New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[Amrûnril]

I know. I always kinda always felt that the old OGL was a bit too permissive by allowing full on spin offs without any financial compensation.

As a Brooklynite I am very suspicious of people offering stuff for free. It usually end up bad.

I'm 100% with WOTC not letting another company make millions creating a full game based on their IP without a cut.

The OGL is very generous, and if we were starting from scratch, no one could reasonably demand that WotC (or any other publisher) issue a license like it. Nor do they have any obligation to place new content under that license.

But even if a you look at the OGL as gift didn't have to be given, that doesn't mean it can be taken back after the fact. Wizards has spent the past 20 years describing the licensed content as freely and permanently available, so people have treated it as freely and permanently available, using it as a foundation for works whose real value derives from their own unique contributions. For Wizards to try to destroy or claim ownership of such works, on which authors may depend for their livelihoods , would be morally unconscionable.

 

[mamba]

That pretty much kills all future releases for any game system released under the OGL. You can expect the death of systems like Cepheus Engine, OpenD6, FATE, Legend, Delta Green, etc.

Why? They can all just remove two pages of license text and move on, assuming they actually are not dependent on WotC's SRD. Delta Green just announced exactly that a day or so ago

Delta Green Without the OGL – Arc Dream Publishing

arcdream.com

 

[Prime_Evil]

Why? They can all just remove two pages of license text and move on, assuming they actually are not dependent on WotC's SRD. Delta Green just announced exactly that a day or so ago

Delta Green Without the OGL – Arc Dream Publishing

arcdream.com

If they own the upstream IP, they can. But a large number of small publishers depend upon OGC released by somebody further up the food chain. Here's how it works: Company A releases their some of their IP as Open Game Content under the OGL. Company B comes along and uses the OGC under the terms of the OGL. WoTC invalidates the license itself. Company B cannot re-license OGC content they are using - only Company A has that power. Unless Company A obliges (remembering that this is a significant cost in lawyer fees and the like), Company B have no option but to cease publishing any derivative works.

 

[Minigiant]

The caretaker just had its best year ever, so not sure what killing you are referring to

That's why I wrote "attempt to kill".

WOTC's OGL 1.0 allows you to use the SRD to compete head on with WOTC.

The OGL is very generous, and if we were starting from scratch, no one could reasonably demand that WotC (or any other publisher) issue a license like it. Nor do they have any obligation to place new content under that license.

But even if a you look at the OGL as gift didn't have to be given, that doesn't mean it can be taken back after the fact. Wizards has spent the past 20 years describing the licensed content as freely and permanently available, so people have treated it as freely and permanently available, using it as a foundation for works whose real value derives from their own unique contributions. For Wizards to try to destroy or claim ownership of such works, on which authors may depend for their livelihoods , would be morally unconscionable.

I'm not saying they can or should take it back.
But 90% of the community doesn't get that the OGL 1.0 is over generous and only exists in its form because WOTC believed that no one would abuse it and D&D is based n the concept of homebrewing.

But if the 2000s D&D side of WOTC was run like the MTG side or like more "gaming" companies, there's no way in Hades the OGL would look like it did.

 

[Composer99]

I think it's fine suggesting that WotC leave the OGL intact for ttrpgs and ttrpg aids/accessories - miniatures, vtts, character builder apps, AoE templates, etc. - and "actual play" broadcasts (podcasts, Critical Role, streaming), while excluding other types of tabletop game, video games, and other print or broadcast media - those can require a separate license insofar as they are not already covered under existing exceptions to copyright, such as parody works.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Why? They can all just remove two pages of license text and move on, assuming they actually are not dependent on WotC's SRD. Delta Green just announced exactly that a day or so ago

Delta Green Without the OGL – Arc Dream Publishing

arcdream.com

Another thing to note is that Arc Dream are not re-licensing the Open Game Content under a different scheme. They are revoking the rights of third parties to use it altogether. I expect to see a lot of this over the next few months. This is an overall loss for the industry, ending 20+ years of sharing and collaboration between creators. I doubt that was the intention of WoTC's move, but these publishers will be collateral damage. Looking at the number of them on DriveThruRPG, I reckon this will shrink the industry as a whole. It's a disaster for the entire hobby gaming industry, not just DnD.

 

[mhd]

Another thing to note is that Arc Dream are not re-licensing the Open Game Content under a different scheme.

What OGC is in the book where this would matter, by the way? That press release talks that you don't need licenses for the mechanics, which would apply to both them and anyone re-using their mechanics in turn. It's not like they can have it both ways.
So what are we talking about here?

 

[Scribe]

Also, it was nice someone could keep a 3.5e style game alive for the 3.5e fans since WOTC had no desire to do so once 4e was released.

And thank <insert deity here> they did.

That's not the argument being made.

The OGL 1.0 allows you to design a form of D&D with WOTC's system and compete against WOTC's current and future systems.
It was designed to allow the system to live in case the caretaker dies, not allow the system betray and attempt to kill the caretaker.

And if the caretaker attempts to ruin everything, the system indeed lives on.

If Wizards had not tried to take the game in a direction many did not want to go play, and cut people out of the process, Pathfinder wouldnt exist.

 

[Minigiant]

And if the caretaker attempts to ruin everything, the system indeed lives on.

If Wizards had not tried to take the game in a direction many did not want to go play, and cut people out of the process, Pathfinder wouldnt exist.

No guarantee.
Nothing stopped PF from being made and the process was royalty free.

If WOTC just continued 3.5e which was getting stale, anyone could have use the OGL to make a fresh 3.75e. In most industries, that isn't allowed.

 

[Prime_Evil]

What OGC is in the book where this would matter, by the way? That press release talks that you don't need licenses for the mechanics, which would apply to both them and anyone re-using their mechanics in turn. It's not like they can have it both ways.
So what are we talking about here?

Arc Dream relied upon Open Game Content from the Legend RPG to create the current version of Delta Green. They released some of their additions to this material as OGC, contributing back to the community. Chaosium has sometimes argued that the d100 system embodied by Legend is an unlicensed derivative work. But the OGL provided a safe harbour against this position.

Arc Dream are now arguing their game mechanics are different enough that they don't need the protection of the OGL. They also rely upon the argument the game mechanics themselves cannot be copyrighted. This may or may not be defensible in a legal sense. If Chaosium were litigious, I can certainly see them making an argument that Delta Green is a knock-off of CoC.