My heroes: Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison

RangerWickett said:
Rodrigo, Midnight could work fine if you, well, threw out all the existing classes and races and made your own.
Right. As long as WotC doesn't later duplicate and add to the SRD ANY class name, feat name, or power name in your entire book of new classes you're fine. Otherwise, you'll probably have to stop selling your existing version and decide if it makes financial sense to do a new edition just for the sake of changing a name. And then pray that it doesn't happen again.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Teflon Billy said:
Yes actually. Immense.
Didn't Green Ronin say a while back they had no intention of updating M&M to a third edition solely to grab 4E mechanisms?

I'm not sure them losing the ability to do something they already said they weren't going to do anyway is really an immense loss.
 

3catcircus said:
I don't think the issue is third parties making products that require the 4e core books. I think the issue is the onerous clause preventing third parties from making both OGL and 4e versions of a product - including retroactively revoking the OGL if you use the GSL.

Interesting way to handcuff companies and "toe the party line".....you can either do 4E stuff, or 3E stuff, but not both, correct?

Or can you publish for both editions, as long as you're not trying to create a version of the product compatible with each of the two rulesets?

Banshee
 

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
No Midnight. No Grim Tales. No Spycraft.

Total fail.

So they *can't* continue to publish these games under the original OGL? OR they just can't publish them under the GSL? There's a difference.

Personally I don't mind if Midnight doesn't go to 4E...it wouldn't be a great fit anyways. But if they can't even make any more Midnight d20 products, then, yeah, that sucks..

Banshee
 

Terramotus said:
Right. As long as WotC doesn't later duplicate and add to the SRD ANY class name, feat name, or power name in your entire book of new classes you're fine. Otherwise, you'll probably have to stop selling your existing version and decide if it makes financial sense to do a new edition just for the sake of changing a name. And then pray that it doesn't happen again.

Are you serious? That doesn't sound friendly to 3rd party publishers at all. What company in their right mind would take the risk?

Wow....

Banshee
 

Banshee16 said:
Personally I don't mind if Midnight doesn't go to 4E...it wouldn't be a great fit anyways. But if they can't even make any more Midnight d20 products, then, yeah, that sucks..
They can continue producing Midnight D20 until the end of time. If they print Midnight 4E, though, they can only print Midnight 4E (and, presumably, 5E, when that comes).
 

Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison said:
We give you the light of SRD, our most beloved star. May it be a light for you in dark places, when all other lights go out.
I'm feeling the love too, Buttercup.
 
Last edited:

Terramotus said:
Right. As long as WotC doesn't later duplicate and add to the SRD ANY class name, feat name, or power name in your entire book of new classes you're fine. Otherwise, you'll probably have to stop selling your existing version and decide if it makes financial sense to do a new edition just for the sake of changing a name. And then pray that it doesn't happen again.
I think you'd be able to claim prior work. The things they could change later are more policy, like "no VR combat maps" or some such.

Personally, I don't have any problem with WotC tightening their IP. The notion that we should expect to have things like the d20srd.org site is absolutely, staggeringly insane and unreasonable, IMO. Don't get me wrong -- I think d20srd is bloody cool and I use it a lot. I just don't consider it an entitlement and I can't muster any indignation at WotC not wanting stuff like that to exist.

Really, they could tell all 3rd party publishers to leave their stuff alone, and I'd have a hard time justifying being upset. Again, they don't have to be jerks about it. TSR were nasty and turned their fans sour.

What I find ironic is that I'm a pretty strong proponent of limited IP rights, in terms of duration -- 7 years seems appropriate for most things -- but I find myself defending WotC moving to tighten their control. Really, I think everything published under 3.0 and earlier should be in the public domain, already, but that's not the way IP laws are set up. To grouse against WotC for tighten their control, but still be significantly more open than most of the industry is grossly unfair and more than a bit self-involved.

I can remember being ticked that 2e added non-weapon proficiencies as core rules because "real D&D" doesn't have those things. Somewhere along the line, "real D&D" got room for not just NWPs, but skills and feats (which I like), not to mention they reversed AC and took out two saves. Even "martial spells", ala Bo9S, got heaps of praise. If all those are somehow "real D&D", I don't see how 4e isn't.

After all that, I find myself saying "Amen" also. Not because the OGL "saved" D&D or because WotC screwed up 4e, but because I do agree that the right thing to do, especially for a niche hobby like this, is to let things move into the public domain. The OGL wasn't exactly public domain, but it was probably a step further than sane for today's IP laws and corporate environment.
 

I was always attributing it to Ryan Dancey, pretty much singularly. Now, I knew that wasn't entirely right, but I didn't realise there was (at least) one other major figure involved. Sorry, Peter! :o

So much good has come out of the OGL (and continues to), for Dungeons & Dragons, and for gaming in general. :)

So yeah, thank you thank you thank you, Ryan and Peter (and certainly, anyone else who was instrumental in the process, who hasn't been mentioned here.)

Oh, as of when was the OGL in effect for the first time? Perhaps there could be an OGL day! I'd be into that, for sure. :cool:
 

Remove ads

Top