NEWS: OGL and SRD dates/info announced

[Raven Crowking]

No. What we're getting is an OGL.

This must be some strange new meaning of the term "OGL" that I'm not familiar with.

And a developers' kit that will be available early to publishers who are serious enough about their business to pay a nominal fee of $5,000.

Let's see. From http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/11618.html:

When Wizards of the Coast introduced the OGL in 2000, WotC also inaugurated a program that provided a separate license--the d20 System Trademark License (STL)--that allowed third party publishers to use some of WotC's trademarked terms and a distinctive logo to identify these products (see "d20 and the Open Gaming System Explained"). All d20 STL products were required to be tied to a D&D core rulebook (published by WotC) and were also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly.​

Now we seem to have a license with terms that can be used (but which is not, unlike the OGL, actually open), that requires distinctive wording and/or graphics (which sounds alot like a distinctive logo, even if that isn't what they want to call it), are required to be tied to a D&D core rulebook (published by WotC) and are also required to acknowledge the requisite core rulebook clearly.

That sounds strangely like the STL to me.

And, if you pay $5,000 you get to do things you don't get to do if you do not. That sounds strangely like a tiered system to me.

Whether you call it an OGL or an STL, the "L" stands for "license". "Tiered license" is jargon for a license according to separate, incrementally distinct quality. "Providing some measure of first-mover advantage to those who are willing to spend the $5,000" makes it a tiered license, whether you believe it to be so or not.

Go back to

Wizards of the Coast will use a 'three tier' system for licenses. The d20 System logo will be - it seems - a traditional WotC trademark licensed just to some big publishers (Mongoose, Paizo, Green Ronin) while other, smaller publisher will have to ask for some support from a bigger publisher that will 'guarantee' that the smaller publishers publish 'quality' books. It seems that the main reasons for this are avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales.​

and we can see that "big publishers" (those who can afford the $5,000 fee) are being favoured over from other, smaller publishers (those who cannot afford the $5,000 fee) [EDIT: If the fee isn't for WotC to make cash, then this is the only reason for it] and that the 4e "OGL" will include language clearly aimed at "avoiding the appearance of controversial products such as The Book of Erotic Fantasy and of third rate products that could hurt sales" (i.e., the "community standards" clause).

Once more, denied information turns out to have more than a grain of truth.


RC

 

[Nikosandros]

No. What we're getting is an OGL.

Actually since the new license will have restrictions, plus it will allow ti indicate compatibility with D&D it really looks much closer to the old d20 STL than to the old OGL.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

No 3.0 style OGL? So the useless license is gone? The disingenuous attempt by WotC to brainwash gamers into ignoring the court rulings that you can't copyright game mechanics?

Good Riddance to bad legal precedent. The only purpose it served was letting people cut and paste legally. All the innovative games are basically different enough that they are not using WotC's verbiage. They could still be published. Heck, a lot of them are about as close to 4e as they are to 3e.

 

[booboo]

I hope third party developers:

1. read the rules

2. playtest the game as is

3. place allot of thought into their first product

But writers being as many of them are are not prone to take criticism well.

 

[Nellisir]

If your house rules were fair use before now, they'll be fair use after now. You can't be bound by an agreement to which you are not a party. You will be facing the standard copyright laws you've always faced.

Right, but WotC could choose to start enforcing those copyright laws. TSR did it before. WotC had a policy allowing fan sites and the like. Now they're trying to move those fansites to Gleemax. It'd make sense to enforce copyright on rogue fan websites.

 

[Nellisir]

Surely fan content (non profit, non published) would be just fine. I expect to see this sort of material on Gleemax the day 4E is released.

Exactly. Gleemax - owned by WotC. EN World - not owned by WotC. WotC would be within their legal rights to demand that EN World not make available/publish 4e derivative material without an OGL, at all.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well this is where D&DI comes in -- if you care to pay the monthly fee (plus a little more for each book you buy? Can't remember if that's the case) you get access to an e-version of your paper product.

It won't be a hypertext e-version. They're saying so far that it's a PDF. The point of having an electronic version is convenience. The formatting, hyperlinking, and copy-paste facility of hypertext documents are superior to PDFs when it comes to quick use at a game table. I want functionality identical to d20srd.org, and I don't care whether it comes from WotC or a 3rd party. The amount of use I get from that site on a game-to-game basis is phenomenal, and I shudder at the idea of running a game in which I have to spend time searching through myriad PDFs in order to find the rule I need.

 

[Nellisir]

And some folks still think "Just Trust 'Em" is the best policy......

I'll admit; I was one of the optimists.

Not anymore.


Nell.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But will it be a hyperlinked, searchable e-version? That's what I want to know.

EDIT: to elaborate, http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html has been a godsend to me as a DM, and to a lesser extent as a player, and I am positive I am not alone in that respect. It's fast, easy to read, easy to navigate, and ridiculously convenient even if I happen to have the books nearby. PDF images of a book (even if OCR'd) don't work because (a) text formatted for a printed page is not easily readable on the screen, and (b) all the uneccessary images slow down your ability to navigate.

I hope WOTC does the right thing by the e-versions. Charging money for anything less will not endear me as a customer.

You know, I figure that if there is any legal barrier to generating a hypertext version of the 4E rules, there will be illegal versions coasting around on the P2P networks within a few weeks of the release of the core books anyway. Partly as a way of flipping the bird at the lockdown, and partly because thousands of us depend on HTML SRDs.

 

[Nellisir]

By this time next year, there won't be any difference in the rules.

Really? Are you sure? What's stopping them from putting a 6-month (I'd do 12, actually) stoppage on any new "open" material from WotC, except for the "early-adopters"?

PH1 releases in June 08; you can use it in 1/09.
PH2 releases in June 09; you can use it in 1/10.

Makes sense to me.