer, I want as close to 100% of the book I am buying to be new material. Unless the book is a collection of OGC, I don't want to be buying the same OGC twice. Odds are if a topic grabs me, I'm going to buy more than one book about it.

On the flip side, I'm a small time producer. Nobody wants to buy my stuff because I'm good at compilation. They want to read something new. Hopefully I am providing that.

Larger books, with an eye toward being complete (like the above mentioned Grim Tales) are the place for reuse, or pulling together of best practices.

And to address Conaill's point, I don't think d20 has matured sufficiently for all the best practices to come out. M&M is a great example of d20 supers. But I don't think we should throw our hands and say "That's it! That is the only d20 supers game we need." Who knows what home brew supers game is lurking that does things differently. Spell ritual rules were included in one of the first 3rd party books (the aptly named Relics and Rituals). Does that mean WotC was wasting space in UA with the Incantation rules? No. Neither is perfect. If anything we need more ritual rules systems so we can munge them all together into a "best" set of ritual rules.

So, please don't complain about the lack of reuse and celebrate what is new and different.

 

[jmucchiello]

Why should I waste my time coming up with rules for Dog Fighting when the guys at RPG Objects already did it?

Well, if you don't think you can do it better, obviously you shouldn't. But if you were a dog fighting expert, you might bring something new to those rules. You might even create a set of rules so much bettern that RPG Objects ditches their rules and uses yours in their next revision.

In Open Software, they talk about "scratching an itch". People start open source projects because there is something they want and the existing software doesn't do it the way they want it. Creating d20 Dog Fighting rules might be an itch that someone wants to scratch. We should not tell that person. No, you must reuse the ones from RPG Objects, they are good enough. We should actually encourage him to scratch that itch.

Maybe we end up with overly complicated crap. Maybe we end up with two incompatible systems that simulate different parts of a dog fight better than the other. And that result is just as good as the result of a better dog fighting mechanic. Because a just as good mechanic with a different feel may be perfect for my game, but detrimental to your game. Now that we've encouraged the new rules to exist, we have both and both needs are served.

The world has not ended just because we have 4-5 different incompatible mass combat rules. And I doubt we will ever cull them down to one "best" set of rules. Each has their strengths and weaknesses and it is the individual DM who must decide which is best for his game. I consider choice a good thing.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

Creating d20 Dog Fighting rules might be an itch that someone wants to scratch. We should not tell that person. No, you must reuse the ones from RPG Objects, they are good enough. We should actually encourage him to scratch that itch.

sure. I agree completely. People will always be trying their hand at re-making a pre-existing rule. And they should be welcome to do that.

If I ever decide to do a book on steam tech (which I've been planning for a couple of years now) I'll buy all the steam tech books I can find and cherry pick what I like. In the end, I'm sure I'll end up creating a bunch new stuff that helps all the various parts fit together well. However, the important point (for me, anyway) is that I'll be able to spend a lot more time developing the setting, adventures, plots, and characters and creating something more than just a book full of steam tech themed feats, spells, equipment and PrC, which is what I would have done if I had put steam tech at the top of my list of priorities 3 years ago.

Of course, after reading all the steam tech rules that are out there, I may decide that I don't like any of them and still create my own.

I'm just saying that I really like how the OGL lets us build the best works possible. We can use the "best" navel combat rules, the "best" dog fighting rules, the "best" steam tech rules and the "best" alternate spell system to build crazy new worlds of funked-out adventure. (like a water world/steam tech/WWII/Ice Pirates-type world) without wasting our time recreating basic rule-sets.

And I doubt we will ever cull them down to one "best" set of rules. Each has their strengths and weaknesses and it is the individual DM who must decide which is best for his game. I consider choice a good thing.

Sure, I say "best" but perhaps I should say "favorite." Everyone has an opinion on what is "best."

Just ask your friends, which is the Best alt. ranger?

Certainly, the "best" depends on the campaign setting, the DM, the players, etc. That's why its in quotes..... its the "best."

 

[Samothdm]

I look at it from the potential buyer's point of view. As a buyer, I want as close to 100% of the book I am buying to be new material. Unless the book is a collection of OGC, I don't want to be buying the same OGC twice. Odds are if a topic grabs me, I'm going to buy more than one book about it.

Here's my question, and it might be more appropriate in the publisher forum, but I'll go for it here anyway:

I've been working on a book that I plan to self-publish for the past year or so. It's about a very particular topic, but one that hasn't been covered extensively in the d20 system. I've done research and have ideas for the setting and that kind of thing. But, for the specific topic that I'm covering, there are some PrCs, feats, and skills that have been written in other d20 books that would be very appropriate for the mechanics of my book.

So, it's not really like a "compilation" book (not like Ultimate Feats or anything like that). It's hard to explain without giving the topic away. As an example, let's say that I wanted to do a book about Knights (I know that there's already been a few, but let's just pretend that there weren't any). I've done research on historical knightly orders, weapons, heraldry, that kind of thing. But, I might want to include PrCs and feats from Quintessential Paladin and Forgotten Heroes: Paladin.

If I did so, do you think that the average consumer would say, "I'm not going to buy that. It has stuff from books that I already own or that I don't like"?

 

[glass]

If I did so, do you think that the average consumer would say, "I'm not going to buy that. It has stuff from books that I already own or that I don't like"?

I'm no industry expert or anything, so take what I say with a pinch of salt, but I seriously doubt the average consumer would even notice.


James.

 

[eyebeams]

Me, I'd use more stuff in my upcoming work if it was easier to get textfiles. As it stands the task of rewriting a bunch of rules becomes nearly as time consuming as just creating rules using the basic system. This sounds counterintuitive, but when you're writing something that's already heavily outlined and are used to volume (my average project length is around 50,000 words, though sometimes I think my CV'd look more impressive if it was spread out amoung shorter works things just kind of fall into place. The only drawback is an occasional added playtesting burden, but even then, that depends on the material (Mearls' stuff I'd incorporate sight unseen, but a few others . . .). Plus of course, you have stylistic matters to consider; the Modern SRD, for instance, uses "he or she," et al, but Dominion: Modern Feudal Roleplaying uses alternate exemplary pronouns.

Funny thing is, you have a few people who use and produce Open Content, but aren't the most enthusiastic when it comes to sharing it in a convenient format. Even WotC material has some stylistic elements that make it unnecessarily annoying, though don't get me wrong: Their constant expansion of SRD stuff is laudable. GoO's also a great company for following through with convenient Open Content.

 

[jmucchiello]

Plus of course, you have stylistic matters to consider; the Modern SRD, for instance, uses "he or she," et al, but Dominion: Modern Feudal Roleplaying uses alternate exemplary pronouns.

This is why you should rewrite OGC from scratch. You are guarenteed not to make stylistic mistakes if you are rewriting. Nobody wants to be reading your book and running into different styles/usages. There is nothing in the OGL that says reuse has to be easy. I don't see why people expect such.