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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1126273" data-attributes="member: 2013">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." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />  I have probably saved close to $1,000 thatnks to publishers' arcane OGC designations. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification