General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The OGL could be used alone to gain access to the SRD and any OGC available. The d20 STL could be used in addition to the OGL with some extra restrictions and benefits.
This is almost 100% wrong. The d20 license did not require the concurrent use of the OGL. They were seperate licenses that both allowed access to the open game content in the SRD. You are correct that the d20 STL also allowed the use of the d20 logo and trademark. However, the license also came with a number of additional restrictions, including that products released under it couldn't include a character creation, stat generation or XP advancement system and that numerous terms and mechanics couldn't be modified from their definitions in the SRD. There were MANY products released with the OGL which could never be used in conjunction with the d20 STL (any complete game like Mongoose's Conan or Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds for example), because they didn't adhere to those restrictions.
Which, ultimately, is the best argument against the statement that the OGL was never intended to allow for competing games to be produced using the rules in the SRD. If that was never intended, then the d20 STL would have been the only license necessary. The only reason to have a more open license like the OGL is specifically to allow competing game systems to be made.
The OGL is also permanent and forever; the STL gave the logo rights but that could be taken away when WotC deemed it good to do so. However, the OGL clearly did allow for the production of alternative games.
__________________ In my bedroom in those ugly new houses
I danced my legs down to the knees
The OGL could be used alone to gain access to the SRD and any OGC available. The d20 STL could be used in addition to the OGL with some extra restrictions and benefits.
The d20 STL gave access to OGC (including the SRDs) on its own. You didn't need to use the OGL in a d20 STL product in order to access OGC. Using the OGL in a d20 STL product would have been redundant.
The d20 STL gave access to OGC (including the SRDs) on its own. You didn't need to use the OGL in a d20 STL product in order to access OGC. Using the OGL in a d20 STL product would have been redundant.
Note the mandatory requirements on page ten of this document -
It might not look like it does at the moment, but WotC has a limited perspective. Normally any sort of license a company creates would share a similar limited perspective, but the OGL doesn't. That's the brilliant part. WotC was able, as a company, to create something that benefitted and empowered the community more than themselves. I believe, over time, the OGL will do more to keep the RPG community alive and vital than any other single "event" since the creation of D&D. And that will be good for everyone.
Without a community, there will be no WotC.
.
Yeah, it's not like WOTC isn't producing some other high selling property...some thing called Magic The Gathering.
The d20 STL gave access to OGC (including the SRDs) on its own. You didn't need to use the OGL in a d20 STL product in order to access OGC. Using the OGL in a d20 STL product would have been redundant.
From the D20 System Guide v4.0
Quote:
Mandatory Requirements:
A minimum of 5% of the text (word count or letter count) of a Covered Product must be Open Game Content and must comply with the terms of the Open Gaming License version 1.0a.
From the Open Game License
Quote:
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
Find me a definition of Open Game Content in the d20 license. Find me any of the terms of the OGL defined in the d20L. Find me 3 products that used the d20 license and not the OGL.
They don't exist. The d20 license required the Open Game License.
You are correct that the d20 STL also allowed the use of the d20 logo and trademark. However, the license also came with a number of additional restrictions, including that products released under it couldn't include a character creation, stat generation or XP advancement system and that numerous terms and mechanics couldn't be modified from their definitions in the SRD.
Absolutely correct. In order to use the d20 logo, you had to meet a number of restrictions and requirements, including conforming to the OGL in all regards.
Quote:
Which, ultimately, is the best argument against the statement that the OGL was never intended to allow for competing games to be produced using the rules in the SRD. If that was never intended, then the d20 STL would have been the only license necessary. The only reason to have a more open license like the OGL is specifically to allow competing game systems to be made.
Except that the d20 license was an add-on to the OGL, not a stand-alone license.
From the OGL:
Quote:
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
The bolded part is where the d20 License comes in. It is "another, independent Agreement" with WotC.
Edit: remove the "yes you are/no I'm not" quote and reply.
Edit2: added S.7 of the OGL.
This is pretty redundant now. But you are completely wrong.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
Dudes, do we _REALLY_ need to have this stupid argument yet again? The one thing I hate about the OGL is how it's spawned 8 years of people going "Uh huh!" "Nuh uh!!"
If you feel like getting your internet lawyer cap on and preaching your vision of what the OGL rules "really are", can't you do it in some other thread, or better yet, the forum section actually set up for it?
To have a post that actually on topic:
I think Goodman Games is hedging their bets. With the d20STL being revoked, it looked like a lot of companies were simply going to go the route of yanking product and it'd never be seen again. Adamant Games for example seems to have gone this route.
With Pathfinder having vocal traction amongst a portion of the online crowd, as well as the apparent chunk of people that have opted not to go for 4E (staying instead with an older edition or whatnot) there's now enough to justify taking the time and money to actually rebrand their work.
If 4E fails, Goodman will already have their product out and under the OGL logo. Enough time has passed that Goodman Games has made it's name and doesn't _need_ the d20 logo like they used to; remember, part of the point of doing the d20 logo was to be able to tie into official brand-name recognition (D&D) and by being "officially licenced" it at least suggested/implied a certain level of quality.
If 4E succeeds, well... not much changes for them. They've still got product out that they can sell to the grognards (welcome to grognard-hood, everyone refusing to move to 4e), and if there's enough of a grognard market, Goodman can always consider selling product specially targeting that section of the market as well. By rebranding/publishing their old stuff, it shows that Goodman is at least willing to consider all the folks that haven't/won't/can't upgrade to the new edition.
I don't know that it bodes "well" for the market. I think a lot of folks are in a holding pattern and trying to figure out what everyone else is going to do. With cash being tight for everybody, there's a greater reluctance on the part of both supplier and consumer to commit oneself too heavily, too quickly.
I for example am thinking about possibly picking up a 3.0 DMG and MM. I can get them for about $30 each; a single D&D 4E book new is running me something like $80 out here. I don't know anyone that's running/playing a 4E game local, whereas I know of a number of 3.x groups active.
Since I play to be social, instead of because I love the D&D [whatever edition] rules, it means I still haven't bought 4E. I've got nothing against it, it's just too expensive for me to pick up and not actually use.
In other words, I'm a part of the grognard market by default; there's no compelling reason for me to change and quite a few reasons to stay where I am. Plus, I'm fine with houseruling stuff, so many of the theoretical improvements to the game I can simply make at the table on my own.
I'm sure it's a shock to folks, but there _are_ people, such as myself, that don't own a single Goodman Games DCC; in fact, I don't think I actually own anything from Goodman. I'm aware of 'em, but never felt particularly needful of anything they've made. Having said that, I probably _will_ pick up an adventure or two just to see what they're like. I've been playing in a Pathfinder Adventure Path (Rise of the Runelords) and so far been pretty underwhelmed by it, so I figure I should give Goodman Games a shot at some point too.
Dudes, do we _REALLY_ need to have this stupid argument yet again? The one thing I hate about the OGL is how it's spawned 8 years of people going "Uh huh!" "Nuh uh!!"
Why, yes, of course we do! it's what we all LIVE for!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy_Platypus
If 4E succeeds, well... not much changes for them. They've still got product out that they can sell to the grognards (welcome to grognard-hood, everyone refusing to move to 4e), and if there's enough of a grognard market, Goodman can always consider selling product specially targeting that section of the market as well. By rebranding/publishing their old stuff, it shows that Goodman is at least willing to consider all the folks that haven't/won't/can't upgrade to the new edition.
I like both 3.5 AND 4E. Am I a semi-grognard, or a wanna-be grognard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IScurvy_Platypus
'm sure it's a shock to folks, but there _are_ people, such as myself, that don't own a single Goodman Games DCC; in fact, I don't think I actually own anything from Goodman. I'm aware of 'em, but never felt particularly needful of anything they've made. Having said that, I probably _will_ pick up an adventure or two just to see what they're like. I've been playing in a Pathfinder Adventure Path (Rise of the Runelords) and so far been pretty underwhelmed by it, so I figure I should give Goodman Games a shot at some point too.
Likewise, I own no Goodman Games products that I'm aware of. Oh, wait! Yes I think I do. Some kind of "DM's Campaign Record" for keeping up with character sheets for the whold party, events, treasure given, etc, etc. Not really much of a 'gaming' product, more of a record-keeping tool. At least, I think it's put out by Goodman... (Edit: Yes, indeed it is.)
Dudes, do we _REALLY_ need to have this stupid argument yet again? The one thing I hate about the OGL is how it's spawned 8 years of people going "Uh huh!" "Nuh uh!!"
Yes. Didn't you read ENWorld's TOS? Section 13, subsection 7: No opportunity to parse, mangle, distort, transform, redefine, reimage, overlook, occlude, obfuscate, or otherwise unclarify the Open Game License and related works shall be ignored or unanswered to a minimum of 7 posts or 12% of a thread, whichever is greater.
I would find it highly strange if Paizo chose to issue any 4E products at this point, since said products would certainly not help the success of Paizo's Pathfinder [neo-3.5+++] game.
That makes sense; on the other hand; it seems people tend to have a pretty strong preference for either 3.x or 4e, heh. So it's not necessarily cannibalizing sales of the one product to offer another if the markets don't significantly overlap.
I for one loved reading Paizo APs but have no interest in playing 3.x these days, so I'd consider buying 4e versions if they made them.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
