RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
On January 7th, Wizards of the Coast held a courtesy call with the 3rd party publishers who had expressed close interest in gaining advance access to the 4e rules.
Attending the call were:
Adamant Entertainment
EN Publishing
Expeditious Retreat Press
Fantasy Flight Games
Goodman Games
Green Ronin Publishing
Mongoose Publishing
Necromancer Games
Paizo Publishing
Paradigm Concepts
Privateer Press
On the line for WotC were Scott Rouse, Linae Foster (Licensing Manager), Sara Girard, Andy Collins, Bill Slavicsek, and Chris Perkins.
Their formal announcement can be found here, but here's what we learned from the call.
4e publisher support will be released in two phases.
Phase One is for publishers who want access to the 4e rules early. Taking a lesson from software publishers, WotC will be making available an OGL Designers Kit. This gives early access to rules and is offered to any publisher, not just the ones on the conference call. Access to the kit requires a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee.
This kit will be available within a matter of weeks, as soon as several legal logistics are complete. It provides three hardcopy pre-publication versions of the three core rule books, copies of the OGL and SRD, and a FAQ. Publishers will continue to receive updates to these rules as changes are made, one in the beginning of February and possibly one in March. Publishers will also receive advance copies of the final rule books. Importantly, publishers who purchase the kit may begin selling product on August 1, 2008 – earlier than other publishers.
Phase Two is free and begins on June 6th, when the OGL goes live. Any publisher can then produce D&D supplements under the OGL, but these cannot be published until January 1, 2009.
Effectively, this means that publishers who pony up the $5000 fee get four months of advance production time for their products, can sell their products at GenCon and Christmas without a whole lot of competition, and have a five month grace period when theirs are the only 4e products available. Publishers who choose not to pay the fee will enter the market at a later date.
I took notes during the Question and Answer portion of the call, and the following Q&A comes from my notes. In some cases the information is paraphrased instead of an exact quote.
1. What's the current status of the core rules?
The Players Handbook heads to typesetting on Wednesday. The Monster Manual heads off at the end of January, and the Dungeon Masters Guide in the middle of February. Additional changes and corrections will continue to be made in the galley through the end of March, but the rules are largely complete. Lots of playtester feedback, both internal and external, has been incorporated.
2. Tell us about the 4e OGL and SRD.
The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date. Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee.
The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows “copy and paste” publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.
The community standards clause will follow the same spirit as the current version. It will lay out in broad brushstrokes what’s appropriate and what isn’t in a D&D-compatible product. If publishers have any questions, they’re always welcome to ask WotC about specifics. This clause applies to content, and wouldn’t apply to (say) a shoddy or ugly cover. (Note that this is a rare occurrence anyways; according to Scott Rouse, there has only been one case in the last two years where the community standards clause came into effect, and that was amicably resolved.)
In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.
3. How will publishers indicate 4e compatibility with D&D?
There will be no front-cover logo. There will be specific compatibility language that indicates a book is “compatible with 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons,” or something similar. There will also be verbiage to be included in the book that includes an official “visual statement” linking the product to D&D.
WotC will work to educate distributors and the market about D&D-compatible products, but expects publishers to help educate consumers as well.
4. Will subsequent core releases be promptly added to the SRD?
Subsequent content will be added when it is Open Source.
(In my opinion, Scott Rouse sounded a little abashed when he added that subsequent rules would be added more promptly than 3rd edition rules were. That's probably a good sign for publishers who want to utilize rules and monsters from subsequent releases.)
5. Under Phase One, how are rules distributed to freelancers?
A company’s NDA covers their agents and contractors. As such, any freelancer for a publisher is legally bound by their NDA. The pre-release rules will be three copies of a physical document (although WotC is flexible on the quantity, and may provide more copies if necessary.) Companies working together as partners only pay one fee.
6. Can 3rd party publishers get involved with Gleemax or DDI?
Publishers are welcome to have a product support page in Gleemax. At this stage, plans to integrate 3rd party publisher support in the DDI have not reached beyond the discussion phase.
7. With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?
The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.
Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before.
8. Does the NDA prevent publishers from announcing that they are participating in Phase One?
Absolutely not. They’re free to promote their involvement.
9. Will the Phase One program make subsequent releases (the PHB 2, for instance) available to publishers more quickly?
No, it won't. The program only applies to the games’ launch and the first three core books. However, we will likely allow Phase One developers to distribute free 4e material on Free RPG Day, and to show (but not sell) sample books at Origins.
10. Who's the contact person for publishers interested in Phase One?
Linae Foster (linae dot foster at wizards dot com) is WotC’s contact person for purchasing or learning more about the OGL Developers Kit.
The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date.
How does this interact with Section 9 of the existing OGL?
Quote:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
What is to prevent publishers from using an earlier version of the OGL?
7. With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?
The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.
Dang, that kind of sucks. The radically-diverged OGL products were one of the coolest things to come out of D&D 3e. I was really looking forward to seeing what kind of True20-equivalent games might evolve from 4e through the OGL. Guess I'll have to do it myself, and never show it to anyone but my own players...
How does this interact with Section 9 of the existing OGL?
What is to prevent publishers from using an earlier version of the OGL?
My guess:
It's not an update of the old license, it's a totally new license with a similar name. The old license will continue to exist and, of course, the 3.5 SRD and tons of 3rd party material is already and will always be OGC under it.
The 4E rules will not be released under that license, but under a totally new license.
It's not an update of the old license, it's a totally new license with a similar name. The old license will continue to exist and, of course, the 3.5 SRD and tons of 3rd party material is already and will always be OGC under it.
The 4E rules will not be released under that license, but under a totally new license.
Since WoTC has already established that 4e is derivative of 3e-- or at the very least, is certainly derivable from existing 3e Open Content-- I am really curious to see how this is legally enforceable.
As opposed to "good faith" enforceable.
Everybody from Ryan Dancey on down seemed pretty convinced that the genie was not going back into the bottle...
Since WoTC has already established that 4e is derivative of 3e-- or at the very least, is certainly derivable from existing 3e Open Content-- I am really curious to see how this is legally enforceable.
Same way any third-party product could enforce its copyright, I'd imagine. Obviously they can't enforce the 4e license on anything that was actually covered by the 3e license. But any material that's new to 4e will be covered. If you write a module with an ogre in it, and the ogre uses 3e stats, the 3e license applies. If you use the 4e stat block, the 4e license applies.
As someone who is somewhat familiar with how open source licensing works...
WotC owns the rights to the D&D intellectual property. They've released 3.0 and 3.5 under the OGL. This doesn't mean that they've relinquished ownership over their property - they can still release it under other licenses, and if they derive new work from their own IP, they can release it under any terms that they wish.
3.0 and 3.5 are the genies that are indeed out of the barrel. Any company can continue to release product under the OGL for that version of the product. However, since WotC owns the core IP, they are completely within their rights (and I won't state whether or not I agree with this stance - that's beside the point) to release 4.0 under more restrictive terms.
There's some places where this gets messy - if someone else writes a "patch" which is incorporated into the core, but they retain the rights themselves instead of assigning them to the core developer, then the core developer has to get permission from the external individual before taking it private, but that might have already been addressed in the OGL - I haven't read it specifically.
__________________ What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nath Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
Since WoTC has already established that 4e is derivative of 3e-- or at the very least, is certainly derivable from existing 3e Open Content-- I am really curious to see how this is legally enforceable.
As opposed to "good faith" enforceable.
Well, if you're willing to go beyond "good faith", I hear it's kind of questionable whether pure game mechanics can be legally protected as intellectual property (but I am most definitely not an expect on the subject).
Dang, that kind of sucks. The radically-diverged OGL products were one of the coolest things to come out of D&D 3e. I was really looking forward to seeing what kind of True20-equivalent games might evolve from 4e through the OGL. Guess I'll have to do it myself, and never show it to anyone but my own players...
There were plenty of radically-diverged products that still nominally used the PHB when 3e first arrived. Not to mention, the existing ones of note (M&M, True20, SC2.0, AE/AU, IH) are not affected by any of this.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
7. With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?
The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.
Dang, that kind of sucks. The radically-diverged OGL products were one of the coolest things to come out of D&D 3e. I was really looking forward to seeing what kind of True20-equivalent games might evolve from 4e through the OGL. Guess I'll have to do it myself, and never show it to anyone but my own players...
I am not sure about this either, but then, maybe the OGL for 3.x (assuming it can't suddenly be made illegal, which the reference to "this particular version" seems to confirm) would be sufficient for such products.
But would something like Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes still be possible? How much of a constraint is the fact that there are classes in the PHB and so on?
This
Quote:
Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before.
could alleviate a lot of problems. If this implies that there will be a 4E d20 Modern game (this is alone would be great news to me!).
Apparently they are planning to have multiple OGLs.
Reminds me of "Creative Commons" Licenses. The CCLs grant different rights to users, depending on the preference of the author. Or like the GPL (GNU Public License) and LGPL (Lesser GPL). The GPL one requires derived products to use a fully compatible GPL license (meaning GPL libraries are usually not useable by any party that wants to create "closed source" products based on open source). T
...
Waiting to 2009 for most 3rd party products? Wow, that's some time. But then, I guess the WotC products and "Phase I" products will be sufficient to keep me busy. It's not like I use a lot of non-WotC books in the first place. (But maybe they should consider shifting it to December, 1st of 2008? Or do they want to avoid that?)
I have trouble determining how "much" the 5,000 $ initial fee for the Phase I really is to the "big names" of the OGL market, but I guess it's the price that WotC deemed appropriate to ensure that enough of the big names will invest the money, and that the "riff-raff" stays out.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Dang, that kind of sucks. The radically-diverged OGL products were one of the coolest things to come out of D&D 3e. I was really looking forward to seeing what kind of True20-equivalent games might evolve from 4e through the OGL. Guess I'll have to do it myself, and never show it to anyone but my own players...
I kind of agree, however I don't think this can really stop the radically-diverged product.
You could still release, say, Mutants and Masterminds, with the text "Fully compatible with the 4th Edition of the world's most popular role playing game!" You wouldn't be able to reference the exact rules, but you don't really need to most of the time. If your product is radically diverged, most of the exact rules would have to be changed anyway, ya?
Especially if the SRD is more guidelines, less specific stats, you wouldn't often be able to point back to it, anyway. And since that defines what content is open, if it's not in the SRD, all you CAN do is reference it obliquely.
It makes it more awkward, but not impossible. Game mechanics, after all, aren't copyrighted (IIRC), and I could still make a 4e-compatible product that used the basic 4e rules (3 tiers, at-will/per-encounter/per-day abilities, d20 vs. a DC, etc) without ever having to reference anything that Wizards has claim over. More difficult, and requiring more careful footwork, but still possible in an Arcana Unearthed kind of way, where you dance around D&Disms, invent your new isms, and make things with substantially similar rules that don't vary any more than your nearest house-ruled campaign will.
And there's the mention of future, broader OGLs and SRDs coming down the pipe, too. The d20 Modern might be more generic. And the community could always publish an "IP-Free" OGL and SRD of their own that doesn't reference D&D in any kind of way.
But those last are all kind of dreamland material. Practically, what this means is that publishers who want to to crazy creative stuff right out the gate can either go the "Arcana Unearthed" route of oblique references and slightly different rules, or can just wait and see if future OGL/SRD pairings will be more suited to their product (Spycraft and M&M, for instance, might be better off using the d20 Modern version).
Well, if you're willing to go beyond "good faith", I hear it's kind of questionable whether pure game mechanics can be legally protected as intellectual property (but I am most definitely not an expect on the subject).
Game mechanics are not copyright protected, but innovative mechanics may be patentable in the USA (WotC has one for an element of M:TG).
As an IP lecturer, my impression is that for third parties publishing their own d20-based games (rather than eg scenarios for D&D); their best bet is to continue to use the 3.0/3.5 OGL and ignore 4e.
But those last are all kind of dreamland material. Practically, what this means is that publishers who want to to crazy creative stuff right out the gate can either go the "Arcana Unearthed" route of oblique references and slightly different rules, or can just wait and see if future OGL/SRD pairings will be more suited to their product (Spycraft and M&M, for instance, might be better off using the d20 Modern version).
I get the impression that the 4e OGL will be aimed at publishers who want to create D&D support product, and the 4e Modern OGL will be aimed at those who want to go crazy with d20-based, stand-alone RPGs.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
How does this interact with Section 9 of the existing OGL?
What is to prevent publishers from using an earlier version of the OGL?
Nothing, Ben. Use of the older OGL isn't restricted. Erik Mona specifically asked that, and Scott gave a clear answer.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
Necromancer Games is IN, most likely in conjunction with Paizo. We will have products for GenCon or shortly thereafter.
Products include:
1. Tome of Horrors 4E: if WotC leaves monsters out of the offial rules, we will put them back in (cant say which ones cause we dont have the rules yet). Plus all the classics from the original Tome that you want in your 4E game will be back.
2. Advanced Player's Guide: Designed in part by industry insider Ari Marmell, if they left classes and races out, we put them back in (Of course, we can't say if bards or druids or barbarians or gnomes or half-orc are or arent in 4th edition, but we know some stuff has been cut, and whatever is missing we will create for you with work by respected designer Ari Marmell.)
3. Tegel Manor. A 4E version of the 1E Judges Guild classic.
4. Winter's Tomb. A free, downloadable PDF along the lines of Wizard's Amulet, Necro's Ennie-winning introductory adventure, that will help jump start your 4E campaign.
Winter's Tomb will be available at the first day 4E products can be released. Tome 4E should be available at GenCon with the Advanced Player's Guide. Tegel is also targeted for GenCon. Dates could slip pending WotC's delivery of the design kits.
We have been planning this stuff for months, privately. I want to thank WotC for allowing us to be a part of the process and to help support 4E. You guys need to know that the conference call was professional and very business like. It is clear they have given a TON of thought and planning to this. Open Gaming is NOT an afterthought for WotC--it is something that they have spent alot of time on. They are working with us, and that is a really, really good thing. I can't tell you how pleased I have been with the process.
But back to the products. You trusted us to help put the 1E back into 3E, now we are doing the same for 4E!
Viva Necro! And Viva Open Gaming!
__________________ Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games
www.necromancergames.com
So they actually confirmed plans for D20 Modern 4e, right?
__________________ In nomine Ordinis! & La vérité vaincra!
_______________________________ Currently playing: Qin: The Warring States Currently GMing: Star Wars Saga, Esoterrorists
I get the impression that the 4e OGL will be aimed at publishers who want to create D&D support product, and the 4e Modern OGL will be aimed at those who want to go crazy with d20-based, stand-alone RPGs.
That'd be cool. A d20 Modern SRD could actually be a much more generic and logical starting point for divergent OGL games than a D&D one, anyway.
Damn, I'd really love to hear what they're considering for the new d20 Modern. If they could finally get rid of the whole silly advanced classes / prestige classes split, I'd be damned happy. Or, better yet, get rid of them both, and treat the basic classes like True20's generic "heroic roles". But now I'm veering way off-topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orcus
2. Advanced Player's Guide: Designed in part by industry insider Ari Marmell, if they left classes and races out, we put them back in
Ha-ha! I knew there'd inevitably be a lot of that going on. Awesome. I suspect you guys will clean up, with that one.
So they actually confirmed plans for D20 Modern 4e, right?
If you ask me, Bill accidentally let that slip. But yes, it wasn't a "if we do d20 Modern," it was "it would have to wait for d20 Modern." So I think it's safe to say that it'll arrive at some point.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
