They were closed content before the time travel stuff came about (Lords of Madness).
Sure, they're clearly Cthulhu-influenced. However, telepathic squid men isn't what's closed content (there's plenty of those around in other systems) - consider the time travelling stuff, being born from tadpoles burrowing up into people's brains, etcetera... There's a heap of lore thats been added on top of the obvious over the years. That (and the name) is what's been protected by declaring them closed content.
Yeah, I was just giving examples - my point was that a mind flayer is more than a psionic squid man. There was plenty of flavor material prior to the OGL.
.<snip>
What I question is the soundness of the idea that you can base something on outside inspiration, then legally protect your creation from externally inspiring anything else.
I dont have a problem with either the ethics or legality of it (I'm happy with tolkien protecting his take on elves, even though he didnt invent the concept of pointy eared, long lived, fey people. I'm happy with Paizo protecting their interpretation of goblins).
.Different people will draw the line in different places of course and I dont pretend to have the definitive answer. My main point was that protecting Mind Flayers was (in my mind) protecting all the added extras. After all, the concept of mental squid men is not closed content - I think all the extra flavor they added to Mind Flayers over the years (both before and after the OGL existed) entitles WotC to claim it as closed content. The fact it was inspired by someone else's work doesnt alter that in my opinion.
I'd have a greater problem if they tried to claim halflings or elves as closed content, since in my view they didnt add very much substantive flavor to those races.
It makes me sad most folks don't know Poul Anderson.I didn't mean to make you sad.Its ok. I just hate that mythology gets no credit for anything any more. Elves were around long before Tolkien. (And I'm not sure who you meant by Anderson or Brooks.)
He seems to be better known for his SF than fantasy...
i can't think of a more "iconic, created for D&D" monster, to be frank.
Gnoll
These are actually from African myths, known from the Maghreb to Ethiopia as Bouda, but in some cases they're half-man, half-hyena, and in others they turn into hyenas, and in others, they're human-possessing hyena spirits, but the core is there. They're also called bultungin (Kanuri) or kaftar (Persian). Really, the page on Werehyenas is better.
/threadjack
-Ben.
.
Different people will draw the line in different places of course and I dont pretend to have the definitive answer. My main point was that protecting Mind Flayers was (in my mind) protecting all the added extras. After all, the concept of mental squid men is not closed content - I think all the extra flavor they added to Mind Flayers over the years (both before and after the OGL existed) entitles WotC to claim it as closed content. The fact it was inspired by someone else's work doesnt alter that in my opinion.
Yet if they had offered mind flayers as open content, all that extra stuff would still be closed content. The part that they are reserving consists of some uncopyrightable, untrademarkable concepts, plus a stat block. And the stat block itself comes close to being "mere information." I don't see it as a move that protects creativity, but purely one aimed at corralling some book sales. What you think about that depends on your view of open content in general, I think.
I think the biggest thing protected was the name(s). Those are copyrightable and trademarkable, aren't they?
As I understand things, you can create a creature with effectively the same statblock as a mind flayer, despite it being closed content. You just can't say that's what it is or where it came from. Isn't that right?
I'm sure I've seen what is basically an open content beholder - just with a different name.
You can't use their concept. I mean they left the entire thing open source basically and asked that you don't infringe of a few things. I think it's just nice to steer as much as possible. I mean they could have closed off a LOT of content, but they only restricted a few things.
You could probably skirt the rules in 12 different ways and you could be technically right.
Just give them the benefit of a doubt and make up something new or buy their products :-)
If you like it THAT much, you can homebrew something up. Just don't publish it or whatever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I look at it is, there was zero open content before, and a ton of it after. I'm pretty sure there's enough for me to work with without worrying about the odd thing here and there they kept back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't use their concept. I mean they left the entire thing open source basically and asked that you don't infringe of a few things. I think it's just nice to steer as much as possible. I mean they could have closed off a LOT of content, but they only restricted a few things.
You could probably skirt the rules in 12 different ways and you could be technically right.Just give them the benefit of a doubt and make up something new or buy their products :-)
I agree. I think WotC were incredibly generous and I struggle to understand the view that by retaining a dozen or so monsters they were somehow compromising the spirit of the OGL.
The purpose of the OGL is to provide a "safe harbor," which serves both licensor and licensee. It is not a one-sided gift; someone who uses the OGL makes a number of concessions to WotC in return for the WotC's grant of license and certain acknowledgments. If there were no OGL at all, you could still publish compatible materials, but every 3pp would be continually skirting the fuzzy edges of IP law. The wrong decision could put you out of business; the wrong lawsuit could cost WotC immeasurable goodwill. In that view, I think WotC made a poor decision as a business and industry leader with regard to the mind flayer. But it's not that big of a deal. All that has really happened is that 3pp have been hedged toward open content replacements.
That's a nice thought, but for me, the respect them for the good they've done went away when they said I could no longer download products I had legally purchased from the vendor I had purchased them from. I'm all for people skirting their rules 12 different ways so long as they stay legal.You can't use their concept. I mean they left the entire thing open source basically and asked that you don't infringe of a few things. I think it's just nice to steer as much as possible. I mean they could have closed off a LOT of content, but they only restricted a few things.
You could probably skirt the rules in 12 different ways and you could be technically right.
Isn't it the case that you hadn't actually legally purchased them?
Granted many people thought they were buying download rights in perpetuity, however if you legally had done that then wotc wouldn't have been able to prohibit future access.
The purpose of the OGL is to provide a "safe harbor," which serves both licensor and licensee. It is not a one-sided gift; someone who uses the OGL makes a number of concessions to WotC in return for the WotC's grant of license and certain acknowledgments. If there were no OGL at all, you could still publish compatible materials, but every 3pp would be continually skirting the fuzzy edges of IP law. The wrong decision could put you out of business; the wrong lawsuit could cost WotC immeasurable goodwill.
That's no doubt true, however they were more generous with their IP than they had to be. (I'm thinking Tome of Horrors, in particular). Whilst its a mutual thing, I think the ground was pretty heavily slanted in wotc's favour. I think they gave up more than they needed to and deserve respect for that (in the same way I lost some respect for them with the release of the GSL and the associated shenanigans).
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the decision of whether or not to spend top dollar on a cover is also influenced by your product's price point, its relationship to the trust between buyer and company, and your sales targets.
For example, with Razor Coast
Price point = high. lots of complaints. not an impulse buy
Trust relationship = trust? FGG has trust, but RC had a harsh legacy
Sales targets = high. trying to hit 500 - 1000 units pre-print
I don't think we could have gotten away with a cover not dripping with WAR coolness and made those variables work.
So to attract attention, keep that attention despite the high cost of entry, and communicate that the book would be worth the price just by looking at the cover, Wayne was worth every penny.
However, if we had Hypothetical Product
Price point = low
Trust relationship = already strong
Sales targets = low. break even is 25 units
Then, yeah, why on earth spend on a cover?
For the analytically minded (or the lazy people like me who want simple rules of thumb) I bet the question can actually be boiled down to two numbers. What percentage of the break-even on your initial print (or in the PDF only world, initial production) run should you spend on a cover? And what's the price elasticity?
Take Creighton's numbers from his break-even discussion:
Costs: 4,000 words ($40)
Free: I do the layout, development and traditional Raging Swan Press cover. I use stock art, the cost of which is so low I don’t bother tracking the cost.
Thus, to determine the breakeven point I divide $40 (the total costs) by $1.39 (the revenue per copy).
Breakeven Point: Raging Swan Press reaches the product’s breakeven point at 28.77 copies. Nice.
Even 100% of his break even costs ($40) couldn't buy a good color cover; so no way on earth should Creighton lay out for one. But 5% of his break even is only $2. If he could get a color cover for $2, should he? Probably. Why? Because a color cover probably gets more than 2 more sales (price elasticity).
Come to think of it, someone with better math than me could probably take a measure of price elasticity and calculate exactly how much its worth spending on a color cover given any particular break even.
Just noodling, here.
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I typed through that while thinking, if you know the price elasticity of your product (ie how much changes like a cover impact the # of units sold) and your appetite for risk (our stats say a cover should add 10% to units sold, but I'm only willing to spend such that I need a 5% increase in units sold to cover the cost), you can calculate what you should spend on a cover. Then see if you can get a cover worth its salt for that amount.
Sorry for all the noodling out loud, above.
Here's a thing too. How to get prime time artist's work cheaper and fairly: buy limited rights.
For example, the WAR cover for Razor Coast is on a 1 year first worldwide publication license. This means Razor Coast gets to use it as a cover (or anything else) anywhere in the world, for one year only, starting from first publication (or use in marketing material). After that one year clock starts ticking, if FGG wants to print more Razor Coast using that cover, they need to pay Wayne again and relicense it - albeit substantially less than they did for the first year.
That was a MUCH less expensive way to go than buying total exclusive ownership of that art. Since we figure the majority of the book's sales come in year 1, that's fine too.
If demand for RC is high enough at the end of year 1, FGG can relicense the same cover. If not, they can decide to use a less-expensive piece to which they have an exclusive, in-perpetuity license and make a new cover.
Depending on the artist, the 1 year limited license can be a way for a product to get original, eye-catching cover art for less, without being exploitative or unfair to the artist.
Warning: this is not advice. just some thinking out loud. your mileage may vary.
|
Publisher, Raging Swan Press
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I typed through that while thinking, if you know the price elasticity of your product (ie how much changes like a cover impact the # of units sold) and your appetite for risk (our stats say a cover should add 10% to units sold, but I'm only willing to spend such that I need a 5% increase in units sold to cover the cost), you can calculate what you should spend on a cover. Then see if you can get a cover worth its salt for that amount.
Sorry for all the noodling out loud, above.
Here's a thing too. How to get prime time artist's work cheaper and fairly: buy limited rights.
For example, the WAR cover for Razor Coast is on a 1 year first worldwide publication license. This means Razor Coast gets to use it as a cover (or anything else) anywhere in the world, for one year only, starting from first publication (or use in marketing material). After that one year clock starts ticking, if FGG wants to print more Razor Coast using that cover, they need to pay Wayne again and relicense it - albeit substantially less than they did for the first year.
That was a MUCH less expensive way to go than buying total exclusive ownership of that art. Since we figure the majority of the book's sales come in year 1, that's fine too.
If demand for RC is high enough at the end of year 1, FGG can relicense the same cover. If not, they can decide to use a less-expensive piece to which they have an exclusive, in-perpetuity license and make a new cover.
Depending on the artist, the 1 year limited license can be a way for a product to get original, eye-catching cover art for less, without being exploitative or unfair to the artist.
Warning: this is not advice. just some thinking out loud. your mileage may vary.
Louis if you could work out the price elasticity of cover art, I'd be delighted to see your equation! I expect a lot of people would be very keen to get their hands on it.
Sorry for all the noodling out loud, above.
Don't you dare apologize. That's good stuff. ;)
And on the limited rights point-- for the fanzine I help run, we only ask for the print rights to the issue, and a reprint, should we do a compilation. Other than that, the piece is theirs to do with as they wish, and this seems to help. :)
-Ben.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the art budget is small, I usually ask for use of the art in that one book, and subsequent editions and anthologies.
Sorry for all the noodling out loud, above.
Absolutely no reason to apologize Louis! It was very interesting noodling and thoughts - and thanks for bringing the thread back on OP topic! ;-)
|
Contributor
|
@Creighton - Actually price elasticity probably varies by publisher. The best way to do it would be for a 3pp to experiment, collect the data, and run the stats.
Do three random selections from your mailing list. Email them about 3 different versions of the same product: no cover, a good cover, a cheap cover. See the variation in sales. Then start offering discounts on each to the same groups. See how volume changes over time.
Try the same experiment with different categories of product (splat books vs. adventures vs. lots of pages vs. short vs. pdf only -- however your particular product line divides up).
Run stats. Extrapolate.
Something like that. It's been a long time since I studied the relevant MBA/marketing crud; but essentially you design an experiment then test it.
If you do it right and collect enough data, you can build a pretty good model with real predictive value.
You might even be able to borrow an artist's art for the test on the commitment to use them for covers if your study results show it makes smart business sense to use covers.
PS Anecdotally, I've heard from more than one publisher that in our industry sex really does sell. Put sexy hot people - especially images of women - on your cover and get a 20%+ jump in sales. Pretty darn guaranteed, so I'm told. I leave the ethics of such a choice to each publisher, but the anecdotal evidence suggests it works.