Using, misusing, and releasing OGC

[NemesisPress]

Well in most cases, I expect I'd drop a publisher a line and say "I'm so impressed with your OGC that appeared in X that I'm going to use it in one of my products (as well as clearly attribute it to you). Thanks for releasing it, and keep up the good work."

At the same time, I might ask "Do you have any additional OGC that you think would be appropriate for this project?"

And if they so requested, I would probably furnish them with a copy of the final work and any new OGC I had released as part of it.

I'd call that a "polite," intelligent, and helpful working relationship. Does that meet your standards?

 

[Morrus]

That is all I'm trying to say. Nothing more!

 

[Ranger REG]

Don't worry, Morrus. I understood your points. Common Courtesy is just a gesture that IMHO should be expressed sincerely of your own free will, not required by law. By taking that extra steps by praising the OGC Contributor and either asking him or telling him that you will be using his OGC in your product can brighten his or her day. After all, not many gamers would be interested in reading the fine prints of the product's Open Gaming License.

Heck, I confessed I don't take the time to read the EULA of most of my software before installing it.

 

[NemesisPress]

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

I think we first need to clarify that hazy area between "crunchy" and "creamy." First, I would say that most of the people who post on these boards are the exception and not the rule to what constitutes an "average" consumer of these products, so I would not expect this to meet your needs and desires.

Second, a stat-block with no description at all is extraordinarly bland (no longer being even "crunchy" but only gristle and bone). For example, if Fireball were a newly created spell, the OGC elements of it would consist of the following:

Generic Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

...deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to all creatures within the area...

Third, there is a spectrum here. People seem to use The Books of Eldritch Might as examples of the ultimate in "crunchiness." While I could probably adapt a couple of things in them to my games and campaigns, I find them almost useless - and certainly not worth the money. I run highly thematic campaigns and I need "crunchy" bits with some synergy ("soul" as one of the other threads call it). (And note that that is not the same as a "storybook" in any sense.) I think that that viewpoint will also apply to a much wider audience than the ones who want merely random bits to appropriate (though there will always be those too).

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.

That was exactly my question. And I think there would be precious little market for a book consisting entirely of stat blocks like the one above for Fireball. Even The Books of Eldritch Might don't go anywhere near that far. The OGL/d20 combination does a good job of protecting the creative work of authors while still preserving the integrity of the d20 system.

 

[trancejeremy]

It seems to me, that using someone's open content, is more or less like using someones source code that they've released as open.

While some might think it's polite to write a note saying they're using it, that can also get annoying after a while. Especially when they start pestering you with questions and such.

Of course, given that many publishers don't bother to update Section 15 correctly for their own product, you almost have to write them to ask, just to get the correct citation info.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That was exactly my question. And I think there would be precious little market for a book consisting entirely of stat blocks like the one above for Fireball.

I am not suggesting the release of a book that consists entirely of statblocks-- you've flipped my example on its head. I meant to demonstrate that a book that is 0% open content and 100% thematic elements is useless. You must contain some rules-related material if you want to be relevant to a d20 customer, and this material is by definition Open Content. So there's no decision to be made as to whether you the publisher will open it or not. It's rules related, it's open, it's out of your hands, no decision to be made.

Your question is, "What potential Product Identity should I declare Open Content?"

In my mind, the answer is simply one of "ease of presentation."

It is possible to seperate the crunch from the fluff in the layout-- Relics and Rituals springs to mind as an example where the thematic elements and description of the spell are physically seperated from the rules-related description (if memory serves).

But this gets more difficult to do with other kinds of content, and eventually I think all those "OGC is found in Shaded Boxes" start to get in the way and the book becomes less and less functional.

For my own book, I seperated out OGC page by page, putting OPEN CONTENT at the bottom of any page that contained any rules-related material at all: the rules and all the descriptive text that was necessary to make an easy-reading product was released right along with it.

But in the end, my opinion is "Open only what is functionally necessary to declare open, and no more." Where material exists that is thematic and contains no rules related material-- for example, the "Seven Dwarven Virtues" section of my own book-- there is no need to release it as Open Content. The thematic text presented there is of exactly the same use to the consumer whether it is Open or not.

The only reason to Open thematic elements that could otherwise be retained as Product Identity is if you want publishers to take and use those thematic elements. I believe GR's Freeport is an example of a product where the thematic elements are OGC as well. The player-consumer won't know and won't care until Freeport starts showing up in products from other publishers; even then I wonder if they will make the connection. This situation is advantageous to GR only so far as they continue to hold sway in the consumer's mind as the pre-eminent publisher of Freeport material. If some other publisher took the ball and ran with it-- which I find unlikely, but possible and worth mentioning as an example-- then GR will have lost what could have been protected Product Identity.


Wulf

 

[NemesisPress]

I think we are approaching the same point from different sides. I agree that a pure thematic book would be of limited utility, but so would a pure compendium of stat blocks. I was trying to illustrate that even the "crunchy" bits must have some thematic material in order to be useful (and I think that the desired proportion will continue to increase as the market grows). And that thematic material is protected unless you specifically mark it as OGC.

But yes, the question I am hoping to get more discussion on is just how do you decide what material to make open. The example of FreePort is a good one. As you note, much has to do with the future commitment of GR to the product. If they stop supporting it, it may continue to have a life of its own. (Is that not another selling point for the consumer in making things OGC?)

However, if they continue to support it strongly, I think the approach will work. A large publisher, with the resources to seriously challenge their "franchise" would not bother. But smaller publishers would be eager to jump on the bandwagon and I think that would help all involved.

If I were to create a major product and open a significant portion of it, I would encourage other publishers using that material to take part in forums to discuss each other's plans (both to help stop unnecessary duplication and to actually help each other in a variety of ways). It would, in essence, be an informal consortium.

 

[Orcus]

Here is a blunt assessment.

As a publisher, I declare content open for several of three reasons:

1. Because I have to (ie: I got it from an open source such as the SRD)

2. Becasue I want to (I want others to use my content for either commercial or altruistic reasons).

3. Because it is easier to do so (its too hard to identify the OGC individually so I will just make it all OGC).

For the most part, most open content you find in d20 products is a result of #1. We have to mark stuff open since we use the SRD. Just to venture a guess (and all posturing aside) I think that 90% of companies would not declare anything open if they didnt have to, for various reasons not all of which are evil or greedy. It is only reasonable to prefer creating content and keeping all exclusive rights to yourself. Absent a compelling business interest, that is the best state of affairs. And, as I will mention below, d20 companies dont have the same network externalities driving reuse of our content as say WotC does to drive their content. In all this time since SSS put out the Creature Collection and Relics and Rituals (the first serious amount of Open Content of much significance) there has been very little reuse of that content in other published works. So the idea of making OGC for others to use is for the most unrealized.

There are some (few) exceptions, and many of those are nothing more than examples of #3.

To respond to a few ideas above:

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.)

Not true at all. In fact, the hard part about the internet is coming to the realization that this very vocal community is 1% of the purchasing public. And not even everyone on the internet is OGC saavy. Plus, I have a hard time with your "the best customers" term. Anyone who buys a product and is loyal to the line is a "best customer." And I guarantee that most of those are not even OGC saavy.

The common net comment of "if its not OGC, I'm not interested" is meaningless in the real world. There is no sales difference between products that are similar but one is more open and the other is not. And I say that from all of Necro and SSS products.

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.

Interesting. But wrong. We use the d20/OGL licenses because it is the best we get. Not because we have faith in the product line. Who is kidding who, we would all like to be able to get a license that lets us keep our content and slap an "approved for use with Dungeons and Dragons" on our products. Thats what we want. Thats not what we got. We got the OGL/d20 licenses. So we use them. I guarantee every single major creator of OGC would in a heartbeat trade the OGL/d20 licenses for a straight license to use the name and rules of "Dungeons and Dragons".

I dont mean to be entirely cynical. There is also stuff people open up for #2, either for profit or for altruism. I have done a good bit of it myself. I just wanted to make stuff open so I did. But that is in addition to #1, not instead of it.

As for "emulating WotC's approach" we are only doing it for the most part becasue we have to. Remember, an industry giant pushing off its less profitable products (like modules) by opening up its content to third parties is nowhere near the same as the dynamic between third parties (ie: what works in the WotC--Third Party equation doesnt always work the same in the Third Party--Third Party equation). As I mentioned above, there has been almost no significant reuse of OGC. I dont think I can attribute a single sale of one of our products to the fact that any OGC from it was reused in another product.

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.

Again not borne out by the market or products. There are few if any instances of significant reuse of OGC.

In fact, it is Product Identitiy that moves products.

People dont buy monster stats, they buy the Scarred Lands setting.

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.

Again, there has been little significant reuse. As nice and idealistic as this is (and I wholly embrace the idea) it just isnt happening in any significant way that I see.

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.

Then you are completely against the custom and practices of 99% of this industry that I have dealt with. Please see another thread where I detail the moral implications of OGC use.

Here is a thought for you. When the OGL/d20 licenses were being drafted by Ryan Dancey, a number of us were very involved in their creation. One of our concerns was that WoytC would let 10 companies put out 10 modules, wait to see which sold the best, then snatch them up and reprint them as WotC modules, thus allowing third parties to show them what the market wants. Note that the license allows this is essence (though they might have to redraw maps and rename NPCs and such). We were so worried about that in fact that I asked Ryan to say on behalf of WotC that they would not do that to us. On behalf of WotC he agreed. So right there, we have an example of moral issues and open content. We as publishers asked the source of the OGC not to screw us. Why? Becasue WotC has market force and we dont. If they did as I described, we would go out of business. My point is that we shouldnt do to each other what we asked WotC not to do to us. For example, SSS has huge distribution. We could grab good OGC products, rename NPCs, redraw maps, release a PDF product as a print product and drive that company out of business. Or heck, give it away for free. Same thing with anyone else. Anyone here could take Freeport (which is all open), PDF it and give it away for free. The licenses allow both of those things. But both of those things would be wrong and would be against the whole concept. There is a difference between what you have the POWER to do and what is PROPER to do. So no, it is not farsical to ask about OGC reuse. In fact, it is the industry norm.

As for your "great pains to provide info on the source of OGC" that is essentially required by the license in Section 15.

Just a few thoughts.

Clark

 

[NemesisPress]

"We use the d20/OGL licenses because it is the best we get. Not because we have faith in the product line...we would all like to be able to get a license that lets us keep our content and slap an "approved for use with Dungeons and Dragons" on our products."

Well there's nothing to stop you - except money! We're all just satellites orbiting WoTC, but within that context we have a number of choices concerning how to proceed.

"the hard part about the internet is coming to the realization that this very vocal community is 1% of the purchasing public. And not even everyone on the internet is OGC saavy. Plus, I have a hard time with your "the best customers" term. Anyone who buys a product and is loyal to the line is a "best customer."

First, the d20 industry is still in its embryonic stages. And I believe that the vocal, OGC-savvy gamers, have a disproportionate effect. A good product will have good customers regardless, but I think lines that use OGC to good effect will see an added benefit.

...there has been almost no significant reuse of OGC. I don't think I can attribute a single sale of one of our products to the fact that any OGC from it was reused in another product...

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!)

There are few if any instances of significant reuse of OGC. In fact, it is Product Identitiy that moves products.

Actually, that was the point of my argument above about stat blocks. We need to open up some part of product identity in order to encourage people to disseminate it.

...SSS has huge distribution. We could grab good OGC products, rename NPCs, redraw maps, release a PDF product as a print product and drive that company out of business.

First, if a company protected the important parts of their product identity, you might have the same basic structure - but it would be lacking many of the significant elements of the original product. That gets back to the discussion of just what is actually required to be OGC and how valuable it is. I thought you argued above that it is product identity that is what is valuable.

Anyone here could take Freeport (which is all open), PDF it and give it away for free. The licenses allow both of those things. But both of those things would be wrong and would be against the whole concept.

It can't be against the whole concept if it follows the OGL. (That is the concept written in stone.) And it's not "wrong" in any sense of the word (legal, moral, or ethical) - unless the people who chose to make Freeport OGC were somehow either coerced into it or were legally unfit to make such a decision.

Personally, from my experiences buying PDFs, I am much more than willing to risk $5 on a PDF rather than $15-$25 on a printed module. And when I get a good PDF, I usually hope that a print version will follow. (Darwin's World and Vigilance are good examples from my personal experience.)

In the software world, where open licenses are more established, this argument would not hold much sway.

We were so worried about that in fact that I asked Ryan to say on behalf of WotC that they would not do that to us. On behalf of WotC he agreed. So right there, we have an example of moral issues and open content. We as publishers asked the source of the OGC not to screw us.

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.

Now I'm certainly not saying that anyone at a major corporation would restrain themselves because of a strong ethical commitment(!), but it looks like the originators of the OGL actually had a pretty good idea of a way they could both maintain WoTC's dominant position and increase the size of the market (including the number of additional - not "competing" - publishers) at the same time. And that's a cold, hard business decision.

Open licenses change the playing field in radical ways. I think you are still thinking along more traditional lines.

As for your "great pains to provide info on the source of OGC" that is essentially required by the license in Section 15.

Unfortunately, those requirements are probably the most that could be realistically expected to be provided, but they are certainly not sufficient or presented in a manner which makes them easily accessible to a consumer. I would provide both a designer's notes section where I discuss the OGC source material as well as a complete bibliography. An important side-effect of that would also be to make the general consumer more OGC savvy.

(But I wouldn't ask permission.)

 

[Morrus]

It can't be against the whole concept if it follows the OGL. (That is the concept written in stone.) And it's not "wrong" in any sense of the word (legal, moral, or ethical) - unless the people who chose to make Freeport OGC were somehow either coerced into it or were legally unfit to make such a decision.

You have no idea how tempted I am to just start editing your posts to say completely different things, just to see if you complain. And I'd reply that I am merely exercising my right - which would be true. I have the legal right to do that.