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

[Lizard]

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.

The "community standards" clause is also problematic. While there is no approval process per se, there's a post-facto "disapproval" which cannot be avoided or vetted beforehand. Basically, you trust your interpretation of the guidelines, and WOTC will not tell you "Yea" or "Nea" before you publish -- but can slap you down afterwards. This is dangerous, and it's one reason many companies abandoned the STL in favor of the OGL after it was revised post BOEF.

 

[2WS-Steve]

The "community standards" clause is also problematic. While there is no approval process per se, there's a post-facto "disapproval" which cannot be avoided or vetted beforehand. Basically, you trust your interpretation of the guidelines, and WOTC will not tell you "Yea" or "Nea" before you publish -- but can slap you down afterwards. This is dangerous, and it's one reason many companies abandoned the STL in favor of the OGL after it was revised post BOEF.

I agree. That was point #2 that we were discussing earlier -- and I think revokability is the biggest one and definitely makes it not an open license.

 

[Delta]

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.

It's not just the fee -- there's still the always-present "requirement for review or approval" under the community standards requirement (possibly among other clauses). Didn't they say that you'll need to register with WOTC, even after 2008?

 

[Morrus]

The "community standards" clause is also problematic. While there is no approval process per se, there's a post-facto "disapproval" which cannot be avoided or vetted beforehand. Basically, you trust your interpretation of the guidelines, and WOTC will not tell you "Yea" or "Nea" before you publish -- but can slap you down afterwards. This is dangerous, .

Welcome to licenses. When you use someone else's property for your own profit, you're subject to conditions. These conditions are remarkably generous compared to most licenses.

As I said to John, above, if you want to enjoy a life of complete control and security, you nned to create something of your own, not use somebody else's intellectual property. It's very generous of them to allow you to use it at all.

Try releasing a Harry Potter RPG and see what happens. You'll soon come to the conclusion that WotC is pretty damn generous with their D&D material.

 

[Alzrius]

Welcome to licenses. When you use someone else's property for your own profit, you're subject to conditions. These conditions are remarkably generous compared to most licenses.

Say that after the 4E version of E.N. Armoury: Chainmail Bikini is pulled for not meeting "community standards."

 

[Lizard]

Welcome to licenses. When you use someone else's property for your own profit, you're subject to conditions. These conditions are remarkably generous compared to most licenses.

As I said to John, above, if you want to enjoy a life of complete control and security, you nned to create something of your own, not use somebody else's intellectual property. It's very generous of them to allow you to use it at all.

Try releasing a Harry Potter RPG and see what happens. You'll soon come to the conclusion that WotC is pretty damn generous with their D&D material.

I don't dispute this. I'm pointing out why some people "jumped ship" to the OGL, thus doing more harm to WOTC than the BOEF or similar would have done. There was little value to the D20 trademark license, and much risk -- why use it?

The OGL had two purposes -- to create a global gaming standard and to drive sales of WOTCs books. The first succeeded very well; the second failed because it relied on the Trademark License, and WOTC did nothing to give that trademark value, and then, in a misguided effort to protect it, drove people away from it.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Welcome to licenses. When you use someone else's property for your own profit, you're subject to conditions. These conditions are remarkably generous compared to most licenses.

As I said to John, above, if you want to enjoy a life of complete control and security, you nned to create something of your own, not use somebody else's intellectual property. It's very generous of them to allow you to use it at all.

That's exactly why I'm arguing the point. When I say the OGL is flawed, I mean from the sense of the publisher. They really gave away too much control, compared to other licenses. I don't really think the "open source" style of license is a good fit for creative endeavors. That's why I argue if it's so good, why didn't the other major publishers release GURPS, Storyteller, etc, with that license.

It's really hard to prove if the OGL added to the popularity of D&D or if D&D itself was the reason the OGL was so popular.

 

[Nellisir]

... if it's so good, why didn't the other major publishers release GURPS, Storyteller, etc, with that license.

Mongoose has opened up Runequest as an OGL game, complete with SRDs. Green Ronin is planning to make True20 more, not less, open. I think there are others, but I pretty much stay in the d20 "sphere". I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in the future (when was the latest edition of GURPS released anyway?)

 

[RPGRealms]

Plus, modules are far easier and cheaper to produce than sourcebooks. Give me 3 modules over Denizens of Avadnu anyday.

But they don't sell anywhere near as well as sourcebooks. Players and GMs both tend to buy sourcebooks. Not so with adventures which are mainly purchased by GMs.

 

[Nikchick]

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?

Lizard, please allow me to explain why I do not see these two things as equivalent.

• WotC produced the material which THEY released THEMSELVES. Releasing the information in their SRD was their choice. One might even say it was an integral part of their business plan!
• Green Ronin used WotC's SRD as the starting point for a new game which we only released after putting in a great deal of work to modify, adapt, and expand upon so we could offer something new.
• GR has historically been one of the publishers with the most liberal open content designations, from our very first product. We are happy for eager devlopers to use our content in the way we did, as a jumping off point to design new products. Releasing an SRD for our open content was not part of a business plan.
• Unlike the case with the WotC SRD, which they released themselves as part of their plan, the True SRD was released by a third party. It took the content of a product that Green Ronin was releasing for sale and offered it for free on the internet.
  

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.

To be clear, Green Ronin has never tried to impede the use of our OGC and correct use of the Open Game License. We have never interfered with the True SRD project or claimed that it is not legal under the OGL. Only when asked did we ever even express an opinion about the proposed project and that was over two and a half years ago.