Licensing, OGL and Getting D&D Compatible Publishers Involved

[Nellisir]

I think you have just described exactly the thinking behind the GSL. And frankly, it flopped.

So? They're going to change some things and try again. This isn't some kind of either/or situation. It's not either the OGL or the GSL. They can, and will, write a new license.

 

[Plaguescarred]

WotC isn't going to do the OGL again. They won't do the GSL either. They're going to aim for a middle ground that allows people to produce supplemental material, like adventures and options, but not wholesale reproduction of the core game. They want weird niche rules, adventures, and little campaign stuff. You'll be able to reproduce monster stats in an adventure, or put out a Book of Monsters, but not reprint the Monster Manual. They want SuperGenius Games, not Paizo. I think they were OK with Mutants & Masterminds, but Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, and Iron Heroes, and Spycraft, and Castles & Crusades, are all too close for comfort.

I agree and have a feeling that's what is gonna happen. If they put another OGL for D&D Next, they run the risk of Paizo making another game based on it to retain fans that might have migrated back to WoTC.

I'm sure they want to find a way to allow Third Party Publishing without offering their core rules as freely usable as they did with the OGL. They first tried a GSL that proved too restrictive to many. I think they'll try something else more flexible, but i doubt they'll return to an OGL.

 

[Zireael]

I think 3rd parties probably could make 5e products using the OGL right now, based on the 3e SRD. Much like there have been numerous old school products based on it.

What there wouldn't be is some sort of trademark license, to indicate compatibility. They'd have to say something like "For Use with the 5th Edition of the Worlds Most Popular Fantasy RPG"

I don't understand why we can't have a trademark license.
And I don't get how saying "Compatible with D&D Next" is a trademark problem - after all, "D&D Next" is used in reviews and all over the forums here. Anyone can explain?

 

[darjr]

I think 3rd parties probably could make 5e products using the OGL right now, based on the 3e SRD. Much like there have been numerous old school products based on it.

What there wouldn't be is some sort of trademark license, to indicate compatibility. They'd have to say something like "For Use with the 5th Edition of the Worlds Most Popular Fantasy RPG"

This such a good point. I've run other ad&d adventures right out of the book with next at low and high levels and had little problem. I've also heard tell of folks having players use ad&d characters in a next game along with next characters with only a few changes. I think this could go a long way. But without official support it is still a bit of a grey area supporting next with a third party products

 

[pemerton]

Pathfinder outsells Dungeons and Dragons and one must take into account the OGL as a possible factor in this.

From WotC's point of view, I tend to see this as the number one reason to doubt the commercial benefits of releasing their content under the OGL!

 

[pemerton]

I just can't believe that if WotC was happy with the performance of 4e (DDI included) they would have moved on to 5e like they have.

I don't understand how this has any bearing on comparative sales of 4e and PF. 4e could be outselling PF 10:1 (which is probably the rate at which it outsells a whole bunch of indie fantasy RPGs) yet WotC still not be happy with its performance.

the DDI at this point consists of little more than the 4E tools, which are naturally going to become less valuable over time as 4E becomes an unsupported game.

Huh? As long as the DDI continues, 4e is fully supported!

I firmly believe that's why Paizo keeps with the OGL. Their customers want it and that makes it good business. Simple as that.

I do like that they publish most of their new content to the PRD, and they don't have to do that

They've released new rules that didn't have to be OGL and OGL'ed them. Yes, for new things they do have some choice. And they chose the OGL because I think they are choosing to give their customers what they want.

It seems to me that there are at least two aspects to this.

First, is Paizo operating in a market in which it is vulnerable to a competitor going head-to-head agaist it using its OGL-licensed material? My gut feeling is that the answer to that question is No - WotC, in particular, has never shown any tendency to take this approach (despite the fears of many publishers in the early days of the OGL that WotC would do just this). Whereas WotC clearly does face such a competitor, namely, Paizo.

Second, all material that is derivative of Open Game Content is itself Open Game Content, and hence licensed for use under the OGL. The default setting for Paizo material is that it is derivative of the 3.5 SRD (though there are further complexities here, because PF uses 3.5 SRD but last time I looked at its OGL s 15 declaration it ony referred to the 3.0 SRD). In ight of the first factor, how much is it worth Paizo's time and money to work out which new material is derivative, and hence already OGC, and which is genuinely new?

 

[pemerton]

This effect might have been working with the D&D Trademark License, which required the producers to print something like "D&D PHB is required to use this product". But the OGL, where you don't have to give any reference to the producers of the core product?

What's stopping the D&D Next version of OGL to require the publishers to print something similar?

Nothing. But then PHB will not make it a perpetual licence - they are not going to grant anyone a perpetual licence to use the D&D trademark - and then we will have people posting threads attacking WotC as an IP monopolist just like they did in relation to the GSL.

The 4e version of the OGL was the GSL, which combined the functions of the d20 license and the OGL.

I don't think it's accurate to describe the GSL as a "version" of the OGL. The OGL is bascially a copyright licence. The GSL is basically a trademard/tradedress licence.

We are talking two different licenses here. The OGL allows anyone to use anything published under it - essentially the SRD in the D&D 3e case - and do with it whatever she wants. There is no connection whatsoever with any trademark owned by Wizards/Hasbro. It cannot be revoked or rescinded, thus Paizo may publish Pathfinder stuff until humanity has died.

Exactly.

I can't imagine any corporation handing out usage of their trademarks on an infinite basis. (Wouldn't make this the trademark impossible to defend under American law, anyway?)

I agree with the first sentence. I'm not an expert on the US trademark system by any means, but I don't think an indefinite licence would therefore lead to a loss of title in the trademark. But I'm happy to be corrected by a trademark lawyer!

I don't get how saying "Compatible with D&D Next" is a trademark problem - after all, "D&D Next" is used in reviews and all over the forums here. Anyone can explain?

Those reviews and forums aren't selling RPG products under the label "D&D Next". That's the basic issue.

 

[Morrus]

I don't understand why we can't have a trademark license.
And I don't get how saying "Compatible with D&D Next" is a trademark problem - after all, "D&D Next" is used in reviews and all over the forums here. Anyone can explain?

Reviews, news, discussion, and parody all have their own special law known as "fair use". That law puts them out of the context of this discussion.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't think it's accurate to describe the GSL as a "version" of the OGL. The OGL is bascially a copyright licence. The GSL is basically a trademard/tradedress licence.

The GSL allows third-parties to use WotC's "proprietary" game material in their own works. How is that not a variation on the OGL?

"4.1 4E References. Licensee may reprint the proprietary 4E reference terms, tables, and templates (each, a “4E Reference”) described in the 4E System Reference Document as presented in the file “SRD.pdf”..."

 

[Wicht]

I don't understand how this has any bearing on comparative sales of 4e and PF. 4e could be outselling PF 10:1 (which is probably the rate at which it outsells a whole bunch of indie fantasy RPGs) yet WotC still not be happy with its performance.

It is a supposition that the performance of PF in comparison to 4e is one of the factors in the unhappiness with 4e. While I concede that there is a possibility (however remote) this might not be the case, the mere fact that there could be other reasons for the unhappiness does not of itself make the supposition irrelevant or wrong. Pathfinder is obviously selling better than many indie fantasies so I am not sure what that proves. The performance of Coca Cola in comparison to Ale8 proves nothing about the success in the market of Pepsi or Coke's competition with Pepsi.

But this treads close to having an argument Morrus already asked to be dropped, so I won't take it further. Just wanted to answer your question as to what the bearing was.