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.

​

 

[Kramodlog]

So the only thing between us and an OGL is jury duty. Interesting.

 

[Umbran]

That's not what I said. I said that's what they did last time, not that that's what they need to do.

Well, in order to license content, you do need to be able to stipulate what content is covered by the license. Exactly how you do that can vary.

 

[delericho]

So the only thing between us and an OGL is jury duty. Interesting.

Technically, yes. But they haven't said which jury.

(Or, for a more serious answer: I don't think WotC have actually said that, have they?)

 

[neobolts]

Technically, yes. But they haven't said which jury.

(Or, for a more serious answer: I don't think WotC have actually said that, have they?)

They have said the conversion document is being delayed by jury duty. However, you should assume that the civic duty of the residents of Washington is the biggest obstacle to product development across the board.

 

[Charles Wright]

They haven't.

That was only said about any conversion documents being released.

 

[Reynard]

Technically, yes. But they haven't said which jury.

(Or, for a more serious answer: I don't think WotC have actually said that, have they?)

They said jury duty was responsible for the delay in the conversion document(s). Interestingly, those conversion documents, in conjunction with the OGL and 3.5 SRD, may as well serve to open up 5E to the OGL because it pretty much proves that any 5E content in the conversion document is "derivative." Obviously that has no impact on trademarks, but could serve to embolden folks on the fence about putting out unofficial 5E support.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is a point in favor of my pet "BASIC = OGL" theory. Which would be less awesome than all of 5e being OGL, but not at all a bad thing, and potentially more realistic.

But I have never been one to settle for what others deem realistic.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Let's also not forget that I'm pretty sure the only reference we have received about a potentially imminent OGL for 5E thus far was from Christopher Perkins in a tweet... which is not even close to being any official notification we can hang our hat on. I'm pretty sure that anything that comes across his Twitter feed should be taken with a massive grain of salt. He's the story guy for D&D... he ain't a part of the business end of things.

At this point in time, WotC has not officially announced anything about the potential arrival of an OGL (or any license for 5E for that matter.)

 

[neobolts]

[COM][/COM]

This is a point in favor of my pet "BASIC = OGL" theory. Which would be less awesome than all of 5e being OGL, but not at all a bad thing, and potentially more realistic.

But I have never been one to settle for what others deem realistic.

This makes crazy sense as a theory. Basic=OGL would bring in all the needed rules, as well as the basic structural framework for races, classes, items, monsters, etc. Yet it also locks down enough content (i.e. the material unique to the actual books) to please the internal voices that want to lock down stuff. It would work way better than an awkward list of names like we worked with in 4e.

 

[Nellisir]

This is a point in favor of my pet "BASIC = OGL" theory. Which would be less awesome than all of 5e being OGL, but not at all a bad thing, and potentially more realistic.

I've been saying this for months, and NOW you're getting on board?