[XRP] Monster Geographica: Underground

[wocky]

Could you elaborate on the format the book will be published in? Pocket sized sounds great, as I try not to carry much beyond the core books in my backpack... however, I wonder if the binding will allow the DM to keep the book open to the page he's using.

 

[Grazzt]

...and I was glad to see you kept some of the source attribution from Necromancer Steve Petersen's Tome of Horrors.

You mean Clark Peterson I believe.

 

[jgbrowning]

Any chance you'll be using a similar workaround to link the monsters in the text to the OGL source in Section 15, along the lines of 2WS Steve Petersen's example or his other suggestions for improving the ease of citation?

This could be an important opportunity for you to market your book as not just a meta-manual for DMs but also a standard reference work for creators who want an index of monsters by ecology that makes it easy for them to not only drop the monsters into their adventure, but also accurately compose their own Section 15.

You could also print an informal request or "legal-light" limited license asking/allowing creators to use your PI title to credit "Original source for this monster was X by author Y, converted to 3.5 by [y'all] and published in [your book] available from [your website] or at better stores near you!" in their text.

Right now we have no plans to closely indicate what creature came from where. There are several reasons for this. Were we to put an "Original source" bit as you suggest we'd have to contact a dozen publishers. That's a lot of work for little benefit on our side and it also make each other publisher do some additional work to make sure their rights are being protected. It would also greatly disrupt the current lay-out we've got right now and laying the book out again isn't something we want to do either.

However, we're toying with a number indicator idea where a monster would have a subhead number which would reference what book it came from in the section 15 as each work would have a number as well.

Doing so makes me a bit nervous. The OGL is very particular about how you're supposed to use the section 15 and adding stuff that effectively modifies someone else's claim is tricky. Clark modified the traditional section 15 a bit, but as he was only reffering to his own material, I don't worry about any legal difficulties from Necromancer by following his guidelines for using his ToH section 15. The other publishers, however, are working without any changes in their section 15 and I'm a bit hesitant to do more to the section 15 than that which the license requires.

But, I tend to think the publishers won't have any problems with doing so because the more precise indication can only be a benefit to them, hopefully allowing customers to pick up the original source if they find some monsters they really like. I think every publisher doesn't mind a few additional sales.

As of right now, I'm on the fence about a change to indicate where a creature came from. I'm gun-shy because I know that what I think isn't the important thing here, it's what other publishers think. I think I'm being overly cautious and everyone would like the more precise indications, but that's stretching the license to do so.

So the short anser is: I don't know. One possible solution would be to place the reference numbers in a box and specifically state the box is not part of the section 15 designation. That may allow both identification while following the OGL strictly.

Could you elaborate on the format the book will be published in? Pocket sized sounds great, as I try not to carry much beyond the core books in my backpack... however, I wonder if the binding will allow the DM to keep the book open to the page he's using.

The books are more-than-likely going to be lay-flat binding like MS:EC was. Lay-flat is one tough, tough binding that would hold up under all but the most extreme uses. It also makes laying a book out easier, even with with smaller pocket-size (5.5inchesX8.5 inches).

Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

You mean Clark Peterson I believe.

Jeez! My apologies to Clark.

What an embarrasing mistake to make in a post talking about the importance of accurate attribution!

Anyways, I'll take the opportunity to once again tip my hat to the sophisticated source citation you guys did for Tome. Now that D&D is turning 30, it's more important than ever to remember where we're coming from, and y'all led the way.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Were we to put an "Original source" bit as you suggest we'd have to contact a dozen publishers.

True. What I meant to say was that you could put a permission or release so that people could say they were using the 3.5 revision of the monster as it appeared in Monster Geographica: Underground (MG:U if you want to follow Wizards' lead and suggest an abbreviation to replace the PI title). That way, at least people won't have to get *two* sets of permissions to cite the revised monster's sources in the future!

But, I tend to think the publishers won't have any problems with doing so because the more precise indication can only be a benefit to them, hopefully allowing customers to pick up the original source if they find some monsters they really like. I think every publisher doesn't mind a few additional sales.

I'm betting you're right. You could put a query into the OGF listserv to get some other opinions, but ultimately the question is will anyone bring a lawsuit to challenge your potentially-valid interpretation of the license? Steve's experience with the Second World Sourcebook already tested the waters w/o a problem, and we're seeing a growing consensus of publishers who agree that being cited can drive sales. Your book is a great opportunity to blaze a trail by doing what it sounds like everyone wants but is (reasonably enough) frightened to risk.

 

[Silveras]

I suspect it is too late to mention this, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

When creating my adventures, I often work more by Type and Subtype than CR. I find the lists by Type and SubType in the WotC monster books very handy.

 

[jgbrowning]

I suspect it is too late to mention this, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

When creating my adventures, I often work more by Type and Subtype than CR. I find the lists by Type and SubType in the WotC monster books very handy.

Well, it's a bit too late to change the complete by CR layout, but we've messed around a bit today and put in a list of Type and SubType just like the MM uses, so there will be that functionality.

Glad you mentioned it. I don't use them very much, so they didn't immediately spring to mind. Thanks!

EDIT: Silveras, I just realized that we could arrange the Type/Subtype lists by CR as opposed to alpha like the MM. I tend to think by CR would be more useful, but as I don't use the lists much to begin with, what do you think?

Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press

 

[BOZ]

hmm, found it.

I have to say this is a neat little project, and I’m glad to have it as my first real gig. when Joe and Suzi told me what they wanted to do, I thought this was what the OGL was meant to do.

This sounds very promising. I look forward to it. Any solid info on what monsters will be in it? I know that Goodman Games first monster book would be great for this (can't remember the name) and Bastion's Into the Dark has some quality stuff.

if you saw the OGL list, you might just be happy.

Here's the back cover image in the raw, showing our illustrious explorer and his primative guide.

hey, I really dig that halfling!

You mean Clark Peterson I believe.

aren’t people always getting his name confused? that’s not a wise thing to do to mighty Orcus!

Well, it's a bit too late to change the complete by CR layout, but we've messed around a bit today and put in a list of Type and SubType just like the MM uses, so there will be that functionality.

bravo, I say.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

when Joe and Suzi told me what they wanted to do, I thought this was what the OGL was meant to do.

bravo! glad folks are doing what the OGL wants them to

aren’t people always getting his name confused? that’s not a wise thing to do to mighty Orcus!

(sound of dice rolling)
(DM frowns)
Well, nothing happens this time...

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm glad about the list by types and subtypes -- this is very important to me. I suppose listing them byt CR within isn't a bad idea; it's probably more useful than alphabetizing them.