What happens to OGC which violates OGL?

[The Sigil]

Anyways, OGC declarations influence what I buy. I don't buy Monte's print products anymore, and I doubt I'll buy any more pdfs. I don't buy Mongoose.

Interesting, given that some of the "not-quite-Monte-but-not-chopped-liver, either" PDF publishers such as EN Publishing, Throwing Dice, Malladin's Gate, and myself (S.T. Cooley Publishing) - sorry if I left someone out, not intentional - usually use OGC designations to the effect of "except for the product name, company name and e-mail address, all of the text in this book is OGC." That's pretty reuser-friendly *drum-kick*.

I know the only PI I have ever claimed in my books are e-mail addresses, proper names of people or entities, and titles of publications or product lines.

--The Sigil

 

[Nellisir]

Interesting, given that some of the "not-quite-Monte-but-not-chopped-liver, either" PDF publishers such as EN Publishing, Throwing Dice, Malladin's Gate, and myself (S.T. Cooley Publishing) - sorry if I left someone out, not intentional - usually use OGC designations to the effect of "except for the product name, company name and e-mail address, all of the text in this book is OGC." That's pretty reuser-friendly *drum-kick*.

I know the only PI I have ever claimed in my books are e-mail addresses, proper names of people or entities, and titles of publications or product lines.

--The Sigil

I'll edit the previous post; I doubt I'll buy any more Malhavoc pdfs. I'm very happy with your OGC designations (particularly since I'm taking parts of it for my campaign handbook, and plotting other nefarious uses...).

The print version of your highly cool enchiridion is missing a few sidebars, BTW...


Nell.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

As usual, this is not legal advice, but....

I think all of the spell templates are open. The template names are mentioned either in the feats that grant access to them, or in class abilities that grant access to them. Both the feat text and class feature text is designated OGC. The description of the templates are obviously derivative of open content since they describe game effects. The only real hitch is the "what is a spell template?" part is not open content so you can't really describe what they do. YMMV.

OTOH, I wouldn't use spell templates with normal spellcaster classes. I don't believe ladening a spell is costly enough to sorcerers and is too costly for wizards. They need a different mechanic for those classes that is more fair. But that's a different kettle of fish.

 

[philreed]

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

I was most certainly not responsible for the OGC declaration in those. I wanted to release lots of the material as OGC was but vetoed by others. All I did was write stuff and laugh at the funny jokes. I do wish there had been room to include my sample dungeon (it had a convenience store in it so PCs could easily restock).

And the OGC declarations in those books do make my head swim.

 

[Nellisir]

OTOH, I wouldn't use spell templates with normal spellcaster classes. I don't believe ladening a spell is costly enough to sorcerers and is too costly for wizards. They need a different mechanic for those classes that is more fair. But that's a different kettle of fish.

I've moved it to the back burner. If I ever do anything "public", I'll either reinvent the wheel or try and contact Monte. Dragon (thankfully) clarified the OGC in their article, freeing that up for use.

For my own use I'm playing with integrating ladening, metamagic feats, spell level increases, and spell templates. I expect that sorcerers will laden, and wizards will increase levels. Need some playtesting, though, and I just disbanded my campaign... :-/

Cheers,
Nell.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

As for the problems with poor OGC designation, it would be nice if the latest update of the D20 STL included the solution provided in the Action! System STL.

For each Action!-based product you publish, you have to prepare a file containing all of its OCG content in text or RTF format. This file has to then be made available to any registered publisher who requests it from you.

So rather than having to struggle with trying to determine what happens to be OCG based upon the designation with the OGL, you simply email the publisher and ask them to send you the OGC file for the product. If they don't email the file within a few days, report them to Gold Rush Games so the breach of contract cure period can get started.

 

[kingpaul]

For each Action!-based product you publish, you have to prepare a file containing all of its OCG content in text or RTF format. This file has to then be made available to any registered publisher who requests it from you.

That's an interesting way to do it. How does it work with PI'd names though? Several publishers have PI'd class, feat, item and/or spell names. Does this list then contain:

Feat 1 [blah]
Feat 2 [blah]
etc.

 

[Selganor]

How about putting the PI'd names in different print (like a different color or things like that, it's RTF after all) to make it clear that this is NOT open.

AFAIK many publishers are quite approachable, if someone wants to use these names (even Monte, who's been displayed here as the "abuser of OGC" ).

 

[The Sigil]

How about putting the PI'd names in different print (like a different color or things like that, it's RTF after all) to make it clear that this is NOT open.

AFAIK many publishers are quite approachable, if someone wants to use these names (even Monte, who's been displayed here as the "abuser of OGC" ).

I'll second that one. Don't take my use of Monte as an example as "Monte-bashing," I merely use his work as an example because it is well-known and demonstrates very well the general points I try to make. There are other publishers who do the same, but I figure EVERYONE who's even asking about stuff like this knows Monte's work. FWIW, Monte is quite affable and approachable, and in my experience, most publishers in general are more than happy to let you use their stuff. That said, since I prefer to go the "as close to 100% OGC as possible" route, I would prefer not to ask for permission to use PI and ask instead for permission to use the OGC stuff (out of courtesy) - then swap out PI'd stuff for my own new material )that I can declare as Open Game Content), then declaring the whole mess of re-used content plus my own original material set in the place of old PI'd stuff as one big ball of OGC.

--The Sigil

 

[afstanton]

I've moved it to the back burner. If I ever do anything "public", I'll either reinvent the wheel or try and contact Monte. Dragon (thankfully) clarified the OGC in their article, freeing that up for use.

For my own use I'm playing with integrating ladening, metamagic feats, spell level increases, and spell templates. I expect that sorcerers will laden, and wizards will increase levels. Need some playtesting, though, and I just disbanded my campaign... :-/

Cheers,
Nell.

I don't have Arcana Unearthed, so I don't know how close the Dragon article is to Monte's spell templates, but I do know that the Dragon didn't properly update Section 15 of the OGL.

Aaron