Open Game License. Should Someone Start a New One?

[Ry]

The converse isn't true. Sharealike'd works never die. They are immortal.

I don't see why sharealike is so much more immortal than CC without sharealike. I mean, say some company makes a profit off a derivative work - the original work is still CC, and can't be "closed up" by that company.

Sharealike is more likely to die because it discourages contribution by many talented people who don't agree that their work (art based on fiction from the game, for example) should be freely copyable. A game that nobody plays is more dead than one that's being played without a company behind it.

 

[Desdichado]

Everyone is pretty mad a Wizards right now. That might or might not pass. Of course everything ties back to them because they own the D&D name, rights, licenses etc.. But what about the OGL model? Has is been successful? Do you think Wizards will continue with it into 4e? And the bigger question: what if someone else created a new, fantasy-based game with an OGL? Would people jump on board? And who besides Wizards has the clout to pull it off? The awesome thing about the OGL is the shared world building and expanding across multiple companies. So, what do you think? What's the future of the OGL?

To answer all your questions in order

1) No, not everyone is mad at Wizards. Other than a few hundred folks between here and the WotC boards, this "everyone is mad" vibe is a drop in the bucket, IMO.

2) Yes, it will pass. Folks have been mad at Wizards in the past and will be--no doubt--in the future as well.

3) What about the OGL model?

4) People have jumped on board. So far I'm missing the point here.

5) Nobody has the clout to pull it off. As JPL said, there have been countless (at least I've never counted 'em) fantasy heartbreakers over the years that went nowhere. Heck, even two games based on Lord of the Rings, which is arguably the best IP in this genre to use haven't really dented D&D's impact.

6) Yes, that is pretty cool. That's also the exact same reason that I guess I can't muster the energy to get worked up about this cancellation. I don't care if material is "official" or not.

7) I still think I'm not following you exactly. What exactly is your question, anyway?

8) The OGL cannot be withdrawn, by the very clauses written therein. So it's here to stay. However, it's long since ceased to be a really major factor in the industry. It's significant, and it may stay so, if D&D remains open content. If another non-open edition of D&D comes out sometime down the road it's anyone's guess.

 

[shurai]

Maybe this needs to be moved to its own thread or continued in PM, but this is interesting enough that I want to continue the discussion.

That scenario leapfrogs over all the problems of establishing a brand - you can't make money off the auxiliaries if your game never gets established in the first place.

It does, but I was making a very specific suggestion -- if Wizards sharealike'd D&D, an already established brand. Let me know if you'd like to get into the discussion about brand establishment using copylefted or otherwise freely distributed works. From Linux to Penny Arcade, there are plenty of examples of how it might be done. It may not have been done with a roleplaying game yet, but on the other hand, the Copyleft movement is still pretty new. The main thing to remember is that Copylefted quality brands tend to establish themselves.

Also, a LOT of game products really are exclusively text and pictures. So if the only way you can do the sharealike thing is by having accessories, you're hampering any product that wouldn't require them. This even goes for things like From Dretch to Demon Lord.

The merchandising argument which was tacked on as an afterthought. The point I was trying to make is that there are indirect ways of using copylefted material to make money, and that these methods shouldn't be neglected. Merchandising may not always work, and that's okay because it's just one of many methods.

Most importantly, for a company to come in and do this, that company has to already agree with your philosophy of how sharealike works. That's a small subset of the companies that could make serious contributions to such a game.

I'd say that the OGL'd d20 System shows the opposite is true: If You Build It, They Will Come.

 

[Desdichado]

I'd say that the OGL'd d20 System shows the opposite is true: If You Build It, They Will Come.

And then two or three years later most of them will leave again.

 

[JPL]

I'd say obviously not. If you are, then Wizards owes somebody (a lot of somebodies) a whole lot of money. D&D 3.0 didn't break any new ground in terms of rules innovation; it is rather a very good combination of pretty standard game ideas from lots of places.

You can copyright the text of the rules, and artwork, page layouts, and so forth, but you absolutely cannot copyright the semantics of the rules. That is, the thing you produce can be copyrighted, but the ideas the thing represents are not eligible for copyright.

I'm not sure how closely you could copy it and get away with it though.

My point is that the d20/OGL licenses allow WotC to maintain some control over its rules set without getting into a lot of legal wrangling over how closely someone else is copying their IP. It also lets 3rd party publishers use the D&D rules without going through the hassle of rewording every single rule and without worrying about that cease-and-desist letter from Hasbro. Win-Win.

So why wouldn't WotC want to continue this arrangement into D&D 4.0? Well, they'll do whatever makes them the most money and I have never heard a compelling argument as to why WotC or Hasbro would think that a non-open 4.0 would be the more profitable way to go.

For what...seven years?...there have been rumors about how Corporate Greed is going to lead to WotC suddenly yoinking the license. Seems to me like Corporate Greed is best served by making a kick-ass 4.0 in a year or two, keeping it open, and hopefully selling as many books as they did with 3.0.

 

[shurai]

I don't see why sharealike is so much more immortal than CC without sharealike. I mean, say some company makes a profit off a derivative work - the original work is still CC, and can't be "closed up" by that company.

My original point was that Sharealike'd works are immortal compared with traditionally copyrighted materials, but I do think that they are also more immortal than non-sharealike'd but still creative-commons-licensed works.

It reminds me of the GPL vs. Public Domain argument. (The GPL is the GNU Public License, the license under which Linux is distributed. GPL is to Public Domain as Sharealike is to Non-Sharealike Creative Commons Licenses). Linux is released under the GPL instead of put into the public domain because that way nobody can contribute to Linux without contributing to "everybody's" Linux. Otherwise, a widespread adoption of a non-sharealike version of Linux could effectively ruin the whole intent, because we'd be back where we started -- a single corporate entity controlling the entire market by holding monopolistic control over a restricted family of works.

See, I meant immortal in the way that the human species is immortal -- it continues to evolve and produce new varied offspring, who in turn produce their own variations on themselves. This recursion is critical. If everyone is always copying from the same free template into a restricted final work, that's not evolution but mere variation on an unchanging theme.

Sharealike is more likely to die because it discourages contribution by many talented people who don't agree that their work (art based on fiction from the game, for example) should be freely copyable. A game that nobody plays is more dead than one that's being played without a company behind it.

That's true, there are sacrifices. But it's a pretty big leap from "some talented people won't contribute" to "this loss will kill the entire project."

I'd like to add that I think I understand your original point better, that a license closer to public domain is superior to the improve-but-sharealike license. I don't agree, but I do understand what you're saying a bit better. : ]

 

[shurai]

And then two or three years later most of them will leave again.

I'd like to paraphrase Richard Stallman. Would you rather have a pound of chocolate or a mountain of dirt?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Perhaps a better question would be D20 License - Should Someone Start a New One?

Really, the OGL as written is fine. The point where WotC can stick the oar in is the D20 License, which has more recognition than just OGL. (Though a lot less than D&D.)

Perhaps a unified independent license that uses the OGL as its root? I seem to recall several companies starting down that route, but not much coming of it.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ranger REG]

Everyone is pretty mad a Wizards right now. That might or might not pass. Of course everything ties back to them because they own the D&D name, rights, licenses etc.. But what about the OGL model? Has is been successful? Do you think Wizards will continue with it into 4e? And the bigger question: what if someone else created a new, fantasy-based game with an OGL? Would people jump on board? And who besides Wizards has the clout to pull it off? The awesome thing about the OGL is the shared world building and expanding across multiple companies. So, what do you think? What's the future of the OGL?

Green Ronin. Their prime products: True20, Mutants & Masterminds, Blue Rose.

Mongoose Publishing. Say what you will but they must have a fanbase to keep them in business this long.

Goodman Games. They have their DragonMech and DCC series.

The publisher of World of WarCraft PnP RPG.

 

[Ranger REG]

Perhaps a better question would be D20 License - Should Someone Start a New One?

And get sued by WotC? Nope. Though I still hope the d20STL remain a while longer if 4e no longer support it (by not adding 4e material to the SRD). Remember, we still have d20 Modern and the Modern SRD, whether you're a fan or not.

*looks to the top of the page to see if this is still the General RPG Discussion forum*