Using, misusing, and releasing OGC

[NemesisPress]

Since this came up in the thread about an OGC exchange: How should a publisher best (and ethically) make use of OGC? How much extant OGC is appropriate/necessary to use in your works. How much of your work is necessary to mark as OGC in order for it to be marketable? When is OGC fair game for unrestricted use? And what factors do you take into consideration when making this decision? (Genre, competing products, quality, quantity, etc.)

 

[Morrus]

I think that many of the above questions can be easily answered by dropping the publisher of the OGC in question a quick email. You should do that out of courtesy anyway.

How much of your work is necessary to mark as OGC in order for it to be marketable?

Well, the minimum allowed is 5%. For mere marketing reasons, I don't see a necessity for any OGC at all.

 

[NemesisPress]

Originally posted by Morrus
Well, the minimum allowed is 5%. For mere marketing reasons, I don't see a necessity for any OGC at all.

If there is no marketing reason (no demand) for any OGC in a product, then why would anyone ever make any of their work OGC? (The 5% is only a requirement if you are also following the d20 license, and is so minimal as to be essentially irrelevent. And it could apparently be someone else's recycled OGC rather than your own orginal contribution anyway.)

I think that many of the above questions can be easily answered by dropping the publisher of the OGC in question a quick email. You should do that out of courtesy anyway.

So you are suggesting that every user of OGC contact the original creator before reusing it? Or the original creator and every subsequent user? (Who obviously also have a vested interest in how it might be used in possibly competing products.) No matter the product or timeframe? Along the same lines would you suggest that publishers of OGC list on their websites which OGC they are willing to allow others to use and under what conditions?

Are publishers allowed to specify other restrictions on the use of their OGC? (Not in a printed product, not in a product that retails for over $X, not in a similar product to the one in which it appeared in, not in a product distributed in a certain area, not in a product which doesn't meet certain standards for decency/appropriateness for young readers, etc.?)

Can publishers reserve additional rights concerning OGC? (Royalties or subsequent marketing rights for movies books, figures, etc.?)

And are publishers allowed to change their minds and recall their OGC?

 

[Morrus]

As I imagine you well know, there's no requirement to contact publishers, and publishers can't restrict use of their OGC. What I was referring to is what I would consider the minimum of basic good manners.

So you are suggesting that every user of OGC contact the original creator before reusing it? Or the original creator and every subsequent user? (Who obviously also have a vested interest in how it might be used in possibly competing products.) No matter the product or timeframe? Along the same lines would you suggest that publishers of OGC list on their websites which OGC they are willing to allow others to use and under what conditions?

Yes (and 99% of them do). No. Yes. Not applicable. In that order.

If there is no marketing reason (no demand) for any OGC in a product, then why would anyone ever make any of their work OGC?

There are plenty of RPG products on the market with no OGC. they all manage just fine. I don't think that your average gamer is even aware of the concept of OGC and certainly isn't likely to research and base a purchasing decision on it. So, no, from a purely marketing point of view, I'd say it's fairly irrelevant.

Why do they make their work OGC? I can't answer for anyone but myself. I do it because I want to, pure and simple. There's no marketing plan behind it. If I were to hazard a guess at the motivations of various publishers, I'd guess that they hope that reference to their OGC in another product will prompt the reader to buy the original.

Are publishers allowed to specify other restrictions on the use of their OGC? (Not in a printed product, not in a product that retails for over $X, not in a similar product to the one in which it appeared in, not in a product distributed in a certain area, not in a product which doesn't meet certain standards for decency/appropriateness for young readers, etc.?)

Can publishers reserve additional rights concerning OGC? (Royalties or subsequent marketing rights for movies books, figures, etc.?)

And are publishers allowed to change their minds and recall their OGC?

No, to all three questions. OGC is OGC. Anyone can use it legally. Once designated, it is forever OGC.

Most of these questions are answered in the license itself, or by looking at WotC FAQ.

 

[NemesisPress]

Unfortunately, your answer to the very first question (yes, you should contact the original creator for permission) necessarily opens up all the other possibilities (even if only as part of a "gentlemans" agreement).

And I do think there are several important marketing reasons for making significant portions of a work OGC. I'll try to post my thoughts on that later.

 

[Morrus]

Unfortunately, your answer to the very first question (yes, you should contact the original creator for permission) necessarily opens up all the other possibilities (even if only as part of a "gentlemans" agreement).

Thus my original statement. Dropping them an email will answer all your queries. You'll often find they'll even let you use some of their non-open material (I've received such permission a couple of times).

"Permission" is a misleading term, though. A publisher can't give you permission because he doesn't have the power to withhold that permission when it comes to OGC. It's just about... y'know... being friendly.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If there is no marketing reason (no demand) for any OGC in a product, then why would anyone ever make any of their work OGC? (The 5% is only a requirement if you are also following the d20 license, and is so minimal as to be essentially irrelevent. And it could apparently be someone else's recycled OGC rather than your own orginal contribution anyway.)

-- IANAL --

The more practical reason is that anything derived from the SRD is by definition Open Content.

That essentially means any kind of ruleset that "works with d20" is going to be OGC. Unless you write a book that is 100% fluff and no crunchy bits, you WILL have open content.

It is extremely hard to envision a ruleset that is in any way practical to use with the d20 system that could be developed independent of the SRD. You'd have a real hard time proving that in court.

So it's not really a choice the publisher is in a position to make. If it's rules related and thus derived from the SRD, it's open whether you want it to be or not and whether you specify that it is open or not. Lots of publishers seem to want to play games with this, lots of smoke and mirrors about what's open and what's not, lots of leaving it up to the untrained end user to figure out. In my opinion this is not just annoying, it's unethical, and as far as my untrained eye can tell, it's also a breach of the license.

Wulf

 

[NemesisPress]

You seem to be saying that using the SRD in any way shape or form somehow contaminates your work - automatically making it allOGC. I think if you'll look at something like The Book of Eldritch Might II and the OGC notice at the beginning you'll see a much more limited interpretation:

"any specific characters, monsters, creatures, and places; capitalized names and names of places, artifacts, characters, countries, creatures, geographic locations, gods, historic events, magic items, organizations, spells, and abilities; and any and all stories, storylines, histories, plots, thematic elements, and dialogue; all spells originating in The Book of Eldritch Might;...except such elements that already appear in final or draft versions of the d20 System Reference Document (e.g. Melf, Bigby, Tenser, Mordenkainen, Tasha, Evard, Otiluke, Rary, Drawmij, and Otto) or as Open Game Content below and are already OGC by virtue of appearing there."

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You seem to be saying that using the SRD in any way shape or form somehow contaminates your work - automatically making it allOGC.

No, not at all. I am saying that using the SRD automatically makes all RULES RELATED stuff OGC.

Note that in the example you show, he's basically excluded all the fluff: stories, names, places, etc. These things are fictitious, original, not rules related, and not derivative of the SRD.

The mechanics of the spells (things like level, range, target, and for the most part, the description of the effect) will be open, because they are derivative of the SRD.

EDIT: By all means, correct me if I'm wrong. I generally look to Clark Peterson (Orcus) for stuff like this...

 

[NemesisPress]

First, I don't think I'd dismiss that as "fluff." There is already so much OGC out there that the actual mechanics of most spells and feats are not particularly meaningful anymore.

As the market continues to grow you will see more and more people wanting cohesive combinations of "crunchy" bits - not necessarily complete adventures and fully fleshed out world settings, but feats, spells, classes, etc. that work well together to model a specific setting, era, etc. (Like Avalanche Press’s Black Flag, Judge Dredd, Forbidden Kingdoms, etc.)

Additionally, the OGL and the d20 licenses are pretty clear and very specific. The OGL defines the following as product identity:

"...artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs..."

That's certainly not all "fluff" no matter how you look at it. If you choose to also follow the d20 license, you must adhere to additional restrictions. However, they are also quite well spelled out in the SRD Guide and deal only with the actual core mechanisms of the d20 system - creating and advancing characters - and defined terms that you can use but not modify or extend.

Finally, if you choose to also make use of or modify portions of the SRD, then that by definition is already open. However I don’t think that from the above documents you can make the case that any spell, for example, is then necessarily derivative and so open content. Even for the Skills section, which has already been released, what is OGC is the format and the mechanics – not the actual characteristics and description of the skill itself (except for the specific ones they have also decided to make OGC).

The purpose of these licenses taken together is very simple – to allow widespread use of the d20 system, but to also keep the core free from adulteration. The SRD is an addition to that to make it particularly easy for people to create works that expand upon the D&D genre, but without infringing on what WoTC considers their most valuable content – or restricting the ability of others to develop their own.