OGC and what a RPG should be?

[herald]

Point of Fact: No matter how many times you say that this is a customer service issue, it's not. Not ever, not going to be, never will be.

WOTC cannot do what you want it to do.

But if you want to protest WOTC, I would suggest that you put your point of view in the form of a letter, and address it directly to Customer Service. After all that's who your really trying to get your message across to.

custserv@wizards.com

You can address your concerns to them via email, or you can ask for an address to mail your complaints via snail mail.

However, if all you are going to do is wage a one man war right here on ENworlds message boards against WOTC. I will be glad to point out to others your misunderstandings that you have against WOTC and why WOTC must protect thier Intellectual Properties.

I defend WOTC for a simple reason, I believe in the open gaming system. I want it to flurish and grow. But to ensure that it does, there must be a level playing field. What you propose is not fair. Your asking for software makers to get preferencal treatment over print makers.

Wizards has stated that they will release material to the SRD as soon as they feel that they can do so reasonably. At this point, all that is left is information from psionics. d20 modern is going to be added soon and supposed to be in its entirety.

All the splat books must be stripped of game world specific material before it is put on to the SRD, so there will be a lag there.

Another fact of the matter here is that you seem to be mostly upset that WOTC is not producing OGL material on a scedule that you apporve of. Well, I'm sure they would like to accomidate you, but the truth is that it's not like they have any model to base thier work off of. They are making it upas they go along. And they have to make sure that what they do is legal, and that they have protection.

Here's a suggestion, head over to http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html

Go to the list servers and read the archives. There has been alot of discussion over software and OGL/D20. You should read it. You might get a clearer idea of what your asking ofr WOTC to do. There is a lot of posts from Ryan Dancy, the person that once headed up the OGL thing for WOTC, but got caught up in the layoffs. It's pretty clear how impossible it is to acomidate what your asking.

 

[Hollywood]

Originally posted by herald I defend WOTC for a simple reason, I believe in the open gaming system. I want it to flurish and grow. But to ensure that it does, there must be a level playing field.

Yes, Ryan had a great idea in the "Open Gaming System" (OGS). However, much like eTools, the implementation hasn't been really all that great aside from all the actual effort needed to strip the game system of the relavent IP.

D20 was and is simply the wrong system to have led the OGS fight. D20 is not a generic system, it is essentially D&D 3rd Ed. stripped and renamed. D&D was redesigned to make the game flow better, update it [to some extent] and so forth, claims even going as far as being declared as easier to implement via computer [a complete falacy.. anyone with a decent amount of professional technical expertise would and should laugh]. As a redesign of the age-old D&D, its fine and dandy and works just fine; sure we may all gripe and groan over the fine points and some may or may not like all parts, but overall it still maintains the D&D flavor.

However, the D&D flavor, is not good for any other system than D&D. Period. No exceptions. StarWars is a good example; WEG's d6 is far suprerior to the d20 version of StarWars [even with the annoyance of having to roll so many damn d6s at high "levels"]. Level-based systems aren't much in vogue, but they aren't necessarily restrictive either. However, class based systems are quite so and about the only major game you find a class based system is D&D; because its traditional.

Again, the OGS is a great idea that Ryan came up with. Allows multiple people to add new things to a core system without worrying about lawsuits, C&Ds, etc. [for the most part ] and all having a fair and equal shot at it. Great idea. Just the wrong system to both have led it AND been the core system used in every other non-D&D game content.

I would have prefered to see a D&D, as it has been, put out as an OGS. That way people like Green Ronin, et al. could put out all the source material they have for D&D. Great stuff.

However, a more generic game system that is more flexible and better handles a variety of situations and has no backwards ties to former editions of D&D would have been better suited for the initial core system for OGS.

 

[Fast Learner]

Re: clarity

Why are you defending wizards? Is this just "I believe it's right!"? So, I take it non of you other's like herald, gariig and fast learner are not in the least bit upset about what's been done. No harm to me, so no foul here at all? Or is the 'harm' to you not rellevant? I'd like to know.

You are correct, I am not the least bit upset by WOTC protecting it's IP. Would it have been better (even "nicer") for them to come up with a clear policy on software a couple of years ago? Unquestionably. Am I somehow "upset" that they didn't have the appropriate and reasonable foresight to do so? Not in the least.

Perhaps part of my lack of concern is the fact that I generate IP for a living (at least part of it), and so am very big on seeing it protected in general.

 

[Baumi]

I'm VERY angry at WOTC for it's treatment on the Free Software Tools. To close Redblade after one day and to disallow PCGEN to Roll the Attributes is an offense.

Every other RPG with a medium sized Community has one or more Character-Generators, Dice Rollers, etc. and none of them had any problems like Redblade or PCGen had. Even Ad&d 2nd and older Editions had free Generators. But now they close every one of them or limit them so much that they are uninsteresting.

I do understand that they have to insist on there rights if they Tools would be sold for money, but we are talking about Freeware from Fan's for Fan's! Besides, you need to read the books to use them, they are not giving so much away that the purchase of a book would be unnessasary.

Sorry about the Rant, but that's how I feel as a Costumer. They definitifely lost me as a Costumer because of it's actions not because some tools (60$+ per Week for RPG's).

But anyway....

Have FUN!
Baumi

 

[Ranger REG]

Personally, using D&D to promote d20 and the Open Gaming movement is a great business idea. Trying to promote d20 with a new game woud have been much slower to catch on, but using the D&D brand would bring everyone into the fold of the new rules system. Granted, some D&D gamers think that there is no life beyond D&D but then there are some open-minded gamers that are willing to take a chance to check out such games as Dragonstar and Spycraft. Heck, I even tried out those mini-games in Polyhedron, the very magazine attached to Dung that is detested by many fundamental D&D gamers (I consider myself a moderate).

I do agree, that the license is ill-suited for software publishng but very suited for PnP publishing. Will Wizards consider changing the the two licenses with regards to "interactive games" (legal definition)? Well, that depends on pressure from well-established d20 publishers. I think the pressure is getting to them now, and we should thank the failure of the e-Tools project for that. Had that project succeeded as originally planned (i.e., Master Tools) the pressure would not be so heavily forced upon Wizards.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Ranger REG:

"Will Wizards consider changing the the two licenses with regards to "interactive games" (legal definition)?"

Remember that Hasbro sold the rights to produce "interractive games" based on their IP to Infogrames (i think thats the right company). This specifically means they CANNOT allow anyone else to do so. It also means, because it would be legally difficult to stipulate successfully - and in all likelyhood the licence doesn't give rights only for commercial development, that they cannot differenciate between sold and given away software on this basis; their only option is to tell everyone to make sure that their s/w is A: based on OGC not WoTC IP, and B: not an "interactive game".

Of course their definition of any random generation being an interractive game is... indefensible.

 

[herald]

Random generation is something that has been defended by D&D owners for years. This nothing new and PCGEN wanted to try and comply with WOTC and the OGL as best as it could.

And if you ask PCGEN makers, I'd be willing to believe that they are quite happy with thier arrangement with WOTC. They have held meetings to discuss what can and cannot happen and they have made corrections accordingly.

Redblade as far as I can remember could have stripped the sword and fist material and more than likely been fine. So once again, what little outrage over this slight is pointless.

WOTC and by extention Hasbro is entitled to make profits from it's IP for a time until which it decideds to ad it's IP to the OGL. It's as simple as saying, the toys (IP) belong to WOTC, you can have them when WOTC is done Playing with them.

As for situation of D20 being sutable for all gaming situations, Personally, I find D20 just to my liking. I've played with more than a few and thi is the one I perfer right now. D20 modern might change that, and I might start to like that better.

As for interactive games, Infrogrames holds those right now, but if I understood that's not a permanate deal, after a few years the rights could revert back to Hasbro.

I don't want to hijack the thread but think of this. I don't know if anyone say the tools that shipped with Neverwinter nights. The NPC builder in NWN, pretty much rocked. A drag and drop interface for equipment, I wonder what would happen if Bioware took a shot at it.

 

[smetzger]

Ranger REG:

"Will Wizards consider changing the the two licenses with regards to "interactive games" (legal definition)?"

Remember that Hasbro sold the rights to produce "interractive games" based on their IP to Infogrames (i think thats the right company). This specifically means they CANNOT allow anyone else to do so. It also means, because it would be legally difficult to stipulate successfully - and in all likelyhood the licence doesn't give rights only for commercial development, that they cannot differenciate between sold and given away software on this basis; their only option is to tell everyone to make sure that their s/w is A: based on OGC not WoTC IP, and B: not an "interactive game".

Of course their definition of any random generation being an interractive game is... indefensible.

I agree that it is indefensible and I agree that random character generation does not fit the definition of interactive game. However, the crux of the problem is that d20 is WOTCs license and they can revoke that license according to how they interpret the license. Because its their license their interpretaion is the only interpretation that matters. You can always contest in court however because WOTC owns the license I believe that your case would be very weak even if you did not have any gray areas in your compliance.

 

[Hollywood]

Personally, using D&D to promote d20 and the Open Gaming movement is a great business idea. Trying to promote d20 with a new game woud have been much slower to catch on, but using the D&D brand would bring everyone into the fold of the new rules system.

Up to a point, I agree. The rules work much better for D&D than previous versions did, IMO, although there will always be perceived short-comings in the game.

Granted, some D&D gamers think that there is no life beyond D&D but then there are some open-minded gamers that are willing to take a chance to check out such games as Dragonstar and Spycraft..

Well I consider myself a moderate, as I've ha played many variety of role-playing games from D&D to Amber to StoryTeller, et al. But since I mentioned that D&D's core rule-system, ala what Wizards calls d20, is ill-suited for anything but D&D, I'll take offense at your statement. Not much, but at least enough to respond. Personally I either DMd or played D&D for the last 16 years on and since 88 I also did a fair share of GMing or playing WEG StarWars [plus all sorts of other stuff in between]. Being a StarWars afficanado and owning most of the core stuff for the 2 editions from WEG, I of course checked out StarWars from WotC. And since many of the players were also looking at D&D at the time, I changed my WEG:SW campign to WotC:SW to see how it would go. Guess what? Everyone of my players, even the ones that love 3rd Ed. D&D, and myself absolutely hated WotC:SW because of the rules mechanics. Suddenly we saw our cool Bounty Hunters, Smugglers, Pilots, Technicans, et al. going from being able to do and grow as they pleased based on experience [I only let them upgrade skills they either used in play or sought out training for] and character growth. They were stifled, they were irratated, they were enraged at the slowness of fast blaster combat and general plodding mechanisms of WotC:SW. d20 just fails there. Dragonstar is ShadowRun in the more distant future and seems to be a good setting. And maybe the fantasy part allows d20 to sorta work there, but not enough to me to offset the lead weight of a level and class based system. Spycraft and d20 Modern suffer from the same.

Suffice to say, I do think the OGS was a good idea. I do think that creating the D&D SRD and making it OGS was a good idea as it allows non-WotC and fans to add to the D&D game without legal ramifications [well as long as you follow the OGL and/or d20 licenses]. However, making the SRD into d20 and having pushed it as the core system to be used as the rules system for other OGS settings was a mistake. No one rules system fits every game (Ryan and company never stated d20 should be used by every product anyways) and while sure its nice to have a common rules system for a variety of products, d20 was the wrong one due to its inherient inflexibility.

Saying all that, I do think I am open-minded to have given the core system out of D&D 3rd Ed. a shot at use in other systems; but having seen it in action, I prefer to only use [with house rules of course! ] with the D&D game and thats it. Which is why I'm glad to see some games, such as Cthulu, producing material thats useable in their own format and d20... that way I can have a choice and not be sucked into having to use d20.

I do agree, that the license is ill-suited for software publishng but very suited for PnP publishing.

Actually the OGL license does not say anything about "interactive software" at all. It simply gives you the ability to create derivative works and translations of the SRD in any format desired, including source code. If you go with the OGL you can express your own character creation and advancement system as that is not covered by the SRD. However, while no one can copyright a set of rules, only the expression of them, you have to express the rules with completely different language than used in the copyrighted D&D expression.

The d20 is the one that gets you into trouble due to the "d20 Guide" referenced in the license as it limits fairly restrictively what you can and can't do in order to be able to slap on a "d20" logo; if the mass gaming market even understand what that means.

So simply don't use d20 license with the software and, with the exception of the stickiness around character creation/advancement, you have no real problems. Unless of course WotC decides to be the "evil corporate giant out to smash any and all who see things slightly differently than their lawyers".

As for situation of D20 being sutable for all gaming situations, Personally, I find D20 just to my liking. I've played with more than a few and thi is the one I perfer right now.

Thats fine, thats personal choice!! Personally, I think yer a blathering idiot [only teasing] because you like it.

D20 modern might change that, and I might start to like that better.

<scratches his head> Ok I'm confused. I haven't seen d20 Modern in print yet or read through it so can't say my knowledge extends to more than what is on WotC's site and such. But I really don't see that the core mechanics of d20 Modern are any different than the core d20 system residing in D&D. It still has levels, hitpoints, saving throws, base attack bonuses, skills, feats [or are those talents?] and last of all, CLASSES!! How is it different [yes, I realize this is completely off topic too!! And so will keep the comments about it in this block as follows:
With d20 modern you are still tied to being forced into classes... argh, such limited flexibility. Its, as in D&D, an all or nothing affair... either you gain everything that class has to offer at the level, or you simply don't take that class. There isn't a freedom to evolve your character [and hopefully you do this from a roleplaying and character development standpoint and not simply as a min/max exercise! ] in the manner you see your character elvoving in. And lets not even start with hitpoints and how it works in a modern-esque world. Bleah. ]

 

[herald]

Hollywood said...

Thats fine, thats personal choice!! Personally, I think yer a blathering idiot [only teasing] because you like it.

Well from blathering idiot to the next, we will agree do disagree.

I'm going to just say this about D20 modern and then I will not comment on it anymore because it's hijacking the thread.
My D20 M experiances are based on what I have read about it polyhedron whn they presented the base "classes".

I don't know if saw the write ups, but classes flat out based on a base attribute. The Strong Hero, The Smart Hero, ecetera. So while you do have "Classes", they aren't as quite iconic like D&D "Classes".

If my memory serves, classes are pretty much generic across the board, so there is the posibility of more choice freedon.

I myself was a White Wolf convert for a long time, and ran a game that lasted for years. And the great thing about the White Wolf games was the simple fact that you could go in many differant directions as a character as you picked up your skills. But as time went on, my players got tired of it.

Don't ask me why, but when I asked them why they lost interest in it they would mention that the characters didn't seem "focused". It took me a while to understand, but it seemed to me that they were more interested in using a mostly closed system and using expantions to broaden thier character, than use a broad character creation system and define who they were.

So it becomes an arguement of Flexability vs. Focus. My players wanted focus, yours wanted Flexability, and as gamemasters we choose a road that would accomidate our players and make us happy.