D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[prosfilaes]

"...and anything else contained herein which is already Open Game Content by virtue of appearing in the System Reference Document or some other Open Game Content source."
This means literally any piece of text, anywhere in the product, could be OGC. Or not. That's not clarity.

The problem is, since we were comparing them to Paizo, is the UE text has "(Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content or are in the public domain are not included in this declaration.)" I'm not entirely happy with either text, but they seem to be largely equivalent in their problems.

It was once proposed as a tongue-in-cheek litmus test that OGC could only be considered clearly identified, as required by the license, if an elementary school child with a highlighter could mark all the OGC content.

The problem is, you either label the entire thing (or just chapters) OGC (possibly moving OGC out of line for this to work), or you intrusively highlight text. Neither option was worth it for most publishers.

What about the concept and format of spell templates?*

No and no. OGC is basically a mix of copyright and trademark protection, and neither protect concepts or formats.

We've got no common frame of reference. You think "all text" is confusing, and "anything which is, is, and anything which isn't, isn't" a model of clarity. It's certainly a unique perspective.

Here's a communication hint: if you think that someone is saying absurd, you're probably not understanding them correctly. Certainly "all text" is easy to understand; I simply don't get the impression that many companies did that. It depends on what you count; I suspect the majority of D20 volumes (by product count, not page count or sales count) were adventures, and they don't know if any of them said "all text". For example, Goodman Games DCC #21 says

Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version 1.0: Any and all Dungeon Crawl Classics logos and identifying marks and trade dress; all proper nouns, capitalized terms, italicized terms, artwork, maps, symbols, depictions, and illustrations, except such elements that already appear in the System Reference Document.
Designation of Open Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, all creature and NPC statistic blocks are designated as Open
Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or other open content sources.

That's relatively simple, but pretty much what the Paizo and Malhavoc declarations said.

For instance, this is an actual "master of clarity and openness", from 2004 (probably 2002, actually, but it was revised in 2004 so I can't be certain). This was standard for Bastion Press.

That's how you do it.

That's how you do it if you want to release everything OGC. Anything less is going to be more complex. I've got Necromancer Games, Mongoose, Goodman Games, Swords & Sorcery, and Bards and Sages and the only one that's really clarity is the Bards and Sages one, except that they stuffed it in the OGL by the cite, instead of any place proper.

In any case, you may not like the Malhavoc declaration, but it is largely equivalent to the Paizo one.

 

[Nellisir]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Update:

 

[kenmarable]

Wow, talk about flashback debates! I'm suddenly feeling 10 years younger. I hope we don't have to rehash whether PI is a subset of OGC or not. Felt like that debate went on for at least a year or two.

 

[prosfilaes]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't see any reason why we have to.

 

[Nylanfs]

Just a quick check there haven't been any news on a license other than the few vague comments by Mearls right?

 

[Celtavian]

OGL cost them their market dominance. From a business perspective, WotC would be insane to make another OGL game.

 

[Astrosicebear]

OGL cost them their market dominance. From a business perspective, WotC would be insane to make another OGL game.

Pathfinder is an OGL game and dominates the current market (or did as of a few months ago).

 

[Nylanfs]

OGL cost them their market dominance. From a business perspective, WotC would be insane to make another OGL game.

So in what way is this "news"?

And I didn't say anything about the OGL, I said license. As in any news relating to ANY license other than what KP and the others currently have.

 

[Astrosicebear]

So in what way is this "news"?

And I didn't say anything about the OGL, I said license. As in any news relating to ANY license other than what KP and the others currently have.

The answer is no. No news, no rumors, no hints. Wont get any until after the DMG... although they did say FALL.

 

[prosfilaes]

OGL cost them their market dominance. From a business perspective, WotC would be insane to make another OGL game.

It also made D&D 3.x sell big. I seriously doubt that the D&D revival with 3.0 would have been nearly as big if they didn't have third-party support, adventures and monster books for every taste. D&D 5 doesn't have the amount of product coming out previous editions did, and third-party support can fill that gap. They don't have to go OGL, but something the third-party companies can accept.

Also, the horse is out of the barn. Pathfinder and several other games are out there using that IP under the OGL. Without anything, WotC'll keep away most of the third-party support, and the rest will release books for D&D 5 under the OGL, which weakens WotC control. WotC can't sue them; likelihood is WotC would lose and expose how tenuous copyright protects RPGs. Even if they release D&D 5 under the OGL, they aren't really releasing much of anything copyright-wise; mechanics aren't copyrightable, and dragonborn are generic, done by every fantasy heartbreaker of the 1990s, IIRC, long before WotC.