Pathfinder 1E Clark Peterson supporting Pathfinder?

[Roland55]

It is worth noting that WotC hasn't tried to take this stance, even against Kenzer & Co, which was more publicly dismissive of the legalities in the use of WotC's rules.

This is, in my estimation, a point in WotC's favor. Save your battles for ones you can win.

The Auld Grump

Very good point.

I have lived a long and successful professional life by hewing closely to that rule!

 

[Orcus]

By the way, I posted these over at Paizo.com, but I thought I should post them here for posterity.

My next two posts are copies of the letters I sent to Wizards (both to Scott) back when all the discussion was happening.

I post these for their historical value, whatever that might be, and to show people what I was doing at the time.

 

[Orcus]

I sent a letter to Scott at Wizards in about September of the year before (2007). It predicted many of the coming problems. Unfortunately, I only have a saved draft of the letter (and the file date on the file is 9/9/07). This is not the final letter. But it is of historical value, so I post it here (again, for the first time anywhere):

Scott,

I appreciate you talking with me the other day. I am very much looking forward to 4e and to helping transitioning our fans to 4e.

I know you have an internal meeting coming up soon to discuss a number of issues regarding licensing and content and third party publishers. I have been thinking about what we talked about, and I have some thoughts and a proposal that come down to this: Let me help you.

My guess is that you guys are getting ready for the 4e launch and are firmly focused on getting to your “pencils down” date which I am guessing is about the end of the year so that you can make print deadlines, etc. Getting content to third parties and dealing with the legal ramifications of licenses, etc, is probably not the highest thing on your list of things to deal with right now. Or even if you did have time, my guess is that your group’s time would be better spent elsewhere.

I have a very unique experience with the licenses and the history of getting said content to third party publishers. So I hope I have some valuable things to offer.

Here are some bullet points that show what I mean and what I can do for you. Please pardon me if I repeat things that are obvious to you. I’m just trying to work it through.

• There is significant resistance to 3e to 4e.

My sense from our discussion is that you understand this and it is important to you. I would hate to see the player base of the game fragment.

• Third party publishers can help transition that significant group.

Luckily, respected third party publishers can help you reach people who may be on the fence. Guys like XXXXX [no need to drag others into this -Clark] and I have a good deal of impact with our audiences. I have been out there saying we are going to embrace 4e so long as Wizards allows it. And that stance can change people’s minds or influence “4e rejectors”. In a weird way, third party publishers have the “street cred” that Wizards may not be able to have simply because we are not Wizards, if you see what I mean. If Necro adopts 4e, then it is ok for this group of gamers to adopt 4e. And that is what they are saying. Our boards went from “no way we are doing 4e” to “well, I’ll wait and see” or “if NG does it, I will too” within a short time of me saying we were going 4e. The good third party publishers can help you.

• You need to get content out to their party publishers by the end of the month so we can support launch with viable products.

The market is not the same now as it was at launch of 3e when a 32-page adventure was a viable d20 product. And, just like you likely need a “pencil down” date of the end of the year to meet launch, so do we. Our products are larger. Most of us ship out our printing to China or out of the states. We can’t get this stuff in December and make a launch in May-June. We have to have this by the end of this month.

Don’t force publishers to make the choice between waiting for the 4e playtest rules which by definition means we will only be able to make 32-page products for launch OR rejecting 4e and keeping on with our current products. Forcing that choice means more people will choose to reject 4e and support 3.5. How many, I don’t know. But it is being discussed right now.

• Delay in acting may lead to publishers staying with 3e and not supporting 4e

By not getting us content early, you may be forcing the hands of some companies to stay with 3.5. Because most companies simply can’t deal with the delay and lag time or simply can’t delay product schedules that far. This short time frame is a real problem.

• It doesn’t need to be perfect.

It doesn't matter what state the current rules documents are in. They aren’t final, we understand that. We can all deal with that and we don’t care. We can’t simply create products and then jam the new stuff in when we get it in December. But we can create with draft rules and then make changes to products made using those draft rules in December. That is workable.

• We will accept any restrictions you want to place on it.

I helped make the original Creature Collection that beat WotC's MM to press. Though everyone denies it, I have always wondered if there was some lingering animosity from that. Ryan says no. All the people from that time frame say no. But they are gone, mostly. If you want to tell us: "dont do that this time," we would all agree to that I am sure. Whatever limits you want on our product creation, thats fine.

• It can be informal, that is how we did it before.

Let history be your guide. Prior to 3e launch, we got draft rules. We had a good lead time. We got revised versions when the actual rules went to print. We all handled it fine. It was all done informally and by an email (which, strangely enough, was from Ryan to me). That email became known as the "gentleperson's agreement." And it was honored by everyone.

• Leave the license issues for later, after your “pencil down” date.

Maybe I am wrong, but I get the sense that Wizards is intertwining the decision of getting the content to third party publishers with the issue of how to license the use of said content. Don’t join those. Getting the content out doesn’t mean you have finalized what we can do with the stuff. Don’t let those decisions slow down getting content to your third party publishers. Get us the content. Then we can figure out what to do with it once you are past the pencil down date for 4e.

• Trust the publishers.

Like I said, we have all done this before informally and with a handshake. It worked out fine. And you know who you can trust. You know the people and companies who have been good caretakers of the content, who have been helpful, who have tried to give instead of just take, and who actually cared about D&D and Open Gaming.

• Do it like we did before—just give us a short list of what you don’t want us to use.

Give us the draft versions of the rules (not to everyone if you don’t want to, that’s up to you). Give us a list of what you DON’T want us to use. That is what we got from Ryan. “You can use everything from the PHB except don’t refer to the GH gods, or X or Y or Z” or whatever it was he said. It was a list of a few things. I can dig the email up if you want to see it.

• Solution: Let me do it.

I will do it for you if you want. If the problem is the time crunch of getting this done while dedicating all efforts to finalizing 4e, let me step up and take it off your plate. Forward me your normal NDA so I can see what it covers. I will craft a short addendum to your normal NDA stating that these draft rules are provided to potential third-party publishers. Providing this content for your review is no guarantee that you will subsequently be allowed to use it, or, if allowed to use it, what the terms and scope of that use will be. In agreeing to receive these draft rules you agree not to distribute, etc.

Heck, whether you want me to or not I am going to do it for you anyway and send you my draft. I want to make it easy for you to get this stuff out to us.

Clark

PS: I do have some licensing issues in case you wanted to address them. But my priority is to get the rules content to us asap.

Don’t make use of the d20 STL conditioned on a fee (or don’t make that the only barrier to entry).

[edited by Clark to protect the guilty, don't ask]. ‘Nuff said. You don’t have to say it. I said it.

Don’t try to resurrect the d20 logo as a quality brand, that isn’t what it has come to mean.

d20 is a valuable logo—but to you, not to us. Let d20 mean “dominant rule system,” which is what it means. Don’t try to revive it as a mark of quality. The reason people moved away from the logo was because of the d20 STL, which had restrictions. Just let the d20 STL be what it is.

Allow use of the phrase “Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons”

Let us do this. Seriously. Just like the old Judges Guild products. It’s not an endorsement. It’s not a loss of your IP. We would all have to say “D&D is a registered trademark of WotC, used by permission, its use is not a challenge…blah blah blah.” It’s real simple language, done all the time.

Let us refer to the titles of new books and item/class/race/spell etc. names from that book

One of the problems with the current license is that it didn’t let us help you sell books other than the core rules. Big mistake. Though I never used it, I actually got permission from Wizards to refer to some of the splat books and their feats and spells, such as “Erithrax, Wiz5/Druid5/Vermin Lord 4*; [rest of stats] *The Vermin Lord is detailed in the Book of Vile Darkness”. Just a simple reference like that would be great. It would help us help you sell those books and it opens up all this killer content for us that we want to use. Because, while some might not want to admit it, Wizards has been making some really, really great stuff recently.

Don’t worry about perceived fairness about how you deal with the license issues.

You are Wizards. You will always be blamed for something. Not opening up enough. Too many restrictions. Playing favorites when you aren’t. In my view, you shouldn’t worry about this. In my view, your only focus should be “how do we create the right pool of third party companies that will help support and enliven 4e at launch and for the sustainable future, and transition people from 3e to 4e.”

Please let me help you with this.

 

[Orcus]

Then I sent this letter. You can see the date.

In fact, I've never posted this before anywhere. Here is my open letter I wrote to Scott Rouse at Wizards of the Coast as a follow up to an earlier letter I had sent him:

Open Letter to Scott Rouse and Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Re: 4th Edition D&D and the OGL
March 22, 2008

Scott,

I know you are working hard finalizing the GSL while juggling the many responsibilities you have for the launch of 4th Edition. If I may be so bold, I have a suggestion—a suggestion that I believe is a perfect solution to many of the issues you may be facing regarding the GSL.

My suggestion is simply this: Release 4th Edition D&D under the current OGL, but with a new Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License, instead of the d20STL.

In keeping with my suggestion, which I outline and explain in greater detail below, I have taken the liberty of amending the d20STL and creating the very documents that I propose you use: (1) a Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License v1.0, (2) a Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide, and (3) a Dungeons and Dragons Product Identity Agreement. Please find those documents attached to this letter. Please note that the attached documents have “track changes” turned on so that you can see the exact changes I have made with comments. [I haven't posted those here]

In the event that you feel it will not be possible to approve these documents in time to allow crucial third party support for 4th Edition, I would be happy to help you draft a proposed 4th Edition Gentleperson’s Agreement that would serve to allow third party publishers to support 4th Edition while the final license details are completed.

Let me highlight for you a number of the key changes I made in these documents (and in one case a key thing I left alone) and explain why I made them and why I believe adopting them is the best course of action.

• There is no need to revise the OGL

The OGL v1.0a does not need to be changed. It does exactly what you want it to do: it allows you to release Open Game Content to us, and it allows us to make products with it.

It also has the benefit of familiarity. It has been in use for years. It is simple, and well understood by the various publishers. No need to change what people already know how to use.

Further, it allows the use of Open Game Content, and it makes no restriction on where that OGC comes from, whether it be from the old 3E SRD or from the new 4E SRD. And it allows said OGC to be used in the same product, in that it doesn’t disallow such use. I think that is the biggest hurdle facing a 4E OGL/GSL—dealing with products that want to use open content from both SRDs. The current OGL would allow it, which is in and of itself a reason to keep it.

Additionally, the OGL is basically irrevocable. In my view it is a mistake to merge the terms of the STL into an irrevocable GSL: either you will have to make the GSL irrevocable, which gives up control, or you would have to make it revocable, which would be a bad PR move and would be something that would give people pause. The better idea is to keep two separate licenses—the OGL, and the “other license” that has your restrictions that you want in it and that is revocable and that you can change at will.

That brings me to my big point—the problem isn’t the OGL, the problem is the d20 STL. Here is why and how you change it.

• Change the d20STL to the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License”

I understand the recently stated desire to add certain controls into the GSL by merging some of the terms from the d20 STL into the OGL. My guess is the thinking behind merging the OGL and the STL is to force the acceptance of some of the limitations found in the STL into the OGL because people were making OGL-only products and not using the STL. But, as I’ve said, the problem there wasn’t the OGL. Let me explain.

The reason why the d20 STL did not continue to be used by the publishers, and thus those controls were avoided, is that “d20 did not mean D&D.” It did at first. But over time, that connection was watered down. The d20 logo as a brand and a symbol lost its value. Initially, the idea was that everyone would want the d20 license because that let people use the d20 logo, which was on the D&D books and at first had a clear link to D&D. What publishers really wanted to do was say “compatible with D&D,” but the licenses didn’t allow that and the d20 logo was the next best thing. As a result, things like standards were tied to the d20 STL because it was presumed that was the thing publishers couldn’t live without. But that didn’t prove to be true. In the end, that d20 logo didn’t just mean D&D anymore. So as the value of the d20 logo declined, so too did the need to use the d20 STL. All of a sudden, we could do D&D products without the d20 STL and just with the OGL. Once that happened, there were no longer any restrictions. But had the d20 logo had more value we would have had no choice but to accept them since we would have needed the d20 logo.

Solution: license the Dungeons and Dragons name and logo and let us say “compatible with Dungeons and Dragons” or “for use with Dungeons and Dragons, Fourth Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” That license should contain the content restrictions. That license should be separate from the OGL and should be revocable and changeable by you at your whim, like the STL.

I have made some basic modifications to the d20 STL and have created the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License v.1.0,” (“DDTL”). Here are a few of the changes:

I kept the “License” and “Guide” format, which incorporates the content from the Guide into the trademark license and allows you to make changes you need to make. The DDTL lets you use the D&D logos, the Guide tells you what you have to do and contains the restrictions. See below for more on changes to the Guide.

I deleted reference to the d20 Modern game, because this license is about promoting D&D.

Each license—the d20 STL and the DDTL—are independent and independently useful. You can’t use the d20 logo without using the d20 STL and you cant use the D&D logo without using the DDTL.

The DDTL can be used with the d20 STL if someone wants. One doesn’t supersede the other. I also suggest that you leave the d20 STL and Guide in place so people can keep making Third Edition products. At this point, they can whether you do or not so you might as well.

• Change the d20 System Trademark Guide to the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide”

The Guide is a flexible way for you to make changes to the content controls that you want in any products that will use the D&D logo. Most of the changes come here, in the Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide (“D&D Guide”). Here are the changes in my proposed version of the new D&D Guide:

I deleted references to the d20 STL and logo, as those are still covered by the d20 STL which continues to be valid.

I deleted references to d20 Modern and other games and settings, as this is about supporting D&D. Plus, those references are still in the d20 STL and people would want to use that license with those games.

I tied the license to OGL v1.0a or later, so that an earlier version cannot be used. I did this just to clarify things in the event an updated version of the OGL is ever introduced.

I deleted all the “defined game terms.” Those restrictions for a d20 license made sense when the point is to support a core game system and to have similarity among game systems, because the d20 system means a certain thing. However, you are no longer licensing d20 with this license, you are licensing Fourth Edition D&D. So none of those terms need be in the license, and frankly the 4E definition of many of those terms is different from the 3E versions and would cause conflict.
I kept the restriction of describing character creation and describing applying the effects of experience. In my view this was valid restriction in the d20 STL and it is an even more valid restriction now. This was one of the key restrictions that drove people to abandon the d20 STL. It will also make people who want to use the license to make alternate game systems abandon this license—which, in my view, is exactly what you want to happen. You don’t want people to make alternate games like Mutants and Masterminds to have the D&D logo on those products.

I deleted the “you may not change the definition of a defined game term” restriction, as the game terms were deleted. Again, the d20 STL had those terms to make sure all d20 games are consistent. That isn’t the point of this license anymore. This license exists to support D&D.

I added a new term that “A minimum of fifty percent (50%) or more (word count or letter count) of the Open Game Content used in a Covered Product must be from the Fourth Edition System Reference Document (“4ESRD”).” The reason I added this is because the logo we are licensing is the Fourth Edition D&D logo. You want to make sure that the majority of the open content used in your product comes from the 4E SRD.

I changed the mandatory trademark usage to allow publishers to say “compatible with” or “for use with Dungeons and Dragons,” which will solidify the value of this license and prevent the problem that plagued the d20 logo insofar as that license failed because d20 did not properly equate to D&D.

I changed the text block requirement to delete the maximum size. I never understood why Wizards didn’t want us putting in as big of words as possible that our product required the use of its core books.

I permitted users to reference other works by Wizards of the Coast by name and page number, and I also required that any such titles of works be included in the legal disclaimer text block indicating that such titles are used with permission and are owned by Wizards. It was always silly that we couldn’t refer to a specific page of a core rule book.

• Suggestions for the 4E SRD

My suggestion is that the 4E SRD be a text file for each book and that for the most part the entire book be open. I see no reason why Wizards should provide, for free, pre-typed versions of all the books. Plus, the process of stripping the content seems to be far too time consuming and in my view was one of the reasons why subsequent products were not released in the SRD. Using this approach would allow all subsequent books to be added to the 4E SRD. It is foolish, in my view, to let us support 4E but not let us help you sell the splat books for that edition. Further, if you want, you could include a list of “Product Identity” for each book.

Here is how I would do it. I would simply do an open game content designation for the book as if you were using the OGL, complete with a designation of Product Identity. It is literally that easy. This, then, would be the 4E SRD entry for the Player’s Handbook:

Player’s Handbook
All written rule-related game content within this book — excluding any text on the inside or outside of the front or back cover or on the Credits page and further excluding content related to character creation and to applying the effects of experience to a character, as defined in the Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License, v1.0 — is hereby designated as Open Game Content, subject to the Product Identity designation below, including by not limited to all races, classes, monsters, templates, spells, feats, powers, mundane items, magic items, deities, divine powers, [and all other stuff you want to add] and including the proper names of any such new content and related stat blocks but not any text descriptions other than that which contains game-related information is hereby contributed as new Open Game Content.

Inadvertent Inclusion or Failure of Designation: Any inadvertent inclusion of content in this product which is otherwise not Open Game Content shall not cause such content to become Open Game Content by virtue of its inadvertent inclusion here.

Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity as provided in section 1(e) of the Open Game License:

Any and all material or content that could be claimed as Product Identity pursuant to section 1(e), below, is hereby claimed as product identity, including but not limited to:
1. The name “Wizards of the Coast” as well as all logos and identifying marks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., including but not limited to the Wizards logo and the phrase “XXX” as well as the trade dress of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., products;
2. Any and all Wizards of the Coast, Inc., product names, including but not limited to Player’s Handbook, [list any other names];
3. All artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, illustration, graphic design, maps, and cartography, including any text contained within such items;
4. The names, personality, descriptions and/or motivations of all artifacts, creatures, characters, spells, enchantments, powers, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities, places, locations, environments, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, gods, races, countries, cities, city states, political or geographic features, historic events, groups, feats, spells, skills, organizations, items, monsters, planes or deities in this book as well as the name of any other thing originating from other Wizards of the Coast, Inc., products, but not their stat blocks or other game mechanic descriptions (if any);
5. All stories, storylines, histories, plots, thematic elements;
6. Any other content previously designated as Product Identity is hereby designated as Product Identity and is used with permission and/or pursuant to license.

Literally, there is your 4E SRD entry for the Player’s Handbook. Of course, I would be more specific if I actually had reviewed the book. Note that I exclude from open content any character creation information as well as describing the effects of applying experience, which ties into the D&D Trademark Guide restriction.

• Add a Product Identity License Agreement

Then, in addition to the above, allow Product Identity to be used. My attached Product Identity License Agreement allows people who use the D&DTL (and only those who use the D&DTL) to use some of the key D&D PI, such as beholders and githyanki and mind flayers and the new gods, etc. Now more than ever, the core D&D books include and are tied to certain setting concepts. If you do not allow us to support those things, you fragment the market drastically and force rather transparent work-arounds that serve little purpose other than to annoy the readers. In my proposed PI License, I provide further notes on the reasons behind such a license.

• Conclusion

I hope I haven’t overstepped my bounds in taking the liberty of drafting these simple changes and submitting these solutions. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help in this process.

Sincerely,

Clark Peterson
President
Necromancer Games, Inc.

 

[Orcus]

Hope you guys enjoy these.

I also did draft a proposed "Gentleperson's agreement" but it, too, was never used.

Clark

For your reference, here it is:


4th Edition Gentleperson’s Agreement

You have been/are being provided with an advance copy of a draft of the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons rules (“advance rules”) pursuant to the attached Non-disclosure Agreement (“NDA”). Similarly, the terms of this Gentleperson’s Agreement (“Agreement”) are covered by the NDA and may not be disclosed except as required below.

Consideration: You agree to be bound by this Agreement in consideration for being able to view and advance copy of the Dungeons & Dragons rules.

Use: You may use these advance rules to prepare products under the Open Game License (“OGL”) and d20 System Trademark License (“d20 STL”) for anticipated publication (“products”). However, any content contained in these advance rules you use in your products which does not otherwise appear in the current System Reference Document (“SRD”) is not Open Game Content and is used with permission as set forth below.

Revocation: The permission to use content from the advance rules in products expires on the creation and dissemination of a new SRD for the new Dungeons & Dragons rules, at which time all use of content from the advance rules must cease. Any reprinting of products using content from the advance rules must be revised to comply with the SRD and may not use content from the advance rules. Publishing products under the advance rules does not grant any right to continue to use such content, even in reprints, once the new SRD is available. Permission may also be revoked by Wizards of the Coast or its representatives at any time by the posting of said revocation on the wizards.com/d&d web site or by sending you notice of revocation of this agreement by the same manner and means by which said advance rules were provided to you, including notification by email. We do not warrant that said advance rules will match the final published version of the Dungeons and Dragons rules. The permission granted herein is fully revocable and no interest or reliance should reasonably be created in any person or entity receiving said advanced rules. We reserve the right at any time to revoke this permission either on an individual, company-by-company or global basis. You are on notice and you assume all risk that permission may be revoked at any time and your products using said advance rules may never be allowed to be published. Wizards of the Coast is not responsible in any way for any financial loss you may suffer as a result of the revocation of the permission contained in this Agreement.

Release Date Restriction: Additionally, you agree that no products created using content from or derived from the advanced rules may be released or disseminated by you in any way or in any medium prior to the official launch date for the Dungeons and Dragons rules or a date set later by Wizards of the Coast, whichever is later.

Specific Limitations: You may refer to all content from the advance rules in your products with the following additional limitations: 1. You may not refer to setting names or content from previously published products by Wizards of the Coast or TSR Games, Inc., that may be contained or referenced in the advance rules except for such content that may appear in the name of spells, feats or other abilities or the names of monsters or magic items. 2. You may not refer to the names of any non-player or iconic characters contained in or referred to in the advance rules. 3. You may not use or refer to any of the art contained in the advance rules. 4. You may refer to the titles of the advance rules, namely “Players’ Handbook,” “Monster Manual” and “Dungeon Master’s Guide,” though you must indicate in your products that said names are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast and are used with permission and no challenge to said marks are intended. You may provide section names and numbers to said book titles but you may not refer to page numbers at this time as the pagination of the advance rules may change on publication. You may not refer at this time to the titles of any other products published or anticipated to be published by Wizards of the Coast. 5. You must indicate on your product that “This product requires the use of the new 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Player’s Handbook published by Wizards of the Coast.” [6. Any other restriction that seems appropriate]

Compliance with OGL and d20 STL: Except as provided in this agreement, you must otherwise comply with the terms of both the OGL and the d20 STL. You may not create “OGL-only” products which do not use the d20 STL when creating products under this Gentleperson’s Agreement.

Breach: You agree that in addition to any other damages or causes of action Wizards of the Coast may have against you as a result of misuse of said advance content or breach of this agreement that you and/or your company at the sole discretion of Wizards of the Coast will be considered to be in breach of the Open Game License and d20 STL and will forfeit forever the ability to use said licenses.

Notice of Use of Advance Rules Content: Any products created using these advance rules must contain the following notice following but accompanying the Section 15 designation of said product:

“Notice—Use of Content from Advance Rules: This product was created using advance draft copies of the rules of the Dungeons and Dragons game. Any content from the Dungeons and Dragons game contained herein and not otherwise contained in the System Reference Document is used by permission and is not Open Game Content. Any failure in the designation of Open Game Content to protect this content does not cause such content to become Open Game Content. Said content is used with permission of Wizards of the Coast subject to revocation.”

===

As you can see, this early draft refers to the d20 STL, because I had no idea what was or wasn't in 4E at the time. I drafted a different proposed Gentleperson's agreement once I submitted my second letter, above, which references a D&D trademark license. I can't seem to find that letter, though.

 

[xechnao]

Further, it allows the use of Open Game Content, and it makes no restriction on where that OGC comes from, whether it be from the old 3E SRD or from the new 4E SRD. And it allows said OGC to be used in the same product, in that it doesn’t disallow such use. I think that is the biggest hurdle facing a 4E OGL/GSL—dealing with products that want to use open content from both SRDs. The current OGL would allow it, which is in and of itself a reason to keep it.

I do not think that makes any sense. It probably means that any new D&D players could potentially have an even more bloated environment regarding the published game products.

The "D&D standards compatible" license holding restrictions you are talking about could mitigate this problem but then, as you suggest, if the D&D compatibility logo is what matters the most, why use the OGL at all?

 

[afstanton]

Wow. I read that and wonder just how different the landscape of the gaming environment would be if they had gone along with those proposals. Using the OGL and allowing references to 3/3.5 publications would have allowed for a very easy migration path to 4e for publishers. Entire product lines could have been gradually changed over, including guidelines for adapting old products to 4e rules.

 

[the Jester]

Thanks for posting those, Clark.

Ahh, what might have been...