Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yair" data-source="post: 1125725" data-attributes="member: 10913">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...</blockquote>

Verification