Point out differences from "SRD" or "System Reference Document". Let the player guess which SRD I mean.
Licensing, OGL and Getting D&D Compatible Publishers Involved
- Thread starter dmccoy1693
- Start date
Point out differences from "SRD" or "System Reference Document". Let the player guess which SRD I mean.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
Some facts:
1. 3E was published with the OGL, and was a massive, smash, success. It could have been bigger without it, but we will never know.
2. Pathfinder was published with the OGL, and is a massive, smash, success. Its hard to separate the two, actually.
3. GSL: total fail.
4. The 3E OGL can be used to do non 3E products. The retroclones are the big example here, but it seems like this would be very easy with Next.
5. You can clone a game or do a supplement for it without the OGL. (yes, there has been a lot of copyright back and forth above...) Several 4E supplements were done this way. And look at games like Dragon Age or the most recent edition of Mutants and Masterminds. Given how much D&D is basically in the public domain, by its very nature it would seem easy to do this with next.
So, from what I can tell, these all point in the same direction. But thats not a fact. Its a conclusion.
1. 3E was published with the OGL, and was a massive, smash, success. It could have been bigger without it, but we will never know.
2. Pathfinder was published with the OGL, and is a massive, smash, success. Its hard to separate the two, actually.
3. GSL: total fail.
4. The 3E OGL can be used to do non 3E products. The retroclones are the big example here, but it seems like this would be very easy with Next.
5. You can clone a game or do a supplement for it without the OGL. (yes, there has been a lot of copyright back and forth above...) Several 4E supplements were done this way. And look at games like Dragon Age or the most recent edition of Mutants and Masterminds. Given how much D&D is basically in the public domain, by its very nature it would seem easy to do this with next.
So, from what I can tell, these all point in the same direction. But thats not a fact. Its a conclusion.
Nellisir
Hero
Open.
As far as stealing it, name one OGL game and fanbase besides D&D that you've seen "stolen". Would you support a publisher that stole a game from someone else? If they are "stealing" via the OGL, then (a) it's not stealing, and (b) they have to give you credit in Section 15. And (c), if it's a game that's based on an OGL game, you're already building on someone else's work. And (d) if they're stealing outside of the OGL, then the OGL doesn't make a difference, so you're only hurting legitimate reuse.
Yeah, characterizing legit usage of OGC as stealing is a bit off-base.
That said, some practices can be best described as parasitical. Unless someone adds their own content, simply reproducing OGC is a little icky. Pathfinder, for example, is a great example of how to do it: take 3.5 and then do a crap load of really hard work to it to make it something new. Some OGC compilations from a few years ago are a bit on the parasitical side, though.
That said, some practices can be best described as parasitical. Unless someone adds their own content, simply reproducing OGC is a little icky. Pathfinder, for example, is a great example of how to do it: take 3.5 and then do a crap load of really hard work to it to make it something new. Some OGC compilations from a few years ago are a bit on the parasitical side, though.
Sure. But I think posts implying or suggesting that IP owners are under some sort of obligation to the community to release their material as OGC are also a bit off-base. (I'm not suggesting that you've mae such implications or suggestions.)
Either we analyse the whole situation through the lense of legal permissibility - in which case their's no stealing but likewise no obligation - or the whole situation through some other (moral, political, etc lense) in which case notions of "stealing", "parasitism", etc, going all the way back to the Gygax-Arneson debates, might have work to do.
wedgeski
Adventurer
Can I just ask, in simple terms, a question I've asked before, but this thread seems like a good place to do it again.
Let's say that, at Wizards Towers, there is a meeting on what kind of open licensing system they're going to put in place for DDN. It's going well, and lots of the pro's and cons mentioned in this thread are brought up, nodded over, discussed, argued, etc. Then, a couple of hours in, someone walks in with a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, slams it down on the table, and walks out.
Does the meeting go on after that point? Or does everyone nod ruefully, sigh at what their predecessors wrought, and go get a sandwich instead?
Let's say that, at Wizards Towers, there is a meeting on what kind of open licensing system they're going to put in place for DDN. It's going well, and lots of the pro's and cons mentioned in this thread are brought up, nodded over, discussed, argued, etc. Then, a couple of hours in, someone walks in with a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, slams it down on the table, and walks out.
Does the meeting go on after that point? Or does everyone nod ruefully, sigh at what their predecessors wrought, and go get a sandwich instead?
an_idol_mind
Explorer
I think the person slamming the book down on the table would be missing the point that Pathfinder wouldn't have existed if the GSL of 4th edition had been more timely and less restrictive.
Might not have. Who knows! Heck, even if the OGL itself had never existed, Pathfinder might still exist - just as popular, but with a slightly different ruleset. The strength of Pathfinder is that Paizo is incredibly good at what they do; the OGL's a tool, but there are other tools.
Concerning legal advice : IANAL, but people could consider first publishing in non Anglo Saxon countries. For instance, french droit d'auteur...
Concerning new games : go open ! It works well for Fate and SW, so it should work for you
Concerning WotC : IMHO, the 3.x flagship broke under its own weight (fundamental design flaws) and the 3.5 quagmire. I don't play Pathfinder, but I am thankful to Paizo for keeping the game alive while WotC is designing Next. I would guess WotC is aiming at a GSL like licence for 5e, with permissions specially tailored to the rule elements (for instance, an open How to Play and Combat chapters, but closed Classes and Races, or whatever... maybe the Class groups play a role in that !). It could go OGC later, once the first big wave of books have been sold, to make sure the edition would remain evergreen. If they are wise, they should also open DDI to an API model which would ensure both 3pp support and profitability.
Concerning new games : go open ! It works well for Fate and SW, so it should work for you
Concerning WotC : IMHO, the 3.x flagship broke under its own weight (fundamental design flaws) and the 3.5 quagmire. I don't play Pathfinder, but I am thankful to Paizo for keeping the game alive while WotC is designing Next. I would guess WotC is aiming at a GSL like licence for 5e, with permissions specially tailored to the rule elements (for instance, an open How to Play and Combat chapters, but closed Classes and Races, or whatever... maybe the Class groups play a role in that !). It could go OGC later, once the first big wave of books have been sold, to make sure the edition would remain evergreen. If they are wise, they should also open DDI to an API model which would ensure both 3pp support and profitability.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
I've been torn on this issue, but I guess I've finally come to a conclusion. These two points, to me, are correct:
1) Releasing 5e under the OGL is useful PR for getting some lapsed fans back in the WOTC fold;
2) The existing OGL will essentially allow all the negatives of a new OGL for 5e regardless.
Given the old OGL allows anyone to basically replicate 5e right now, with some tweaks here and there and filing off serial numbers, I see no point in not going ahead with 5e being under the OGL for PR reasons.
If the old OGL did not exist, I'd think it would be a mistake to go ahead with an OGL for 5e. But that's not the world we live in. It does exist, so there is no real point to pretending 5e can be protected from third party use.
1) Releasing 5e under the OGL is useful PR for getting some lapsed fans back in the WOTC fold;
2) The existing OGL will essentially allow all the negatives of a new OGL for 5e regardless.
Given the old OGL allows anyone to basically replicate 5e right now, with some tweaks here and there and filing off serial numbers, I see no point in not going ahead with 5e being under the OGL for PR reasons.
If the old OGL did not exist, I'd think it would be a mistake to go ahead with an OGL for 5e. But that's not the world we live in. It does exist, so there is no real point to pretending 5e can be protected from third party use.
Similar Threads
