An Unexpected Victory, Unconditional Surrender, and Unfinished Business.

[ValamirCleaver]

It ends with the apeal to fight on.

How well do you know the early history of D&D? Do you know who Greg Bell is? Rob purposely chose those words for a very specific reason.

Old School FRP

Fight On!

www.tumblr.com

 

[Matt Thomason]

What can be produced via OGL 1.0a that can't be produced via the CC SRD 5.1? All I can think of would be older edition stuff.

A work that wants to use anything from the vast library of third party OGC from over the past 23 years. The 99% of OGC that isn't in a WotC SRD.

 

[Maxperson]

A work that wants to use anything from the vast library of third party OGC from over the past 23 years. The 99% of OGC that isn't in a WotC SRD.

You don't need OGL 1.0a for that. That's why I asked what can be PRODUCED with OGL 1.0a that cannot be produced with 5.1.

 

[Cadence]

You don't need OGL 1.0a for that.

Don't you need it if you don't want to reword everything in it, for example, or if the part you want are story elements that were allowed out under 1.0a?

 

[Maxperson]

Don't you need it if you don't want to reword everything in it, for example, or if the part you want are story elements that were allowed out under 1.0a?

You can't use PI without permission from the creator, so OGL 1.0a is not used for that. I'm going to use Lost Artifacts again.

"Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity and are not Open content: All trademarks, proper names (characters, locations, etc.), dialogue, narratives, artwork, origins, variant rules, and item names."

OGC, though, is usable via the license in the work itself, so you also don't need 1.0a for that.

"Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity, the materials in this book are Open Game Content and may be reproduced in any form without written permission."

Even if OGL 1.0a is revoked, WotC cannot revoke someone else's license.

 

[Maxperson]

Here are the ones in Runeblades.

"DESIGNATION OF PRODUCT IDENTITY:
The Rogue Genius Games (RGG) company name and logo; the “52-in-52” and “Runeblades” names and logos; all artwork, backgrounds, and logos; all trade dress, and graphic design elements."

"DECLARATION OF OPEN CONTENT: All game mechanics, proper names of classes, prestige classes, and class features, archetypes, feats, skills, spells, magic items, monsters, rituals, artifacts AND OR the names of abilities presented within this book are Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

 

[Cadence]

You can't use PI without permission from the creator, so OGL 1.0a is not used for that. I'm going to use Lost Artifacts again.

"Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity and are not Open content: All trademarks, proper names (characters, locations, etc.), dialogue, narratives, artwork, origins, variant rules, and item names."

OGC, though, is usable via the license in the work itself, so you also don't need 1.0a for that.

"Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity, the materials in this book are Open Game Content and may be reproduced in any form without written permission."

Even if OGL 1.0a is revoked, WotC cannot revoke someone else's license.

Is that "Open Content" quote only in that book or something? It doesn't seem to be in the 1.0a and doesn't seem to apply in general to things using 1.0a:

"2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License."

 

[Cadence]

Here are the ones in Runeblades.

"DESIGNATION OF PRODUCT IDENTITY:
The Rogue Genius Games (RGG) company name and logo; the “52-in-52” and “Runeblades” names and logos; all artwork, backgrounds, and logos; all trade dress, and graphic design elements."

"DECLARATION OF OPEN CONTENT: All game mechanics, proper names of classes, prestige classes, and class features, archetypes, feats, skills, spells, magic items, monsters, rituals, artifacts AND OR the names of abilities presented within this book are Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

If it appears as part of the work with the license it is not out in the wild without it. The game mechanics might generally be out there as such, but the phrasing et.al. sure seem like they aren't if the 1.0a was used.

"3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

 

[Maxperson]

If it appears as part of the work with the license it is not out in the wild without it. The game mechanics might generally be out there as such, but the phrasing et.al. sure seem like they aren't if the 1.0a was used.

"3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

Here. Read this.

OGL - WotC Backs Down: Original OGL To Be Left Untouched; Whole 5E Rules Released as Creative Commons

Hundreds of game publishers sigh in relief as, after extensive pressure exerted by the entire open gaming community, WotC has agreed to leave the original Open Gaming License untouched and put the whole of the 5E rules into Creative Commons. So, what's happened? The Open Gaming Licence v1.0a...

www.enworld.org

 

[Cadence]

Here. Read this.

OGL - WotC Backs Down: Original OGL To Be Left Untouched; Whole 5E Rules Released as Creative Commons

Hundreds of game publishers sigh in relief as, after extensive pressure exerted by the entire open gaming community, WotC has agreed to leave the original Open Gaming License untouched and put the whole of the 5E rules into Creative Commons. So, what's happened? The Open Gaming Licence v1.0a...

www.enworld.org

That seems to be about whether WotC has the power to deauthorize 1.0a or not. Not whether folks who want to use 1.0a material can stop using 1.0a to do so.

I thought you were arguing folks didn't need to even include 1.0a anymore to use OGC. Apologies if I misread.