D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Morrus]

This is not correct. It had nothing to do with the OGL and it also had nothing to do with the SRD.

The GSL had its own SRD. As do other games. There's no "the" SRD.

 

[BryonD]

The GSL had its own SRD. As do other games. There's no "the" SRD.

Fair enough, I skipped over the GSL part being as that was a completely different animal. And I presumed he meant the original D20 SRD.

But you can substitute any and all SRDs into the conversation and he is still wrong.

 

[Morrus]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/third_party
someone not directly involved in a transaction. A third entity in the Seller (first party) and Customer (second party) relationship. A Seller may employ a third party to perform specific services to augment the value of a product. For example, a manufacturer may employ a third party to pack and distribute a product. A computer manufacturer may augment their product with software from a third-party supplier.

Yeah, not an ideal definition, but "3rd party" is a term that covers a lot of different stuff. But, generally, WotC is the first party as the creator of the licence, and the second party is the consumer.


Arguably it's a 3PP of Fudge. But, this is true. It would be a 1st Party product.
But this is an odd example, as Fudge didn't really need to use the OGL, being unrelated to D&D and not employing the SRD. It's OGL probably because they either didn't know of the Creative Commons Licence or it didn't exist yet. It's not really a great example of an OGL product or what to expect from future OGL products.

Jester, I don't think you have a full grasp of the subject. Of course Evil Hat knew of the CC. Just like I, producing WOIN and licensing it under the OGL, do.

The OGL is a system-neutral sharing tool. It has nothing to do with being related to D&D. You can use it to share a song or a picture.

Fudge, Fate, Opend6, Traveller, WOIN. None of these have anything to do with D&D. Or even d20s.

I'm afraid your definitions don't begin to match the actual reality of RPG production.

 

[Mark CMG]

Knowing the OGL exists and knowing the details of it enough to have an informed opinion are two different things. "OGL" is just a catchall that often is not well understood.

Clearly not by everyone but some people are a bit more informed than others.


The 3.5 Unearthed Arcana used the OGL to included OGC from The Game Mechanics and Green Ronin Publishing, so technically it is 3PP product from WotC.

 

[prosfilaes]

Again, according to Erik Mona, the 3.0 PHB sold around 500,000 copies. Half a million. Likely some doubles and likely some to the same group. But there are millions of gamers out there. Which means half to 3/4 of gamers didn't even buy a PHB. If not more. And many groups likely only bought the core rulebooks.

So? The first are not people that WotC cares about; if WotC could take an action that would get rid of half the players without books and make the other half buy books, they would do it.

Even the second group... the people who bought crates of books are the ones that made the money for WotC. Even in the environment of the game, they're the people who keep offering to run games, or who keep the game going from the player's seat. Groups that don't have anyone really into it are less likely to survive, and probably much less likely to bring new players into the game.

The OGL is crazy esoteric. It's unrelated to the actual playing of the game. The details of the licence don't even really matter for buying or using 3rd Party products. For publishers it's a big deal. They can do things like discuss the nuances of Section 15 and formatting. But that's not really useful to anyone else.

The Constitution is crazy esoteric. So why does a nation need one? For lawyers it's a big deal, but that's not really useful to anyone else.

Without worrying about the content of an OGL, one can like the results. For the actual OGL, it means that I can find the rules online, which is often easier then looking them up in the PDFs. I can also get the rules in various formats the publisher might not support. For something more like the GSL, at least it means there's a host of third-party material; it's easier to surprise them with strange monsters, and run adventures that I didn't convert myself and aren't the handful of adventure paths WotC has put out.

 

[Jester David]

Jester, I don't think you have a full grasp of the subject. Of course Evil Hat knew of the CC. Just like I, producing WOIN and licensing it under the OGL, do.

Fudge was published under the OGL by Grey Ghost (and prior to that was rather open as well, albeit not for commercial publication). Evil Hat had little choice but to use the OGL for FATE or create their own system.
In comparison, there are a number of games - like Eclipse Phase - published under Creative Commons License. So I imagine if Grey Ghost had known about the CC, they would have gone that route.

The OGL may not contain any rule text, but there's little advantage to using it over CC, unless you plan on referencing elements from the SRD.
(Which does emphasis the point, since what people should *really* be asking for is a new SRD but no one is.)

 

[Mark CMG]

The OGL may not contain any rule text, but there's little advantage to using it over CC, unless you plan on referencing elements from the SRD.

And from a thousand other OGC contributors who have used it since its inception.

(Which does emphasis the point, since what people should *really* be asking for is a new SRD but no one is.)

By asking WotC to use the OGL for 5E the assumption is they will release OGC, probably in the form of a 5E SRD. Has that not been understood?

 

[prosfilaes]

(Which does emphasis the point, since what people should *really* be asking for is a new SRD but no one is.)

Since now seems to be the time to be pedantic, there is a new SRD. There is a document, along with the associated books, web pages, Word files, whatever, that specifies what sources are reference material for D&D 5, and which books, web pages, etc., can be contradicted or ignored in new material. WotC hasn't made it public, but I'm sure Green Ronin and other contractors got a copy of it.

What we want is a document given permission for commercial use of D&D 5 in products. It could include a work like the D&D 3 SRD and Pathfinder PRD, that clearly specifies a set of elements that can be used, but not necessarily, as long as the permission grant was relatively clear. 5E OGL doesn't usually refer to the OGL in these discussion; it refers to a vaguely defined set of licenses that would do what we want.

(And again, I and I think a lot of other potential third-party reusers want some sort of line of protection and understanding from WotC. I want to feel that WotC isn't going to try to smack down someone for an inch over the line, but instead try to be reasonably fair about warnings, like they were in the 3E days and have actually been with the 3E stuff since then.)

 

[Morrus]

Since now seems to be the time to be pedantic, there is a new SRD. There is a document, along with the associated books, web pages, Word files, whatever, that specifies what sources are reference material for D&D 5, and which books, web pages, etc., can be contradicted or ignored in new material.

Wait, what? Are you sure? Because this would be the news scoop of the year if it's true. There's a new SRD? Where did you hear this?

 

[Mark CMG]

Wait, what? Are you sure? Because this would be the news scoop of the year if it's true. There's a new SRD? Where did you hear this?

He probably means that those contracted by WotC are given a 5E "bible" of some sort detailing what can be used in their licensed products.