D&D 5E L&L for 6/2

[Dausuul]

Against what I've seen repeated here on EnWorld a few times, I actually would be surprised if the Basic Game was OGL'd. They've continually referred to the monster and DM content in the Basic game as their 'most iconic'. I would be surprised if their 'most iconic' stuff is the stuff they give for others to make with. Much of their most iconic stuff didn't make it into the OGL, for instance.

Thaumaturge.

I think that depends on what you mean by "iconic." The word suggests "representative of D&D." It isn't synonymous with "D&D product identity." The red dragon is the iconic monster of Dungeons and Dragons, but it's not product identity.

According to d20srd.org, the list of product identity monsters (at least in the original MM) is limited to:

• Beholder
• Gauth
• Carrion crawler
• Displacer beast
• Githyanki
• Githzerai
• Kuo-toa
• Mind flayer
• Slaad
• Umber hulk
• Yuan-ti

I think you could make a Basic D&D that would remain "iconic" without including any of these guys. Or they could just do what the 3E folks did and hold back a handful of product-identity monsters, while putting everything else under the OGL.

But you're probably right. I don't really expect Wizards to go OGL with any part of 5E. More likely, we will be looking at some breed of GSL, hopefully less restrictive than the original.

 

[bogmad]

Against what I've seen repeated here on EnWorld a few times, I actually would be surprised if the Basic Game was OGL'd. They've continually referred to the monster and DM content in the Basic game as their 'most iconic'. I would be surprised if their 'most iconic' stuff is the stuff they give for others to make with. Much of their most iconic stuff didn't make it into the OGL, for instance.

Thaumaturge.

I don't know, in the escapist article Mearls mentions "what are the typical fantasy monsters like orcs and ogres, with a few adjustments for power curve" as being what they'd include in Basic D&D for monsters. I could see them just putting in "iconic fantasy" tropes and holding out on product identity things like beholders or mind flayers for the MM.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is no "old contract" its the open gaming license...

as long as you stay away from specific terminology and use existing mechanics you can create something VERY close to 5e.

See 13th Age (4e built from the OGL) and the 1st edition clones for what I mean...

13th age is not 4e... it is a good game with some 4e idea's, but it isn't 4e.

Do you really think if I put out a book with A/E/D/U powers and just renamed them Whenever, 5 min recharge, 8 hr recharge, misc powers and reworded each one but kept the game it self 100% the same at the table and put it out as OGL WotC would just sit back and say "well he got us"

Judges (much like DMs) are humans who can reason. They will take one look and realize "Hey this guy is trying to bend the OGL contract to make it OK to reproduce something not in it's intent."

Now Judges (Much like DMs) have a couple choices... they can

a) "Hey I like rules lawyers who manipulate letter against spirit, so I say OK"
b) "I hate when people use RAW to over write RAI, but my hands are tied"
c) "Yea you can't pull that crap with me, we all know you are trying to get away with something you know you shouldn't"
d) "I hate when people try to weasel stuff, and I'm going to make an example of you for it..."

It is no different then someone walking into my game or my friend's matts game, or my friend's kurts game with plans to make PUN PUN and play it... I go D, Matt goes A, and Kurt waffles between B and C depending on how depressed he is that week....

so yes I would LOVE to see a lawyer get up in court, walk up to the judge and say "My client technically did nothing wrong"

 

[God]

So Dungeons and Dragons at its core means little to you. [snip] Why are you even bothering with D&D in the first place then? ...

Stop trying to tell me what I mean. I'm not interested in winning the internet from you, I'm stating my opinion and expressing my concerns. I care deeply about D&D the game. I care little about D&D the brand. Based on past experience, I don't have a lot of faith in WotC's ability to shepherd D&D the game or produce adventures and setting support that appeals to me. I don't care for (or about) the Forgotten Realms, Tiamat or cross-platform plots, although I would like to see some of the 2E campaign settings resurrected in a respectful manner (ie., no goliaths in Dark Sun).

Based on my preferences, I would like to see an open license in some form so that someone else can pick up the ball if WotC drops it - or is forced into making unpalatable decisions by its corporate masters - and to increase the chance that there will be material available that suits my needs and desires. I fully intend to give WotC my money for the PHB, MM and DMG and any other product they produce that strikes my fancy. But I don't expect one company, which has a history of making decisions that disappointed me, to produce everything I'll want in a new edition of the game - a game which, to reiterate, I quite like so far, and which I think deserves better than to be dependent on the whims of the bean-counters at Hasbro.

That is my opinion. YMMV. I am happy that you have other preferences and may approach the new edition in such a care-free manner. I'm not interested in arguing opinions with you. [Now back to lurking for another year or two.]

 

[Ruin Explorer]

13th age is not 4e... it is a good game with some 4e idea's, but it isn't 4e.

Do you really think if I put out a book with A/E/D/U powers and just renamed them Whenever, 5 min recharge, 8 hr recharge, misc powers and reworded each one but kept the game it self 100% the same at the table and put it out as OGL WotC would just sit back and say "well he got us"

Judges (much like DMs) are humans who can reason. They will take one look and realize "Hey this guy is trying to bend the OGL contract to make it OK to reproduce something not in it's intent."

Now Judges (Much like DMs) have a couple choices... they can

a) "Hey I like rules lawyers who manipulate letter against spirit, so I say OK"
b) "I hate when people use RAW to over write RAI, but my hands are tied"
c) "Yea you can't pull that crap with me, we all know you are trying to get away with something you know you shouldn't"
d) "I hate when people try to weasel stuff, and I'm going to make an example of you for it..."

It is no different then someone walking into my game or my friend's matts game, or my friend's kurts game with plans to make PUN PUN and play it... I go D, Matt goes A, and Kurt waffles between B and C depending on how depressed he is that week....

so yes I would LOVE to see a lawyer get up in court, walk up to the judge and say "My client technically did nothing wrong"

I believe Mistwell is your man for informed comment on this, but I'm pretty sure you can't patent rules, only copyright their expression, and so on long as you made your game very obviously not 4E in terms of trade dress, it seems like you'd get away with that. I'm not an expert, though.

What makes one reluctant to do it, at least for me, is not that it would be illegal, but rather that it would be a huge effort for no real gain. 4E is still a fully operational battlestation, and the 4E DDI is still going, even if it's not added to. We really don't need anything extra for 4E, so until the books are actually non-available, and the DDI stuff goes down (pray that this never happens), there's no impetus at all for anyone to even try.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I think you could make a Basic D&D that would remain "iconic" without including any of these guys. Or they could just do what the 3E folks did and hold back a handful of product-identity monsters, while putting everything else under the OGL.

Hey, this would be awesome. No question.

I do get a sense that this time there is a plan, and that plan involves the timing we are seeing. Unlike the last go around, where there was no plan, and that quickly became evident. The presence of a plan makes me optimistic in and of itself.

Thaumaturge.

 

[darjr]

After the escapist article and the fact that three 3rd party folks said that mearls told them ogl it sounds like it will be. Somehow or way.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=4038]God[/MENTION] - since when did you start caring about OGL. In all the years I knew you, you never once talked about using an OGL product and, if memory serves, refused to use anything that didn't have the wotc seal of approval.

 

[pemerton]

Do you really think if I put out a book with A/E/D/U powers and just renamed them Whenever, 5 min recharge, 8 hr recharge, misc powers and reworded each one but kept the game it self 100% the same at the table and put it out as OGL WotC would just sit back and say "well he got us"

Judges (much like DMs) are humans who can reason. They will take one look and realize "Hey this guy is trying to bend the OGL contract to make it OK to reproduce something not in it's intent."

<snip>

I would LOVE to see a lawyer get up in court, walk up to the judge and say "My client technically did nothing wrong"

If the client technically did nothing wrong, then I would expect him/her to win in court. WotC, of course, would be trying to prove that something was done that was wrong.

Within the context of the OGL, the relevant clause seems to be 5: "If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License." Someone who tried to publish a 4e clone might have some trouble here. It is obviously not his/her original creation, and so s/he would have to prove that s/he nevertheless had sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by the OGL, including (per clause 4) "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." Obstacles to such a claim might include WotC claims of copyright in respect of their table layout, power text etc.

Someone who tried to publish a non-OGL 4e clone would face comparable obstacles. I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to say whether or not they'd be fatal obstacles, but I think they're clearly obstacles.
[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], upthread, was suggesting that WotC could challenge the OGL itself, but I don't know what sort of challenges he has in mind.

 

[Morrus]

so yes I would LOVE to see a lawyer get up in court, walk up to the judge and say "My client technically did nothing wrong"

You know that's how lawyers work, right? That the practice of law is a very technical profession and doesn't rely on whimsy? Contracts, except for certain unusual situations, are interpreted according to the words on the page, because to do otherwise would devalue the very concept of a contract.