D&D 4E Interesting Article on OGL and 4E

[JVisgaitis]

Few things are hard if you are smart and have the right staff for the job. My point is that several decades of buying adventures for multiple game systems empirically indicates that there are very few people who qualify to be "the staff for" writing adventures.

When I say staff, I don't mean people who work for the company. My bad. In today's freelance environment and with the internet, the writer part isn't hard to come by. I can think of a dozen adventure writers just off the top of my head who would do a fine job. People like Ari Marmell, Wil Upchurch, Tom Knauss, Sean Reynolds, etc.

My whole point in this is that modules are far more lucrative then people think. Yeah, your selling to the DM who is a niche of a niche market, but today's DM isn't the "create everything from his head" type of DM like they were in years past. This shift in the market is only going to continue as time goes on. Plus, modules are far easier and cheaper to produce than sourcebooks. Give me 3 modules over Denizens of Avadnu anyday.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

It's a grey line. Even though I know it's technically okay, I think if somebody spends a lot of time creating a variant system like True 20, for the hope of selling things at a profit, and somebody else wants to take all that work and put it on-line "for free", that seems wrong, and I have a feeling a lot of people would agree with me. It's not cut and dried--it's sort of like obscenity laws, you can't clearly objectively define it.

It isn't a grey line at all. The folks who did True20 were able to do so because WoTC said to them, 'You can use our content, but you have to let everyone else use yours'.

It isn't 'a grey line' when someone comes along and re-uses the True20 content. It's exactly what was intended by the OGL, and it's exactly what Green Ronin did when they re-used the WoTC content to create True20.

Ken

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

When I say staff, I don't mean people who work for the company. My bad. In today's freelance environment and with the internet, the writer part isn't hard to come by. I can think of a dozen adventure writers just off the top of my head who would do a fine job. People like Ari Marmell, Wil Upchurch, Tom Knauss, Sean Reynolds, etc.

My whole point in this is that modules are far more lucrative then people think. Yeah, your selling to the DM who is a niche of a niche market, but today's DM isn't the "create everything from his head" type of DM like they were in years past. This shift in the market is only going to continue as time goes on. Plus, modules are far easier and cheaper to produce than sourcebooks. Give me 3 modules over Denizens of Avadnu anyday.

You know, I wish modules were lucrative, but when Necromancer Games only does a 1000 copy print run on a module because they are afraid they can't sell 2000, and then they make $7/copy wholesale on each one, because the retailer and the distributor takes the rest, and then they have to pay their artists and their writers and run their website with the rest, I don't see how modules possibly _can_ be considered lucrative.

Ken

 

[Nellisir]

It's a grey line.

Oh, for crying out loud.

Q: Does this mean that someone could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, and then put it in a product and sell that product to someone else?

A: Yes.

Q: To be clear: Does this mean that Wizards of the Coast could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, put it into a Dungeons & Dragons product and make money off it?
A: Yes.

Q: And they wouldn't have to ask my permission or pay me a royalty?

A: No, they would not.

Q: Isn't that pretty unfair?

A: If you don't like the terms of the Open Game License, don't publish Open Game Content. Since the terms of the License are public knowledge, and they apply to everyone equally, including commercial publishers like Wizards of the Coast, your decision to use the Open Game License means that you consent to abide by its terms freely and without coercion. That's about as fair as anything ever gets.

How the heck is this grey?

 

[JohnRTroy]

You guys miss my point. Ideally, people would use the license but respect author's contributions, contributing, not ripping. How many of the professional publishers actually behave in that matter. It's usually some guy on the Internet, usually one who values free content, who will do these things, not taking into account the economic consequences, all in the spirit of "open gaming".

I think because of the statement in the FAQ, and because people have accepted it, it's why WoTC has decided to use a more controlled license. So yes, you guys are right, but it proves the license itself is flawed because it doesn't allow people to have as much control over their creations.

And the key thing I note is that WoTC rarely uses other people's OGL. I suspect they built it in in part as an indemnity clause in case they accidentally used somebody else's idea, but I notice they don't normally take other OGL rules into their own products. I suspect what they didn't realize is how many of their customer base would be willing to strip-mine all the SRDs and create free alternatives.

The OGL was an interesting experiment for WoTC. With it's departure, we'll see if the "openness" actually meant anything. I still suspect more people care about D&D than whether or not the game is open. If the general public does care about being open (or rejects the revision of D&D as "too different"), then it's akin to what happened when IBM created the PC and all the clones came out, which means their market would fall.

 

[Lizard]

It's a grey line. Even though I know it's technically okay, I think if somebody spends a lot of time creating a variant system like True 20, for the hope of selling things at a profit, and somebody else wants to take all that work and put it on-line "for free", that seems wrong, and I have a feeling a lot of people would agree with me. It's not cut and dried--it's sort of like obscenity laws, you can't clearly objectively define it.

But the people who made True20 took the work that other people -- Johnathan Tweet, et al -- put a lot of time into developing and hoped to sell at a profit, copied large parts of it, etc. How is it right for them to do it to WOTC and not for someone else to do it to them?

The "lost sales" argument is, I think, spurious in the face of real piracy. If you're an honest person looking for a game, you're going to buy the True 20 book and use the SRD for quick reference. If you're a developer and want to make your own True-20-ish system, you'll be doing exactly what Chris Pramas did with the D20 SRD. And if you're a cheapskate, why bother downloading a boring ASCII version when you can have the whole thing "free" from a file-sharing network? THAT'S the real enemy, and that's what companies need to focus on destroying.

You're right Lizard. It is part of the license. However, this conflict between the people who want things to be "free and open" and those that want to make a profit on their hard work is probably why Wizards will be releasing a new license. I'm not saying it's altruism on Wizard's part, but I am understanding the key factors involved. Hopefully the GSL will allow others to close up this consequence.

And in so doing, make things like True20 impossible -- not just because of the WOTC content, but because True 20 and M&M list many other open games in their SRD. They took good ideas from many other people, and there is nothing wrong, unethical, underhanded, devious, shady, etc, in doing so -- it's not stealing or plagiarism, it's exactly what open source creation is all about.

1 and 2 make a lot of sense from Wizards point of few. They really gave away too much, seeing it from their perspective. I see (2) as similar to franchise rights. You can buy your own McDonald's or KFC, but you are expected to follow their procedures and standards. Granted, this could be "abused", but I think Wizards will want to have others use their license, so it will be a rare occurance.

This is fine; it's their right to do so. I just think it's a bad idea, and serves gamers -- and WOTC -- poorly. And you're right -- this is a franchise license (at least from what little we've been told about it), not an open license. It's very much a throwback to the "Approved for use with D&D!" licenses of the late 1970s. Revolutionary then -- kind of primitive now.

EDIT: Just an addendum -- I own Blue Rose, and have bought True 20 through RPGNow or DriveThrough -- can't remember which one right now -- and will buy the Revised True 20, probably in print edition, when it comes out. Why? Because it's a good game from a good company and I wish to support them. If I ever run True 20 or decide to make my own supplements using their rules, I will make use of the ASCII SRD without any kind of guilt or shame, because that's what the OGL is all about. And in the odd event I produce work and other people extract the OGC from it and post it, I'll consider it flattery, not theft.

ADDENDUM: The idea that WOTC derives no beneft from M&M is false. The group I'm in is pretty much stuck on D20-based systems. If there were no M&M, however, then when they wanted to play superheroes, they'd move to Champions or GURPS or something. Why would this hurt WOTC? Because the odds are that, once they've become familiar with a new system, they'd keep it for the next genre they want to play, and not go back to D&D. Keeping them in "D20-ish" games helps keep them in arms reach of WOTC. (And there's NO reason why WOTC can't make games compatible with M&M/Spycraft/Etc, except for a "Not invented Here!" attitude which I consider a weakeness.)

 

[Morrus]

It's a grey line. Even though I know it's technically okay, I think if somebody spends a lot of time creating a variant system like True 20, for the hope of selling things at a profit, and somebody else wants to take all that work and put it on-line "for free", that seems wrong, and I have a feeling a lot of people would agree with me.

But it's totaly fair for you to, say, take the rules of D&D and tweak them and sell all that work for profit? That sounds very one-sided to me.

My suggestion is that if someone really wants complete control of their material, they should not use the OGl and create their own stuff, and not base it on WotC's stuff. That's fair.

 

[JohnRTroy]

But it's totaly fair for you to, say, take the rules of D&D and tweak them and sell all that work for profit? That sounds very one-sided to me.

My suggestion is that if someone really wants complete control of their material, they should not use the OGL and create their own stuff, and not base it on WotC's stuff. That's fair.

I was just pointing out the OGL should have served an economic purpose, but that the actual effect was different.

I agree with you Morrus, the key thing to controlling your own rights is to create their own stuff.

 

[Delta]

Number 2 is the big one IMO. A license simply is not an open license if it's revocable.

You know, that's the one I initially thought of, too. But then I realized that the extrapolation on principle #1 also flies directly in the face of how the GSL will be working:
( http://opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html )

The first requirement precludes... a requirement for review or approval, the payment of a fee of any kind to a 3rd party, or any other term that would seek to limit the free use of the licensed material.

 

[2WS-Steve]

You know, that's the one I initially thought of, too. But then I realized that the extrapolation on principle #1 also flies directly in the face of how the GSL will be working:
( http://opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html )

I agree, but after Jan 2009 the fee goes away -- so I think it'd just not count as open (for that reason) in 2008, then afterwards it's the other stuff that's the problem.