Hi there!
Since my first post here in the forums last Saturday, I have been going through a lot of the excellent advice shared by the community in a number of (very long) threads about 3PP, Section 15 of the OGL, marketing tips and much more.
However, I have not yet found any discussions of how to divide one's work between Open Content and Product Identity, and how to mark parts of it as either one or the other.
Now, from what I understand, anything based on OGC automatically becomes OGC as well? To my understanding that means that if Blood Brethren Games were to release, say, 10 new feats or the Rogue class - that game supplement would automatically become OGC because feats are a part of the Pathfinder roleplaying game system?
But what if I create something more like "fluff" - like 10 generic town shops with history, descriptions and a stat block for each shopkeep? The stat block would be OGC, I take it, but the rest I could mark as Product Identity, just like Paizo marks "locations" as PI, correct?
If these understandings of OGC and PI are basically correct, I'd like to ask the 3PP community: how and when do you like to use one or the other? Is there a special benefit to keep in mind to making as much as possible either OGC or PI?
Let's assume Blood Brethren Games releases a supplement with 10 town shops - if it is released as OGC all of it, that means any other publisher could take any and all of the shops and put them in their own setting supplement and publish it and make money on it, correct?
I would really like to hear what is standard practice in the industry. Since Blood Brethren Games is very new and still in the process of securing a Pathfinder Compatibility License, it will be a while yet before we are ready to introduce our first products, and I would really like to learn from the many great people and companies, I have seen comment and help this past week.
Sincerely,
Jesper
Blood Brethren Games
Note: The usual disclaimer, ie I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice and this is likely not exhaustive. This is just something quick I wanted to post.
If you release a product which claims to be adhering to the Open Game License you must:
1. Declare any Product Identity
The usual course of action is that proper names/nouns (such as made-up NPC or place or spell names) are designated as Product Identity. However, you are not required to do so. You might designate EVERYTHING in your product as Product Identity MINUS anything already designated Open Game Content elsewhere, OR, you might say that everything is designated Open Game Content, proper nouns and all. You are not required to do so (designate everything as product identity) however, merely that you indicate what is, and is not, Open Game Content vs. Product Identity and you must do so clearly.
2. Declare any Open Game Content
If you include content that has already been declared OGC elsewhere then it remains so. You can not make something that was Open Game Content no longer OGC. NOTE! It is not required that you indicate ANY Open Game Content. The only requirement is that you clearly state what IS and IS NOT Open Game Content. You are NOT required to designate your new content Open Game Content. However, not releasing ANY NEW content as OGC is often viewed as ungrateful to the Open Gaming community and philosophy and is generally "bad form."
3. Include a complete copy of the OGL
This must include all product names and Section 15 entries from all products you reference in your product. At the very least it should include the WoTC System Reference Document and most likely the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. If you use mechanics which depend on something first appearing in some other product you must include that product and all of the items IT references in ITS Section 15, in your Section 15 (see below.)
3.a. Within your OGL, in Section 15, usually as the last entry, you must include the name by which others must reference your product in their Section 15 if they reference your Open Game Content.
Now, in response to your specific questions, in a case of 10 town shops, yes, the usual course of action would be to designate all mechanical aspects (the actual "builds" of the NPCs and such) as Open Game Content but leave their names, the names of their businesses, and any other made-up words, as Product Identity. However, as indicated above, you are not required to make their names Product Identity, just that that is the usual course most publishers take. However, that does make it harder for other publishers to reference your NPCs in their products (but you may want that to be the case anyway so...)
It is also important to remember that actual "rules" can not be copyrighted, that is, that if you create a blacksmith named Wilbur Sparkbeard, and then go on to describe his entire family and family history, his shop, and such, and also provide Pathfinder statistics for him, EVEN WITHOUT INDICATING the statistics are Open Game Content, someone else could copy and paste every mechanical aspect of that NPC, change the name, and use it as-is in their product.
Of course now someone will come along and poke a bunch of holes in the statements above but as stated, I'm not a lawyer, only relating my current understanding of the matter.
However, not releasing ANY NEW content as OGC is often viewed as ungrateful to the Open Gaming community and philosophy and is generally "bad form."
Thanks jreyst! I am glad that you have more or less confirmed my basic understanding of how OGC and PI works. And thank you for the insight into community norms regarding this!
/Jesper
There is a clause in each setction such that if you declare something to be PI or OGC, it becomes so. New feats could still be PI... unless they reproduce any text from something that is already OGC.
There is a clause in each setction such that if you declare something to be PI or OGC, it becomes so. New feats could still be PI... unless they reproduce any text from something that is already OGC.
I see. So the fact that a feat is a game mechanic does not make all feats OGC automatically? Interesting.
I would very much like to hear from other 3PP, how they usually divide their work. What is worth protecting as PI and when is it better to make the content OGC - so more people can build on it?
The OGL implies they would be by default, but one of the most important clauses of the OGL is that you need to make it clear what is PI and what is OGC.
The OGL implies they would be by default, but one of the most important clauses of the OGL is that you need to make it clear what is PI and what is OGC.
Thanks, I realise that I have to state what is OGC and what is PI. My point was that if I build on OGC, I cannot then claim my creation to suddenly be PI.
Any other publishers here who would care to comment on how they typically handle OGC versus PI? :-)
You might want to look at this as gaming mechanics versus Intellectual Property (IP) situation. You can keep all of the game mechanics open, while keep the IP closed.
You might want to look at this as gaming mechanics versus Intellectual Property (IP) situation. You can keep all of the game mechanics open, while keep the IP closed.
Thanks for the reply. Is there ever a situation where you willingly abandon trying to hold on to PI/IP/copyright, because you want other publishers to be freely able to incorporate your work into theirs?
Let's say you create 10 generic town shops and release them as a product. You'd like fans to be able to use it in their games, but you also kind of like the idea that maybe one of your shops could appear in some other publisher's fantasy setting one day. So you make it all OGC and nothing PI.
Is that a lame business idea? Am I missing some reason why you should always retain some measure of PI/IP in your products?
Thanks for the reply. Is there ever a situation where you willingly abandon trying to hold on to PI/IP/copyright, because you want other publishers to be freely able to incorporate your work into theirs?
No.
Let's say you create 10 generic town shops and release them as a product. You'd like fans to be able to use it in their games, but you also kind of like the idea that maybe one of your shops could appear in some other publisher's fantasy setting one day. So you make it all OGC and nothing PI.
I have done it with some generic products. But if I am making a unique product, I would not have the IP as open.
Is that a lame business idea? Am I missing some reason why you should always retain some measure of PI/IP in your products?
Here is a better question, why as a publisher would I use your generic city in my setting instead of creating and using one I created? Why is using your product a better choice then doing it myself?
Here is a better question, why as a publisher would I use your generic city in my setting instead of creating and using one I created? Why is using your product a better choice then doing it myself?
That is a fair point. I guess you could always rely on doing everything yourself from scratch - or do without it if you can't come up with something equally good.
On the other hand, for my part as a publisher I would welcome being able to incorporate say a new spell, a new feat or an interesting riddle that someone else made (as OGC of course) in e.g. an adventure I wrote - if I could not come up with something equally interesting myself.
But I guess opinions can differ :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both of my Adventuring Classes books are crunch-heavy, and they are nearly entirely OGC. In general, I would say, give away as much as you can. I designate as PI things that are bona fide brand identity: my trademarks, campaign setting elements, my breezy introductions, etc.
Both of my Adventuring Classes books are crunch-heavy, and they are nearly entirely OGC. In general, I would say, give away as much as you can. I designate as PI things that are bona fide brand identity: my trademarks, campaign setting elements, my breezy introductions, etc.
Sounds good, thanks! :-)
Jesper, something like a city or a town you design, isn't likely to be picked up and used by other 3rd party publishes for several reasons. Several of them have their own settings / mini settings that they use, while others just don't do setting based material at all. Beyond that, if they did want to do a city or a town it'd be better for them to make their own as that way they'd be more intimately familiar with it and that would give us a better product. (And I seriously doubt any of our 3pp are going to have a difficult time coming up with an interesting local if that is what they wish to do.)
More often you see bleed through between 3pp when they use one another's mechanics. Like how some 3pp books use Dream Scarred Press's psionics. Or how Rite has published books supporting the other 3pp base classes.
Thanks for the reply! I realise that the bigger the creation, the less likely it is to be brought into someone else's product. I would probably never aim higher than say, a tavern or shop or some similar small location with a unique and interesting story and description - or something like a riddle, a plant that has uses in alchemy or herbalism or things of that nature.
One of the products Blood Brethren Games hope to release this summer or autumn is a collection of fantasy library book descriptions - ready to put into any game. You know how your players always ask: "So what kinds of books are on these shelves?" whenever they enter a study, library or keep? Our product aims at providing Game Masters with lots of interesting options in a flash! And not just titles - descriptions, authors, quality of the books content and more.
With a product like that - almost pure fluff - I would be inclined to make it OGC, so as many people as possible have a chance to incorporate it if they wish :-)