D&D 4E A couple of things that suck about the 4e SRD/OGL

Ranger REG said:
I may be required to use hearing aids, but that sounds like it to me, too.

Sighs.

Funny. I remember WotC reps saying that 4e would have an OGL. Of course, what I didn't take into account is their changing the meaning of "OGL". :uhoh:

(This also seems to me to be quite a bit like the tiered SRD they told us wouldn't happen. You know, the one where some folks pay a premium to get the SRD earlier/use more of it? Of course, what I didn't take into account is their exchanging the word "SRD" for "OGL".)

RC
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Raven Crowking said:
I think that, if you go back and read about how 3e ended up being an OGL game, you will discover that this isn't what WotC believed at that time. Indeed, WotC believed that an independent game that uses the same basic rules as D&D perforce increases the sales of D&D (as the market leader) through system familiarity.

I don't know about you, but for me Conan, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc., have all gone into the grist mill to improve my D&D game. I imagine that I am not alone there.

This is a craptacular move on the part of WotC. I don't dispute their right to do it; I do dispute the wisdom of it. It certainly doesn't make for good consumer relations, from where I'm sitting.

RC

However, I can see a lot of reasons WHY it makes sense to do it.

1.) Right now, I can go play Arcana Unearthed, C&C, M&M, True20, Midnight, Iron Heroes, Conan, A Game of Thrones, Warcraft d20, Monte Cook's WoD or even generic "SRD" D&D without ever touching WotC's books. WotC invested a lot of time and treasure into researching and developing the 4e rules, they should AT LEAST require you buy the core books to use their spiffy new system.

2.) Putting the Core Rules online for free negates the usefulness of the DDI "online book" premise.

3.) It allows them to incorporate more "flavor" elements while retaining IP and keeping the mechanics open (there you go, all you GWA haters)

4.) It stops "PHB" clones like the Pocket PHB to compete with their bread-n-butter books.

5.) It allows them to open more content without fear of giving whole books away for free (hello Unearthed Arcana).

6.) It doesn't stop games like Iron Heroes or Conan from being published (indeed, they wish to encourage alternate classes, new mechanics, and more feats, talents, and spells) but what it does do is stop "MONSTER QUEST: A COMPLETELY SEPARATE RPG GAME THAT JUST HAPPENS TO USE THE SAME MECHANICS AS THAT OTHER LEADING RPG" and selling it.

7.) Will it stifle some creativity? Absolutely. Restrictions always do. However, WotC did spend 2+ years developing these rules and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
 

what it does do is stop "MONSTER QUEST: A COMPLETELY SEPARATE RPG GAME THAT JUST HAPPENS TO USE THE SAME MECHANICS AS THAT OTHER LEADING RPG" and selling it.

No, it doesn't stop that.

What it DOES stop is Monster Quest from being a cut-and-paste of the SRD and claiming D&D compatibility. In other words, someone would have to go through a little bit of work re-typing the PHB in their own words, and BAM: Knockoff.
 


Remathilis said:
6.) It doesn't stop games like Iron Heroes or Conan from being published (indeed, they wish to encourage alternate classes, new mechanics, and more feats, talents, and spells) but what it does do is stop "MONSTER QUEST: A COMPLETELY SEPARATE RPG GAME THAT JUST HAPPENS TO USE THE SAME MECHANICS AS THAT OTHER LEADING RPG" and selling it.

The 3e OGL did nothing to stop that, and yet no-one bothered. The closest were the Pocket guides to the game, but those didn't exactly set the world on fire. I don't think such a thing should really have been a concern.
 

WayneLigon said:
I think it's nice they allow any open content at all. They certainly didn't have to do it this time around.


See, I take this from the consumer's side:

I think it's nice if we buy any content at all. We certainly don't have to do it this time around.

The consumer, not the producer, dictates the terms under which any luxury item is worth buying. And D&D is a luxury item for me (especially when I have several other editions to choose from). YMMV.

RC
 

Kamikaze Midget said:
If you're going to heavily alter the system like that anyway, you're on safe ground. No one is going to suspect Spycraft of being D&D, despite the similar mechanics. And even the mechanics have enough difference that it's clearly NOT the same game, even though they might be compatible.

But does anyone believe that WotC would be "OK with that"? Spycraft uses a lot of the same mechanics and text as the current d20 OGL. If they did that in 4e, .y take is that they'd get smacked down if they did it outside the 4e OGL. "Heavily Altered" is still "Derivative" in copyright terms.
 

Okay I see all these people posting about WotC having competition from the OGL games and only looking out for their best interests...but let's not forget the flip side to that coin, they had companies developing and experimenting with their rules and were able to see what mechanics were popular and which weren't as well as what designers innovated and which didn't...all for free. So I think it's a little more complicated than competition=bad
 

mxyzplk said:
But does anyone believe that WotC would be "OK with that"? Spycraft uses a lot of the same mechanics and text as the current d20 OGL. If they did that in 4e, .y take is that they'd get smacked down if they did it outside the 4e OGL. "Heavily Altered" is still "Derivative" in copyright terms.

Also, it's not just a question of what is legal...but also who has the money for the drawn out battle in the courtrooms.
 

If they still plan to call this the Open Gaming License, I wonder how this section impacts it:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
 

Remove ads

Top