Search results

I agree that the second statement is hard to prove. The biggest impact of the OGL has been through network effects, which are very hard to directly measure through revenue. But I also work in marketing and know how amazingly powerful being regarded as the default rule system is and how much...

You should care. The OGL provides a large number of benefits to consumers even if they do not generate content. 1. It increases the amount of gaming material available to you. Do you like to play D&D but have a specific interest that WotC’s offerings don’t address? There’s likely an OGL...

But the OGL 1.0a was not intended to only be used by commercial publishers. It was intended to be used by anyone, including casual fans with no legal training. WOTC’s current fan content policy recommends the use of the OGL for game content. Considering the intended audience, statements in an...

It isn't in the spirit of the license or against the spirit of the license to not create additional open game content. It simply is. The goal of the license isn't to create open content for its own sake, it is to create gaming material that is compatible with D&D and spread its network of...

The monster name and description (and perhaps the non-mechanical description of abilities) can be product identity. You would need to be explicit in your declarations. 1d8+1 damage is derivative. Everything else you use to describe the weapon could be product identity if it was not derived from...

You most certainly can declare stuff as Product Identity. If you are publishing your own setting, characters, plots, etc. you would be foolish not too. The only thing you need to make Open Game Content is, not surprisingly, game content. And only game content that is derived from Open Game...

The royalty terms for OGL 1.1 might be better than DMs Guild. Hard to say if the IP terms are better or worse only because the DMs Guild IP terms are really quite horrible and we don't have the complete text of OGL 1.1.

Why would you register at D&D Beyond to publish at DMs Guild? Why would WOTC tell DMs Guild/One Bookshelf what their plans are? It might not happen immediately, but there is no reason to think that WOTC's long-term plans include One Bookshelf.

I expect the intention of the new OGL 1.1 arrangement is to replace DMs Guild on OpenBookstore with D&D Beyond. When you agree to OGL 1.1, you do it through D&D Beyond. D&D Beyond replaces DMs Guild. There's no point having two walled gardens. Offering slightly better terms in the new walled...

The people who will opt in are likely the same people who currently publish through DMs Guild. The Kickstarter route could indeed be a better deal than DMs Guild royalties (20% over 750K vs. 50%). But for the independent publishing companies than use OGL 1.0a in concert with their own IP...

It's in the FAQ. Current policy is you can release game mechanics under the OGL but not the fan policy.

Not quite. Fan content policy doesn't cover rulebooks. The Non-Commercial OGL 1.1 would allow you to produce SRD-derived content and distribute it for free. Note that, this content does not become open game content. It may allow you to include what would be called Wizard's Product Identity in...

I think I'm following you--my assumption is that this excerpt is from the same mid-December document that was viewed by Linda Codega (Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition). The agreement with Kickstarter would have been made when this version of the document was the...

Leaked to Twitter. Ultimately unknown provenance. Consistent with other leaks.

"SRD-based D&D content" or "SRD-based content" based on the last paragraph of this excerpt: If One D&D is broadly compatible with the open game content in SRD 5.1 (which is really the only SRD that OGL 1.1 could refer to, as an SRD for One D&D isn't available yet), then OGL 1.0a can be used...

Darrington Press is most definitely an OGL outfit. In fact, they are one of the most successful ones. My copy of Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn has the OGL license in the back.

I believe it may now be an opt-in, but I am almost certain the original plan was to de-authorized OGL 1.0a. The deal with Kickstarter doesn’t make any sense without it. All existing 5e-related kickstarters use open game content from the OGL and supply their own Product Identity. The lack of...

Attempting to revoke an agreement after 22 years, by changing your interpretation of a key clause, could certainly be considered bad faith. It would make most rational people think twice about entering into any new agreement with you.

Yes. Paizo also understands network effects.

Pretty sure this applies to OneBookshelf too. It’s much easier to get people to agree to OGL 1.1 and distribution on D&D Beyond if you block their access to alternate distribution channels.