D&D 4E 4e and Product Identity

[JohnRTroy]

I was wondering something.

During the time that the OGL was being created, the Gentleman's Agreement allowed stats for all monsters. But when the final product was released, some select creatures that Wizards considered specific to the D&D game--Beholders, Yuan-Ti, Mind Flayers, etc, were not considered open and were not part of the SRD.

So, since Wizards is more focused on establishing the uniqueness of building the D&D game--that is make the game more specific instead of "generic fantasy"--what might get left out. Will Tieflings and Dragonborn and Eladrin's be left out? Will they create generic names so their property is protected?

It will be interesting to see what will happen. In the past, only a select few books were SRD--the core PHB/DMG/MM, Epic Level Handbook and Deities and Demigods, but that was it. MM2, MM3, PHB2, etc, were not ever SRDed--UA wasn't SRDed but it was declared as "Open Content".

It makes me wonder what we can expect from a 4th Edition version of this. If they are committed to this, I expect some effort to support 3rd Party publications, but then again I don't expect them to allow developers to create the backstory for Dragonborn or Warforged or anything like that.

 

[Deverash]

Personally, I hope that their determinations that all the PHB*, DMG* and MM* are core is going to mean they'll all be at least open content. But time will tell, I guess. I don't even think they know yet.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I was wondering something.

During the time that the OGL was being created, the Gentleman's Agreement allowed stats for all monsters. But when the final product was released, some select creatures that Wizards considered specific to the D&D game--Beholders, Yuan-Ti, Mind Flayers, etc, were not considered open and were not part of the SRD.

So, since Wizards is more focused on establishing the uniqueness of building the D&D game--that is make the game more specific instead of "generic fantasy"--what might get left out. Will Tieflings and Dragonborn and Eladrin's be left out? Will they create generic names so their property is protected?

It will be interesting to see what will happen. In the past, only a select few books were SRD--the core PHB/DMG/MM, Epic Level Handbook and Deities and Demigods, but that was it. MM2, MM3, PHB2, etc, were not ever SRDed--UA wasn't SRDed but it was declared as "Open Content".

It makes me wonder what we can expect from a 4th Edition version of this. If they are committed to this, I expect some effort to support 3rd Party publications, but then again I don't expect them to allow developers to create the backstory for Dragonborn or Warforged or anything like that.

I think that one of the goals of having the OGL is having third parties make supplements (especially niche supplements) for the game. This purpose is defeated if one (or more) of the core races is product identity IMHO...

How the heck are you going to make an OGL adventure path, or a OGL campaign setting if one of the core races is conspicuously absent?

 

[thalmin]

I think that one of the goals of having the OGL is having third parties make supplements (especially niche supplements) for the game. This purpose is defeated if one (or more) of the core races is product identity IMHO...

How the heck are you going to make an OGL adventure path, or a OGL campaign setting if one of the core races is conspicuously absent?

I haven't checked that thoroughly, so this is a real question. How many of the 3.x campaign settings and adventure paths included every core race, and to what extent. Sorry to pick on them, but if a half-elf was in the setting, was it important that it was a half-elf? Was it more than just a token gnome?
Seems we frequently see dwarf or elf realms, but how many times is the halfling race important to the setting, other than Tolkien.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Anything in the 3.0 or 3.5 is now open provided the OGL proceedures are followed. This means that Tieflings and any other race or names that were in those documents can still be used. Dragonborn is not, but there still is a lot that is. So if someone wants to use tiefling they still can provided they include the 3.5 licence in the back of the 4.0 product.

 

[thalmin]

Sorry, not up on my OGL. Which procedures are you referring to?

 

[Hussar]

My OGL fu is weak, but, I believe you'd have to include the current OGL at the back of the product and point out which elements came from 3e sources. Thus, the name "tiefling" is open according to that license.

However, if the 4e tiefling is not open content, there might be a problem, since there are mechanical effects beyond first level of picking race. This did not exist in 3e. So, despite the name "tiefling" being open, the mechanics of the race in 4e might not be.

That just looks like a court case waiting to happen to me.

 

[Oldtimer]

My OGL fu is weak, but, I believe you'd have to include the current OGL at the back of the product and point out which elements came from 3e sources. Thus, the name "tiefling" is open according to that license.

However, if the 4e tiefling is not open content, there might be a problem, since there are mechanical effects beyond first level of picking race. This did not exist in 3e. So, despite the name "tiefling" being open, the mechanics of the race in 4e might not be.

That just looks like a court case waiting to happen to me.

Even more court case material would be if 4e tiefling mechanics were declared OGC, but the name of the race was declared Product Identity.
Now you'll have a name which is both OGC and Product Identity.

 

[Nikosandros]

Anything in the 3.0 or 3.5 is now open provided the OGL procedures are followed. This means that Tieflings and any other race or names that were in those documents can still be used. Dragonborn is not, but there still is a lot that is. So if someone wants to use tiefling they still can provided they include the 3.5 license in the back of the 4.0 product.

Which documents are you referring to?

The majority of material released for 3rd edition by WotC isn't OGC at all.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Actually, from what I remember, the OGL comes from Wizards and as long as the source is from Wizard's itself and not a third party they are not obligated to make any of their content "Open Content", because its all their property that they are licensing. They don't need permission to use their own stuff!

I do think Wizards will leave things fairly open, but considering (a) the fact that Wizards declared certain monsters to be their own, and (b) a lot of the "new" D&D is trying to be more specific (and also trademarkable, copyrightable, etc), how much will they give and how much will be "kept to themselves".