The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Reynard]

Well, of course not. That doesn't mean you can't republish the unique IP in it somewhere else, though.

What do you mean "of course"? If I publish a book on DTRPG I can sell it any number of other places. DMsGuild serves a single purpose: access to non-open D&D content.

Also, what "unique IP" do you think you will be repurposing elsewhere? You can't use DMsGuild to publish your own setting, and anything you create for a D&D setting is embedded with their IP.

 

[pemerton]

And all you have to do is give WotC the copyright to your work.

Do you have a copy of the current licence? The version I found on reddit requires granting an exclusive licence, for the term of the copyright, to OneBookShelf. In return, they sub-license use of WotC/Hasbro IP.

 

[Greg Benage]

What do you mean "of course"?

I mean that stuff on DMsGuild is a mix of unique IP, Wizards IP, and other creators' IP, so of course you can't republish it in whole. Why would you think you should be able to republish it in whole?

Also, what "unique IP" do you think you will be repurposing elsewhere? You can't use DMsGuild to publish your own setting, and anything you create for a D&D setting is embedded with their IP.

This seems incorrect. You can't publish a "campaign setting" (this isn't well defined, as far as I can tell). But you can publish locations. Your unique IP is defined as "the copyrightable elements included in your Work, such as original characters, scenes, locations, and events." I recently purchased the Haunt. It has a unique setting/location (Montarthas Manor, in a small city that ultimately fell to repeated orc attacks and was abandoned). The copyright owner might have the idea of pulling out "the original characters, scenes, locations, and events," making a campaign setting out of it, and publishing it somewhere that allows one to publish campaign settings. I don't see anything in the license agreement that would prohibit this--quite the opposite.

Recall that this started with you claiming that Wizards would own the copyright to your IP if you published on DMsGuild and consider how far we've strayed!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What exactly would be a negative of 3PP support for 1D&D?

pathfinder.
objectionable (both moral and rules wise) content, and such an amount that you can't vet it so you just have to turn it off anyhow.

Are you suggesting that some random shared Gdoc originating from reddit would have the same quality, penetration and acceptance as, say, a Kobold Press book?

no i am suggesting that you don't have 1 kobold press... you have 300 fan sites and homebrews

I know netbooks are/were a thing, and you do occasionally find really high quality fan work (Star Wars 5E as an example) but I am completely unconvinced returning to the usenet days of unofficial support would be a good think for D&D.

what I think would happen is people would not expect quality they will get a few ideas and work on there own...

in 1996 I did fine when Role-Aides and fan content was all I had

 

[mamba]

There is a difference here. When 4e came out with no OGL 4e SRD only a very few put out 4e stuff under the OGL (Goodman Games early stuff). Paizo was continuing with 3.5 stuff and a number of people were buying and continuing to play. WotC later came out with the GSL it took a while for those few who ended up doing 4e to go with it and there were few of them, most stuck with 3.5 and then Pathfinder.

yes there is, but there are also similarities. In both cases WotC is trying to replace the popular OGL 1.0 with a less popular / unpopular and more restrictive license.

For 1.1 there is the 5e OGL SRD and OGL stuff that has been going on for years. People who want to do stuff safely under the 1.0 OGL for 5e can continue to do that. If OneD&D is fairly compatible with 5e then it is fairly easy to just continue to crank out stuff based on the 5e SRD. I expect to be able to run 5e modules in One D&D. I expect to be able to use 5e monsters in One D&D. I expect most aspects of 5e settings to play without problems in OneD&D.

I agree, but that still means the 3PPs stick to the OGL 1.0 instead of switching to the license WotC would prefer. If anything, that is easier this time around.

 

[Voadam]

I agree, but that still means the 3PPs stick to the OGL 1.0 instead of switching to the license WotC would prefer. If anything, that is easier this time around.

Yes but the big difference is they can still do stuff for the current edition en masse instead of most going off to Pathfinder.

 

[Morrus]

I persnally have gone back and forth on weather 3pp was or is a good thing... and I could list out pros and cons.

Go on then. You’ve spoken repeatedly before about how you don’t use third party material, sometimes bordering on offensively. Let’s hear this list of cons against our existence.

 

[Dreamscape]

What exactly would be a negative of 3PP support for 1D&D?

pathfinder.

I am not a great fan of Pathfinder (having played it for a couple of years), but I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see how it can be interpreted as a negative...

 

[Arilyn]

3pp keeps my interest up. I would have completely drifted away from 5e if it wasn't for 3pp. Kobold Press, Handiwork Games, MCDM, and of course, EN Publishing, to name just a few.

Right now we are playing a lot of Level Up and on the other end of the scale, Old School Essentials. We've been finding that 3pp is where there is more originality because the designers aren't beholden to the WoTC style. Lots of voices bring variety and interest. Why would anyone want to just stick with WoTC?

 

[Alzrius]

I persnally have gone back and forth on weather 3pp was or is a good thing... and I could list out pros and cons.

Presuming that any cons exist, they are far, FAR outweighed by the pros.

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of this PhD dissertation, which specifically examines the Open Game License.