Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4029161" data-attributes="member: 15538">The rationale for the OGL: to create a "safe harbor" for people to use and expand on the D&D game. That is, to avoid a repeat of the Judges Guild/Roleaids/Usenet type debacles. The rationale: game mechanics can be patented but not copyrighted anyway, and there is already a strong precedent for people producing books about other people's games. The reason: to preserve a unified gaming market and enthuse players.Problems with the new situation (not a lawyer, IMHO, etc):- Essentially, WotC cannot prevent anyone from using their game mechanics. They may enjoy the fantasy that they "own" a game system, but this is simply not respected by copyright.- They have some strong trademarks. Strength as the name of an ability score? Not so much. Anything that is merely descriptive--or that refers to WotC's text specifically-- is fair game. I can't reprint Awesome Blow without some kind of permission, but I can include the name Awesome Blow on pretty much anything I want as long as I am referencing their work and not presenting it as my own.- There is already an OGL industry out there. Some of it is parasitic, but some of it is very dedicated and creative. Are they going to take their toys and go home? Many feel that promises have been broken.- The industry now faces a divide. 4e will be in competition with OGL material. It's a lopsided competition, but it's something that didn't exist before. It also means that third party design also faces a divide. We already have generic drugs, generic turn signal bulbs, generic vacuum cleaner bags. Does WotC think they are somehow immune to antitrust legislation? Didn't we already see Microsoft vs. third party add ons? I keep coming back to one central hypothesis: that WotC management does not understand intellectual property except in a pragmatic "cease and desist" sort of way. I am really mystified what they are trying to do... do they want to have to sue people? No rational business wants to sue people. The "safe harbor" offered by the OGL minimized the chances of needing to sue someone while maximizing the argument they were protecting their IP and still owned it.</blockquote>

Verification