Michael Morris
First Post
It just seems a bit odd to see these unofficial 5e products popping up without any guarantee that there will be any sort of OGL license. How does that work? Or is a C&D on the way?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Necromancer, now Goodman, is there a 5e OGL the general public doesn't know about?
- Thread starter Michael Morris
- Start date
Loki-lie-Smith
Explorer
IIRC GG had 4e modules as soon the game was released and they never used the GSL (I may be wrong, though)
There is no need for any sort of special license to publish 'compatible' adventures, supplements, etc. The only thing the OGL did was grant limited use to portions of the WotC trademarks and intellectual property. In other words, the OGL allowed 3rd party publishers to actually refer to specific, limited portions of actual D&D content.
All the current crop of 5e products are doing is publishing unique adventures that are 'compatible with the 5e of the most popular role playing game'. They aren't referencing any trademarked things (no mention of Dungeons & Dragons specifically, no Drow, etc) nor do they include any copywritten materials (no copy/paste of stat-blocks etc).
This has always been legal, and companies have been doing it as far back as 1st edition. The difference between this and publishing OGL based content back in the 3.0 era was that OGL content could actually refer to the SRD directly and make references to specific monsters and spell names that were included in the SRD, covered under the OGL (things like 'Drow' were still specifically trademarked and off-limits, however). For example, the SRD itself was released as open gaming content, and publishers could include it verbatim or copy/paste portions of it directly in their products if they wished. This included common races / classes / monsters and their stat blocks etc. However, WotC specifically left certain things out of the SRD / OGC, like the actual character advancement tables. This was an attempt to ensure that people had to purchase a Players Handbook to make use of the SRD and OGC. However, Paizo got around this with Pathfinder by making up their own character advancement tables.
All the current crop of 5e products are doing is publishing unique adventures that are 'compatible with the 5e of the most popular role playing game'. They aren't referencing any trademarked things (no mention of Dungeons & Dragons specifically, no Drow, etc) nor do they include any copywritten materials (no copy/paste of stat-blocks etc).
This has always been legal, and companies have been doing it as far back as 1st edition. The difference between this and publishing OGL based content back in the 3.0 era was that OGL content could actually refer to the SRD directly and make references to specific monsters and spell names that were included in the SRD, covered under the OGL (things like 'Drow' were still specifically trademarked and off-limits, however). For example, the SRD itself was released as open gaming content, and publishers could include it verbatim or copy/paste portions of it directly in their products if they wished. This included common races / classes / monsters and their stat blocks etc. However, WotC specifically left certain things out of the SRD / OGC, like the actual character advancement tables. This was an attempt to ensure that people had to purchase a Players Handbook to make use of the SRD and OGC. However, Paizo got around this with Pathfinder by making up their own character advancement tables.
Last edited:
Crothian
First Post
It works by getting the games to the consumer faster then a possible C&D happens so they can get the fast cash.
Geordon
First Post
Personally, I can't wait to snatch up as much 5e content as possible! I cut my teeth on 4e almost two years ago, and for the longest time I've pined for something different. I wanted more control as a DM, and I wanted my players to roleplay and use their imagination more, not just read ability cards.
I quickly realized that I was essentially craving 3.5e, even though I'd never played it before. I decided to stick it out with 4e until the end of our first major campaign (3-4 sessions and counting!) before switching to another edition. Now, after reading everything I could find on 5e, and getting my hands on the PHB, we are absolutely switching over to 5th when this campaign comes to a close.
In short, can't wait for more 5e content!
I quickly realized that I was essentially craving 3.5e, even though I'd never played it before. I decided to stick it out with 4e until the end of our first major campaign (3-4 sessions and counting!) before switching to another edition. Now, after reading everything I could find on 5e, and getting my hands on the PHB, we are absolutely switching over to 5th when this campaign comes to a close.
In short, can't wait for more 5e content!
If there were a license (open or otherwise - you guys seem to forget so often that "open" licensing is not the only kind of licensing available) I would have expected that announcements would have featured that there was some sort of deal between these producers and WotC - it would be a selling point for both sides to mention it, as it would increase confidence in the products.
Michael Morris
First Post
Goodman's adventures are likely safe. Necromancer's monsters however... I find it curious.
Necromancer isn't infringing on WotC trademarks or copyright in any way, so I don't see how they are at any risk either. You can't trademark 1d6 or terms like 'hit points', 'armor class' etc. There's nothing that actually makes what Necromancer is publishing actually 5e content. All they are doing is saying, 'hey, we've created a bunch of monsters. We've tried to do it in such a way that the attributes and powers we've created for them will make sense in the context of a 5e game. Enjoy!' That is perfectly legal.
Thank you Joe, I always mess that up
Thank you Joe, I always mess that up
