OGC Wiki?

[jmucchiello]

I've shared it many times in the past. The first sentence on this page tells the entire story.

IIRC, Mongoose use to habitually use an OGC statement similar to "Chapter x, y, z is all open content except for the actual text as written." (Not sure what they do now.) They received a lot of flak for this supposed attempt to end run around the OGL. Matt would post that you could use the material all you wanted in accordance with the license as long as you rewrote it. He then would add that you should rewrite it anyway so that your product doesn't switch voices as it moves between stuff you came up with and stuff you were reusing.

I admit I thought he was full of it at the time. Now I see there's a certain beauty to such a declaration. The point is not to make you work to reuse the stuff. The point is to make you think as you reuse the stuff. If the transcriber of UA had had to rewrite the vitality and wound point system in his own words, he would never have made that mistake.

I can see where this would make casual reusers (I just want to make a campaign document for me and my 4 friends) complain about the declaraion. But such a declaration removes the scan and dump problem for the publisher.

 

[Man-thing]

(Not sure what they do now.)

It depends on the product. EPG will be 100% open, Ultimate X line was 100% open.
I've also found that when asked they are very liberal at define what of there is "derived from SRD", likewise I often found they have been generous grant PI material for work as well.

I think COnan is all OGC except the setting and characters (because those are licensed) but almost everything else is OGC. [Which I think lead to the development of OGL Barbarian line).

 

[Yair]

IIRC, Mongoose use to habitually use an OGC statement similar to "Chapter x, y, z is all open content except for the actual text as written."

I admit I thought he was full of it at the time. Now I see there's a certain beauty to such a declaration.

You mean the beauty of not declaring anything as OGC or abiding by Section 8?
Yeah, beautiful.
Having to rewrite things has nothing to do with OGC. I can rewrite any game mechanics I want to from any rpg, it is copyrighted not patented.

 

[Hussar]

*Rise! Rise from the grave!!*

Heh. I'm bored and procrastinating, so, I reread this beast of a thread.

Funny how things have changed. 4e and 5e no longer use the OGL and, well, this thread would be finished only about 3 years before 4e comes out.

One wonders how different history might have been had we actually been able to get this sort of thing off the ground. A massive OGL wiki, had it succeeded, might have changed the look and reaction to 4e. Or, it might not have. Anyway, I thought this was a fascinating blast from the past on how publishers felt at the time.

Remember, this is 2005. No iPhones (heck, someone mentions a Blackberry network ), and a very different scene than now. One could argue that the DM's Guild has taken the idea of an OGL repository and monetized it - providing the kind of visibility to customers for 3pp that most never could have achieved back in 2005.

As I said, it was just something I read and resurrected for S&G's. Enjoy.

 

[Nellisir]

Funny how things have changed. 4e and 5e no longer use the OGL

Um, 5e absolutely uses the OGL.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd

4e had the GSL, which was an abomination of a license. 5e uses the same OGL as 3e; WotC just didn't release the entirety of the core books under the OGL this time; they provided a sample of everything as an example (basically they released the 5e D&D Starter Set rules). You can still make compatible products and everything, you just can't copy the PHB wholesale anymore.

 

[Nellisir]

Heh. I just paged back looking for the last thing I posted and trying to remember what this thread was about.

Oh yeah. NOW I remember....

(It'd be interesting to reread this thread having 14 more years of data, particularly via Pathfinder, and reevaluate opinions, but this ship has long sailed and it'd just be rudderless naval gazing.)

 

[Hussar]

Um, 5e absolutely uses the OGL.
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd

4e had the GSL, which was an abomination of a license. 5e uses the same OGL as 3e; WotC just didn't release the entirety of the core books under the OGL this time; they provided a sample of everything as an example (basically they released the 5e D&D Starter Set rules). You can still make compatible products and everything, you just can't copy the PHB wholesale anymore.

Yes, sorry, my bad. Typing in haste. You are, of course, correct.

I think it is interesting though to look at what they did with the DM's Guild in light of how the 3e OGL and OGC in general worked out.

 

[trancejeremy]

I think if anything, the DM's Guild is closer to the d20 System Trademark License. It gives WOTC more control over products, a lot more control than the d20 license did, but also gives more in return than just being able to use a logo and refer to the D&D PHB by name.

 

[Hussar]

I think if anything, the DM's Guild is closer to the d20 System Trademark License. It gives WOTC more control over products, a lot more control than the d20 license did, but also gives more in return than just being able to use a logo and refer to the D&D PHB by name.

Yeah, that's probably a good analogy really.

 

[Nellisir]

I think it is interesting though to look at what they did with the DM's Guild in light of how the 3e OGL and OGC in general worked out.

Absolutely. I think it's a smart play.