Forking the OGL

[2WS-Steve]

I think market fragmentation is going to be major because of this, and WOTC has really shot themselves in the foot. There will be a lot of incentive for small, electronic, publishers to cater to those who don't switch instantly, and the more new material is around for them, the less incentive they have to switch. Maybe WOTC is convinced their new game is so amazingly fantastically better that practically no one will refuse to switch, but if that's their marketing plan, look for a 5e a lot sooner than you might think....

I think there's going to be market fragmentation too -- but probably not much at the fantasy end of d20. Very few people used non-WOTC OGL material anyway.

Spycraft, M&M, Modern20 and whatever else will fill in the non-fantasy aspect and those sorts of old-d20 offshoots (or new inventions based on old-d20) is where you'll see the new and interesting development in d20 based rpgs. Though, without the tie-in to D&D, more publishers might make a big break and go with FATE or invent wholly new systems.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I fail to see why the release of 4e D&D precipitates or necessitates any update or re-release of Mutants and Masterminds or True20 (among others).

Other than just being, potentially, "good timing" to ride the wave of dollars being spent in the "new market."

 

[Nellisir]

Well interpretation #2 is clearly wrong since only WOTC or its designated Agents can modify the license.

That's not entirely true. Evreyone distributing OGC is required to modify Section 15 of the license (even if the actual license is parts 1-14, 15 is still a section of the license, so...). So, if each modification of the S.15 generates a different "version" of the license....

I'm not saying these explanations aren't head-bending and wacky. I'm not even saying I'm right. I think WotC is going to endrun around the "any version" clause in the OGL by essentially ignoring it, and this whole search for logic will be wasted time. But if that's not the case, those are the only two justifications I can get to work at the moment.

 

[Planesdragon]

As it stands now, if the license under which the 4e SRD is released is in any way a new version of OLG 1.0a, the "community standards" rules can be gleefully and merrily ignored by publishers, as they can use older versions of the OGL.

Actually, Lizard... I think they listened to us.

The OGL we can recite by heart has two HUGE flaws, that are room for improvement: explicit permission to indicate derivation, and the necessity of a separate license for trademarks.

WotC will release a new, official version of the "Open Gaming License" -- that will incorporate the whole of the d20STL, and include that magical "I made this from that" clause. Or perhaps just the "d20" replacement. d20 will be retired, and anyone who cares will be able to do exactly what they do now -- take the branding off, and do whatever the heck you want.

Now, I for one can't think of a reason to switch to 4e, so I won't. I"ll keep on using my 3e variant, and I'll probably polish it up and list is somewhere if it ever settles into a sellable form. But from WotC's business case, there are two big reasons to do it this way:

1: the current OGL makes it too easy to just repackage. A PHB is simply not worthwhile when you have www.d20srd.org.

2: Too many errors in licensing. Far better to just simplify it, have a single set of common terms for the "I want to sell my campaign setting" crowd, and save on the expenses of explaining to every dork in the nation what the two licenses mean.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, as I have repeated, what they can control is 3rd party product that indicates compatibility with their valued brand.

The current OGL does not allow explicit indications of compatibility. It sounds like the new version will allow you to state, for example, "Compatible with 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons!" on the cover. That's a big deal! In exchange for this, you agree to the restrictions that are also included in the new OGL.

Don't like the restrictions, don't get the benefits.

Again, just my prediction...

Don't D20 publishers already indicate compatibility with "the revised third edition of the most popular roleplaying game but definitely not the one you're thinking of and don't even ask us because we don't want to get sued"? Couldn't they just do that with a new OGL?

 

[Psion]

I suppose I cannot deny that fact, but can you really call it "derived" when it's just a re-publication of the relevant bits of the D&D rules? Almost everything in the SRD is found verbatim in D&D (with the exception of a few spell names). Could you really say that a 4e rule was derived from D&D, but not from the SRD, when it's expressed in exactly the same way in both works?

The pivotal issue here is the open game license. It is that license that defines the condition of "open-ness"; this is not copyright law.

Wizards owns 3e (and 3.5e) material lock, stock and barrel. Wizards is in no way compelled to resort to the terms of the OGL in order to create a derivative of their own work. This applies to dozens of 3e supplements as well as 4e.

You will also note that with rare exception, almost every WotC 3e book has the text in front stating that there is no open content in the book. Wizards' case is ironclad here, I'm afraid. 4e is not open due to the existence of the 3.x SRDs.

 

[Psion]

I fail to see why the release of 4e D&D precipitates or necessitates any update or re-release of Mutants and Masterminds or True20 (among others).

Nor do I, but this seems to be a common belief. (shrug)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Don't D20 publishers already indicate compatibility with "the revised third edition of the most popular roleplaying game but definitely not the one you're thinking of and don't even ask us because we don't want to get sued"? Couldn't they just do that with a new OGL?

Yes, they could.

But there will be no d20 logo or other indicator of compatibility.

So given the choice between a vague reference and the ability to put "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover-- even if the new license also dictates that I can't put nipples on every page-- I'll go with the new license.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

And I notice the people bringing up the rule "you can't copyright a game"...well, I believe that court case was a ruling based on board games like Monopoly and Chess. I have a feeling if a major RPG or computer game publisher actually got to a court-room, they could actually argue that an RPG is much more than a typical game system, and I have a feeling it could go either way when it comes to the RPG or any other really complex game that's mostly a lot of text.

The FAQ for the OGL explains this in great detail. On that FAQ, WOTC say very specifically that a game rule cannot be copyright. It's been up there for years... I think that in the face of this, iit would be very hard for WOTC to claim in court that some kind of copyright attaches to the underlying rules of the game.

The "artistic presentation" of a rule can be copyright, though. So anyone attempting to re-create the rules of an older OGL game would need to re-phrase those rules in completely different words.

You're right to say it's more work than writing your own RPG. Ask me how I know...

 

[Yair]

Yes, they could.

I don't think they could (publish a wink-compatible work under the new STL). I didn't see the license, but I'm guessing it will be designed to prevent such measures. In the worst-case-scenario, Wizards could simply include clauses that allow her to arbitrarily terminate the publisher's ability to use the license. We just haven't seen the license, we can't tell what it allows.

They could publish such a work under the old OGL. But that's a different matter - and doing so while being compatible with 4e would surely be... tricky.

So given the choice between a vague reference and the ability to put "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover-- even if the new license also dictates that I can't put nipples on every page-- I'll go with the new license.

But... but.... nipple-showing is an inalienable right!