NO.TLDR: you don't need OGL to make something "compatible with" DnD. Home brew and 3rd party adventure where always legal.
You just need it for using stuff like their logo, beholder, drizzt, or directly copying rules from the SRD, like quoting the fireball spell in a monster stat block.
Fixed.NO.
INCORRECT.
Bolded bit is NOT ALLOWED BY ANY SRD. Explicitly! Please can people stop repeating this canard? You've always needed a separate licence to do that. DM's Guild's licence allows that, but that means you lose 50% of the revenue of your product AND can't publish it anywhere but DM's Guild.
It's not showing as fixed for me, but ok.Fixed.
The main point is that you don't need permission, at all, to make homebrew and 3rd party adventures for 5e.It's not showing as fixed for me, but ok.
Which is fine, but if you don't want to fix post #6, why did you say in #8 that is was fixed?The main point is that you don't need permission, at all, to make homebrew and 3rd party adventures for 5e.
The biggest problem with "you don't need the OGL to be compatible" is that it leans heavily on what the OGL declares is always OGC, and not on the "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor".The main point is that you don't need permission, at all, to make homebrew and 3rd party adventures for 5e.
If you don't use the OGL, you don't need to care what the OGL says. You only need to care what intellectual property law says. But here's the thing: the OGL provided certainty, which is essential to running a business. So while, sure, you could make D&D compatible adventures just by fair use or whatever, you couldn't predict whether a large corporation would come down on you for it, right or wrong. So people -- hundreds, thousands probably -- built businesses and livelihoods on the OGL.The biggest problem with "you don't need the OGL to be compatible" is that it leans heavily on what the OGL declares is always OGC, and not on the "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor".
Right. Sure, you can make an adventure and just say "three goblins (hp 3, 5, 6)" but can you put a full statblock in?That the mechanics are uncopyrightable is not in question.
The sticky wicket is whether terminology such as the six ability scores, saving throws, etc. are considered such.
Well, yes, but the stuff that the OGL says is always OGC is the stuff least protected by copyright, the raw rules and mechanics. Thus the statements by people like Legal Eagle, the EFF, Cory Doctrow, and many others that the OGL didn't really give people anything, based on their looking at what was specifically enumerated in the OGL.If you don't use the OGL, you don't need to care what the OGL says. You only need to care what intellectual property law says.
Why is Professor Mcgonny in every single thread 50 times.NO.
INCORRECT.
What part is wrong now?Which is fine, but if you don't want to fix post #6, why did you say in #8 that is was fixed?
It's about expression. You can say a wizard in your adventure can cast "magic missile." And you can say "magic missile creates three bolts that unerringly strike their targets for 1d4+1 hit points of force damage" but if you wanted to repeat the SRD description of magic missile word for word, you would need the OGL.Well, yes, but the stuff that the OGL says is always OGC is the stuff least protected by copyright, the raw rules and mechanics. Thus the statements by people like Legal Eagle, the EFF, Cory Doctrow, and many others that the OGL didn't really give people anything, based on their looking at what was specifically enumerated in the OGL.
The problem is that they're overlooking the "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" clause, treating that as negligible. But it isn't. Over and beyond mere "certainty", the OGL licenses as OGC a lot of proprietary creative work under that clause.