Gavin Norman on the future of OSE

[kapars]

this is for levels 3-5, if that counts Halls of the Blood King

I got this one, I’m so excited for it.

 

[Burt Baccara]

Open Game Content only means something while the OGL exists. If WotC can revoke the OGL v1.0 (and if it's true that the OGL v1.1 only talks about "Licensed Content" but doesn't discuss "Open Game Content"), then it doesn't really matter what publishers have designated as OGC; WotC will have rendered the very concept moot.

But under the terms of the OGL v1.0? No, once something is open, it's open forever, available for anyone else to use in conjunction with the OGL v1.0.

It sort of feels like people are jumping the gun, or trying to have it both ways.

 

[Mannahnin]

1. Can a publisher even revoke the OGL for their own work?

This is a hotly-debated topic and will be central to any upcoming court cases.

To my understanding, at least these two facts are clear:

1. The original OGL contained the word "perpetual", but not the word "irrevocable".
2. Former VP Ryan Dancy, who was in charge of the OGL, and WotC's own OGL FAQ formerly hosted on their website for years, both made quite clear and explicit that the intent, and their understanding, of the effect and purpose of the OGL was indeed that it was irrevocable. That neither WotC nor any hypothetical future owner could ever cancel it/take back what they had given.

 

[Reynard]

1. Can a publisher even revoke the OGL for their own work?

It would seem weird, right? Because what if I built my OGL adventure on a couple cool monsters you made and released under the OGL. It seems counter intuitive that you could un-release those monsters and retroactively make my adventure infringe on your copyright.

 

[overgeeked]

This is a hotly-debated topic and will be central to any upcoming court cases.

To my understanding, at least these two facts are clear:

1. The original OGL contained the word "perpetual", but not the word "irrevocable".
2. Former VP Ryan Dancy, who was in charge of the OGL, and WotC's own OGL FAQ formerly hosted on their website for years, both made quite clear and explicit that the intent, and their understanding, of the effect and purpose of the OGL was indeed that it was irrevocable. That neither WotC nor any hypothetical future owner could ever cancel it/take back what they had given.

And all WotC has to do is show up with a copy of the book that had the OGL in and a copy without. Unless the rules are substantially different, then WotC will likely win by default.

 

[Malmuria]

And all WotC has to do is show up with a copy of the book that had the OGL in and a copy without. Unless the rules are substantially different, then WotC will likely win by default.

Unless the basic mechanics are not actually protected IP. Retroclones are seemingly in a more precarious position, however, since they do mimic many of the specific expressions of the original ("save vs spells" etc).

 

[overgeeked]

Unless the basic mechanics are not actually protected IP. Retroclones are seemingly in a more precarious position, however, since they do mimic many of the specific expressions of the original ("save vs spells" etc).

Individual mechanics can’t be copyrighted, but there’s some argument about all the mechanics together in aggregate being a unique and copyrightable thing.

 

[Reynard]

Individual mechanics can’t be copyrighted, but there’s some argument about all the mechanics together in aggregate being a unique and copyrightable thing.

Right. You could probably get away with an adventure with minimal stats in it. "There are five goblins (hp 7,5,4, 4) in this room." You would have a harder time convincing a judge that a book of new monsters, all laid out in 5E style statblocks, isn't infringing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Right. You could probably get away with an adventure with minimal stats in it. "There are five goblins (hp 7,5,4, 4) in this room." You would have a harder time convincing a judge that a book of new monsters, all laid out in 5E style statblocks, isn't infringing.

Books like The Monster Overhaul, which don't match any particular system, but are designed to be easy enough to convert to any of them, seem like a smart way to go at the moment, although not as good as systemless.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Also, I keep misreading the name in this thread as "Greg Norman" and thinking the PGA is now wading into all of this.