Using, misusing, and releasing OGC

[Ranger REG]

Since this came up in the thread about an OGC exchange: How should a publisher best (and ethically) make use of OGC?

If you have an original gaming content that you want to contribute as OGC, you should clearly identify them.

If you have a gaming content that is derivative from an earlier OGC, you should clearly identify them and update section 15 to include the source of your derivative OGC.

If you are simply reusing OGC, then simply update section 15 to include the source of that OGC.

How much extant OGC is appropriate/necessary to use in your works.

That is up to you. You can reuse any and all OGC out there if they are most suitable to your product's playability.

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

If your product is going to carry the trademarked d20 system logo, then at least 5% of your product's content must be OGC.

If your product is NOT going to carry the trademarked d20 system logo but will use the OGL, at least one OGC. I mean if there is no OGC in your product, then it does not make sense to have the OGL attached to your product.

When is OGC fair game for unrestricted use?

When the OGC is clearly designated by the contributor/author under the jurisdiction of the Open Gaming License. But you too must comply with said license to use OGC.

 

[NemesisPress]

Thanks for clearly stating the letter of the "law." But I was really hoping this thread would get publishers discussing what they think OGC adds to their products.

To rephrase the original question just a bit (How should a publisher best make use of OGC?):

To be marketable today, how much extant OGC is appropriate/necessary to use in your works (and how much is too much)?

How much of your original work do gamers want to see as OGC in order for it to be marketable?

And what factors do you take into consideration when making these decisions? (Genre, medium, competing products, quality, quantity, etc.)

 

[Morrus]

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.

Well, I'm still waiting for this. I posted my thoughts, you disagreed and said you'd clarify later.

 

[NemesisPress]

Under the general rubric of the long-term effects of altruism, I'll say that I think it's important to include a significant amount of original OGC in a product for the following reasons:

A significant fraction of the market (and I expect the best consumers) are OGC-savvy and appreciate the long-term effects on the industry. (Not to mention that many of those are also budding game designers/publishers - even if on a small scale.)

Releasing meaningful parts of your product as OGC emulates Wizards' approach and shows that you have faith in the long-term staying power of your product line.

OGC encourages the publication of additional works allied to your product - ones that I would say would almost always enhance the market for a specific product line rather than compete directly with it. In essence this both broadens the market and maximizes your exposure.

More specifically, OGC that is popular and useful will not only increase the quality of subsquent works that make use of it (and hence help the industry as a whole), but also encourage consumers of those works to look for the products from whence it issued - and in the process to become aware of the authors and companies which are doing good work, thereby increasing brand awareness.

I'm completely against the idea of asking someone permission to use their OGC. (I really think the idea is farcical considering the OGC is just that - a public pronouncement of permission of use.) However, I would take great pains in my publications to provide clear information on the source of any OGC that I use specifically for the above reasons. I think making clear attribution is where both the "politeness" and much of the value for both the consumer - and in the long-term for the industry - lie.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

To be marketable today, how much extant OGC is appropriate/necessary to use in your works (and how much is too much)?

How much of your original work do gamers want to see as OGC in order for it to be marketable?

And what factors do you take into consideration when making these decisions? (Genre, medium, competing products, quality, quantity, etc.)

I still think you're unclear on what constitutes open content. For my money, a book full of:

"...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..."

and (look carefully!) absolutely ZERO rules-related content is called a "STORYBOOK." Names and descriptions of people, places, and things, perhaps containing pretty pictures.

Speaking for myself, I don't buy RPG's looking for stories.

The question of what the consumer prefers, rules-content or background-content, seems to be a fairly hotly debated issue, one not even WOTC seems to be able to settle.

But I think the jury is fairly solidly on the side of "crunchy" books. I'd want better than 50/50, and probably more along the lines of 75% rules-related OGC.

Now if your question instead is, "What percentage of things that could normally be reserved as Product Identity should be Open?" then I would say it's pretty much irrelevant to the end consumer. The physical description of "King Ludd" -- his name, background, physical description, loves and hates and whatnot-- can be open or not with no impact to the consumer; the consumer will only care whether, in addition to that description, you also provide a statblock.


Wulf

 

[Morrus]

A significant fraction of the market (and I expect the best consumers) are OGC-savvy and appreciate the long-term effects on the industry. (Not to mention that many of those are also budding game designers/publishers - even if on a small scale.)

As mentioned above, I completely disagree with that supposition. I don't think that the average gamer browsing the shelf in his game store has even heard of OGC, let along cares how much is in the book.

Releasing meaningful parts of your product as OGC emulates Wizards' approach and shows that you have faith in the long-term staying power of your product line.

Ehh... I don't get that one. I don't see that it does.

OGC encourages the publication of additional works allied to your product - ones that I would say would almost always enhance the market for a specific product line rather than compete directly with it. In essence this both broadens the market and maximizes your exposure.

More specifically, OGC that is popular and useful will not only increase the quality of subsquent works that make use of it (and hence help the industry as a whole), but also encourage consumers of those works to look for the products from whence it issued - and in the process to become aware of the authors and companies which are doing good work, thereby increasing brand awareness.

Yup, that's the reason I cited above.

I'm completely against the idea of asking someone permission to use their OGC. (I really think the idea is farcical considering the OGC is just that - a public pronouncement of permission of use.)

It's so farcical that publishers do it all the time. We keep coming back to this point - I just don't understand why you see common courtesy as farcical. If someone used my OGC without bothering to let me know beforehand, I'd think them pretty rude. And in the rare situation that they wanted to use my IP, I'd probably be inclined to say no because of that.

And please - stop talking about "permission". As stated repeatedly now, it is not a question of permission. It's a question of "touching base", being polite, making (and keeping) friends.

In the long run, it really doesn't matter. Nobody can stop you from using any OGC - so just go ahead and do it. Nobody can tell you how to conduct your business, as long as you stay legal. There are friendly publishers, and there are unfriendly publishers - you pick where along that line you want to be.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, to be honest with you all, while common courtesy is nice, from a legal standpoint it is not necessary to ask for your permission (for example) to use your Contribution that you've designated as OGC under the Open Gaming License. Only that the publisher must credit your source (in which the designated OGC is originally published and previous sources if it is a Derivative Work) and you (the Contributor/Author) in Section 15.

In fact, I don't even have to ask. I can just say to you that I'm using your OGC in my product and you can't stop me, unless I am violating the license's terms. If there is any violation and I failed to comply with Wizards' nice letter from their Legal department, you may be party to a lawsuit with Wizards (as plaintiff) against me (as defendant).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Morrus]

Well, to be honest with you all, while common courtesy is nice, from a legal standpoint it is not necessary to ask for your permission (for example) to use your Contribution that you've designated as OGC under the Open Gaming License. Only that the publisher must credit your source (in which the designated OGC is originally published and previous sources if it is a Derivative Work) and you (the Contributor/Author) in Section 15.

In fact, I don't even have to ask. I can just say to you that I'm using your OGC in my product and you can't stop me, unless I am violating the license's terms. If there is any violation and I failed to comply with Wizards' nice letter from their Legal department, you may be party to a lawsuit against me.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Errr. Yeah. Obviously. I wasn't asking for a description of the legal state of affairs.

I think I'm going to bow out of this one. I really can't seem to get my point across, which has absolutely nothing to do with legality or requirements. Courtesy is not legally required in any aspect of life.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Courtesy is not legally required in any aspect of life.

Pity, that!

 

[Morrus]

Pity, that!

Exactly!