Licensing, OGL and Getting D&D Compatible Publishers Involved

[Warbringer]

I think you are misunderstanding. What you have just referenced is a license. It says nothing about the content released under that license. There is nothing stating that content released under the OGL has to be d20 based. Other games can be released under the exact same license. Therefore it is the Content that must be clarified and referenced.

You're right, I'm am.

Does the OGL above not point back to the original open content within the SRD, hence they get to use D&Disms, such as spell names, classes, ability scores? And doesn't the reference in the language of the OGL point at the original open content?

If not, how do they use they gain access to classes, spells etc without breach of IP ownership by WoTC? (I'm really curious about this now)

 

[darjr]

Here is the FATE Core OGL license. Is it identical to Wizards? I think it is.

http://www.faterpg.com/licensing/licensing-fate-ogl/full-ogl-text/

 

[Wicht]

You're right, I'm am.

Does the OGL above not point back to the original open content within the SRD, hence they get to use D&Disms, such as spell names, classes, ability scores? And doesn't the reference in the language of the OGL point at the original open content?

If not, how do they use they gain access to classes, spells etc without breach of IP ownership by WoTC? (I'm really curious about this now)

The OGL can point back to the SRD. Section 15 is the pertinent section. Each book that uses the OGL references prior OGC (Open Gaming Content) in section 15 and then lists itself in section 15.

Thus, if I was doing a Pathfinder book, I would reference in section 15 the SRD, the Core Rulebook, The Book of Experimental might, the Tome of Horrors, any other book I might wish to use, and then would list my own book.

If I was doing a non-d20 book, I might reference a Fate book or some other book. But if you look at the Fate form used above, it is the WotC OGL, but it does not reference the SRD, rather it becomes a new base upon which to build.

But any content released under the OGL is thus OGC, and can be used by anyone else. The d20 SRD, released by Wizards, has reference to some particulars, such as monster names, Alignment, and the like, that make it easier to use to recreate a game using the same terms, because the terms themselves have become Open Content.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If not, how do they use they gain access to classes, spells etc without breach of IP ownership by WoTC? (I'm really curious about this now)

To attempt to simplify it, the Open Gaming License is a contract that says "I'm going to make specific parts of my game Open, so anyone can use it." There is no content in the OGL. It's just a contract. Anyone can take part in the contract.

What Wizards of the Coast circa 2000 did was create a document, the d20 SRD, and use the License to agree to make it Open. Thus, the d20 SRD became Open Gaming Content, available for anyone to use.

If you go and create a wholly new game, with no ties to d20 or any other system, you can release it under the OGL. Anyone can. Then, that RPG material will be Open Gaming Content, and others who use the Open Gaming License can use it for their own games. That's what happened with Fudge, which was released as OGC. Evil Hat took it and made FATE, which is a Fudge derivative that is also Open.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION]

thanks for that answer, i always read section 15 as a general copyright, but now it all makes actual sense.

---
Q: What is the COPYRIGHT NOTICE?

A: The COPYRIGHT NOTICE is a specific part of the License itself, as opposed to a general copyright notice that might appear elsewhere in a given work. The License requires that you combine all the COPYRIGHT NOTICE sections of each Open Game License you are extracting or deriving Open Game Content from, and include the consolidated notice with the copy of the Open Game License you will be distributing.

This mechanism is the way that proper credit is retained for each person who contributed some work to the Open Gaming community. No matter how small the contribution, each and every COPYRIGHT NOTICE propagates forward.

 

[Wicht]

You are most welcome, glad to help.

 

[dmccoy1693]

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.

You're absolutely right to ask this question and it is a good one. I think more than anything else that Pathfinder is proof positive that that Wizards absolutely should use the OGL for 5e.

I know what you're thinking: I'm crazy. Wrong. I'm thinking like a corporate executive.

What does a corporate executive care about: selling products. Keep that in mind for a slightly different take on the above scenario.

First some history. Late 90's, White Wolf was gaining dominance over (possibly even beating) D&D 2E. They were not selling as much products as they should be.

Then 3E came along, Wizards release the core rules for everyone to use under the OGL, giving the fans a sense of ownership that they never had before. This made the fans happy, allowing them to sell more books.

Then they switched to 3.5 and released the core rules again under the OGL. The fans still had that same sense of ownership. While it did not sell as well as 3E, it did sell still quite well. They were selling good numbers of books.

Then came the switch to 4E and used a completely different license that was not give the fans the same sense of ownership. Infact it felt more like a leased vehicle or a rented apartment then owning a home or a car. Fans were not happy and thus did not buy in good numbers.

Meanwhile Pathfinder, a game that was using the OGL, gave the fans that same sense of ownership to the rules. This made the fans of D&D happy, and it did not take long for them to outsell D&D. Pathfinder sold in good numbers for using the OGL.

Even less well known games that used the OGL were doing well. Spirit of the Century, Traveller, Mutants and Masterminds, and a bunch others. They all had that same sense of ownership and made their fans happy. They were selling in good numbers.

So the conclusion that a corporate executive would draw is:
Use the OGL =>
Give customers a sense of ownership =>
Customers are happy =>
Higher sales.

The trend is pretty clear. Use the OGL => Higher Sales. If anything, Pathfinder should be a cautionary tale of why Wizards should never have abandoned the OGL in the first place and that not going OGL for 5e will hurt sales now.

Now to answer everyone who has been saying, "But that will hurt 6E in 5 years." Yea, well, do you know what 5 years is to a corporate executive: 20 quarters of earning reports. If you were a corporate executive, would you really want to tell shareholders for the next 20 quarters that you a) are making lower sales then you could have because you didn't use some obscure marketing tool that is niche to the industry that would have made customers happy, or b) you have higher sales then in previous quarters because you allowed the fans a sense of ownership, making them happy that also enabled somebody in their home garage to make something compatible with your product and not get sued over it? What would you rather say?

 

[Morrus]

You're absolutely right to ask this question and it is a good one. I think more than anything else that Pathfinder is proof positive that that Wizards absolutely should use the OGL for 5e.

I know what you're thinking: I'm crazy. Wrong. I'm thinking like a corporate executive.

What does a corporate executive care about: selling products. Keep that in mind for a slightly different take on the above scenario.

First some history. Late 90's, White Wolf was gaining dominance over (possibly even beating) D&D 2E. They were not selling as much products as they should be.

Then 3E came along, Wizards release the core rules for everyone to use under the OGL, giving the fans a sense of ownership that they never had before. This made the fans happy, allowing them to sell more books.

Then they switched to 3.5 and released the core rules again under the OGL. The fans still had that same sense of ownership. While it did not sell as well as 3E, it did sell still quite well. They were selling good numbers of books.

Then came the switch to 4E and used a completely different license that was not give the fans the same sense of ownership. Infact it felt more like a leased vehicle or a rented apartment then owning a home or a car. Fans were not happy and thus did not buy in good numbers.

Meanwhile Pathfinder, a game that was using the OGL, gave the fans that same sense of ownership to the rules. This made the fans of D&D happy, and it did not take long for them to outsell D&D. Pathfinder sold in good numbers for using the OGL.

However, you are treating correlation as causation. Perhaps the reason that 3.x and Pathfinder sold and sell so well is that they're damnably good games? And customers like damnably good games?

One reason I think this is the case is that none of my gaming group has the faintest idea what an OGL is, nor do they care. They do know that they liked 3.x, that it was a good game, and that Pathfinder in their mind is the current version of that good game. I have no way of knowing, but I would wager a lot on that being the case of the majority of gamers.

I'm not saying the OGL isn't a factor; I'm just saying we're guessing here. We don't really know anything non-anecdotal, and nobody's in a position to make declarations.

 

[Wicht]

At the same time, being OGL does help get a game exposure. I don't imagine it hurts Evil Hat much when Rite Publishing puts out a nice little game which introduces players to the Fate System.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Then 3E came along, Wizards release the core rules for everyone to use under the OGL, giving the fans a sense of ownership that they never had before. This made the fans happy, allowing them to sell more books.

I would quibble with this, simply because I don't understand what your statement "giving the fans a sense of ownership" is meant to mean.

Did the OGL give certain fans the idea that they could design their own D&D rules/products and then sell them to other people? Sure. And okay, for them, the sense they were now a part of the D&D design and sales team in a manner of speaking could be considered a type of "ownership" of D&D.

But in the grand scheme of all those who played 3rd edition? Those people were an exceedingly small group. For the rest of us? The other 99% of 3E players who didn't create product to sell? How did we "own" D&D differently than we had in the past? Because now there were more choices in product to buy? Yeah, sure, we had more product to choose from since now there were a whole heap of companies selling stuff to us... but I fail to see how that meant we "owned" D&D differently than before. We still liked the game same as we ever did... we still bought the books that we thought were cool same as we ever did... we still played the game same as we ever did. Speaking for myself... I felt no different about owning D&D 3E as I did owning 2nd edition or AD&D. I bought the books, I played with the books, I enjoyed the books. Same as I always did.

So no... I don't think a "sense of ownership" had anything to do with why 3E sold well... unless you can explain more specifically what exactly this "sense of ownership" is you are actually are talking about.