Legal Changes and Implications

[Varianor Abroad]

Things like d20srd.org are a bit iffy, but has there been anything stating that you can't reprint Open Content in the new OGL? There's no SRD to copy/paste from, sure, but I haven't noticed any quotes saying that Open Content will not actually be Open under the new OGL.

The license isn't out, so this remains pretty speculative at the moment.

The acid test of the new, tighter SRD will be a) how many third party publishers thrive after 4Es release and b) how well 4E does (to a lesser degree). I am reminded of when IBM opened their architecture. Pow. Computer PCs took off to an amazing degree. (Much of this could also be attributed to leaps in technology.)

That said, I don't like it. I don't think having an online resource hurts anything. In fact, it encourages me to use it, write products based upon it, and to contribute to the spread and continued enjoyment of D&D.

 

[pemerton]

pemerton- I'd answer, if I understood your question more clearly.

My main question is this - when people like the OP express concern that WoTC is trying to tighten up its control over 3rd party publication and distribution of D&D material (examples normally given are things like changing "Dryads" to "Blackwood Dryads") I assume the main issue that is being raised is the issue of trademark infringement and the tort of passing off.

Is this correct? If so, would it be sufficient to avoid such wrongdoing for a 3rd party publisher who wants to use Blackwood Dryads in an adventure to include a statement prominently in their book saying "We are not WoTC. "Blackwoods Dryads" is a trademark of WoTC. Our use of this trademark is not intended in any way to suggest that we are, or have any affiliation with or licence from, WoTC" - or similar?

Of course, the OGL would make the above disclaimer irrelevant to the extent that it licenced use of certain trademarks.

I think none of the above would be relevant to homebrews or non-commercially distributed material, because in that case there would obviously be no attempt to pass oneself off as WoTC in the course of trade (or does trademark protection extend to non-commercial distribution?).

There is also the issue of copyrighted text, but I see that as less of an issue because most adventures or homebrew work is not going to reproduce any of WoTC's text. (To answer one of Third Wizard's questions, I think the OGL will probably require 3rd party modules to refer to a particular page of the MM, or to reproduce an abbreviated stat block in a mandated form, rather than allow them to reproduce all the monster stats and text.)

An exception might be a PC generator, if it reproduces feat descriptions. In this case my intuition is that home brew would be OK (fair use, given the intended use of the book as sold by WoTC) but either commercial or non-commercial distribution would be a copyright infringement.

Is that any clearer?

 

[pemerton]

The acid test of the new, tighter SRD will be a) how many third party publishers thrive after 4Es release and b) how well 4E does (to a lesser degree).

Given Ryan Dancey's initial goals with the OGL, I don't think it can hurt WoTC to make OGL'd products useful only if you have a PHB, MM and DMG in front of you. But maybe there's something I've missed. (Of course it might hurt some 3rd parties - maybe that could produce indirect harm to WoTC.)

 

[Moon-Lancer]

am I missing something? d20srd.org shouldn't have a problem. They get a phb and copy whats copyable to the website. I don't see the problem. After words, everyone uses the website.

 

[pemerton]

am I missing something? d20srd.org shouldn't have a problem. They get a phb and copy whats copyable to the website. I don't see the problem. After words, everyone uses the website.

The problem would be that there won't be much that is copyable: as Morrus reported on the News page after the OGL teleconference, "As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition." And I assume that there won't be much demand for 3rd party indexes to the core rules.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing: it greatly facilitates the opening up of subsequent rules materials, by allowing that to be done without Wizards licencing out all of it own rules text.

 

[The Little Raven]

The problem would be that there won't be much that is copyable: as Morrus reported on the News page after the OGL teleconference, "As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition." And I assume that there won't be much demand for 3rd party indexes to the core rules.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing: it greatly facilitates the opening up of subsequent rules materials, by allowing that to be done without Wizards licencing out all of it own rules text.

They're attempting to avoid the "copy and paste" publishing that happened in 3e. Now, instead of every company trying to put out their "complete game" (which actually reproduces like 90% of the core D&D rules without alteration), they're more likely to give you wholly new content since they can't just reprint the PHB anymore.

 

[Imban]

They're attempting to avoid the "copy and paste" publishing that happened in 3e. Now, instead of every company trying to put out their "complete game" (which actually reproduces like 90% of the core D&D rules without alteration), they're more likely to give you wholly new content since they can't just reprint the PHB anymore.

I'm looking over my collection of third-party books for 3e and... I just don't see it (*). I have a huge selection of these books at my disposal, and most all of them that use "copy and paste" publishing do so in order to take only the parts of the core rules that they need, usually in the process of creating their own distinctive setting. The EverQuest RPG, the World of Warcraft RPG, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, A Game of Thrones, Conan. All of those reprint a good deal of PHB material when appropriate, and this works to their advantage (**) instead of their detriment. It lets the designers clearly indicate modified versions of abilities by making them the printed option, rather than including an "errata" section, it allows the designers to more easily show which classes and races are (and via omission, are not) available for selection, and create a setting that's more tailored to its material than just designed as a straight addon to core D&D.

So, where's this harm from "copy-and-paste" publishing?

(*) The only books I would honestly accuse of this sort of tomfoolery are some of Mongoose's line - and Mongoose, especially right after 3.0's release, essentially specialized in rushing out masses of low-quality copy-and-paste stuff with no mechanical consistency - and AEG's Feats. I can't think of anything else in AEG's splatbook line that did that, and none of the other lines (Atlas, Malhavoc, Necromancer, Fantasy Flight Games, Green Ronin) I have have supplement books that are significantly comprised of reprinted material.
(**) You can argue that World of Warcraft's Warrior would have been superior if they had taken inspiration from the class in the game rather than just copying and pasting the Fighter. This may be true, but is a very mild counterexample among lots of tailored setting material.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

The problem would be that there won't be much that is copyable: as Morrus reported on the News page after the OGL teleconference, "As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition." And I assume that there won't be much demand for 3rd party indexes to the core rules.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing: it greatly facilitates the opening up of subsequent rules materials, by allowing that to be done without Wizards licencing out all of it own rules text.

I understand now. thanks.

 

[vagabundo]

I'm interested in seeing what will happen when someone tries to re-create 4e using OGL and the 3.5e base.

Calling it 3.75e or something. Maybe in a commercial or community project.

If they are careful they can avoid any copyright infringement and restructure 3.5e to be more 4e.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

They're attempting to avoid the "copy and paste" publishing that happened in 3e. Now, instead of every company trying to put out their "complete game" (which actually reproduces like 90% of the core D&D rules without alteration), they're more likely to give you wholly new content since they can't just reprint the PHB anymore.

Well, to be honest, I liked Variant Player's Handbooks like Iron Heroes and Arcana Unearthed/Evolved with their complete set of core rules.
It was very convenient to use only this book for core rule questions instead of the PHB and the variant book. But then, both books really changed some aspects of the core rules (IH more so then AE), and didn't just re-use them 100%. So they might not be affected at all by the change of the OGL.