D&D 5E Is D&D Next Open?

Warskull said:

That's not how OGL works. OGL only covers the game mechanics, so directly ripping off the PHB would be a copyright violation. They would have to rewrite the whole PHB themselves, that is a significant amount of work. Plus, just look at the history of the OGL this clearly isn't an issue. Paizo has fully embraced the OGL. The problems you have described aren't occurring.

Click to expand...

gweinel said:

but why?

Click to expand...

Mistwell said:

He was referring to an actual event. It was an issue. That very thing was done (a miniature SRD PHB someone published). I forget the name of the company, but rumor was that product REALLY pissed of people at WOTC. OSRIC also pissed people off something fierce, when it first was released. I think your assumptions about the history of these problems is...well...not well informed by history.

Click to expand...

Kamikaze Midget said:

Also possible that their big art budget is a weapon in that arsenal. Though the Inner Circle could give them a run there! I'd love to see a new/updated Avadnu product!

Click to expand...

darjr said:

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION];

the campaign book is mostly new rules, asfaik, and under the OGL. That is the kind of commitment to the license I mean. They didn't have to much of that book under the OGL, they did.

Click to expand...

JVisgaitis said:

The Miniature Player's Handbook was published by Mongoose Publishing I believe and I know that really ticked them off. They did all three core rulebooks, didn't they? I didn't know the release of OSRIC was an issue.

Click to expand...

Mistwell said:

You know, this is getting frustrating. I'm going to drop out of this part of the debate. I am an attorney, I do licensing, I do OGL licensing work in this very industry for companies whose names you would know. If you don't want to trust me when I tell you Pathfinder has to be under the open gaming license unless they want to make a new game, that's cool (they can declare new parts as Product Identity instead of Open Content, but they can't avoid using the OGL itself). But, I am not going to beat my head against this wall anymore.

Click to expand...

darjr said:

Their commitment extends far beyond that. They publish books they absolutely do not have to put under the ogl under the ogl. Yes, it's a commitment. A very profound and much appreciated one. Scare quotes aside Paizo is a committed OGL publisher, yes even stuff they do not have to put in the OGL.

As a non-publisher I use the d20pfsrd.com, from a complete third party. I use third party apps for my tablet that have essentially the complete rules, including NEW OGL content from Paizo. A kind of tool that Paizo has yet to provide, probably because they are very busy putting out more OGL material. The announcement of an OGL would mean that I could be confident that there could be third party products unencumbered. Even I could make such. Even after 6th edition. That is the change that would mean everything to a non-publisher when it comes to the OGL.

Click to expand...

Mistwell said:

Uh, what?

I think we are confusing terms here. EVERYTHING they publish for Pathfinder MUST be under the OGL. They don't have a choice.

Again, confusing terms here. They don't have a choice. They are publishing under the open gaming license, and so the open gaming license must be attached to what they publish. There is no choice there. They can't not publish under the open gaming license, unless they want to run afoul of the license.

I think, again, you're talking about what they put into open content under the SRD...not the license itself.

Click to expand...

Kamikaze Midget said:

So no official word. And I would like to know what publishers have let it slip! All I have on that are rumors so far. The Gale Force 9 stuff seems like physical items...so hard to say if that's a license to make some products, or a true OGL-ish phenomenon. But at least an openness to have other folks sell stuff with rules on it!

Click to expand...

Jester Canuck said:

The OGL specifies that "all derivative material" published under the OGL must be Open Content. So Paizo does not have a choice for a lot of their content, including the Core Rulebook. Period.
(They don't have to host their own hyperlinked SRD though...)

However, I've never seen a very good definition of what "derivative content" means, or where the line is drawn.
At the very least, anything based on established material, such as the statblock of a troll fighter, is derivative content. It's very likely that anything that expands on established material, such as a fighter archetype or a feat that uses an Power Attack as a prerequisite, is also be derivative. It could also be argued that making new content that is based on established rules, such as completely new feats or spells, is also derivative, as it is very obviously based on established mechanics.
But after that things get a little blurrier. Is something like a new class derivative? Or a monster? Or a new mechanic only loosely based on existing rules, like the Words of Power system?
@Mistwell might be able to clarify this as it's likely one of those things were the legal definition is not the same as the plain language definition.

Click to expand...