Does the OGL still apply for 3rd Edition?

[Tellerian Hawke]

Is the OGL still active / valid for 3rd Edition D&D?

i.e., if I wanted to make, say, a campaign setting designed for 3.0 D&D, and then market it / sell it, could I?

Or has WoTc pulled the plug on that?

Thanks in advance for your advice and comments!

Cheers!

 

[Morrus]

Yea. It's irrevocable.

 

[TreChriron]

Some advice however...

If you want to publish under the 3.x rules, look at Pathfinder. It has a LARGE audience, is currently supported by a VERY enthusiastic (and capable) publisher, and is Open Content.

There are already some fantastic 3rd party supplements for PF, so you would be in good company.

 

[trancejeremy]

Strictly speaking though, the 3.0 SRD was never released officially under the OGL, only the 3.5 srd was. There's not a huge difference, but it's there.

And you can't use the d20 logo and such, the d20 System Trademark License was revoked. A lot of publishers get around this by just saying OGL 3rd Edition or 3.5th Edition.

And yeah, there is Pathfinder, but the rule system is rather complex, even more so than 3.5...I could never get monster design in 3.x, and triply so in Pathfinder...

 

[Alzrius]

Strictly speaking though, the 3.0 SRD was never released officially under the OGL, only the 3.5 srd was. There's not a huge difference, but it's there.

I don't think that's correct.

 

[gamerprinter]

And yeah, there is Pathfinder, but the rule system is rather complex, even more so than 3.5...I could never get monster design in 3.x, and triply so in Pathfinder...

I've created and published archetypes, alternate classes, monsters, feats, templates and spells, and strictly speaking, I never cared to until I started using Pathfinder. Because all of PF is OGL, while only some of 3x is OGL, I'd stay far away from 3x, and just do Pathfinder, at least from a 3PP point of view. Having created all that I have so far, I'd say PF is easy enough, even logical - of course never having done so for previous editions, I can't say if it is more difficult than doing so for 3x nor any other edition. Again, I find designing PF content pretty easy and intuitive, once you get a grip on the rules.

Consider that I'm really just a freelance cartographer, but have managed to get a PF 3PP, Rite Publishing to let me publish my own setting as an imprint under Rite Publishing, while still remaining my IP - the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG). Right now I'm working on writing a series of map tutorials guide books following a successful Kickstarter last year. When I have the time I will create some more content for Kaidan, perhaps looking to develop a full AP.

Don't let others scare you away from using PF for your setting, it may be too tough for them, again, I find it fairly easy and intuitive, although it is certainly lots of detail work to get everything right.

 

[trancejeremy]

I don't think that's correct.

That's the 3.5 SRD you linked to. There's supposedly a link to 3.0 on that page, but it just goes to the 3.5 srd as well.

The 3.0 was released under a "gentleman's agreement" and had monsters like the Mind Flayer and Beholder which is why some early 3rd product products had them. But 3.5 was the official release under the OGL and omitted the monsters, which is why you no longer saw products with them.

 

[trancejeremy]

I've created and published archetypes, alternate classes, monsters, feats, templates and spells, and strictly speaking, I never cared to until I started using Pathfinder. Because all of PF is OGL, while only some of 3x is OGL, I'd stay far away from 3x, and just do Pathfinder, at least from a 3PP point of view. Having created all that I have so far, I'd say PF is easy enough, even logical - of course never having done so for previous editions, I can't say if it is more difficult than doing so for 3x nor any other edition. Again, I find designing PF content pretty easy and intuitive, once you get a grip on the rules.

Consider that I'm really just a freelance cartographer, but have managed to get a PF 3PP, Rite Publishing to let me publish my own setting as an imprint under Rite Publishing, while still remaining my IP - the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG). Right now I'm working on writing a series of map tutorials guide books following a successful Kickstarter last year. When I have the time I will create some more content for Kaidan, perhaps looking to develop a full AP.

Don't let others scare you away from using PF for your setting, it may be too tough for them, again, I find it fairly easy and intuitive, although it is certainly lots of detail work to get everything right.

If you can figure out a CAD program, then yeah, you can probably figure out monster design in Pathfinder. But apparently Paizo uses a spreadsheet to do the calculations (or so they said in the Superstar contest). But my point was, it's not something you can do on a whim, you have to spend some time learning Pathfinder as a system in order to create monsters for it that follow the rules correctly.

 

[gamerprinter]

I work using very intuitive vector graphics software, not CAD, but yeah, any rules system has to be learned in order to design for it - that's true of any game system. I've seen far more fiddly rules systems than PF, which stated is challenging to get right, but is part of the fun in game design. I don't find it especially difficult.

 

[Alzrius]

That's the 3.5 SRD you linked to. There's supposedly a link to 3.0 on that page, but it just goes to the 3.5 srd as well.

You need to go back and look closer at that page. While it's true that the links at the top make it look like it's the 3.5 SRD, it's not.

If you look at the SRD itself on that page, you'll see that it's entirely 3.0. It still has skill listings like "Intuit Direction," "Read Lips" and "Wilderness Lore." The monsters still have the "Beast" creature type, etc. It's the 3.0 SRD.

The 3.0 was released under a "gentleman's agreement" and had monsters like the Mind Flayer and Beholder which is why some early 3rd product products had them. But 3.5 was the official release under the OGL and omitted the monsters, which is why you no longer saw products with them.

That's almost correct; there was a "gentleman's agreement" in the beginning, before the SRD was formally released, and that is why you saw some third-party products that used D&D intellectual property (not just certain monsters either - things like "St. Cuthbert" were also used here and there). That went away when the original 3.0 SRD was released, which was considerably before the 3.5 SRD came out.