Theory :At what point does a person have to cross to no longer be bound by the OGL?

[The Crimson Binome]

Refusing the OGL does not actually add value to your product (in fact, systems that are OGL have a greater inherent value because they can be used for the game itself and also in other products thereby creating a greater web of utility and interconnectedness).

The OGL is a double-edged sword. If you accept it, then you can use all of the other content with your own game, which is great if you really care about having enoughcontent. It also means that you're tied into accepting a lot of decisions which you might not agree with, from the size and impact of feats, to the names of the various ability scores and skills.

Personally, I don't buy anything that's OGL, but I would buy an OGL-inspired product of the same size and quality for the same price. That it's entirely self-contained within the one book, and doesn't require or allow outside reference, is a huge selling point for me.

 

[Wicht]

It also means that you're tied into accepting a lot of decisions which you might not agree with, from the size and impact of feats, to the names of the various ability scores and skills.

Well that's not true at all. You are free to use, mangle, fold, rename, rework, or otherwise change any aspect of OGL material you want to work the way you want for your own product. You just have to give credit where credit is due for where you got your work.

Likewise, OGL material does not have to be d20 material. Fate and Spirit of the Century for instance.

Personally, I don't buy anything that's OGL, but I would buy an OGL-inspired product of the same size and quality for the same price. That it's entirely self-contained within the one book, and doesn't require or allow outside reference, is a huge selling point for me.

That does not make a lot of sense as a complaint to me. There are plenty of OGL books that are self contained. When you use a feat, rule, what-have-you, from another source, you can port whatever you want into your own book. Its good form to give a head's up to where the original stuff came from, but I don't know that many OGL books which actually require you to buy all the original source material. Whether a book requires outside references has nothing to do with being OGL.

To make clear what I am saying, Take for instance a monster. If I want to port a monster from say the 3.0 Creature Collection (A thing I have done) into a Pathfinder compatible product, I can alter the base stats however I want, and name it whatever I want (in fact with Creature Collection you have to rename it as the names are not Open), and can change it however I deem appropriate. I can then include the entire monster writeup (and the monster writeup does have to also be different if you use CC as its not open either), stats, description, et.al. in my book. I then just reference in my copy of the OGL where I got the idea. I don't have to even identify what the changes are that I made to the creature, nor what I renamed it. Just use it however I want.

Likewise, for a Yakuza book I wrote, I referenced some feats from another book on magical tattoos. I actually reworded the feats somewhat and included them in my own book. But I still gave credit to the book I got my ideas from in the OGL. But you could buy and use my Yakuza book without ever buying a copy of Inkantations (or even the Book of Erotic Fantasy from which they derived some of their ideas).

 

[Evenglare]

Why would someone NOT want to use the OGL? Because of legal issues, screwing up in some small part and being slapped with a C&D? Forgetting to reference something. Also if you were going to entirely create a game from the ground up and use no references other than mechanics there seems to be no point. Anyone smart enough can relate rules and slot in other things as they please from other systems. Of course this would never be mentioned in the rules proper but easily identifiable. Having full and completely control over your game and not bound by ANYTHING by the OGL. There are several reasons why someone would want to rid the OGL. All of this is hypothetical of course. I make no claims of intent to make my own game. Just curious.

 

[Wicht]

Also if you were going to entirely create a game from the ground up and use no references other than mechanics there seems to be no point.

Actually mechanics is the chief thing being shared with the OGL. Sure some fluff may be ported here and there, but by and large its all about sharing mechanics. So it seems odd to say that if you are only sharing mechanics there is no point...

I am also not sure why you think that using the OGL makes a C&D more likely rather than less. That's the whole reason for using the thing after all: not having to worry about treading on other people's turf without permission (though for big projects its still good form to mention your use to the other guy). And most fellow OGL publishers will be more likely to help you get your OGL legal issues right than arbitrarily try to throw legal attacks at you if you have a problem.

Also using the OGL does not, that I can tell, cause you to actually lose much control over your game, no more so than not using it anyway. So I have to wonder what control you think using the OGL causes you to lose?

 

[Evenglare]

If the OGL IS sharing of mechanics, thats why this posts exists. Many said that mechanics can't be copyrighted but the presentation of them can. Which is why I asked about changing the names etc etc. The OGL is another person's license. You are bound by the OGL and all the legalese that comes with it. If I were creating a game, which I'm not, but I'd rather not be subject to ANY other persons license to retain full creative control over all of my game (the one that is a theoretical mind experiment which is in no way being worked on). You say other people are likely to help me make the game that I'm not making, but then I see wizards throw down and make pathguy remove his pathfinder character gen even though it complies with the OGL as is my understanding.

If it DOESN'T work with the OGL, then I don't know why, it doesn't so I could be subject to the same issues...of a game that I am not creating. So again, the point of this very much theoretical discussion is how different must the mechanics or wording be to not be subjected to things that that might infringe on the OGL.

 

[Wicht]

If the OGL IS sharing of mechanics, thats why this posts exists. Many said that mechanics can't be copyrighted but the presentation of them can. Which is why I asked about changing the names etc etc. The OGL is another person's license. You are bound by the OGL and all the legalese that comes with it. If I were creating a game, which I'm not, but I'd rather not be subject to ANY other persons license to retain full creative control over all of my game (the one that is a theoretical mind experiment which is in no way being worked on). You say other people are likely to help me make the game that I'm not making, but then I see wizards throw down and make pathguy remove his pathfinder character gen even though it complies with the OGL as is my understanding.

If it DOESN'T work with the OGL, then I don't know why, it doesn't so I could be subject to the same issues...of a game that I am not creating. So again, the point of this very much theoretical discussion is how different must the mechanics or wording be to not be subjected to things that that might infringe on the OGL.

The OGL is mainly sharing of mechanics. But legally, you can use mechanics apart from the OGL. What the OGL gives you is a playground upon which you don't have to worry about the whole issue of what you can or cannot use. If you don't use the OGL then you have to be careful not to plagiarize or you will be in hot water. If you do use the OGL then you can slice and dice OGL rules all you want, any which way and you are golden.

Perhaps I would understand your concerns better if I understood what obligations you think using the OGL puts upon you. Using the OGL does not in any way cause you to lose creative control over your game. I don't even understand the way in which that is a concern. But the OGL also lets you (mandates actually) that when you do use it you distinguish which parts of your book are Open and which are not. So for instance, the 3e Creature Collection allows you to use the mechanical rules for the monsters, but no names, fluff, etc. because those are the creative property of the publisher.

The point is, if you use the OGL then the original question is unecessary and, so long as you only use Open material, you never have to worry about it. If you don't use the OGL then its going to be a constant headache and the only one that will answer the question in the end are the judges who decide on the lawsuits brought against you (if any). Because the only way to get an answer is to see how far you can push the envelope before someone slaps you with a cease and desist. Which is why, if you are going to use the OGL material, it seems reasonable to ask why you would not just use the OGL itself and save yourself the worries.

 

[trancejeremy]

OGL isn't about sharing mechanics, it's about sharing text.

At least that was WOTC's original idea. We let you use some of our text (what we released in the SRD) and in return, you give up certain rights, like claiming compatibility with your products, except under terms of a separate license (the d20 License).

They were trying to avoid something like the Mayfair Roleaids lines, where they had dozens of products that had something like "Presented for Use With Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover. Basically the same way generic medicine says "Compare to Tylenol" or "Compare to Claritin". They didn't use any TSR text from AD&D, but the same mechanics.

So the goal of the OGL, was that you could use the same text that D&D used, but you couldn't use the trademark (that's specifically a provision of the OGL) without an additional license (in this case, the d20 system trademark license).

However, a lot of third parties didn't want to do the same. They wanted to keep their own material closed as much as possible. so they used vague open content statements that probably go against the spirit of things, essentially rendering their products unusable by other people, because they couldn't tell what was open content or not. Or made every piece of non-mechanical text product identity.

Anyway, other than Fast Forward, I don't think there is any company that has been hit by a C&D, despite a lot of companies not using the OGL correctly. Fast Forward got into trouble because they used WOTC D&D stuff that was not in the SRD. And it probably didn't help that it was Jim Ward's company, who used to work there, and probably had a higher profile than other companies. (Troll Lord released a product with WOTC non-SRD stuff, but after getting caught got special permission - The Lost City of Gaxmoor).

And lastly you can put out compatible games without the OGL. Spears of the Dawn from Sine Nomine is pretty much an OD&D based game, yet was not released using the OGL.

 

[Evenglare]

That makes things much clearer Jeremy, thanks for the post. Again, I seriously am not making a game as of this point, but if I were I would not want to be subject to anything other than my own imagination and experiences of gaming. It's not a matter of using the OGL because then you can do whatever you want. It's a principle of being under ANY license like that. If I do want to make something compatible with D&D games and that ilk then I'll use the OGL. Any game I would want to build from the ground up, even though mechanics may be inspired by older games, I wouldn't want to be subjected by the OGL. Does this make it any clearer? It's not a matter of the OGL restricting what I can and can't do, it's a matter of not being under anything like this at all from a moral(ish) stand point.

 

[Janx]

perhaps a related comparison experiment.

What say we take Monopoly and rename every square. Rewrite the rules so it's new wording. basically replace all the art, names, and reword everything.

Are we going to get sued by the guys who make Monopoly? it's less an OGL problem and more of a we obviously copied the game, but didn't plagiarize the words or pirate the art.

The answer may be more of a matter of what a jury can be convinced of. rather than hard rule of law. And that the guys who make Monopoly have a lot more money to hire better lawyers to argue that point of view.

 

[Evenglare]

Essentially carbon copies I could see being easy to take down in court. But what if you start changing the way the money is generated? What about different paths? What if each token did something unique? The way of moving would be roll 2d6 and go, but what if there was MORE to the game? What if there is no "Go" no pass go collect 200$. What if the rules for upgrading estates are different?. What about hard rules of new company creation? What if each character had resources other than money to spend? Then is it really monopoly? It's the same premise and fundamentally the same roll 2d6, move, build, take down other player rules, but presented in a completely different way. That's when it becomes tricky yes?

That's why I posted the whole "variant rule" point. Monopoly could add these things in as variant rules and have the game copy that "new" game.