| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been hearing a lot of praise about Deep Magic. And, there's a lot to like about it; after all, it contains the spell burning monkey swarm. Burning monkey swarm! I now realize what I've wanted to do all my life is make a sorcerer specializing in burning monkey swarm.
But, I do want to register my disappointment with how much of this book is closed content. I must admit, I half-expected something like this, but I was hoping for the best. Here are the relevant entries on the credits page:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, place names, new deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, sidebars, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.).
Open Game Content: The Open content in this book includes the spells in Chapter 2, bloodlines and mysteries in Chapter 5, and archetypes in Chapter 6. No other portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without permission.
The first paragraph I have very little problem with; some of the sidebars contain "crunch" game material, but otherwise it's all good.
The second paragraph leads to disappointment and concern.Here are some examples:
- There's new Words of Power content. Awesome! But, it's in Chapter 4, which is closed content. This means that other publishers can't (freely/easily) use the material for their own work. And, if another publisher wants to expand on Words of Power, not only can't they use what's published here, but if they want to do something similar, they have to make their own version instead of using what's already available.
- Chapter 2 contains the spells animate dead i through ix. Good! But, the tables which tell you what the spells actually create are in Chapter 7, which is closed content. Oops?
- There's the Chaos Mage wizard archetype in Chapter 6. Good! But the Chaos School is in Chapter 1, so it is closed content. You don't actually need to use the Chaos School to use the Chaos Mage archetype, but it's so fitting that it makes it disappointing that the school is closed content.
- None of the feats, anywhere, are open content. Some are in sidebars, which makes them product identity.
- Any items, such as the ioun stones in Chapter 1, are closed content.
I'm hoping that most of this is an oversight, and can be rectified at the same time you're fixing (other?) typographical errors. Or maybe all other publishers have to do to use such content is request it, and permission will be freely granted. I guess I'll find out.
|
The way that's worded it's highly unlikely to be an oversight. It's also pretty uncommon to be that restrictive in most PFRPG products. I deal with a massive amount of Pathfinder products and the vast, vast majority contain the relatively standard OGL structure (product identity = proper nouns such as place/person names etc. but the the mechanics are ALL OGC.
I wish the few companies which restrict their content more than Paizo would take a page out of Paizo's book and just follow their OGL wording. However, some publishers (rightly/wrongly) want to maintain more control than that.
|
|
However, just now I noticed this Product Identity statement which to be honest, I find just as problematic as the one in the OP:
"Open Game Content: All material — including but not limited to art, place and character names, character and setting descriptions, background, and new class descriptions—is Product Identity. All other content is considered Open Game Content."
Most of that is pretty standard, but the "and new class descriptions" is not. However, upon investigating the file, there are no new classes IN the product, therefore, it appears the PI statement may have been copied and pasted from a different product which does include such content.
There at no new classes actually in Deep Magic but a lot of non paizo classes are referred to especially in the spell lists where these classes are directly supported.
Although I have to say that I don't quite understand what the problem is.
|
|
My classes reference was not referring to Deep Magic. I actually haven't seen the OGL within that book, nor the Product Identity/Open Game Content statement personally.
I was referring to a different product I happened to have open by a different publisher which calls out classes as NOT open game content in a product which has no classes in it. That's why I suggested the wording may have been copied/pasted from a different product.
To explain the "problem" more clearly, publishers who release content under the OGL are required to indicate what portions of their product are considered Product Identity (which can not be used by other publishers) and what parts are Open Game Content. Publishers are not required to make ANYTHING Open Game Content, but they must indicate that. So, in one regard, making ANYTHING OGC is a plus, but making some parts product identity which many (most?) other publishers usually indicate as OGC, it makes it much more problematic/difficult to build on the content by other publishers. It's why many 3pp just don't bother attempting to dig out the OGC from a product in such cases. That is probably the goal of the publisher who uses such wording, but from some publishers perspectives, this is counter to the "spirit" of the OGL.
Your mileage may vary/public disclaimer/blah blah lol
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I have to say that I don't quite understand what the problem is.
Yeah, me neither.
Creative output is a valuable thing and allowing others to use any of your work for minimal cost is generous, in my opinion. I don't share the view that because some companies are very permissive it therefore follows that "predominantly OGL" should be the norm.
However, just now I noticed this Product Identity statement which to be honest, I find just as problematic as the one in the OP:
"Open Game Content: All material — including but not limited to art, place and character names, character and setting descriptions, background, and new class descriptions—is Product Identity. All other content is considered Open Game Content."
Most of that is pretty standard, but the "and new class descriptions" is not. However, upon investigating the file, there are no new classes IN the product, therefore, it appears the PI statement may have been copied and pasted from a different product which does include such content.
See, I read that and assume it refers to the flavor text of the class, not the class feature descriptions.
As typical in this sort of thing... IANAL and YMMV and ABC and XYZ and doe ray me...
From my prospective as a customer, when I see something interesting in an adventure or other such product, and I don’t own the original source, I go out and purchase it. By invoking product identity on certain aspects of a companys intellectual propertys, I am far less likely to see its work, and therefore less likely to obtain the original source. Basically, I see it as free advertising to have your work in as many supplements as possible. I’m probably not the baseline here, so YMMV.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Publishers are not required to make ANYTHING Open Game Content, but they must indicate that.
I'm sure you already know this, but just to be clear OGL use can be a bit more complicated. Original material doesn't need to be OGC. Derivative material- work based on existing open game content- has to also be open game content. That's mainly described in 1b, 1g (definitions of "derivative material" and "use"), 2 (the license) and 4 (what the license grants).
There's new Words of Power content. Awesome! But, it's in Chapter 4, which is closed content.
Well, that's disappointing. I actually held off on doing more WoP work to see what KP was doing. While I'm not doing much Pathfinder work these days, new Word of Power is (was) going to be something I was going to go gangbusters on. Now ...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's disappointing. I actually held off on doing more WoP work to see what KP was doing. While I'm not doing much Pathfinder work these days, new Word of Power is (was) going to be something I was going to go gangbusters on. Now ...There's new Words of Power content. Awesome! But, it's in Chapter 4, which is closed content.
You do know that you could contact them directly to see if they might open up the content for you to use as a publisher. I did this with a few things from Monte Cook and he was very cool about it. Most times they know they have some thing cool and they want to make sure people don't abuse what they may have created. Which a creator should be able to, if they wish.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creative output is a valuable thing and allowing others to use any of your work for minimal cost is generous, in my opinion. I don't share the view that because some companies are very permissive it therefore follows that "predominantly OGL" should be the norm.
Some people seem to view the OGL as some sort of seal of quality, despite the history of evidence that proves otherwise. I've seen people on these forums strongly imply, if not state outright, that they would never buy a non-OGL product because they consider them to be inferior. This was not them talking about not wanting to use non-OGL stuff because they wanted to published something, etc. This was them not wanting to use non-OGL stuff in their own private home games because OBVIOUSLY if that stuff was any good it would be OGL. [rolls eyes]
For the incantation stuff, I don't recall if it's OGL or not-- but we did contact Scott Gable and asked permission to reproduce material from his Incantations in Theory & Practice.
And I don't remember if the severed head trophy incantation from KQ17 is OGL, but I know Rite Publishing mentioned to Kobold Press when they were using it for one of the Faces of the Tarnished Souk.
-Ben.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of things that are fine as closed content. Keeping the spellbooks closed content makes sense to me. Most of the sidebars are plot/story based, or specific to Midgard, and that's appropriately closed.
I'm hoping that most of this is an oversight, and can be rectified at the same time you're fixing (other?) typographical errors. Or maybe all other publishers have to do to use such content is request it, and permission will be freely granted. I guess I'll find out.
Sadly, I don't think it's in error, as Kobold Press/Open Design has a history of being bizarrely mix-and-match in their Open Content and Closed Content otherwise, something I noticed way back when Sunken Empires came out.
The lack of Open Content in Deep Magic just strikes me as lazy more than anything. Chapters 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 are basically an Unearthed Arcana of additional variants and content: spellbooks, variants, magic items, schools, arcane discoveries, feats, new words of power, constucts, undead...closed, closed, closed. Even if it's reprinted or reworked versions of Midgard-related content, good crunch should be able to stand on its own.
Between this and the frustrating hassle it took to merely get the Backer Spells credited to their authors, it's made me hesitant to purchase anything else KP, despite how much I love it. It's also the reason I opted out of the Mythic Mania kickstarter. How much of that will be Closed Content? Why pay for patronage and the opportunity to contribute if your contributions go unrecognized?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there Alex!
I certainly respect your opinion, but I would point out that Deep Magic is a HUGE book and close to 300 pages of it ARE open content, compared to less than 76 pages which are not. That's a pretty big percentage of Deep Magic that is open content.
In fact, it is because so much of Deep Magic (and the New Paths Compendium, for that matter) IS open content that the good folks at Legendary CAN use Mythic versions of it in their upcoming Mythic Mania books ...
As many of the folks in this very thread have pointed out, companies are free to keep some material (typically things considered product identity etc) closed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! Companies are entitled to make money, and keeping control of their content is one of the main ways they do that.
Like I said, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but using phrases like 'hassle and heartbreak' and 'lazy' seem pretty disingenuous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly respect your opinion, but I would point out that Deep Magic is a HUGE book and close to 300 pages of it ARE open content, compared to less than 76 pages which are not. That's a pretty big percentage of Deep Magic that is open content.
Not compared to pretty much every other third-party publisher I can think of.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically this whole thread is some people are upset that Kobold Press has kept some of their licensed properties inaccessible to others, but only in regards to publishing said material themselves?
Because, I'm pretty sure all the material in Deep Magic is able to be used at your home gaming table. Its when you try and take their content and in an attempt to make money off it yourself that there's a problem.
Isn't that exactly how Paizo does things? You can't, for example, create a setting book to detail Geb, the Blood Lords and Arazni, but you could create one about a nation where the undead rule.
Also, if this is all about what's closed vs open, is it not possible that if you just ask the Kobolds, and they might allow you to use something that's closed?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo releases 100% of their "mechanics" as Open Game Content. They retain their "fluff" as product identity. That is, words like "Golarion" or "Calistria" etc. There's a big difference.
Also, it's not about asking permission. That's completely counter to the concept of the OGL.
So yeah, some people, perhaps some of them being publishers, others not, are upset that Kobold Press restricts a large portion of their RULES elements as Product Identity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a publisher POV, one of the biggest problems with making everything OGL is that before you know it, someone or other has published pretty much everything the average player needs from your entire product in their own product or website.
The point of the OGL was to allow publishers to build upon each other's content without risk of being sued for creating a derivative work, thus encouraging more products building on the original work and helping to promote its use. I really can't blame anyone for putting tighter controls on their product to ensure it doesn't start appearing elsewhere verbatim.
Individual feats, spells, monsters, etc, are good choices to close, as the chances are you want people to buy your product to be able to use them. Opening them up could cause more people to notice you via section 15 references, or could just mean people are able to obtain them without buying your product, so it's a bit of a gamble.
Rules for new systems and subsystems are good things to open up, as they're ideal candidates for other parties to expand upon and to require more people to buy your work to be able to use that expansion (and this sort of thing is where more publishers should consider putting in a standard-form license along the lines of the Pathfinder Compatibility License for anyone using their OGL to be able to refer back to their work as the source of said system/subsystem, in order to help sell more copies.)
If I were to create a new magic system today, I'd likely open around 80-90% of the rules for it (enough that another publisher could reference those rules enough to write expansions on them, while not enough that they could republish the entire system), while closing the individual spells. Then I'd add the above standard-form license allowing publishers to reference my product by name to tell everyone where to go to get the rules for the full magic system their new spells work with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo releases 100% of their "mechanics" as Open Game Content. They retain their "fluff" as product identity. That is, words like "Golarion" or "Calistria" etc. There's a big difference.
That works great for Paizo's business model, which is pretty much to sell Golarion stuff, while the Pathfinder rules are almost just a sideline to make it all work.
For other publishers, the rules they produce can be their bread and butter, in the way the APs, Player Companions, and Campaign Setting books are for Paizo. Protecting rules IP may be as important to one publisher as protecting setting IP may be to another. Lets remember even WotC didn't OGL the entire of 3E, entire rulebooks were produced that were completely closed.
|
|
Paizo releases 100% of their "mechanics" as Open Game Content. They retain their "fluff" as product identity. That is, words like "Golarion" or "Calistria" etc. There's a big difference.
Also, it's not about asking permission. That's completely counter to the concept of the OGL.
So yeah, some people, perhaps some of them being publishers, others not, are upset that Kobold Press restricts a large portion of their RULES elements as Product Identity.
You can't copyright game mechanics (i.e. The Rules), only the words used to express the mechanics (which is why the guy running Pathifinder is a "Gm" and not a "DM"). So, basically, they can ONLY copyright the fluff and expression of mechanics, and they can only use a bunch of the old D&D terms because of the OGL.
I could take Kirth's houserules, file off all of the language, rename every skill and feat, use the exact same mechanics, and be completely legal, as long as I did not accidentally use a specific protected term to express the rules.
Of course, most people have no idea how copyright works for games, so they ask permission. ;-)
It's worth noting that this is a pattern for Kobold Press. Back when Kobold Quarterly was coming out, I was continually disappointed by how little of its d20 mechanics were Open Game Content.Again, mechanics cannot be copyrighted, only the words used to describe them.
That's worth expanding on a little. If you did happen to reword non-open rules from an OGL product, you could potentially end up in a position where while you were not violating copyright law, you were still violating the terms of the OGL by reusing something that was declared as PI (even though it was something not able to be protected by copyright.)
It looks like one of those fuzzy things that could come down to whose lawyer made the best argument on the day (especially as you could argue that your re-worded rules came from your own head and were not at all based on the oh-so-similar ones you were accused of reusing), but that in itself is enough to put most of us off trying it :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my prospective as a customer, when I see something interesting in an adventure or other such product, and I don’t own the original source, I go out and purchase it. By invoking product identity on certain aspects of a companys intellectual propertys, I am far less likely to see its work, and therefore less likely to obtain the original source. Basically, I see it as free advertising to have your work in as many supplements as possible. I’m probably not the baseline here, so YMMV.
I did almost this exact thing. I got TPK games "Ultimate Gladiator", which used a system derived from the Genius games "Talented Fighter", and I liked the system so I bought both talented fighter books. Sometimes exposure gets you sales.
|
|
It's worth noting that this is a pattern for Kobold Press. Back when Kobold Quarterly was coming out, I was continually disappointed by how little of its d20 mechanics were Open Game Content.Again, mechanics cannot be copyrighted, only the words used to describe them.That's worth expanding on a little. If you did happen to reword non-open rules from an OGL product, you could potentially end up in a position where while you were not violating copyright law, you were still violating the terms of the OGL by reusing something that was declared as PI (even though it was something not able to be protected by copyright.)
It looks like one of those fuzzy things that could come down to whose lawyer made the best argument on the day (especially as you could argue that your re-worded rules came from your own head and were not at all based on the oh-so-similar ones you were accused of reusing), but that in itself is enough to put most of us off trying it :)
Then don't use the OGL. Simple. And don't use D&D terms to describe the mechanics, let the numbers do the talking (the game is math, everything else is fluff). But, if you want to play by their rules, follow them.
if you accept the OGL, it is what it is. If you don't, and have an ounce of creativity, it is irrelevant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You most certainly CAN copyright original game mechanics. You can't copyright game mechanics which are included in the Open Gaming License.Paizo releases 100% of their "mechanics" as Open Game Content. They retain their "fluff" as product identity. That is, words like "Golarion" or "Calistria" etc. There's a big difference.
Also, it's not about asking permission. That's completely counter to the concept of the OGL.
So yeah, some people, perhaps some of them being publishers, others not, are upset that Kobold Press restricts a large portion of their RULES elements as Product Identity.
You can't copyright game mechanics (i.e. The Rules), only the words used to express the mechanics (which is why the guy running Pathifinder is a "Gm" and not a "DM"). So, basically, they can ONLY copyright the fluff and expression of mechanics, and they can only use a bunch of the old D&D terms because of the OGL.
I could take Kirth's houserules, file off all of the language, rename every skill and feat, use the exact same mechanics, and be completely legal, as long as I did not accidentally use a specific protected term to express the rules.
Of course, most people have no idea how copyright works for games, so they ask permission. ;-)
You know why OSRIC actually exists? Because you cannot copyright MECHANICS. Only the words to describe them. WotC doesn't own the d20, the d12, the d10, the d8, d6, or d4. They own the rights to the name "D&D" and all the terms that come with it. They do no own the rights to using a d20 to determine the outcome of actions.
You most certainly CAN copyright original game mechanics. You can't copyright game mechanics which are included in the Open Gaming License.
You can copyright the specific text explaining them. What that doesn't protect against is someone else rewriting the same rules in their own words.
According to http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html, what you cannot copyright is the methods and systems used in playing the game. That's usually what we refer to when we say "you can't copyright game rules". You can copyright your rulebook, but I can then go write my own rulebook using the same rules but written into my own words (assuming we're not both using the OGL, that is.)
That's worth expanding on a little. If you did happen to reword non-open rules from an OGL product, you could potentially end up in a position where while you were not violating copyright law, you were still violating the terms of the OGL by reusing something that was declared as PI (even though it was something not able to be protected by copyright.)
It looks like one of those fuzzy things that could come down to whose lawyer made the best argument on the day (especially as you could argue that your re-worded rules came from your own head and were not at all based on the oh-so-similar ones you were accused of reusing), but that in itself is enough to put most of us off trying it :)
Then don't use the OGL. Simple. And don't use D&D terms to describe the mechanics, let the numbers do the talking (the game is math, everything else is fluff). But, if you want to play by their rules, follow them.
if you accept the OGL, it is what it is. If you don't, and have an ounce of creativity, it is irrelevant.
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make, that if someone is using the OGL, they can't necessarily just assume they can rewrite closed rules due to them not being copyrightable :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not surprised. The major reason that I passed on supporting this Kickstarter was due to KP's history of keeping classes and spells and the like out of the OGL. If I can't play in your playground, then I'm certainly not going to stop and buy a hot dog from your playground's hot dog stand.
[/soapbox]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not surprised. The major reason that I passed on supporting this Kickstarter was due to KP's history of keeping classes and spells and the like out of the OGL. If I can't play in your playground, then I'm certainly not going to stop and buy a hot dog from your playground's hot dog stand.
[/soapbox]
It's a shame you feel that way :( Personally I'm more inclined to blame people who have shamelessly lifted the entire OGL content of products and republished the text verbatim with next to zero added content of their own, rather than sticking to the spirit of expansion and reuse of individual elements, for publishers having to go to these extents to protect their work.
I'm not surprised. The major reason that I passed on supporting this Kickstarter was due to KP's history of keeping classes and spells and the like out of the OGL. If I can't play in your playground, then I'm certainly not going to stop and buy a hot dog from your playground's hot dog stand.
[/soapbox]
Not sure I understand this. Are you only looking to republish the material in Deep Magic? Or are you planning on using it in a game?
Unless you are a publisher only interested in the PI material, not the spells and other Open Content, then how can you not "play in the playground?"
Seems kind of silly to not avail yourself of something cool for your game for no other reason than some fictitious publisher somewhere might want to use some of Deep Magic's material but might not be able to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not surprised. The major reason that I passed on supporting this Kickstarter was due to KP's history of keeping classes and spells and the like out of the OGL. If I can't play in your playground, then I'm certainly not going to stop and buy a hot dog from your playground's hot dog stand.
[/soapbox]
Not sure I understand this. Are you only looking to republish the material in Deep Magic? Or are you planning on using it in a game?
Unless you are a publisher only interested in the PI material, not the spells and other Open Content, then how can you not "play in the playground?"
Seems kind of silly to not avail yourself of something cool for your game for no other reason than some fictitious publisher somewhere might want to use some of Deep Magic's material but might not be able to.
Alexander is a 3PP publisher. Has done what I'm told is excellent work updating the Binder from 3.5 that I sadly haven't been able to use for my characters due to lack of GM approval
Honestly? If I made a spell, published in a book I sold, called disambiguating labyrinth or something, there are three general possible scenarios for it. The first is that it doesn't even get noticed by the community at large. The second is that people like it and some people use it in their home games. The third is that it is a smash hit and it gets referenced and reused in other work, to last in fame for years or decades. Of these, the first is by far the most common. The second has a decent chance to happen if I have decent design skills and some sort of reputation. The third, well, how many new spells would end up here? Not many over the time we have had the OGL. Now, choosing to make disambiguating labyrinth closed content means I actively shut it out from the third option above.
That said, I understand the idea of closed content. If they want my new spell, they have to buy my book. In theory, sure. In practice, people will use what they want. If someone were to sell books with text copied from your book, it is quite possible the buyers would already have yours. Or the copy book never sells. Or people buy the copy book because it has a better structure than your book. Or, your book goes out of print and the copy becomes the only way to obtain your stuff.
In fact, rewriting a book and keeping it mostly intact while doing so, then selling it as your own product is, roughly, what Paizo did with the Core Rulebook. Nor were they the only, or first, ones to do so for the 3.X ruleset. I don't think there is much to criticize in what they did, nor do I see other people screaming about it on these boards.
Now, while Paizo chooses to keep their setting closed content, that isn't how they deal with the rest of it. They WANT others to use their stuff - there's no way they don't profit from that, eh? The market is small enough that one person can follow what happens in detail, but still big enough that one company can't make enough products to saturate it. At this point, it's about synergies and building on one another's work. That is how we can grow and enrich our hobby.
And if I choose to make disambiguating labyrinth my own "cash cow", I also choose to limit it. If it's the best idea for a spell I ever had - fine. But if you actively choose to publish in the RPG market, you should be able to do better than that. As is stated in each year's RPG Superstar contest: You need to be able to consistently bring the awesome.
I know, there is a lot of should here. I know I am not personally publishing anything. Still, given the option of making something that other people use, or something that lasts only as long as I keep pushing it out there, I know what I'd choose. There is a reason that the Tome of Horrors keeps getting referenced while most 3rd party books do not.
So basically this whole thread is some people are upset that Kobold Press has kept some of their licensed properties inaccessible to others, but only in regards to publishing said material themselves?
Like I said in the thread title, I'm not upset; I'm disappointed.
One of the main reasons I'm disappointed is that I really like the Words of Power system, but I think it needs improvement. Deep Magic expanded upon the Words of Power system, but made that expansion closed content. By making it closed content, other publishers may be more wary of publishing their own expansions, to avoid being accused of stealing Kobold Press' closed content, or having to re-invent the wheel, or the like.
This affects my ability to enjoy Words of Power, even though I am a player and not a publisher.
From a publisher POV, one of the biggest problems with making everything OGL is that before you know it, someone or other has published pretty much everything the average player needs from your entire product in their own product or website.
Apart from near-comprehensive web sites like d20pfsrd.com, has this happened? I don't recall seeing a product someone has physically published that does that, but I don't get out much. I don't recall any electronic product that's for sale that does that, either.
Does d20pfsrd.com ask permission from publishers before putting their stuff up? I know legally they don't have to. I know that the computer program PCGen asks publishers if it's OK to put stuff in their program, even though they may not legally need to.
Indeed. I don't see it happening frequently, if at all.
From a publisher POV, one of the biggest problems with making everything OGL is that before you know it, someone or other has published pretty much everything the average player needs from your entire product in their own product or website.Apart from near-comprehensive web sites like d20pfsrd.com, has this happened? I don't recall seeing a product someone has physically published that does that, but I don't get out much. I don't recall any electronic product that's for sale that does that, either.
Does d20pfsrd.com ask permission from publishers before putting their stuff up? I know legally they don't have to. I know that the computer program PCGen asks publishers if it's OK to put stuff in their program, even though they may not legally need to.
Heck, I came to them asking if they wanted to post it.
This affects my ability to enjoy Words of Power, even though I am a player and not a publisher.
I am pretty sure this isn't going to impact your ability to enjoy Words of Power-- in fact, it's meant to improve your understanding of the system, to make it easier to enjoy. Ideally, it's intended as something like a commentary, although I certainly did not go line by line. But I'm also a designer for Ars Magica, which uses a (much more elegant, in my opinion) system which is very similar to Words of Power, and made explaining the WoP system something pretty easy for me; I already speak and design in a mechanic like it.
The Deep Magic expansion is two effect words and six metawords. While the full descriptions of those words couldn't be reprinted in their entirety (as Product Identity), they could still be referenced (as I understand it), and it wouldn't prevent someone from making their own utterance which used them, the same way you don't have to reprint the empowered or the silent/still spell feats each time you list a spell with the metamagic feat. And because you describe the full result of the spell in the description (which is going to be in your own words, more than likely, rather than repeating those effects verbatim-- or at least I would hope you would be, because otherwise, WoP are really pretty limited and I'd say you're creating suboptimal utterances), you'd only really be preventing the reader from possibly deconstructing the utterance. Meaning you could probably make burning monkey swarm as an utterance, if you wanted to.
But as it stands, that section has three fully described utterances (or wordspells), and another two essentially described in the examples. And as I said, it's meant (primarily) to make Words of Power easier to understand and use. I don't make the decisions on the PI/OGC nature of the material, but I'm pretty sure that distinction doesn't matter too much in this case.
-Ben.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a shame you feel that way :(
I suppose it is.
From a publisher POV, one of the biggest problems with making everything OGL is that before you know it, someone or other has published pretty much everything the average player needs from your entire product in their own product or website.
I can't speak for every 3PP in Pathfinder (only myself), but most of the good ones only cite sources and instead build their own thing based on the other's products. A good example is Rite Publishing, who did an entire supplement built to support one of Super Genius Games' classes. (I think they did some Godling stuff, but I don't remember which class it was off of the top of my head.
For example, if I wanted to have a spirit who grants an occultist KP's Bulhman's Exploding Heart spell, I would writer a granted ability that said something along the lines of: While bound to this spirit, you can cause an opponent's heart to explode at will, functioning as Bulhman's exploding heart ^(KP)." But I can't do that if the spell isn't OGL.
Not sure I understand this. Are you only looking to republish the material in Deep Magic? Or are you planning on using it in a game?
Neither. No author/publisher sits down and says, "Gee, I bet I can make oodles of money by retyping the Genius Guide to the Dragonrider and publishing it as my own product."
Unless you are a publisher only interested in the PI material, not the spells and other Open Content, then how can you not "play in the playground?"
Technically I'm an author, not a publisher, but semantics.
Seems kind of silly to not avail yourself of something cool for your game for no other reason than some fictitious publisher somewhere might want to use some of Deep Magic's material but might not be able to.
I'm an author, and the last time I checked I'm not fictitious.
The book's price tag is justifiably hefty. Do you think I am going to purchase Deep Magic first, a book I can use in my infrequent games but not in my writing, or Ultimate Psionics, a book that I can use in my infrequent games and maybe get inspired to write some psionic spirits in a future product?
Apart from near-comprehensive web sites like d20pfsrd.com, has this happened? I don't recall seeing a product someone has physically published that does that, but I don't get out much. I don't recall any electronic product that's for sale that does that, either.
I don't believe its ever happened. As a matter of fact, most of us 3PP are all friends. Friendship and respect make it very uncommon for anyone 3PP to blatantly steal from one another.
Does d20pfsrd.com ask permission from publishers before putting their stuff up? I know legally they don't have to. I know that the computer program PCGen asks publishers if it's OK to put stuff in their program, even though they may not legally need to.
They don't ask permission from Paizo as far as I'm aware, but they certainly ask for 3PP permission. You'd have to be a fool to turn them down, too: since they started up their e-shop they actually put direct links to your product's e-store page on your product's SRD page. Its also tremendously good exposure; I can't tell you how many people have gotten into Pact Magic Unbound from reading about it on the SRD.