The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Incenjucar]

There is no special sauce that WotC designers have that is unique to them. You're usually going to have more vetting for a big company product to make sure it doesn't cause problems, and more resources overall, and maybe some more detailed math and research to lean on, but these books are still written by people, sometimes even past or future WotC folks. Maybe do a little more research before dropping three digits on a 3P work to make sure it's at the right level for your investment, but you can find your new favorite idea by stepping out of the 1P line once in awhile.

 

[mamba]

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...

I think he means it from the perspective of WotC, not in general

 

[Art Waring]

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.

I'm just on page 214 of the PDF and Carys J. Craig has some interesting thoughts on the OGL and open licenses in general.

If You Love Something, Set it Free? Open Content Copyright Licensing and Creative Cultural Expression - Page 214

Due to the fallout from these events [changing the terms of the d20 STL], which demonstrated to publishers that the newly-amended d20 Trademark License tethered them uncomfortably to content-related decisions made by WOTC, use of the “d20” trade-mark under the terms of the d20 Trademark License dropped precipitously after 2003, with many publishers switching to use of the d20 system rules solely by relying on the SRD / OGL, and ceasing to brand their products as compatible with the d20 system.108 Nonetheless, D&D remained a successful product line even five years after the release of 3.0: in 2005, it was estimated that the D&D line of products was grossing between $25-30 million annually.

 

[Greg Benage]

Due to the fallout from these events [changing the terms of the d20 STL], which demonstrated to publishers that the newly-amended d20 Trademark License tethered them uncomfortably to content-related decisions made by WOTC, use of the “d20” trade-mark under the terms of the d20 Trademark License dropped precipitously after 2003

My recollection was more that, after the bubble popped, no distributor or retailer on this planet wanted to see anything with a "d20" on it.

 

[darjr]

I think it was some of A and some of B.

 

[Greg Benage]

I think it was some of A and some of B.

Maybe. I was running the RPG business for Fantasy Flight Games during that period, and I don't remember any publisher suggesting in 2003 that they would stop using the d20 STL (or ever, for that matter) because of the "community decency" language that was introduced after Book of Erotic Fantasy. And we all talked quite a bit. I went back and checked just in case I was tripping--every publisher I looked at continued to use it for D&D support lines. FFG would eventually strip it off the Midnight: Second Edition cover in 2005.

That said, it appears the citation is to Shannon Appelcline's book, which I have not read, but I'd expect it to be accurate. Someone must have told him this.

 

[Art Waring]

My recollection was more that, after the bubble popped, no distributor or retailer on this planet wanted to see anything with a "d20" on it.

That was after 2003, closer to 2005-06 during the "rise of the retroclones" era.

 

[Greg Benage]

That was after 2003, closer to 2005-06 during the "rise of the retroclones" era.

See above.

 

[Art Waring]

See above.

aha, ninja'd

 

[Hussar]

I'm not entirely sure predatory is the right word either... I don't know if the OGL was good or bad overall, but it has been the way things have worked for 22 years. changing it now going forward doesn't look great. Now maybe that is something that has to be done going forward no matter the look, but it looks bad.

But, again, we need to pay attention to how much is actually changing.

For those who publish on DM's Guild - Nothing changed.
For those who publish for free on things like Reddit or DM's Binder - Nothing changed.
For those who publish OGC but make less than 700k - Nothing changed other than needing that Content Creator badge (see below)
For the 20 or so big folks - they have changes.

Now, the Content Creator badge. People are pointing to the D20 STL. However, that's a bit apples and oranges. The D20 STL was a separate license from the OGL and carried it's own stipulations. Which meant that they could end the D20 STL, but, the OGL was still safe. Even if they trademark Content Creator as a badge, you could simply keep publishing your material under the OGL 1.0 and remove the badge. Which means that the badge is likely far more of a marketing tool than anything else.

Again, since we haven't actually SEEN the new OGL, all this speculation is just that.

The OGL was designed so anyone could produce whatever they wanted in an open environment with no input from or responsibility to WotC (or, importantly, whoever buys it).

Well, that's not entirely true. You couldn't produce whatever you wanted - you can't have beholders in your OGL adventure after all. The OGL isn't quite "an open environment with no input from or responsibility to WotC"