D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[sidonunspa]

Necromancer Games has yet to get a S&D.... soooooooo

also, to my knowledge... no one producing 5e products on drive though have yet to revive one either

 

[MerricB]

Necromancer Games has yet to get a S&D.... soooooooo

also, to my knowledge... no one producing 5e products on drive though have yet to revive one either

I think you mean a C&D.

A few people have received requests to change the marketing/branding of their products, as I recall.

 

[sidonunspa]

I think you mean a C&D.

A few people have received requests to change the marketing/branding of their products, as I recall.

because they said it was compatible with D&D 5e

5th edition fantasy is all you need..

heck you can even get away with

"compatible with the 5th edition of the most popular fantasy RPG of all time"

or just 5E (There is even an open source logo for it)

want to read an interesting case? look up TSR vs Mayfair Games

 

[Kramodlog]

This:

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

and this


9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

WotC published one Authorized version of the OGL. Once that was done, there was no point in doing another unless it offered more benefits, since the initial authorized version could always be used. And WotC can't stop anyone from using it as long as they obey the license.

I wonder if you could use #9 to modify #4. Change that perpetual stuff.

 

[delericho]

I wonder if you could use #9 to modify #4. Change that perpetual stuff.

Nope, because the old versions of the license would remain valid.

That is, they can publish a new version of the license with a new point #4 in place. And anyone who wanted to use the new version would be free to do so. No problem there.

But anyone who wanted to continue to use the previous version, with the old point #4, could continue to do that.

WotC are basically stuck with the OGL.

There is, potentially, a get-out - they could produce a new version with a changed point #4 but that also provides much better conditions in other areas. If the rest of the license is good enough, producers might be willing to accept the new, more limited point #4. Maybe.

(One other thing: the OGL has also never been tested in court, so there is at least a theoretical chance that WotC could find some sort of loophole to cancel the thing. Though they're understandably not keen to try it: lots of expense for, frankly, minimal gain, coupled with the risk they could well lose and thus have precedent against them if there is any future case when it does matter.)

 

[Kramodlog]

The attractiveness of long costly court case for compagnies like WotC/Hasbro is that smaller players can't afford long court cases. SLAPPs are its weapons. But those are jerk moves.

 

[delericho]

The attractiveness of long costly court case for compagnies like WotC/Hasbro is that smaller players can't afford long court cases. SLAPPs are its weapons. But those are jerk moves.

True on all counts. But to force the end of the OGL they'd need a judgement. Simply forcing other players out of the fight probably wouldn't be enough.

Besides, I can't think of a better way to guarantee PF 2.0 is a runaway success than for WotC to try to hamstring Paizo in that way.

 

[Kramodlog]

True on all counts. But to force the end of the OGL they'd need a judgement. Simply forcing other players out of the fight probably wouldn't be enough.

Besides, I can't think of a better way to guarantee PF 2.0 is a runaway success than for WotC to try to hamstring Paizo in that way.

Unless they produce bad content. D&D and Coke are powerful brands, but they didn't do well when they changed their content too much (4e and New Coke). I think this is why we have more chances of seeing PF 1.5 rather than a new edition. Another reason is compatibility with 3e and 3.5. New PF would need that too or it would lose a lot of customers.

Lisa Stevens was incharge of doing the surveys and making sense of the data about D&D when Dancey was VP of WotC. She saw first hand how 2e had the potential to be 3e's biggest rival.

 

[delericho]

Unless they produce bad content.

Of course. I'd assumed that went without saying.

I think this is why we have more chances of seeing PF 1.5 rather than a new edition.

Assuming the OGL remained, I agree - a clean-up rather than a fundamental rewrite is probably the way to go.

But in the case where the OGL were somehow to be removed, Paizo would have to do something more drastic. But in that case, their fanbase would make very certain it was a hit, perhaps even if it was total drek - after all, they couldn't let WotC win, now could they?

 

[Kramodlog]

Of course. I'd assumed that went without saying.



Assuming the OGL remained, I agree - a clean-up rather than a fundamental rewrite is probably the way to go.

But in the case where the OGL were somehow to be removed, Paizo would have to do something more drastic. But in that case, their fanbase would make very certain it was a hit, perhaps even if it was total drek - after all, they couldn't let WotC win, now could they?

I'm sure there are very loyal fans that would throw money at Pathfinder/Paizo no matter what it did. There are D&D/WotC fans who would do the same. But is it enough? It didn't save 4e.