> From a consumer's standpoint, if I'm reading something that's part closed
> and part open, I'd like the smaller part to be an appendix (or something
> similar), not a bunch of small sidebars throughout the work. For example,
> a closed module could be published with an open section at the end
describing
> new monsters and spells that can be shared.
FWIW, I inserted the definition of OGC-vs-Proprietary content when I was
editing THREE DAYS TO KILL and taking care of the license/legal part of it,
after it had already been written by John Tynes, and edited and laid out by
my wife, Michelle. I don't know if John had given it much thought when he
was writing it, but my suspicion...and a re-reading of the manuscript to
make sure confirmed it...was that the material that John was already putting
in boxes for clarity (e.g., monster statistics, how to resolve the drinking
game in D20 rules, etc.) was largely material that should be considered Open
Gaming Content. There were a couple of exceptions -- e.g., the rumor table,
which really isn't OGC but makes sense to be presented in a box for graphic
design/clarity -- but the easy thing to do was just to say, "Everything in a
box is OGC." So, happily, it was no imposition to identify the OGC without
giving Tynes any restrictions ahead of time when he was writing the module.
I'm sure this would not work so well with other works, or other writers.
(John has a very literary approach, so it is pretty natural to him, I think,
to sidebar rules material.) But it did seem to work pretty seamlessly for
us.
------------------------------------------------------
John Nephew voice (651) 638-0077 fax (651) 638-0084
President, Atlas Games www.atlas-games.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
