What happens to OGC which violates OGL?

[Yair]

kingpaul:
[RANT]
I am frsutrated by Monte's policy since he seems intent on giving as little as he can get away with back to the community (which, in some cases, I believe leads to issues such as the above, where he "closes" material I believe is actually open). He regularly refuses to include spell names, feat names, and so on in his OGC. This makes it much harder to use and worse - to index. A publisher that wants to use Monte's work will have to rework the names, which sometimes make the work very hard to use at all. And no two publishers will agree on the new name, which could lead to the same mechanics being used under several names... just causing confusion.
For example, consider a spell called "Cross of Lightning" (I think there is one in the Book of Eldritch Might). Since the spell-name is not OGC, if I want to include it in a published work I need to think up a new name. That's just an extra headache - in what way will Monte be hurt by including the spell's name as OGC? It would even make it easier to credit him, since I could mention the spell can be found in the BoEM. It would also cause less confusion for someone owning both works.
I am not saying this is not his prorogative. It's his material, he can keep it virtually unusable if he wants to. It's just frustrating, that's all.

Another, related, thing I don't like is that he doesn't designate what's OGC distinctly enough. He gives fairly broad statements, rather than precise designation.
Take, for contrast, Atlas Games. They clearly mark OGC by changing the font style/background (at least in the products I have). THAT's clear, you know PRECISELY what is OGC. And they still get to keep their product identity and stuff - it's just not used to make the OGC virtually unusable.
For example consider the Siebecci Khopesh above. If it was published under Atlas Games, "Siebecci" would have been clearly listed as PI, and the text would have been colored in a way that signifies anything that's in it is OGC except PI. It would now be a simple matter to implement that same mechanic for any egyptian-themed sword, by simply deleting "Siebecci" fromt he text. Alas, with Monte's murky designation policy it is not at all clear what is and isn't OGC, and if I were a publisher I would be leery of entering such murky waters.

And for the simplest OGC policy - Green Ronnin. They simply say everything is OGC (in the sole product I have of their's, again). Using their material is therefore a sheer pleasure - just copy it verbatim. As a result, their contribution to the community is, potentially at least, far greater.

Does it impact my purchase? Not much.
I am not a publisher, and never will be.
But I consider the OGL one of the best things that happened to this industry. It gave me lots and lots of products I never would have gotten otherwise. So when someone is so stringy in giving it back, and for no good reason, I do build up some resentment.
Am I less inclined to buy Monte's products due to his OGC policy? Yes. Will I buy the Banewarrens (if my characters make it through another character level)? Yes.
On the other hand, will I buy more materials from Green Ronin due to their OGC policy? Probably so. Will I buy less products from Monte becouse of his OGC policy? Yes, I do think so.
Not that he would feel it. I suspect the number of gamers that even know what OGC means is rather low. And he sells lots of products, one less wouldn't leave much of an impact...

[/RANT]
Ahh, what a beautiful day...

 

[philreed]

kingpaul:
Another, related, thing I don't like is that he doesn't designate what's OGC distinctly enough. He gives fairly broad statements, rather than precise designation.

This guy had better not look at any Mongoose books . . .

 

[DSC-EricPrice]

This guy had better not look at any Mongoose books . . .

Its funny, as I was reading his post I couldnt help but immediately think of the same thing. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods, but I agree with the man on this point. Of course, Im no where near as prolific as Mr Cook, who has my utmost admiration for the work hes done. It has got to be much easier to say "the names are PI." than to split out each one by one and announce whether they are or arent OGC.

TO move this back toward the original thread a bit, I still yearn for some way to annotate where OGC in a borrowed work is derived from, like a bibliographical section of Section 15. Then not only would the consumer know where he might find additional material that caught his eye within the text but publishers would have a better idea of where to go to quote the original material. If there was ever a question it would be much easier to go back and check the original OGC source too.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

TO move this back toward the original thread a bit, I still yearn for some way to annotate where OGC in a borrowed work is derived from, like a bibliographical section of Section 15. Then not only would the consumer know where he might find additional material that caught his eye within the text but publishers would have a better idea of where to go to quote the original material. If there was ever a question it would be much easier to go back and check the original OGC source too.

I am tackling this problem myself in GRIM TALES, which is (to define it broadly) a collection of rules plug-ins collected into a single sourcebook.

My solution is to design and designate each chapter seperately, with its own Section 15, which will then be collected into a single (albeit longer) copyright attribution at the end of the work.

The advantage of this method is that I can call out specifically which other OGC sources influenced each particular rules component and give proper, specific credit where credit is due. Further, if I decide to publish the rules components seperately (which I likely will do) then other publishers can use those rules components individually without necessity of referencing the entire Section 15 of GRIM TALES.

By the way-- I'll take the fact that no-one mentioned Bad Axe as one of the top OGC designators as a sign that we're a small, unknown publisher-- cause I think we do a top-notch job with our OGC designations as well (just look at the bottom of the page). It has always been important to me to be as clear as possible and as supportive as possible of the reuse of our content.

Wulf

 

[kingpaul]

I still yearn for some way to annotate where OGC in a borrowed work is derived from, like a bibliographical section of Section 15.

I agree, this would be nice. One way, IMO, that you could do this is to get each publisher's buy-in about doing this. This way, you wouldn't violate the "...indication as to compatibility...." I think one reason that it isn't in the license to allow this is so that publishers don't have to have their names in the text of, say, F.A.T.A.L. d20. They'd be in S15 of a properly done OGL, but that's it.

 

[philreed]

By the way-- I'll take the fact that no-one mentioned Bad Axe as one of the top OGC designators as a sign that we're a small, unknown publisher-- cause I think we do a top-notch job with our OGC designations as well (just look at the bottom of the page). It has always been important to me to be as clear as possible and as supportive as possible of the reuse of our content.

Wulf

Of course you guys do a great job with this, I just spaced out when I was mentioning companies.

In fact, Mongoose had started with very clear declaration. Then switched to the confusing declaration they use today.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In fact, Mongoose had started with very clear declaration. Then switched to the confusing declaration they use today.

Which is ironic, since Mongoose makes use of and re-publishes more Open Content than any other company I can think of-- sometimes lifting the text wholesale from the original sources (as opposed to merely "derivative" work).

Because of this risk, we have come to call such OGC "polluted," referring to either poorly defined OGC or, in this case, OGC that you believe should be OGC but that is not declared as such. Generally, you should avoid touching polluted OGC.

At best, it's lazy; at worst, it's deliberately "polluting" the OGC in order to make it difficult or risky to use. In neither case is it supportive of the goodwill of the Open Gaming movement on which we all depend.

I wish Wizards would clarify the issue or do something to impose stricter guidelines on the "clear designation" of open content.

Wulf

 

[der_kluge]

I have noticed that Monte's books tend to be filled with completely crippled OGC. Peruse the section 15 and OGL paragraphs of Requiem for a God, for example. Those sections which are derived from the SRD are so filled with PI terms and references that it all comes completely unusable. Like, I could write up a PC with godsblood feats, but I can't reference the word 'godsblood' at all. Totally lame, Monte.

Here is the designation:

Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version 1.0a: Any and all Malhavoc Press logos and identifying marks and trade dress, such as all Malhavoc Press product and product line names including but not limited to The Book of Eldritch Might, Book of Eldritch Might II: Songs and Souls of Power; The Banewarrens, Requiem for a God, Skreyn’s Register: The Bonds of Magic, Book of Eldritch Might III: The Nexus, 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; the contents of Chapters One, Two, and Eight, including but not limited to descriptions of godsblood, godflesh, divinity sparks, loosed divinity, and energy wells; any and all stories, storylines, histories, plots, thematic elements, and dialogue; and all artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, illustrations, maps, and cartography, likenesses, poses, logos, or graphic designs, except such elements that already appear in final or draft versions of the d20 System Reference Document or as Open Game Content below and are already OGC by virtue of appearing there. The above Product Identity is not Open Game Content.

Designation of Open Game Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, the following portions of Requiem for a God are designated as Open Game Content: the advancement tables and Class Features for the prestige classes in Chapter Three; the entirety of the feats in Chapter Four; the spell parameters (range, duration, etc.) and game mechanics in Chapter Five; the entirety of the magic items and artifacts in Chapter Six; the statistics and Combat text for the monsters in Chapter Seven; and anything else contained herein which is already Open Game Content by virtue of appearing in the System Reference Document or some other OGC source.

So, Monte gives us the durations of his spells, but the names are all closed. He gives us the stats for monsters, but the name of the monster is closed, and he gives us feats, many of which list "godsblood infusion" as a prerequisite, and include references to PI names, making them completely crippled.

As a writer, it might be nice to be able to use some of the concepts from this, as well as other books, but Monte has made it nigh impossible.

 

[The Sigil]

In fact, Mongoose had started with very clear declaration. Then switched to the confusing declaration they use today.

In fairness to Mongoose, they have twice switched declarations - and the declaration they use today is in fact relatively clear - at least, no worse than the Monte Cook declaration cited above.

They started out by noting at the bottom of the page "The text on this page is Open Content".

Then they switched to a rather arcane designation to the effect of "anything derived from the SRD is open, the rest is not." Not exactly clear.

To their credit, their current designation is to the effect of: "the text of any paragraph or table containing game mechanics or game stats is Open Game Content." Under a designation like this, we could look at the paragraph cited above...
Sibeccai Khopesh: This sword's blade is straight near the hilt but ends in a curve. It is only about 2 feet long but very heavy. If using it properly, a character can add a +1 bonus on the opposed attack roll when attempting to disarm an enemy (including the opposed attack roll to avoid being disarmed himself, if he fails to disarm the enemy).
We note that the paragraph includes game mechanics (roll when attempting to disarm an enemy) and game stats (+1 bonus) and therefore if this appeared in a recently published Mongoose book, the entire paragraph would be OGC (excepting "Sibeccai" if Sibeccai is PI'd). Note that I'm combining Mongoose's PI declaration on Monte's writing - this is an EXAMPLE, not an ANALYSIS (to avoid confusion).

I agree with the sentiments expressed earlier...
1.) Examples such as the ones you have cited are "polluted" OGC and that it's best to contact the original publisher directly.
2.) "Crippled" OGC is horribly frustrating. I understand the writer's desire to protect his livelihood, but crippling OGC goes against the spirit of the Open Game License... and I don't know that it really makes much of a dent in one's livelihood - after all, pirated copies of your work are not pirated "under the terms of the OGL because they're OGC." I think all the concerns that "someone might re-print my work on the cheap" are overrated, too - I haven't seen non-Green Ronin re-prints of 100% OGC Freeport, despite Freeport's 100% OGC status - because if you did it right the first time, everyone who wanted a copy has one already... not to mention that the one time I can remember that a company has tried a stunt like that, they're VERY quickly blacklisted (Buckshot00 Productions and the Book of Metamagical Theorums, anyone?) among CUSTOMERS as well as publishers.
3.) I also allow OGC designations to influence my buying habits. I have put numerous planned buys back on the shelf due to "crippling" OGC designations. I figure that I am shelling out cash for gaming RESOURCES... and I want "renewable/reusable resources"... i.e., ones that I can cannibalize. These are a "business investment," so to speak, and I make decisions based on "how much of this stuff can I use?" And crippling OGC drives usability way down. I have probably saved close to $1,000 thatnks to publishers' arcane OGC designations.
4.) I agree that the "nice thing" to do in the d20 Publishing arena is to ask for permission to use content - but at the same time, no one should HAVE to ask. After all, how many publishers ask WotC before using stuff from the SRD? Probably few to none... yet these same publishers want to demand that others ask them (so they close as much stuff as possible). Very poor form. You can't force politeness on others. I remember someone telling me once that "you can't control how much respect others give to you - you can only control how much respect you give to them." Same general principle applies here. You can mandate contact, but not respect, by closing your material. Trying to mandate respect is like trying push a rope.
5.) I would DEARLY love for WotC to crack down on lax (or non-existent) OGC designations. And heavily... so it is clear to a six-year old what is and is not OGC. Of course, I would also dearly love for WotC to send me a check for $50,000,000 and a copy of every TSR product ever produced. And I figure both scenarios have about the same probability of occurring. That's why I'll try to ask publishers directly to clean up their acts WRT their OGC designations... I can't command it, just like I can't command them to respect me, but I can at least try to encourage it.

On a final note, the worst OGC designation I have seen was in the Munchkin Master's Guide (I know it was done in parody, but it's a perfect example of horrid convolution) - which I believe you were responsible, for, Phil.

--The Sigil

 

[Nellisir]

I have to agree with almost everyone here in expressing frustration at overly restrictive OGC, and particularly vague Declarations. I went around a bit on Monte's boards looking for exactly what was OGC about spell templates, and got zilch (actually, I got 2 answers: 1, just use the template format (forcing a reinvention of any AU templates), and 2, get the AU license and use that.) I did ask for and get a license copy, but am unable to use it.

Sorry...little frustrated there.

Anyways, OGC declarations influence what I buy. I don't buy Monte's print products anymore, and I doubt I'll buy any more of his pdfs. I don't buy Mongoose, but the OGC issue is icing on THAT cake.

I DO buy AEG, which has a very nice, very neat, very inclusive declaration, AND a limited license allowing others to use PI within the context of an OGC "goodie" (feat, spell, item...).

Cheers
Nell.