3rd-Party Apps for 5E Rising From The Dead!

To quote Monty Python, "I'm not Dead Yet!" Over the last few months, a number of D&D 5E third-party electronic tools have been removed from the web at WotC's request. Some of the creators of these tools cited Cease-and-Desists and posted angry "closing down" messages, while others indicated they'd had friendly requests to observe WotC's IP rights. What's interesting is that some of these tools are now reappearing, apparently after having met WotC's requests as to what can or can't be included - whch appears, at least at first blush, to be Basic Rules material, along with some minor trademark usage restrictions.

A couple of notable examples include Pathguy's D&D Next character generator. He closed his generator last month, leaving a closing message, but now the generator is back and running, noting that "I've been granted specific permission by WoTC to publish and distribute this generator. However, I've been asked to limit my "Fifth Edition" character generator to the content of the free online D&D Basic Rules."

That's not the only one that's risen from the grave! The d20 Fight Club for Fifth Edition iOS app was removed from Apple's App Store, citing an actual "cease and desist order from Wizards of the Coast". This, too, is back, under a new name! The creator notes that "To be compliant with Wizards of the Coast copyrights and trademarks this app will no longer contain any content from the Dungeon Master's Guide or use the trademarks "Dungeon Master" and "D20"

So what's happening? It seems that two things are going on. First, the C&Ds folks are talking about don't sound like they're particularly stern, and WotC is happily working things out with the creators of these apps and the like. Secondly, it appears that WotC is limiting use of certain trademarks (which is hardly surprising) and allowing content from the Basic Rules, although that's not 100% clear.

Does this hint at any kind of longer-term policy or license? These are individual agreements at present, but this may be a clue as to what we migh be able to expect in the future.

The D&D Tools website is still closed, but that was a rather different kettle of fish.

​

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sure Basic=OGL is a such a good idea. Open content monsters help 3pp make adventures and all classes need splat, not just the four basic classes.

Splat is love. Splat is life.

I mean, I'd certainly prefer all of 5e to be OGL.

But Basic = OGL, while it might not give you a new sorcerer subclass, could give you basically everything else (and it could even include a "sorcerer" class that you could then add subclass material to). It's....viable. I'd say it's a bit of a tepid toe-dip, a half-measure, like my grandmother getting into a swimming pool, but if WotC is afraid of sharks swimming in the OGL deep end, well...at least they're out here enjoying the pool with the rest of us.

It wouldn't be the best, but it would probably be....well...

 

[MartyW]

The "Basic = OGL" oversimplifies the issue. The OGL specifically allows one to reprint almost everything word for word except for items specifically denoted as "Product Identity". So, to protect their IP, allowing the Basic Rules to be the defacto "OGL" in the way it was used in 3rd Edition would significantly weaken their IP rights.

I can't find the link at the moment, but there was a very recent blog post (like the last 2 weeks or so) on what the OGL does and does not allow (and if it is actually strictly necessary from a legal stand point).

I wish I could find the link because I think a lot of the posters here would learn, as I did, that technically, you don't need the OGL to put out "compatible products" as long as you avoid certain pitfalls because game mechanics can't be trademarked/copyrighted. As long as you use different text to describe the same mechanical concept, you can actually do quite a bit without WotC's legal blessing.

I'll keep looking because it was a very interesting read and would probably be of interest to many here.

 

[MartyW]

On a slightly unrelated note, the author of that one app removed Wizards-related copyright infringement only to replace it with Tolkien-related copyright infringement.

<facepalm>

 

[famousringo]

How much would that cost? I'm not sure some random guy could affort what WotC is asking and pay a few coders to make the product.

The idea is that the developer is basically reselling WotC's content and earning money on their app's value add. No up-front licensing costs for the developer, but WotC would probably take the bulk of the revenues.

For example, in my dreams Fight Club would basically have access to all information in the PHB. The app as it is now is a $3 purchase for all features, and WoTC I suspect would consider the content in the PHB to be worth at least $20. So I can imagine a $25 in-app purchase getting you access to all content in the PHB. After the app store takes a slice, 80% of revenues goes to WotC, 20% to the app developer, and the puchaser gets to enjoy a digital, interactive version of the PHB. The app developer earns more money on the purchase, and WotC gets a digital revenue stream.

Lower price tiers could be achieved by stripping out content. For example, a character sheet that includes the full spell and class feature list, but none of the descriptions for $5.

Maybe it's all a pipe dream, and probably my numbers need to be adjusted, but I think it could be a valid business model.

 

[Nellisir]

The "Basic = OGL" oversimplifies the issue.

It's also incorrect, and I didn't catch it earlier. Mea culpa. What I, and I assume others meant, is Basic = SRD. It's a short way of saying the material accessed via a license will be in the Basic Rules, not the PHB or DMG. This IS equivalent to the relationship between the d20 SRD and the OGL. The OGL did not ever cover any of the core books. It ONLY covered the material in the SRD.

The OGL specifically allows one to reprint almost everything word for word except for items specifically denoted as "Product Identity". So, to protect their IP, allowing the Basic Rules to be the defacto "OGL" in the way it was used in 3rd Edition would significantly weaken their IP rights.

IP is usually shorthand for Intellectual Property, which is not the same as Product Identity (PI). Since there is no license as of yet, there may very well be items in Basic designated PI or it's 5e equivalent. We don't know.

I can't find the link at the moment, but there was a very recent blog post (like the last 2 weeks or so) on what the OGL does and does not allow (and if it is actually strictly necessary from a legal stand point).
I wish I could find the link because I think a lot of the posters here would learn, as I did, that technically, you don't need the OGL to put out "compatible products" as long as you avoid certain pitfalls because game mechanics can't be trademarked/copyrighted. As long as you use different text to describe the same mechanical concept, you can actually do quite a bit without WotC's legal blessing.
I'll keep looking because it was a very interesting read and would probably be of interest to many here.

Right. You can't copyright a game mechanic, but you can copyright its expression (how it's written down). What the OGL does is allow you to use other people's expressions of game mechanics (or anything else, really) to save time and effort; create compatibility between products; and lessen confusion. It allows for a standard vocabulary across platforms and publishers.

It's not necessary, but it is useful. Hopefully the 5e license will be likewise.

 

[Charles Wright]

Basic as SRD would hobble 3rd parties, in my opinion.

 

[Shasarak]

It is nice to hear some good news!

 

[delericho]

I'm not sure Basic=OGL is a such a good idea. Open content monsters help 3pp make adventures and all classes need splat, not just the four basic classes.

Splat is love. Splat is life.

As I said on the other thread, hopefully in addition to opening the foundations through Basic, WotC will also allow people to reference other things (especially monsters) by name, even if they can't reprint.

That way people could still do, say, a Warlock splatbook, they just couldn't reprint the class or clone the game.

 

[Uchawi]

For third party tools to be useful for me they would have to meet one of the two conditions listed below.

1. Support all official content (even if there is a lag from initial release)
2. Make it easy for the application use to add official content, if the product is based on the basic rule set

And finally, the tools must be usable offline. Web based only products are too limited.

 

[ehenning]

Uchawi: the d20 tools are very close to this. iOS only, but very promising due to the XML import ability. Right now, spells, equipment, monsters and campaign notes mean you can build materials off line and import once they are ready. Also can share the materials easily.

Still needs more template import ability. Hoping the developer will provide this later. Integration between the GM and player apps is good, but could always be better.