AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, the thread has moved fast, but in terms of a strategy for publishing a "D&D-like RPG" under a non-OGL license, its clearly a theoretical possibility. I'm not aware of anyone who has done it, though honestly it probably HAS happened. I'd note that some games tread rather close, like Dungeon World has classes and races and a lot of tropes that clearly are rooted at least partially in 'D&D-isms' (like every class is found somewhere in 3e and represents a similar character archetype). Yet it is published under no license at all, simply containing an ordinary copyright notice. Now, DW is not a LOT like D&D in some ways, but it still has hit points, the classic 6 ability scores, ability score bonuses, magic items that (sometimes give pluses), etc. It has players, a Game Master, etc. It is clearly kissing cousins with D&D in some sense. Note that WotC has certainly never said anything about DW. It is unlikely the developers of that game have paid for some sort of license, etc. (though anything is possible I suppose).First off, I want to thank everyone for their reasoned, coherent posts. This thread, with it's plethora of knowledgeable people posting their best 'experienced' opinion here has done a world of good to my overall outlook. Of course this is a fluid situation, and nobody but NOBODY knows what the lay of the land is (other than perhaps WoTC/Hasbro), so an observation, and a few questions.
Observation: I saw a post over on Reddit from a Paizo 'Design Manager' for PF2E (dated about 10 months ago). From the tone of that thread, I got the impression that Paizo was aware of issues with the OGL, or simply uneasy with it. The poster bluntly said "Not using the OGL was a serious consideration for PF2". That the decision to keep using the OGL came down to keeping down costs (extra copyright/trade dress scrutiny requirements), and other reasons (3PP Comfort, etc..). Unfortunately instead of seeing the license for the sheer academic compare/contrast interests, I fear WoTC's actions have now made it more likely to be seen for simple 'CYA' reasons.
Then when I saw the post post about WoTC/Hasbro going nuclear though, I had to wonder... There are/were lots of former WoTC people at Paizo, and I'd have no problem believing that if WoTC/Hasbro was even glancing at a 'nuclear' option approach, Paizo would have probably heard about it. I also have no hesitation in believing Paizo has a "Wing Defense Plan R"(*) directive somewhere in their headquarters too.
Anyone feeling like giving a wild a** guess (WAG) on what kind of things would/should we expect from a publisher when they move from one license to another (GPL/Paizo/OpenLicense x.x/whatever). Does the producer simply issue an update to their existing product, including the new license along side the OGL? Or would they need to make a material/substantive change to their current product before releasing it as a new version/edition with the new license and no OGL?
Secondly, what's a good WAG on the timeframe here? Something we'll see go down in the next 3-4 months, or does WoTC keep treating this as a FUD campaign, and drag it out as long as possible? I (like many here) think the longer this goes on, the worse the poisoning damage to WoTC, but then again I'm occasionally accused of being rational.
(*) Reference to the 'Wing Attack Plan R' in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
So, really, since you cannot patent or trademark RULES THEMSELVES, even to an original game like D&D, we can more than 'Wild A** Guess' that you can make an RPG that is a LOT LIKE D&D, and still not tread too close to the line. My own game isn't really a 'published work', but it also doesn't claim to be OGL and has many similarities to 4e D&D (and thus D&D generally). Obviously I cannot say it would be safe to distribute without drawing the attention of WotC, but there is a very plausible theory that it would be, as any congruence of rules between it and some version of D&D SHOULDN'T tread on any of WotC's rights (IE if I don't plagiarize their rules, basically). Another aspect might be the concept of 'design patents' that they might hold, say on the formats of spells or monster stat blocks, potentially, or the layout of a character sheet. Clearly the less like any edition of D&D such elements are, the less one has to worry.
The real problem, and what undoubtedly concerns Paizo is simply that there is SOME LINE over which WotC will decide to issue a C&D letter, and that line could change with time and who happens to be making that call this Tuesday vs last Tuesday. Dealing with such an eventuality, almost regardless of its merit, is pretty much a crushing burden when WotC, the 9,000 pound gorilla of the RPG world is in the other corner. Thus nobody has dared, as flawed as the OGL is, it has customarily been respected at the level of its clear intent for 23 years and until now the latent threat inherent in Section 9 et al has lain dormant. The situation today puts that in some question, and thus may tip the scales in some people's minds in favor of reverting to something like CC-BY-SA instead, with the hope that WotC's understanding of IP law restrains them. It seems a scant restraint however. Honestly, I think what we are most likely to see is some people with less skin in the game, and games that are less D&D-like than the clearly 3e-derived PF2 (indirectly by way of PF1) bail on the OGL. WotC may lack the stomach to C&D them, given that the optics will be poor. So once that happens, then others will come along and expand on this body of whatever, CC-BY-SA lets say, content. At some point, aside from stuff that is clearly 'WotC product identity' the whole issue could become so clouded that nobody will ever have a clear cause for action and that will be that. Beholders might forever be WotC's, but "floating eyes" or whatever will be open content. Of course WotC may decide they are going to fight that future tooth and nail, and maybe that is exactly where they are going with this. If so, they are going to Scorched Earth half the RPG industry in the process...
