Notes from Green Ronin seminar

[Nellisir]

Just for the record, Black Company and Thieves World are still d20 products and still require the Player's Handbook to use as they don't have character creation rules in 'em. AE, IH and Conan, not to mention World of Warcraft, are OGL and AE and WoW are pretty standard D&D compatible while Conan and IH look like they'd take a lot of effort to translate.

True, but Black Company pushes the boundaries of compatible d20, having a different magic system, different classes, and a different "race/trait" generator.

And I know I've heard that Thieves World has a different magic system, though I do not know by how much.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[JoeGKushner]

True, but Black Company pushes the boundaries of compatible d20, having a different magic system, different classes, and a different "race/trait" generator.

And I know I've heard that Thieves World has a different magic system, though I do not know by how much.

Cheers
Nell.

You are correct.

The "however" part though, is that the classes and masterwork bits are pretty interchangeable with D&D. If you're looking for ways to make your D&D game more gritter, then Black Company and Thieves World both have options for you. They're almost like tool kits.

AE and WoW are both more "core" compaitible with D&D in many ways than BC and TW mind you, but they're all using the same weapons, armor, armor class, etc... I don't have to wonder about dodge bonuses or armor absorbing damage or how reserve hit points might be modeled in standard d20.

 

[Ranger REG]

Thank you for making my point.

It wasn't a long-term strategy or plan, it's adjusting to market trends. "D20? Let's jump on board!" Cue slew of D20 products. Sales down? "Back to Roll-and-Keep. Cancel these subpar lines."

I'm not saying this is bad, mind you. This is a luxury that some companies can't do. All I'm saying is that this wasn't part of some clever savvy plan on their part (IMO).

Well, it was a marketing scheme on their part, but it wasn't savvy. Somehow AEG got it right (lucky perhaps?) with Spycraft because if it hadn't, we wouldn't be seeing 2.0. As for Chaosium, to me they failed twice, perhaps three times. They only produced one Dragonlords of Melniboene (sp?) with no sequel, and they never got that pulp-style setting for WotC's CoC d20 off the ground. So when they opt to make dual-stats books instead, that didn't fare as well.

 

[Ranger REG]

But on the other hand, d20 in and of itself is not a mark of standard compatibility.

Well, it is not a mark of standard compatibility exclusively. If it was, then the Trademark Usage Guide should have more stricter designer's guidelines to follow (at least 100 pages worth). If that's the case, Spycraft 1.0 would probably not exist. In fact, WotC would have been made a hypocrite of themselves for introducing a different health system (VP/WP) for their Star Wars d20 book.

d20 is also a mark of rules familiarity. I mean if you know the gist of D&D rules, you would easily assimilate to other d20 games without learning the rules from the first step.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Whizbang

I don't think they could put an "expiration date" on the OGL.

If I make an OGL product, it has to have some open content, that some other person can use. Thanks to the license, there is now tons of open content in other books (especially GR's). I don't think WotC could say, "material in Green Ronin books is open up until 4th ed is released, then it is closed".

They could take down the SRD. They did that with the 3rd edition one. But by that point all the stuff in 3rd edition was open, and much of it was incorporated in other products.

Make sense?

None of my objections stem from not understanding something, although I know that's the default assumption on the Internet.

Here's the thing: Hasbro has lawyers who consume the souls of children with their coffee each moring. Lots of them, both lawyers and souls. The OGL could certainly be written in such a way as to have a limited term on the license, whether or not that was a legally sound insertion. Hasbro could gamble (and almost certainly win) that no OGL publishers would have the deep pockets that Hasbro has and they'd then have to tow the line.

So, yes, in a pure abstract sense, the current OGL does not expire, and other OGLs in a pure abstract legal sense, "real" OGL licenses would all be like that. But none of us live in an environment like that. In the real world, having a massive legal team who get a retainer from Hasbro (or even an outright salary as in-house counsel) with nothing to do but break the legs of Italian toymakers creating puppets with nasal issues means that an OGL could have been crafted that would have, in real terms, had a time limit on it.

The OGL was a giant giveaway to every other publisher -- "Hey, kids, use D&D to create competition for D&D!" -- out there and I can only conclude it was done more out of an open source ideology position rather than what makes business sense.

D20 makes business sense. OGL is ideology.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, we have yet to see if someone wish to challenge the validity of the OGL. Sure, they can change and doing so, they will release a new version, but that does not mean the old version(s) will go away, not unless Contributors and OGL users feel that the new version of the OGL is more beneficial for them than the old version.

IOW, if they put limitation that is disagreeable in say OGL v2.0, publishers will continue to use v1.0a or v1.0.

In summary, it's not going to go away until publishers stop using it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm not worried about a theoretical OGL 2.0. My focus is on the OGL of today and, of course, the horse is already out of the barn as far as it being a long-term thorn in the side of WotC.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm not worried about a theoretical OGL 2.0. My focus is on the OGL of today and, of course, the horse is already out of the barn as far as it being a long-term thorn in the side of WotC.

Only for those in the WotC office that oppose Ryan Dancey's proposal. Make me wonder if WotC had not bought Ryan Dancey's company (Five Rings Publishing Group), the course of history would have changed entirely.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

So, yes, in a pure abstract sense, the current OGL does not expire, and other OGLs in a pure abstract legal sense, "real" OGL licenses would all be like that. But none of us live in an environment like that. In the real world, having a massive legal team who get a retainer from Hasbro (or even an outright salary as in-house counsel) with nothing to do but break the legs of Italian toymakers creating puppets with nasal issues means that an OGL could have been crafted that would have, in real terms, had a time limit on it.

I see your point and I understand the misgivings. I'm sure that there will come a time when Hasbro will challenge the OGL in some way. I wonder, though, whether the amount of money spent on the legal wranglings to do so would be a significant percentage of D&D's/d20's profitability, making the pursuit of such a thing not worth their while.

I kinda hope Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games would happen by this thread. He's an actual lawyer, a pretty good one, even if he didn't specialize in this area.

 

[Turjan]

I see your point and I understand the misgivings. I'm sure that there will come a time when Hasbro will challenge the OGL in some way. I wonder, though, whether the amount of money spent on the legal wranglings to do so would be a significant percentage of D&D's/d20's profitability, making the pursuit of such a thing not worth their while.

One thing that is nice about the OGL: it's wording is not in Legalese. It's plain English. It's stated in its text that the license is free and perpetual. It is absolutely crystal clear language. For everyone who makes the effort to read it, there should be no misunderstanding possible. I'm not sure whether a lawsuit against the OGL would actually reach the court room.