NEWS: OGL and SRD dates/info announced

[JohnRTroy]

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.

This really hasn't been tested yet in a court of law. There is precedent for BOARD GAMES to not be copyrightable.

However, I would probably argue that the nature of an RPG, be it computer or tabletop, which has tons of text and has more copyrightable and trademarkable items, (or code in the case of computer games), WoTC and other game publisher might have a case. All it will take is for one person to get Hasbro so angry they'll sue.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

And a strange new meaning of the word "nominal."

 

[Piratecat]

It's definitely tiered - in terms of timing, but not content. There's no real question about that in my mind.

I don't see that as necessarily bad, although I personally think the five month lag is too long.

 

[Silvergriffon]

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.

Not that I am sure that the e-versions we get will be this way, but PDf files can have hyperlinks, bookmarks, other documents, audio, video, and even scripts embedded in them. So, even if they are just PDFs (which hasn't been confirmed yet as far as I can tell) they could conceivably have as much or more ease of use as a hypertext version. Well, its possible anyway.

 

[Henry]

And a strange new meaning of the word "nominal."

When you get down to it, "nominal" just means "nameable." (cue a half dozen posters dragging out definition #2 from dictionary.com....)

But I am curious if this will supposedly be an extension of "The Open Gaming License", or a different license entirely. I'm assuming the latter, because the Open Gaming License allows you to use any authorized version of itself to publish content that's been designated as open content under a later version, which would defeat the purpose of all the additional community standards clauses, etc.

 

[JohnRTroy]

They're probably not worried thought because 4e has really change the rules, and none of those rules have been released as Open Game Content. In other words, all the cool new features of the new game system have never been released.

That's also why I think they've spent so much time "changing the fluff", because the new 4e default settings will not reflect anything Wizards made Open Content. While I don't think it's the main reason, I'm sure it's a reason for doing this.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But I am curious if this will supposedly be an extension of "The Open Gaming License", or a different license entirely. I'm assuming the latter, because the Open Gaming License allows you to use any authorized version of itself to publish content that's been designated as open content under a later version, which would defeat the purpose of all the additional community standards clauses, etc.

I've been all over today, and may be repeating myself in this thread, but I said elsewhere, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

It's certainly possible for the new OGL to contain enticements (trademark compatibility being a huge one) to encourage its use over a prior version of the license. As long as the new version of the license is actually a net gain, nobody will want to use the prior version. It's a win-win.

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

So you're complaining because the license has restrictions? Yes, it's more restrictive than the old OGL. And I personally have no problem with WotC wanting to avoid people using the SRD (which is intended for game developers) as a way to get a free copy of the rules.

Or for WotC to want to prevent 30 "variant player's handbooks." This restriction is one that the publishing community brought on itself. In some cases, the big companies are the ones who are losing the most products.

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.

For 12 months. Yup. But I still say it's not a tiered license. Because everyone will play by the same rules. Everyone has the option of paying for the developers kit. There's no ability for White Wolf to sell product on the strength of their brand that doesn't say "compatible with 4th Edition D&D." That's the same language that EN Publishing or Bad Axe or a brand new startup could use. There's no distinction. All this does is separate serious publishers from dabblers.

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).

Any company can afford the $5,000 fee. Whether they choose to is a separate issue. If they're serious about being a big player in the 4e market, they will find a way to pay for it. If I had a track record in the business, I know exactly how easy it would be to get a business loan to pay for it. Hell, for anyone with a decent credit rating, you could pay for it with a business line of credit.

Of course, you'd have to be pretty sure that you could sell, oh, maybe 1000 copies. I believe that's about 0.1% of the D&D market. That doesn't exactly require a runaway "smash hit."

As far as "community standards," since all the products will reference D&D, I think WotC has a right to protect its brand perception.

If WotC had chosen to sign a special agreement with the big companies, and just not released the license until June, that would have been a license without tiers. In fact, that's exactly how 3e worked - some companies got access to the rules before the license was officially released. Instead, they're making it possible for a small outfit to get in on the action. That's actually far more fair to small companies than just shutting them out until June.

 

[Bardsandsages]

No. What we're getting is an OGL. 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. Developers who don't have that kind of ready cash, but want to "play with the big boys" and think they have a potentially hit product idea could get a business loan to cover the cost. The person who can't afford it is the guy in his basement who wants to develop RPG product as a hobby. Or the guy who's not sure he's got a hit on his hands and isn't willing to take the risk.

You know what they say - "Fortune favors the bold."

By this time next year, there won't be any difference in the rules. WotC could have decided to just hold the OGL back from anyone until June. Instead, they're offering an option for those who want to get in on 4e development early.

It seems to me that the restriction on publication date is to provide some measure of first-mover advantage to those who are willing to spend the $5,000.

You may not agree with their strategy, but it's certainly not a tiered license. But hey, if you don't want to play 4e, nobody's gonna hold a gun to your head.

$5,000 is not a "nominal" amount. It may be a neccessary expense for a large company that is run full time and only makes money on d20 products. But it is not "nominal" nor is it something worth going into debt over. I could throw that on my platinum card...but it would not be a smart business decision. Only 30% of my business is RPG PDFs. The majority of my company's income comes from our fiction products and other projects. If I have to decide between giving WoTC $5,000 or putting that money into more cost-effective projects that will have a higher return on investment, it's a no-brainer. I'm not going to run up debt for a five month head start on a system that won't even be fully rolling until the end of the year anyway.

 

[coyote6]

And I personally have no problem with WotC wanting to avoid people using the SRD (which is intended for game developers) as a way to get a free copy of the rules.

For myself, I want the SRD as a way to avoid carrying around a whole bunch of hardcover books that (a) I have little space to open more than one of at the table, and (b) become rather weighty in aggregate. I can open a half-dozen tabs in Firefox, and flip between them easier than I can flip between a half-dozen places in 3 or more books.

I buy the books anyways, because they're easier to read in most respects, and I like 'em. But the SRD is, for me, a handier reference.