D&D 5E SRD5 - A Clone of Part of D&D 5E Basic

[Dausuul]

Backgrounds kill whatever legal protection this guy thinks he has. He uses terms and descriptions straight out of the Basic D&D PDF and that's exactly what you can NOT do to exploit this legal loophole.

Yup. It is indeed possible to clone 5E under the OGL, but you have to be a lot more careful than this guy is being. The OGL doesn't have backgrounds, so there's no safe harbor; he's relying on copyright law there, it's not at all clear that copyright law covers what he's doing, and I don't think he realizes that.

 

[Obryn]

This just seems like a bad idea, and jumping the gun besides.

Why not wait and see the licensing terms, first? If they're terrible, deal with it then.

With all respect to the Necromancer folks, this is a new game that looks breakable if you're not careful, and I'm already skeptical about how wise it is to add a few hundred more spells into the game. (Because only one needs to be broken.)

Already in the Concentration thread, a poster has suggested a completely wacky feat and doesn't see how broken it is.

I think Mearls is right to urge people to wait for the DMG.

 

[Abstruse]

Yup. It is indeed possible to clone 5E under the OGL, but you have to be a lot more careful than this guy is being. The OGL doesn't have backgrounds, so there's no safe harbor; he's relying on copyright law there, it's not at all clear that copyright law covers what he's doing, and I don't think he realizes that.

You can't copyright a rule mechanic, but you can copyright how it's presented. It's how all the OSR games are able to exist. However, you'll notice that OSRIC doesn't have the flowery names for each level like 1st Ed did. That's because you can't copy that part because it's part of the presentation.

And that's where this guy is screwing up. In Backgrounds at least (I didn't look further because I just wanted to see if he was doing it right or not), he's copied descriptive terms and wordings straight out of the book. That's a no-no and good enough to get a takedown. If this guy puts up anything from the PHB when that's released or from the Starter Set, they're going to have enough to not only get the site taken down but possibly get damages.

 

[MoonSong]

He's very generously licensed his own name and the title of his site under the OGL for public use, though, which is gratifying.

More seriously, I wish him the best, but that's not a risk I would take.

Indeed, I stopped working on my own heartbreaker when i noticed the coincidences with 5e, it was just too similar to be dismissed as an accidental happenstance - which it was-.

This just seems like a bad idea, and jumping the gun besides.

Why not wait and see the licensing terms, first? If they're terrible, deal with it then.

With all respect to the Necromancer folks, this is a new game that looks breakable if you're not careful, and I'm already skeptical about how wise it is to add a few hundred more spells into the game. (Because only one needs to be broken.)

Already in the Concentration thread, a poster has suggested a completely wacky feat and doesn't see how broken it is.

I think Mearls is right to urge people to wait for the DMG.

The fact that so far are at least two people + an undisclosed amount of backers show that there is a demand for those terms and licenses right now. And third party is more needed at launch, and specially considering there are so many missing bits. You cannot make a game meant to function through tinkering and then expect people not to tinker with it.

 

[Umbran]

The fact that so far are at least two people + an undisclosed amount of backers show that there is a demand for those terms and licenses right now.

There's "demand" from at least two people (my wife and myself) and an undisclosed number of backers (any friends I might be generous towards) for someone to gift me $1 million. Doesn't mean it will happen.

Some demand does not equate to a need for action. WotC was pretty clear that licensing will be a while off, yet, and that delay is intentional, to let the PHB and DMG bake into people's heads a bit before they start going hog wild.

You cannot make a game meant to function through tinkering and then expect people not to tinker with it.

People tinkering - meaning fannish individuals like us on EN World discussing it, is fine. Companies and groups trying to *publish* the basic rules is not "tinkering".

 

[Abstruse]

There's two non-mutually-exclusive rumors about why the delay on licensing information. The first is that WotC is still fighting with Hasbro Legal to hash out an exact license. Hasbro wants to use D&D as an IP farm rather than caring about the game itself, so they're worried about giving anything away. The second is that they want to have a head start and have all three books out before they open up a license to avoid a situation like what happened with Sword & Sorcery's Creature Catalog beating the official Monster Manual to shelves by a month. Both of these are just rumors and speculation and I have no sources whatsoever inside WotC that have told me anything this time.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

See, this may end up being a counterproductive choice for the open gaming community. Right now, Mr. Mearls is maybe working hard to convince the legal department at WotC that going OGL is the best choice, when they are already in court over a clone of their other fantasy game. I believe SRD5 is more of a hindrance to any of our OGL pretensions than genuine help.

 

[Abstruse]

See, this may end up being a counterproductive choice for the open gaming community. Right now, Mr. Mearls is maybe working hard to convince the legal department at WotC that going OGL is the best choice, when they are already in court over a clone of their other fantasy game. I believe SRD5 is more of a hindrance to any of our OGL pretensions than genuine help.

I seriously doubt that because this isn't a legitimate attempt at a clone. This is just outright copyright infringement. Something I kept trying to pound into people's heads during the playtest is 1) Just because they're not charging doesn't mean you're allowed to freely give it away, and 2) Just because you're not making money on something doesn't mean it's not infringing copyright.

 

[Ace]

Its nice to see this strong an out the door interest in 5E. I think its an elegant system and one well worth playing. I am really looking forward to the PHB>

However its way premature to have an SRD 5, not only are the legalities dubious but it may well be unnecessary. We'll know in a few months what type of licensing agreement is out there and if something akin to the OGL happens, it will be a wasted effort.

As for Necromancer Games, odds are they'll secure some kind of deal with Wizards if the OGL is too restrictive anyway anyway. Necromancer is big enough for such a thing to benefit both parties.

 

[Mistwell]

There's two non-mutually-exclusive rumors about why the delay on licensing information.

There are zero rumors. There are just people on the internet speculating.