OGL Questions About "Grey Area"

[Tellerian Hawke]

Ok, so as I understand it:

When you write a rules supplement, and try to sell it, you can't say "compatible with D&D 3.0" or "d20" or anything like that. You cannot state compatibility with, or suitability for. You cannot mention the name of any WoTC product, period.

But what about mentioning D&D on your blog?

Imagine this scenario:

1) I have a blog on which I give advice to people about neat things to try in their 3.0 D&D games.

2) I have links on that blog to my online store (Amazon, RPGNow, etc.)

As far as I know, I can babble about D&D all day long, because I'm just some random player talking about the game I love. What I say in that regard is just my opinion.

But what if, on my blog, I say, "I like to do this, this, and that, when I play D&D. For more details, take a look at this e-book I wrote."

If the e-book doesn't mention Product Identity within the context of itself, but I mention it on my blog, have I breached the terms of the OGL?

(My instinct is telling me yes, it's a breach, which is going to mean taking this to the next step... creating my own complete game system which is essentially a clone, the way Pathfinder did, and then just going that route.)

Thanks in advance for any helpful advice you guys can provide in this matter.

 

[ZE_Lumis]

I see products state "compatibility" with those systems here and there, so I'm not too sure, though I do want to wait and see if someone who knows for sure has any input...

 

[delericho]

Ok, so as I understand it:

When you write a rules supplement, and try to sell it, you can't say "compatible with D&D 3.0" or "d20" or anything like that. You cannot state compatibility with, or suitability for. You cannot mention the name of any WoTC product, period.

The restriction on stating compatibility is a condition of the OGL. If you were to publish without using the OGL (risky, but possible) you could state compatibility. If publishing with the OGL, you're best going with "compatible with the world's first RPG" or something of that sort. (See some of the early Pathfinder APs for an example - the ones that predate the PF RPG.)

But what about mentioning D&D on your blog?

Your blog is unlikely to be under the OGL. If you really really want to be sure you're okay, check out WotC's fan-site usage policy.

Imagine this scenario...

<snip>

Thanks in advance for any helpful advice you guys can provide in this matter.

If you want helpful advice, here it is: speak to an actual lawyer. Because otherwise you're relying on the opinion of well-meaning but uninformed random people on the internet - we're really not the best people to ask. (That, and because the exact detail of what you do matters - simply discussing a general case is unlikely to be useful.)

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

Yeah, I didn't intend to use the advice given here as any sort of legal foundation; I was looking more for a point in the right direction, i.e., I was hoping someone could point me to pre-exisitng resources that might provide an answer to my question, such as the Fan Site Kit, which you mentioned above. Thanks for that, by the way!

Also: many writers and editors in the gaming industry are members of this website. "Random people on the internet" makes it seem as if I were asking just anyone.

 

[Robot Hyena Ghost]

I've seen products promoting compatibility with 5E D&D using the phrase on forums, blog posts, etc; so I'm guessing OGL only applies to the content written within the product itself?

 

[pemerton]

Here are some of the relevant provisions from the OGL:

Clause 2: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License.

Definitions, clause 1(d): "Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

Clause 7: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement . . .​

To me, an agreement not to indicate compatibility in conjunction with a work containing OGC looks like just that: an agreement not to indicate compatibility. I guess there's a question of the meaning of in conjunction with a work. My own feeling is that a link to your product on your blog saying "Here is my product that is compatible with D&D" would be an instance of indicating compatibility in conjunction with your work containing OGC, but that's just an intuition. I'm not familiar with an law on the interpretation of the contractual phrase in conjunction with a work.

 

[Umbran]

A question that might clarify if someone has the answer:

You cannot claim compatibility using any Product Identity or trademarked terms. Is there any issue with claims that your work is *based upon* a particular SRD?

I know this is a weak statement, insofar as Mutants and Masterminds is based upon the 3e SRD, but it sure as heck isn't compatible with 3e D&D. But, for some who are looking to make it at least clear which base ruleset is intended, this might be the appropriate statement.

 

[delericho]

You cannot claim compatibility using any Product Identity or trademarked terms. Is there any issue with claims that your work is *based upon* a particular SRD?

IANAL, but it doesn't look like it. Both because "based upon" isn't a claim of compatibility and also because I don't think that SRD is actually a trademark.

All that said, I would have thought "compatible with fifth edition rules" (without mentioning D&D) would be a more useful statement anyway. And we've seen many companies use statements of that sort without issue.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

Kenzer and Co. offer a free sample of their 4th edition supplement for Kingdoms of Kalamar on their website. There's legal text on it that states compatibility with 4th edition DnD. They did this without any special license because it's perfectly legal to do so, at least in the way that was done by Kenzer and Co. - Kenzer himself is an IP lawyer so that's better than layman opinions.

http://www.kenzerco.com/product_info.php?cPath=25_26_33&products_id=625

 

[Mark CMG]

Kenzer and Co. offer a free sample of their 4th edition supplement for Kingdoms of Kalamar on their website. There's legal text on it that states compatibility with 4th edition DnD.

Incredibly bad advice.

1.) 4E was not released under the OGL.

2.) That linked sample has no OGL attached to it and even at a glance makes obvious errors that wouldn't be allowed under the OGL like using the term Dungeon Master, etc.

3.) We have no idea if the supplement whence that sample came is under license of any kind.

4.) The OGL has specific language about compatibility claims.

5.) For some time, Kenzer had a special legal situation (perhaps a license) that allowed them to do things in relation to D&D that no other company could based on, from my understanding, the use of some of their IP.

All in all I would avoid any advice that suggests you should follow your understanding of the example of another in a legal matter, just doing what they do, as there are any number of ways in which that is horrible advice. In this case I have pointed out five with only a glance.