Using, misusing, and releasing OGC

[Morrus]

Oh, and when/if you do release your 99% OGC product (it is going to be 99% OGC after everything you've been saying, right?), I'll be sure to republish it myself!

Are you a PDF publisher or a print publisher? Because if the former, I guarantee 100% that I can get people to buy my version of your product, not yours.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. Legally, morally or ethically.

 

[NemesisPress]

All I did was present my view of proper (and ethical) use of the OGL - which is diametrically opposed to Orcus's.

(And a couple of posts back, you agreed that providing clear attribution and a direct thank-you to the originator was sufficient to be considered "polite." What changed?)

I do expect to release some 99% OGL products. And I would encourage people to disseminate them in whatever manner they wish. Any material that I purposely relese as OGC I will do so because it either helps publicize my products or helps the industry in general - preferably both at the same time. (And any OGC that I use, I will use for similar reasons.) If you can make money doing it, that's even better because it helps both you and me and therefore the industry as a whole.

I started this thread because I wanted to get people to discuss the "best" way to use OGC. I had assumed that the requirements of that use (the OGL) were well understood in both specifics and intent. Apparently, that's not the case.

It's good that there is a kind of "guild-brother" mentality at work in this arena, but it's time to look beyond that. Whether you want to see me as a harbinger of change or a snake in the garden is up to you.

(And my tag line keeps seeming more and more apt!)

 

[Morrus]

All I did was present my view of proper (and ethical) use of the OGL - which is diametrically opposed to Orcus's.

(And a couple of posts back, you agreed that providing clear attribution and a direct thank-you to the originator was sufficient to be considered "polite." What changed?)

What do you mean? I've just agreed with you. I support your view wholeheartedly, and will endeavour to follow it to the best of my ability (in relation to you, only, though). I am eagerly awaiting your product!

I do expect to release some 99% OGL products. And I would encourage people to disseminate them in whatever manner they wish.

Cool! Can't wait. I have my layout staff standing by (gonna be a cheap product this one - no need to pay an author!).

I started this thread because I wanted to get people to discuss the "best" way to use OGC. I had assumed that the requirements of that use (the OGL) were well understood in both specifics and intent. Apparently, that's not the case.

No - you asked, people replied and you told them all they were wrong. You apparently know better than everybody else what the intent of the OGL was (despite Clark [Orcus, above] having been around when it was being drafted!).

 

[NemesisPress]

...you asked, people replied and you told them all they were wrong. You apparently know better than everybody else what the intent of the OGL was (despite Clark [Orcus, above] having been around when it was being drafted!).

Actually, I am just as surprised as you. I'm not sure whether it's naivete or (more likely) a desire to hold onto past ways which provide clear and comforting - if not necessarily enforceable - ownership over our most precious offspring: our creative efforts.

But you can't have it both ways (that is, if you choose to use and release OGC). Pandora's box has been opened and a new paradigm is loose! (Now what is the CR of a Paradigm?)

But this is really a tempest in a very small teapot. The much bigger question is what do small publishers do when someone truly steals protected content? Very few could afford legal recourse. Is there currently a trade organization that provides legal succor to people in this industry?

 

[Orcus]

It's good that there is a kind of "guild-brother" mentality at work in this arena, but it's time to look beyond that. Whether you want to see me as a harbinger of change or a snake in the garden is up to you.

Wow! Shades of RJR.

I dont see YOU as anything. I see your stated opinion as one that I have heard one hundred times before on everything from these boards to the d20 lists and the OGC lists to industry chat to face to face conversations with Ryan Dancey. Its the same "I'm an open content crusader" I hear all the time from people who have produced nothing. I dont mean that as a slight as much as to provide perspective.

This is a very small industry. The "guild brother" mentality was here long before d20 and will be here long after it, or so I have come to learn.

I started this thread because I wanted to get people to discuss the "best" way to use OGC. I had assumed that the requirements of that use (the OGL) were well understood in both specifics and intent. Apparently, that's not the case.

I hope you arent saying that neither Morrus nor I understand the specifics and the intent of the OGL and of use of OGC. I will presume I am not understanding your comment there since the plain reading of that comment is a joke, since I have personally opened up more open content than anyone and Morrus is, well, Morrus. I must be misreading that. Either that or someone who has never published anything under the licenses is a savant and knows better than those who have used it.

But back to the position you espouse. I dont disagree with the idea. I love the concept of open gaming. I am just telling you how it works in reality.

I admire Ryan for his willingness to do that - but I doubt it would carry any legal weight if WoTC reneged. But I also think that for WoTC to do so would be a very short-sighted strategy.

Legal opinions too! Well, as a lawyer I can tell you it would hold weight. If WotC decided to grab a SSS or Necro book and publish it we would have an injunction right away and exhibit one would be email from their agent acting in his official capacity binding the company he represents to a particuarl course of action on which I relied to my detriment.

First, the d20 industry is still in its embryonic stages. And I believe that the vocal, OGC-savvy gamers, have a disproportionate effect.

Actually, that isnt the case. In running Necro, I have about 0 concern for the internet opinion on a topic. Want to know what I care about very strongly? Necro fans. I am on our boards every day. I submit stuff to them for feedback and rely on their input. And guess what, we dont discuss whether something is OGC or not (except perhaps in passing). So "OGC Saavy Gamers" have zero impact and will continue to have 0 impact to main stream publishers.

I will say this, I agree with you as your comment relates to PDF only publishers whose sole customer base is here on these boards for the most part. That publisher might be impacted by those vocal but minor contingent of people who value a designation more than a product. But even that might not be true. Look at Monte's first PDF volume (Eldritch Might). If you checked the designations in that book he closed way more content than the licnese allows. But I didnt see "OGC Saavy" fans boycotting it.

It is really fun to believe that your ideological position has the sway you want it to, but it doesnt. People want a good product. Sure, they may "bitch" about the product not being "open" enough, but that wont stop them from getting it.

First, I doubt you will ever be able to put hard-and-fast numbers to this method of creating brand awareness. However, as the industry grows I think you'll see these kinds of influences/ (And perhaps a company should actually go out of their way to encourage it!)

You are guessing again. I am using facts.

Fact: there is no more used OGC book than Creature Collection and Relics & Rituals. Period. Nothing else matches their sales. More players are plugged into those two products than any other d20 content. Given that, one would imagine that if producers wanted to link to any product, it would be one of those two. Very little content from those books have been reused.

I think lines that use OGC to good effect will see an added benefit.

You are guessing again. I am telling you that there is no appreciable difference in sales between more and less closed products. And we are way past the embryonic stage.

Clark

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wow! Shades of RJR.

Ahh... Yes, that did it. Thanks for placing that creepy feeling for me.

 

[Orcus]

I'm not sure whether it's naivete or (more likely) a desire to hold onto past ways which provide clear and comforting - if not necessarily enforceable - ownership over our most precious offspring: our creative efforts.

But you can't have it both ways (that is, if you choose to use and release OGC). Pandora's box has been opened and a new paradigm is loose! (Now what is the CR of a Paradigm?)

But this is really a tempest in a very small teapot. The much bigger question is what do small publishers do when someone truly steals protected content? Very few could afford legal recourse. Is there currently a trade organization that provides legal succor to people in this industry?

Desire to hold onto past ways? I love the conceit of people who consider themselves revolutionary.

Cant have it both ways? Sure. Its called the "guild borther mentality" you mentioned above. An industry full of people who realize they are doing this for the love of the game, who are polite to each other and who ask before they take and who do not use any rule to gain an advantage. That is how the major companies here deal with each other. THAT is for the better of the industry, not your ideas of openness with no courtesy.

Plus, you are acting as if the OGL was born all by itself, perfect in its conception. That isnt true. The license is what it is: a conglomeration of tweaks of Ryan's initial idea to try to meet all the concerns of the people involved--which it does for the most part. We embraced it because that is what we were given. And it was done with assurances of fair play by WotC towards all of us. Now it would be mind boggling to me if we do to each other what the "evil corporation" promised not to do (and hasnt done; in point of fact even WotC has asked permission to use content from us in an upcoming book).

What do small publishers do? They should join me and say that people should use the license ethically and responsibly. The small publishers are the ones with the most at risk. If Bigd20Co takes Littled20Co content republishes it (makes a few tweaks and republishes it, all within the license), with better art and maps and for cheaper, no one is going to want the stuff from Littled20Co. Why would they? So small press companies need to join me in this. The funny thing is I should be the guy on the other side (but I'm not). But I am championing the cause of the little guy. If the big guys can take and republish the little guys, that will drive out the little guys. I think that would be bad.

Is there an organization that provides aid to the small guys? Wait, is this coming from the "I wont even ask permission" guy? Thats funny. So you want the "guild brother" idea when it helps you sue someone but not if you want to use their content? Nothing like good old fashioned moral consistency. Short answer is no, to my knowledge there is none. Which is once again a reason why you should be polite, ask permission and treat this industry like a collection of guild brothers. Thanks for disproving your own point!

Clark

 

[NemesisPress]

I see your stated opinion as one that I have heard one hundred times before on everything from these boards to the d20 lists and the OGC lists to industry chat to face to face conversations with Ryan Dancey.

If that's true, I'd certainly like I'd like to meet Ryan.

I hope you arent saying that neither Morrus nor I understand the specifics and the intent of the OGL and of use of OGC.

I'll leave that to the interested readers to decide. But you did say that you only use the OGL because you have to (and apparently not because you agree with the "open content crusaders").

as a lawyer I can tell you it would hold weight. If WotC decided to grab a SSS or Necro book and publish it we would have an injunction right away and exhibit one would be email from their agent acting in his official capacity binding the company he represents to a particuarl course of action on which I relied to my detriment.

You should know then that God is on the side with the higher-paid lawyers. But that's irrelevent anyway, since the strategy would be counterproductive. So maybe that concession of theirs made you feel better, but it wasn't rooted in necessity.

But back to the position you espouse. I dont disagree with the idea. I love the concept of open gaming. I am just telling you how it works in reality........"OGC Saavy Gamers" have zero impact and will continue to have 0 impact to main stream publishers

I think my point could best be described that reality is changing - or maybe that it differs for different players. Now it might not change as much for you, since you are a part of an establishment of relatively large companies that have been around for a while. But the purpose of the OGL and d20 licenses is specifically to open the market up to the "cottage" industries. It's a way of making smaller companies competitive.

People want a good product. Sure, they may "bitch" about the product not being "open" enough, but that wont stop them from getting it.

I never said that people would boycott non-OGC products - just like they won't boycott other systems. But OGC (usually under the rubric of d20) will come to be a recognizable part of a brand and will be viewed as a positive factor.

there is no more used OGC book than Creature Collection and Relics & Rituals. Period. Nothing else matches their sales. More players are plugged into those two products than any other d20 content. Given that, one would imagine that if producers wanted to link to any product, it would be one of those two. Very little content from those books have been reused.

Well there's very little there worth reusing. (And before you say anything, I don't mean it that way!) They are pure collections of disparate "crunchy bits." There's certainly a desire for those types of books, particularly among new players, but I think more cohesive offerings will not only have appeal to more mature players, but will also lend themselves to "enhancement" by other publishers. (Sort of a virtual product line as it were.) That's where OGC has value (for original producer, licensee, and consumer).

You are guessing again. I am telling you that there is no appreciable difference in sales between more and less closed products. And we are way past the embryonic stage.

No, I am predicting the future - and from my perspective, at least, you are living in the past. (But if I'm wrong, you certainly don't have anything to worry about!)

It is interesting to see that there is such a difference of opinion on this issue. My only question is (if you don't feel threatened by at least the possibility of change) why is there such vitriol?

Is there an organization that provides aid to the small guys? Wait, is this coming from the "I wont even ask permission" guy? Thats funny. So you want the "guild brother" idea when it helps you sue someone but not if you want to use their content? Nothing like good old fashioned moral consistency.

If it's marked as OGC, it's not "their content" anymore. And by marking it as OGC, they have legally, publically, knowingly, and willingly given permission for anyone to use it. I'd thank them, but never ask them. Is that so bad?

What do small publishers do? They should join me and say that people should use the license ethically and responsibly.

Well, have you considered publishing some (voluntary) guidelines for that use? (Perhaps ones that address some of the points included in one of my earlier posts about just what restrictions a publisher can request and under what circumstances?)

I personally don't see it as providing any concrete benefits, but it would help foster that sense of community we've both mentioned.

In fact, starting a trade organization among game companies might be a way to do both: foster that sense of community and pool resources for members in distress.

Anyway, after all of this, I expect there's a dramatic situation in the offing! (And who or what is RJR? Only the tobacco company comes to mind.)

 

[NemesisPress]

Its called the "guild borther mentality" you mentioned above. An industry full of people who realize they are doing this for the love of the game, who are polite to each other and who ask before they take and who do not use any rule to gain an advantage. That is how the major companies here deal with each other. THAT is for the better of the industry, not your ideas of openness with no courtesy.

If I were a cynical person, I could read that as espousing an extant "old-boys" network. Together, the OGL and d20 licenses make everyone equal (in the eyes of WoTC, of course). Perhaps you feel (a la Animal Farm) that by dint of your previous hard work and efforts you should be just a little more equal than everyone else?

 

[Orcus]

If that's true, I'd certainly like I'd like to meet Ryan.

Ryan wasnt espousing your point of view. We simply were discussing the many schools of thought.

But you did say that you only use the OGL because you have to (and apparently not because you agree with the "open content crusaders").

Please reread my post. I said I use it for one of three reasons: I have to, I want to (either altruistic or commercial) or it is easier to. I said that I have used all three at different times. But always the first, out of necessity since I make D&D related products.

You should know then that God is on the side with the higher-paid lawyers.

Common misperception held by nonlawyers.

I think my point could best be described that reality is changing - or maybe that it differs for different players. Now it might not change as much for you, since you are a part of an establishment of relatively large companies that have been around for a while. But the purpose of the OGL and d20 licenses is specifically to open the market up to the "cottage" industries. It's a way of making smaller companies competitive.

I'M in the establishment? That is hillarious.

I see you also have a crystal ball into the purpose of the license. The purpose is NOT to open up to cottage industries. That is a side effect. The purpose SPECIFICALLY is to allow third parties to produce support material that is not profitable for WotC to produce, thus driving the core product. It isnt a way to make small companies competitive at all. There are small companies that put out crap and are not competitive and big ones that dont, and vice versa. The license didnt make small companies competitive.

I can draw only one conclusion from all this: you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

But OGC (usually under the rubric of d20) will come to be a recognizable part of a brand and will be viewed as a positive factor.

You have no basis to make that assertion. You cant just posture and pretend you know. I gave you facts based on actual market data. Now you are just guessing.

Another expert of hot air, it seems...welcome to the internet! The place where everyone gets an opinion even if they dont know jack.

No, I am predicting the future - and from my perspective, at least, you are living in the past. (But if I'm wrong, you certainly don't have anything to worry about!)

I dont have anything to worry about anyway.

It is interesting to see that there is such a difference of opinion on this issue. My only question is (if you don't feel threatened by at least the possibility of change) why is there such vitriol?

You dont represent change. You are just spouting an oft-spouted, never realized view point.

As to vitriol, here is why:

Becasue you say you dont give a crap about the "guild brother" atmosphere of the industry, that you dont feel compelled to act collegially or to follow the customs and practices of 99% of everyone in the industry. I find that offensive. I say that the collegial atmosphere is one of the best parts of the industry.

I'd thank them, but never ask them. Is that so bad?

See my prior posts. Short answer: yes.

Well, have you considered publishing some (voluntary) guidelines for that use? (Perhaps ones that address some of the points included in one of my earlier posts about just what restrictions a publisher can request and under what circumstances?)

Go to the ENworld page about helpful guidelines for using the OGL and d20 STL. See the checklists and stuff by anonymous? That's me. I wrote that stuff to help people use the licenses and gave Morrus permission to post it. I asked it be anonymous because I didnt want there to be an implied endorsement by Necromancer Games or SSS. So I guess I already did what you asked--nearly two years ago.

Clark