D&D 4E Interesting Article on OGL and 4E

[BASHMAN]

This is a very troubling statement. Chris is developing doomsday scenarios for other companies products, without any more justification than his own rumblings. I agree it's certainly conceivable for WotC to explore this exclusion of OGL info, but I don't think it should be so aimed at Necro's leaked ideas.

Eh... when people said that WotC would not extend the OGL to 4.0 they were accused of being tin-foil hatted conspiracy theorists... so I tend to give such conspiracy theories & doomsday equations the benefit of the doubt now. I think Murphy's law is pretty fitting to the scenario as it unfolds...

 

[smetzger]

My guess is that the change is partly an attempt to force DDI subscriptions. I may be confusing the issue, but I'm imagining that there will be an online SRD-like document, but it will be restricted, both in terms of how it can be used, and in terms of how it can be accessed. (That is, access only through the DDI area of the website.)

Yes, I think this weighs heavily on WOTC's minds.

The online SRD was meant for publishers. However, with the OGL and the internet, anyone can be a publisher.

I think WOTC is going to try to drive as many people as possible to DDI. They don't want every gaming group to have its own website with a discussion forum, house rules (published under OGL) etc. They want people to put all of this on DDI.

 

[kigmatzomat]

You think? Tell that to Goodman Games.

Hard does not.... {edit} Oh, Maggan beat me to it.

 

[Ourph]

I don't think the 30 days under clause 13 would have any application in this situation.

The licence comes into force by way of clauses 3 and 4. So if I distribute what I represent as OGC, but is in fact public domain, what happens when person X tries to use that pseudo-OGC?

Under clause 3, X accepts my offer (which I have made by distributing my stuff and labelling it as OGC within the meaning of the OGL).

Under clause 4, X gives consideration by agreeing to abide by the terms of the OGL, and I give consideration by granting them a licence. Except I can't do any such thing, as the material is in fact public domain. Therefore no contract arises, and the terms of the OGL become irrelevant.

I guess that depends on whether ALL the OGC in your work was mistakenly attributed this way or whether it was just a portion of the work. You're right that the OGL stipulations wouldn't apply to the public domain material, but if you had other (correctly attributed) OGC in the book, you'd need to correct your mistake within 30 days or lose the right to use the OGL for the entire product.

Whatever rights X has against me do not arise under the OGL. They arise out of the general law of misrepresentation (which I imagine is overwhelmingly statutory in most parts of the US). I was envisaging that X might get damages against me for the cost of including a page in their book citing the OGL, when they didn't need to (thus, my misrepresentation cost them printing costs they need not have incurred).

I suppose that would depend upon whether the product in question used only your mis-attributed OGC or used additional (appropriately attributed) OGC from you or other sources. I find it hard to imagine a product designed for use with the OGL that wouldn't use at least some of the OGC from the SRD (the font from which all OGC originally flows). If that were the case, they would have to use the OGL anyway, even if you hadn't made a mistake. That would completely negate any claim against you for printing costs, as far as I can see.

 

[DaveMage]

I wish Ryan Dancey wasn't in self-exile so he'd pipe in with his thoughts.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Hard does not.... {edit} Oh, Maggan beat me to it.

Depends on what your definition of "hard" is. Personally, I don't find sticking to a consistent schedule and writing solid adventures hard if you are smart and have the staff for it. I'm not trying to take anything away from what Goodman Games does, as their adventures rock and Joe is an incredibly smart business guy.

Also, need I bring up Paizo whose business now is basically Pathfinder at this point? Sorry, but the myth that its extremely hard to make money selling adventures is one I don't subscribe to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Eh... when people said that WotC would not extend the OGL to 4.0 they were accused of being tin-foil hatted conspiracy theorists...

(Raises hand.)

Yes, I remember that quite well.

so I tend to give such conspiracy theories & doomsday equations the benefit of the doubt now.

How many times does the "WotC would never do that" response have to be proven wrong before we concede that we don't really know what WotC is willing to do?

RC

 

[kigmatzomat]

Depends on what your definition of "hard" is. Personally, I don't find sticking to a consistent schedule and writing solid adventures hard if you are smart and have the staff for it. I'm not trying to take anything away from what Goodman Games does, as their adventures rock and Joe is an incredibly smart business guy.

Few things are hard if you are smart and have the right staff for the job. My point is that several decades of buying adventures for multiple game systems empirically indicates that there are very few people who qualify to be "the staff for" writing adventures.

Anything pre-OGL was from the same company that produced the game, the modules were produced by companies with a knowledgeable staff and an editing team. Most companies were doing well to produce as much useful material as they were drek. FASA adventures were great plots with crap implementation, some D&D TSR adventures were solid implementation with crap ideas, and then there were the non D&D TSR product lines that had laughably bad adventures with crap implementation and lame ideas.

Also, need I bring up Paizo whose business now is basically Pathfinder at this point? Sorry, but the myth that its extremely hard to make money selling adventures is one I don't subscribe to.

Paizo had the advantage of significant institutional knowledge available, in the form of the Dungeon authors and WotC support. Paizo is the group you would least expect to fail at making adventures.

 

[Hussar]

Eh... when people said that WotC would not extend the OGL to 4.0 they were accused of being tin-foil hatted conspiracy theorists... so I tend to give such conspiracy theories & doomsday equations the benefit of the doubt now. I think Murphy's law is pretty fitting to the scenario as it unfolds...

While the OGL is changed, how did they not continue the OGL into 4e? Isn't 4e going to allow 3rd party publishers to publish D&D material? I was under the understanding that they would allow that.

While the GSL might be different, that doesn't mean that OGL is dead. And, considering you and I haven't seen the license yet, it might be a bit early to declare the time of death.

 

[The Little Raven]

While the OGL is changed, how did they not continue the OGL into 4e? Isn't 4e going to allow 3rd party publishers to publish D&D material? I was under the understanding that they would allow that.

While the GSL might be different, that doesn't mean that OGL is dead. And, considering you and I haven't seen the license yet, it might be a bit early to declare the time of death.

You're just going to get the argument that anything less than giving away your rules system, almost entirely, under the OGL is not an open game.