OK, I must be blind. While looking through Savage Species I just saw that none of it is OGC. I wonder why?
well, basically, 99% of WotC D&D content is not OGC.
Far as I know, besides the material from the 3 core books (and not all of it, by a long shot), the only OGC material WotC has released is a couple pages in the MMII and pretty much all of Unearthed Arcana. They've added in material to the SRD from some of the other books like the Epic Level Handbook, but it's very specific material.
Quote from: ZalmoxisOK, I must be blind. While looking through Savage Species I just saw that none of it is OGC. I wonder why?
No, Savage Species is not OGC, however, most of the content of the book is derived entirely from OGC. This came up while I was working there and I took the question of racial levels to brand because we were considering using that system for a Bastion Press book. At the time, the answer was to go ahead and use it without citing any special permission. However, since there has been a major change in brand leadership since then, it wouldn't hurt to contact them about this before using material from it on a commercial product.
I believe the Psionics Handbook is OGC, too (that is, most of it).
Quote from: Name LipsI believe the Psionics Handbook is OGC, too (that is, most of it).
A lot of it is in the SRD, but the book itself isn't OGC. There's a bit of a difference.
Yes. As far as D&D is concerned (I haven't followed the d20 Modern line), the only books with OGC are MM2 (just a pair of pages at the end, really, and that's material taken -- and fixed -- from Creature Collection) and Unearthed Arcana.
Every other book is 100% closed content.
Now, their material may also exist in the SRD. But only by virtue of being in the SRD, which is disconnected from the books.
yes, the SRD (which is filtered content from various books) is OGC and not the books, because the books contain content that WotC doesn't want to share. ;)
I guess I never paid that much attention. I mean, most of the D20 stuff apart from D&D is OGC. It just suprised me.
Quote from: ZalmoxisI guess I never paid that much attention. I mean, most of the D20 stuff apart from D&D is OGC. It just suprised me.
It's their ball so they get to make the rules. It's either play with their ball they way they want or else everyone is left playing with their own balls.
Quote from: NicephorusIt's their ball so they get to make the rules. It's either play with their ball they way they want or else everyone is left playing with their own balls.
I guess I'll have to play with my own balls then. Right? :deviousgrin:
Quote from: ZalmoxisI guess I'll have to play with my own balls then. Right? :deviousgrin:
I checked 'em out when you were showing everybody.
Very nice.
Quote from: NicephorusI checked 'em out when you were showing everybody.
Very nice.
Except when they're sweaty and itchy, then we all suffer.
Quote from: AndvariExcept when they're sweaty and itchy, then we all suffer.
Hey, it happens. :mischief:
Quote from: ZalmoxisI guess I never paid that much attention. I mean, most of the D20 stuff apart from D&D is OGC. It just suprised me.
If you check the title pages of WotC books, look at the fine print. They always put "contains no open content" in it. d20 material from third-party companies has to contain a minimum amount of OGC according to the OGL. I've seen some grousing about this, especially near the beginning of the d20 movement, but really, WotC opened up a lot of content in the SRD, and was adding to it pretty regularly for a while. If you look closely at many third-party d20 products, and check what's actually OGC, you may be surprised at how companies follow the letter of the OGL but not the spirit. They "cripple" the OGC by making the names of monsters PI (product identity) or some such stuff. I understand doing this to an extent, but some of it goes overboard, in my opinion.
Quote from: AndvariExcept when they're sweaty and itchy, then we all suffer.
cause then they start stinkin'. peee-yeewww.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonThey "cripple" the OGC by making the names of monsters PI (product identity) or some such stuff. I understand doing this to an extent, but some of it goes overboard, in my opinion.
While I find this practice annoying, it's ever so easy to just change the name. They've already done the hard work for us and made it OGC.
Quote from: AndvariWhile I find this practice annoying, it's ever so easy to just change the name. They've already done the hard work for us and made it OGC.
Yeah, I realize that. It's more the principle of it.
The problem is not when they clearly state that monster names in their bestiary are IP (and so the monsters should be renamed if reused by another company).
It's when they obsfucate things so that you end up not knowing what is and isn't OGC. Monte Cook do (did? I stopped following d20 news) this an awful lot. You have statements that amount to "Names are OGC, except when they start by an upper-case letter, unless they're for a creature, except they designate a monster, but not when they are names" and end up just selling the book off eBay to use the cash for buying aspirin.
You expressed the problem much, much better than I could. I've seen a lot of d20 publishers really complicate the process of figuring out what is or isn't OGC in their products.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonYou expressed the problem much, much better than I could. I've seen a lot of d20 publishers really complicate the process of figuring out what is or isn't OGC in their products.
Maybe that's part of the reason why OGC never blossomed into something like the open source code groups. It's fairly rarefor companies to use each other's stuff. Maybe it's just too much to deal with.
In a lot of cases, using someone else's OGC isn't a big problem. Believe me, there are less publishers who obfuscate their OGC declarations than there are publishers who simply declare entire books as open gaming content.
So why do most publishers not reuse each other's OGC that often? Why do some of them even "reinvent" material instead of using an open content version of nearly the same thing?
It's mostly a matter of ego.
I wish more WotC stuff was OGC though. :(
You and me both... there's some great stuff in d20 Apocalypse and d20 Future Tech that I'm almost dying to use as open content.
you might be able to get special permission if you ask, but i'm not sure about that because i really have no idea. ;)
Special permission is not that hard to get. I've been lucky and never turned down, even allowed to use PI monsters names in flavor text and history. I got to used Urban Arcana before it made the SRD, and stuff from Future that isn't in the SRD, and even allowed to print NPC's with Faerun backgrounds and feats, providing I didn't reprint the feats.
WotC is surprisingly easy to work with, providing you recognise it's thier toys you are playing with. :)
How would one go about asking?
Quote from: RoudiIn a lot of cases, using someone else's OGC isn't a big problem. Believe me, there are less publishers who obfuscate their OGC declarations than there are publishers who simply declare entire books as open gaming content.QuoteThat's true. But it seems like many, if not most, of the best-known d20/OGL publishers, the guys who put out some of the best work, obfuscate their OGC.
Quote from: RoudiSo why do most publishers not reuse each other's OGC that often? Why do some of them even "reinvent" material instead of using an open content version of nearly the same thing?
It's mostly a matter of ego.
Yeah, that's what it seems like to me. It's ironic, given that WotC gave away a helluva lot, but then some of those who took advantage of the opportunity seem jealous of anyone using their work for free (essentially).
Quote from: ZalmoxisI wish more WotC stuff was OGC though.
I wish that they'd at least release more of it into the SRD, where it would probably do even more good.