New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[Yaarel]

The "irrevocable" needs to become noncontravertable.

Im interested in the gaming engine using Eight Abilities (or maybe four), rather than six. This would also signal a "not-D&D" even if comparable.

I would also rename the abilities as "Aptitudes".

 

[Greg Benage]

For me, it’s all about revocation. Lose that, and I feel like they can do what they want with 1D&D and the license to its content. Honestly, I think as long as they have DM’s Guild, they’ll be just fine.

I have no idea what y’all are thinking with the royalties based on “profits” idea. It doesn’t work like that. As you may know, we did a fair amount of licensing at FFG during my time (Tolkien Enterprises, George RR Martin, Blizzard, Lucasfilm, etc.), and I never saw a royalty based on “profits.”

As a commercially published novelist, if a publisher came to me offering a royalty based on their “profits,” I’d…well, I’d just explain that I’m a writer, not an investor, and then I’d go send a note to the SFWA and Writer Beware.

 

[darjr]

OK

I think a third party created license would work.

Something that isn't under WotC's control.

Then WotC could release OGC under that license.

That way no one need trust WotC.

 

[Cadence]

If they give a 1.0b like you describe, I'm not particularly picky about what they put in the new one for ONE/5.5 . For that, I would defer to those who would produce content under the more restrictive one for ONE/5.5 about the details they and WotC could both live with.

 

[Umbran]

Im interested in the gaming engine using Eight Abilities (or maybe four), rather than six. This would also signal a "not-D&D" even if comparable.

I would also rename the abilities as "Aptitudes".

This thread is not about how to build a game that doesn't need a license. Take that to another thread, please.

 

[Yaarel]

This thread is not about how to build a game that doesn't need a license. Take that to another thread, please.

When you asked what should a new license look like, I didnt read to the end that it would be WotC granting this ideal license.

 

[Yaarel]

That way no one need trust WotC.

Yeah. That is it in a nutshell.

The license would need to be confidently acceptable to gamers who dont trust WotC.

 

[Umbran]

I have no idea what y’all are thinking with the royalties based on “profits” idea. It doesn’t work like that. As you may know, we did a fair amount of licensing at FFG during my time (Tolkien Enterprises, George RR Martin, Blizzard, Lucasfilm, etc.), and I never saw a royalty based on “profits.”

I know. But for small publishers, profit margins are small. Specifically, if the profit margin per unit is smaller than revenue-royalty percentage, a successful publisher can lose money, as the royalties eat up the profits. The goal of that item was to prevent this possibility.

Some other terms to prevent that eventuality would be acceptable.

As a commercially published novelist, if a publisher came to me offering a royalty based on their “profits,” I’d…well, I’d just explain that I’m a writer, not an investor, and then I’d go send a note to the SFWA and Writer Beware.

Yeah, but that's a completely different arrangement. Author-publisher is not the arrangement we are talking about here. Specifically, as the author of a novel, your financial risk is limited - you don't put your own money into getting the thing printed and distributed.

For game products, the licensee is assumed to not only be doing the creating, but taking all the financial risk of publishing.

 

[mamba]

As a commercially published novelist, if a publisher came to me offering a royalty based on their “profits,” I’d…well, I’d just explain that I’m a writer, not an investor, and then I’d go send a note to the SFWA and Writer Beware.

The difference to me is that here WotC is offering a license for anyone to take, not one specifically negotiated. So WotC does not really have to do anything beyond what they are already doing, all the actual work falls on the third party. So in essence WotC gets a free check for doing nothing, at which point sharing in the profits is plenty. (I am sure WotC disagrees with that characterization ).

 

[Umbran]

When you asked what should a new license look like, I didnt read to the end that it would be WotC granting this ideal license.

Who other than WotC could grant a license for OneD&D?