Fan Material for Castles & Crusades

[Troll Lord]

Hey folks,

I'm sure some are curious about the latest happenings with a good friend of ours being banned from the boards and some disagreements. Though I'm not going to address that, I stand behind the decisions Breakdaddy made, I am going to address the core root of the discussion, that being fan generated support material.

TLG has long had a hands off approach to folks releasing support material. We welcome it and enjoy it ourselves, often seeing it appear in our Wednesday night game (though we have only played twice in the past 4 months I'm not sure that it is a game anymore! ha). We aren't in the business to run around and threaten people who have offered to help promote and support the game. Far from it.

We treat it much like I do my children, with benign neglect. We don't openly support it, nor do we openly discourage it. Only once or twice have I stepped forward and asked people to remove some content, and this generally when material that is found in the Players Handbook or Monsters & Treasure, portions key to the game, are offered for free. I'm not going to go into it here, you'll have to wait to the next Crusader (25 on the table now) to view my whole thoughts on the subject, but suffice it to say that I don't feel it is helpful to have this material offered as I have come to believe that it has a negative impact on sales.

That said, there is a place for fan generated support material, much like Peter's Crusader Companion. So much love and work went into the project and Peter was so open to adjusting its content that his actually becomes the poster child how the publisher and the player/gamer can work together. I should have not treated the Companion with benign neglect, I should have take a more active role in the reading the project (and I had been made aware of the project from a number of people).

So with that in mind, I'm going to bother Eric Piper John Wright and work with them and the Society to set up a section on the Society for all this material, Peter's Companion included.

I've dropped Peter an IM and pledge to make a more concerted effort to work with you guys to make these things more accessible, etc etc.

Steve

post script: And now that the CKG is complete I have an extra 11 hours a day to do other things!

[Traveller]

Sadly, I'm not sure Peter is going to read it. He feels his work was C&C and shouldn't have been moved in the first place. I believe however that regardless of where it was located, if people wanted it they would find it.

Hopefully I'm wrong and Peter will return.

I won't say much about the ban, except to say there is no freedom of speech on this or any message board. If it's owned by a private entity, you play by the rules set forth upon entry. You also follow the rules given to you by moderators. The banned party apparently forgot this.

Sucks to be him.

[serleran]

With the advent of the Castle Keepers Guide, and the plethora of sub-options it contains, I would expect to see numerous "new" ideas coming. Especially as it relates to those fea--- advantages.

[moriarty777]

Well, I may as well chime in here and do so for a variety of reasons which are dear to me.

First off, I want to thank Steve for chiming in and I look forward to reading that article in Crusader 25. I have worked with the Society and have helped put out fan material -- including my own and have jointly published material for C&C with John at Brave Halfling Publishing (as Arcana Creations). Neither of these wouldn't have been possible without TLG's general position concerning fan material or permissions Steve has given.

And while Steve is constantly busy, when TLG did our very modest printrun of "The Secret of Ronan Skerry", the only concern/control he excercised was concerning a piece of art which we subsequently modified. TLG is aces in my book even if I don't always agree with some of their decisions.

I was never a fan of Peter's Companion book though I see the amount of energy and time that went into it. Some of my work ended up into it, and the text was word for word identical as far as the 'fluff' was concerned. Given that this was something I had freely made available anyway, I chose not to make an issue of it provided that proper credit is given (and I think it is). The biggest issue for me (at the time) was that proper permission wasn't sought out and assumptions were made.

None of it was malicious though and the spirit was to share the material just like I had originally intended anyway. By the sounds of it, TLG is trying to retain that same ideology.

M

[serleran]

Well, I know for a fact that, if it were not for the stand of TLG, I never would have been around to help... Monsters and Treasure, Engineering Dungeons, and whatever else I've assisted on would be completely different. Heh. Maybe that would have been better.

[Traveller]

The biggest issue for me (at the time) was that proper permission wasn't sought out and assumptions were made.

I'm sure he gave you proper credit. Genetic character generation is properly attributed in his S15, which is good since that system is a joint effort between Robert and myself and could have easily been mis-attributed to me alone.

I cannot complain in any event, because I put genetic character generation under the OGL. By putting it under the OGL I gave up any and all rights to how the work is used as well as who could use it. And that I think is something here that is being missed. M, you say the biggest issue is that proper permission wasn't sought out. If you wanted to be asked whether it was ok to use your work, then it should never have been put under the OGL to begin with, if it was put under the OGL in the first place. It should have simply been copyrighted, which requires people to seek permission before reprinting. By placing your work under the OGL, if you have done so, you have granted permission to use the work, under section 4 of the OGL.

Section 8 of the OGL requires the author to declare which portions of the document are open game content. If you didn't wish your fluff text to be considered open game content, it is required by you to mention that in the document. By declaring all text in a document open game content, you gave up any and all rights to how the work is used as well as who could use it.

Peter didn't break any rules in creating the Companion. In fact he went above and beyond the call of duty in removing things in the Companion that he was legally entitled under the OGL to use. Expressing dissatisfaction because someone followed the rules is rather...illogical.

[Peter]

I'm still here and I'm still cool with all you guys. The Companion will continue with updates on my next day off. The other document is cancelled and removed from all forums.

And yes I attribute everything correctly and I don't use it unless it is marked as OGC or I am given permission.

[Go0gleplex]

Well...unless I'm told to stop, I'll probably still pop off with critters, spells, classes, and races every so often. So far things have been pretty cool around here in all of that regard. So no worries on this end of things.

[Relaxo]

Todd,
By my reading, Steve is saying, 'Full steam ahead' so keep at it.

[Troll Lord]

The only caveat we are going to put on the support offered by TLG to fan generated material is that you request permission from the original creator for the use of even their open content, that includes TLG based material. We fully understand that use of open content does not require permission, but we have made it a company policy since day one to request permission from the originating company...this includes WoTC before C&C was created. We do this out of courtesy to the original designers and creators...we are southerners after all.

So for us to give it support and recognition just give the guy/company who made it a shout and let them know.

I'll be out of pocket for the next 24 hours, but after that I'll have Peter's Companion properly placed for easy access, the access points will be on the forums, store front, etc.

Thanks gents!
Steve

[moriarty777]

By putting it under the OGL I gave up any and all rights to how the work is used as well as who could use it. And that I think is something here that is being missed. M, you say the biggest issue is that proper permission wasn't sought out. If you wanted to be asked whether it was ok to use your work, then it should never have been put under the OGL to begin with, if it was put under the OGL in the first place. It should have simply been copyrighted, which requires people to seek permission before reprinting. By placing your work under the OGL, if you have done so, you have granted permission to use the work, under section 4 of the OGL.

Section 8 of the OGL requires the author to declare which portions of the document are open game content. If you didn't wish your fluff text to be considered open game content, it is required by you to mention that in the document. By declaring all text in a document open game content, you gave up any and all rights to how the work is used as well as who could use it.

Peter didn't break any rules in creating the Companion. In fact he went above and beyond the call of duty in removing things in the Companion that he was legally entitled under the OGL to use. Expressing dissatisfaction because someone followed the rules is rather...illogical.

I never claimed he did break any rules but... I technically have identified this and the document specifies what is Open Game Content and what is not (and as such is designated as Product Identity) as required by Section 8 of the document. Granted that, this being a rules article, designation of product identity may be a bit more ambiguous but the language, concepts, and depictions of said concepts are still 'product identity' and thus not OGC. Or, at the very least, you can grant me that this example falls into a grey area -- especially where concepts are concerned.

That said, I may review the language used in that designation for other things I will be releasing in the future if there was a bit too much ambiguity in that section.

(For the record:) As long as the work continues to be correctly attributed, any one can freely use it. It was created for that purpose after all. For me, it was more about something I would have appreciated ... just a small courtesy from one enthusiast to another. I'm glad we didn't lose Peter but, did I read correctly that a member got banned? If it is who I think it is judging by part of the thread I saw, that is unfortunate.

Just the same, I will have to pick up and look through the document again -- I know a couple more people that are starting to look into C&C and the Companion may be a good resource to have until they buy their own books. BTW -- my lack of 'enthusiasm' for the Companion project has nothing to do with an approval or disapproval of how he used material for the book. Apologies if it sounded like I was taking issue against it. That was not my intent though, re-reading my earlier post, I can see how that might have been construed.

M

[Traveller]

M, bear with me here since it's 1:30am and I'm trying to write this logically. Since we're discussing fine points of the OGL, we might appear at odds here. Rest assured though, I am not trying to single you out here, because I'd say the same things regardless of who said it. It's good to know that you didn't intend on passing judgment regarding the Companion.

That said, declaring fluff text as a concept and thus declaring the fluff text product identity is simply not going to work except under narrow circumstances. Fluff text in and of itself is not a concept unless the fluff text expresses an idea. For example, the following paragraph from the Codex of Erde does not express an idea and therefore isn't protected by the concept section of the Product Identity paragraph.

None could have foretold the true horror which Paths of Umbra would bring. Indeed, had Nulak known he would not have cast the spell, and had the Emperor known the fate which Unklar would deal him, he certainly would not have consented to the atrocity.

Since the paragraph above does not express an idea, it cannot be declared product identity. However, things within the paragraph can be: Paths of Umbra, Nulak, and Unklar. If the paragraph expressed an idea, such as Unklar metaphorically chaining the moon to Erde/Aihrde, then that paragraph CAN be considered product identity since that paragraph expresses a concept.

At least to me M, there's no gray area here. Things are either open game content or they are not. If they are not open game content, is the content product identity or not? If not product identity, what is open game content needs to be clearly defined so that anything that is not product identity and not open game content is protected under standard copyright law.

P.S. It is who you think it is. It's unfortunate, but that person brought that fate upon themselves. There are consequences for every action we take, and he chose...poorly.

[Peter]

The product identity section looks like the generic one pulled from one of the books. If you want to declare some product identity, the Designation of Open Game Content should probably look something like this:

instead of

all text

it would be

all text excluding the product identity declared below

Which there is no specific product identity listed. Also at the end of the loooong sentence it says ", and which specifically excludes the open game content."

If it's a problem tho, I will remove it. I'm not even sure where I found it. I think it may have been through the fan link list, and the site was down, and I had to go threw archive.org to get it. There's only a little bit of material that I added like this, most of them were from Jason Vey.

[AGNKim]

I won't say much about the ban... Sucks to be him.

I'm glad we didn't lose Peter but, did I read correctly that a member got banned? If it is who I think it is judging by part of the thread I saw, that is unfortunate.

P.S. It is who you think it is. It's unfortunate, but that person brought that fate upon themselves. There are consequences for every action we take, and he chose...poorly.

It was Treebore.

[Traveller]

If it's a problem tho, I will remove it. I'm not even sure where I found it. I think it may have been through the fan link list, and the site was down, and I had to go threw archive.org to get it. There's only a little bit of material that I added like this, most of them were from Jason Vey.

I know I have no problem. I don't think M does either. We're just discussing fine points of the OGL, especially those things that can trip people up, like declaring "all text" as open game content instead of saying something like "all text except for any examples".

Monsters are a good example. The Creature Catalog on EnWorld, from which the Tome of Horrors came, declares all stat blocks as OGC, specifically omitting descriptive text. Use a creature from the Catalog and you have to create the monster's appearance and abilities out of whole cloth. On the other end of the spectrum, the Trolls declared monster stats and descriptions (and the entirety of Monsters & Treasure for that matter) as open game content.

The entire point I was trying to make in discussing the OGL is that it is the author's responsibility to declare how much of his work he wants to make OGC, and that it's explicitly spelled out in the OGL. Because once the OGL is put to paper, you can't go back and change it.

[moriarty777]

If it's a problem tho, I will remove it. I'm not even sure where I found it. I think it may have been through the fan link list, and the site was down, and I had to go threw archive.org to get it. There's only a little bit of material that I added like this, most of them were from Jason Vey.

I know I have no problem. I don't think M does either. We're just discussing fine points of the OGL, especially those things that can trip people up, like declaring "all text" as open game content instead of saying something like "all text except for any examples".

No... no problems on my end -- my blessing is given. However, since I do intend in publishing other works beyond those I have already done, I wouldn't mind knowing how I can best tighten up some of the language used. I just want to make sure that what I want protect is protected even if the majority remains OGC. I would be very appreciative in the constructive avenue this thread has taken to help me out with this.

And yes, it is fairly generic as far as product identity goes and, something like this for an adventure module with characters, places, and the like are a lot better protected with what is in place.

It was fairly late as I responded for me as well when I was reviewing the OGL (included with the article) and I took the time to respond. Looking at it then, it seemed clear enough in a legal yet confusing sense. But this isn't my strongest field either and I might have been 'logically turned around'.

Peter's suggestion may help clarify matters greatly and I am serious about protecting some aspects of future work yet to be published. Of course, the best avenue would be to consult a lawyer but funding for these small projects are stretched as it is and sometimes we do what we can.

Thanks for bearing with me.

M

[Traveller]

M, if you have a copy of the Codex of Erde, you can see an example on the Acknowledgments page. The Trolls spend two paragraphs explicitly mentioning what is product identity and what is open game content.

I won't retype the entire paragraph regarding what the Trolls declare as product identity because I'll end up with a neck that won't bend right due to limited space in my room. Suffice it to say that if anything is mentioned that is company related, such as the company name and logos, it's product identity. Also, if it has anything to do with the backstory of Erde, whether it be people, places, things, or historical events, it's also product identity. Artwork and trade dress (meaning what the pages look like) is product identity. One interesting thing is mentioned in the product identity section.

The spell names Brothers in Arms, Cloak of Righteousness, Commanding Presence, Divine Wisdom, and Perfect Recollection are reserved Product Identity of Sword and Sorcery Studios and are used herein by limited license.

I added the italics to the quote above, but as you can see here, if you want to use someone else's product identity you have to get permission from them, and declare it in the work.

The second paragraph in the acknowledgments covers what is open game content.

Subject to the Product Identity Designation above, the following portions of The Codex of Erde are hereby designated as Open Game Content and may be Used pursuant to the terms of the Open Game License - In Search for a Lost City (pages 170-180), any and all material appearing in boxes with a gray background. In A Player's Guide to Erde (pages 182-216) and A DM's Guide to Erde (pages 217-245): Chapter 1: the entire chapter except for the section "Languages of Erde"; Chapter 2: the entire chapter except for the section "Guilds & Orders"; Chapter 3: the entire chapter, Chapter 4: the entire chapter except for the names of any god or the following spell names: Brothers in Arms, Cloak of Righteousness, Commanding Presence, Divine Wisdom, and Perfect Recollection (which appear and are used under a limited license); Chapter 5: the entire chapter; Chapter 6: the entire chapter except for "The Tale of Sagramore & the Coming of the Vampire." All material derived from the d20 System Rules Document not otherwise designated as Open Game Content, including all game rules and derivative game rules.

That was how the Trolls did it for the Codex of Erde. Other companies do it differently. For Silver Age Sentinels d20, Guardians of Order utilized a form of shorthand by placing open game content in a sans-serif font compared to the serif font used for the rest of the book. In fact, their OGC declaration was three lines, and to ensure that people knew what Helvetica font looked like, put the first sentence in Helvetica.

All information presented in Helvetica is Open Content. All information presented in any font other than Helvetica, all images and graphics, and all fictional character names, organizations, items or objects, and locations are Product Identity. All rights reserved.

Two ways of declaring what is open game content and what is product identity. Both work because both of them are explicit in declaring what is product identity and what is open game content, despite the widely different means of doing so. Being explicit in your declarations is the key to ensuring that the OGL works for you in the way you want it to.