D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Yaarel]

And sometimes WotC is silent because they're hoping people will forget about the subject.

People wont forget about the OGL. People are waiting patiently for a 5e OGL. If disappointed, they will reinvent the 3e OGL, as some are already starting to do.

 

[Mistwell]

Please let this thread die. As they say, no news is NO NEWS.

If (and that's a big if) an 5e OGL ever happens, it will be easy to start new ones - no need to reuse this one. And in the meanwhile, there is nothing left to be said.

I am sorry this thread bothers you, but I at least continue to get something from this thread, for what that is worth.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not to pick nits... but isn't the issue *not* a '5E OGL', but rather a 5E SRD to add to the OGL?

If I'm not mistaken... the Open Game License is not about any one specific game or one specific set of mechanics. It's a universal license. Any game that is released under it has their System Reference Document added to the pile of allowable mechanics and terms that other people can use to publish their own supplements for, so long as they rewrite them in their own particular way. And they do not need to be related to D&D or use the d20 mechanic at all. Heck, FATE has been released under the OGL and that's about as far from D&D as you can get.

This is why people and companies are already releasing adventure and setting products that are "compatible" with 5E. Because they are using or adapting mechanics and terms from the D&D 3.0/3.5 System Reference Document to create their own products (which are all close enough to 5E to still be useful). The 3.0 SRD includes things like certain spell names like 'Magic Missile', or monster names like 'Kobold', and thus anyone can write an adventure that says "In Room 3 there are five Kobolds sitting at a table and should you enter, one will stand up and cast Magic Missile at you". Now sure, you can't paste in the statblock of the 5E version of the Kobold nor the Magic Missile spell (because 5E has not yet been released under the OGL or produced an SRD)... but you can certainly write their terms down (since they are 3.0 terms) under the expectation that the DM himself will have the requisite 5E stat info on hand.

This is why I don't think WotC will necessarily do anything with the OGL as it relates to 5E. Because they don't have to. If people can already make 5E compatible products using that which is already out there in SRD land... why would they need to release the mechanical statblocks of 5E races, classes, spells, and monsters to the OGL too? To be "nice" to other companies so that they can reproduce said statblocks in their own products (rather than expecting the DM to have a PH or MM on hand to reference back to?) That seems to me to be one of the problems that WotC found themselves caught in in the first place when all their information got re-released elsewhere and you no longer needed to have any of the 3.0 core books at hand.

The only real thing that having 5E released under the OGL nets people is the assurance that they could then write 'Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition' on their products and not get C&D'd (since I think another company's "brand identity" is one of the things the OGL specifically says you can only reference so long as that brand identity has been released under the OGL. Until then, you instead have to play the game of saying things like 'Compatible with the World's Most Famous RPG!" or other such tiptoes.

So go ahead. Write a module or a setting with the intention that players can use their 5E D&D mechanics with it. It pretty much seems to be allowed. Just don't expect to eventually get the chance to include any of the already-written 5E specific info that comes from an SRD in it. Because that might not possibly ever come.

 

[Yaarel]

If indy companies are unable to supply 5e stats via SRD with OGL, they will eventually abandon 5e, similar to how companies abandoned 4e.

 

[Alzrius]

The only real thing that having 5E released under the OGL nets people is the assurance that they could then write 'Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition' on their products and not get C&D'd (since I think another company's "brand identity" is one of the things the OGL specifically says you can only reference so long as that brand identity has been released under the OGL. Until then, you instead have to play the game of saying things like 'Compatible with the World's Most Famous RPG!" or other such tiptoes.

To be clear, Section 7 indicates that you cannot indicate compatibility unless you have another agreement that says you can (emphasis mine).

7. Use of Product Identity: 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 with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If indy companies are unable to supply 5e stats via SRD with OGL, they will eventually abandon 5e, similar to how companies abandoned 4e.

I disagree. 4E was a different beast because the gridded AEDU mechanics and the names of all the powers were so different than what was in the 3.0 SRD that you couldn't really create 4E-styled encounters using them. However, we can just take a look at the encounters in the two Tyranny of Dragon adventures-- both of which do not include *any* 5E statblocks within the adventure itself and instead just say '5 kobolds' or '3 drakes' or whatever-- and see that it is a 5E adventure. They reference 5E monster names and 5E skills... but other than that it's pretty generic. You could pretty easily use Hoard of the Dragon Queen with 3E right now if you wanted to.

So no... I don't think an independent RPG company needs to be able to put actual monster stats in their book for it to be a 5E compatible book, nor does it automatically make it a straw that breaks a camel's back. Sure... some smaller companies might not want to risk making a product on the off-chance WotC decides to eventually get froggy about it (and they don't feel they have the funds to set up a legal defense)... but not being allowed to copy and use actual 5E stats shouldn't be a true stumbling block. The only irritating part that would be needing to create original NPC statblocks only using 3.0 terminology rather than being able to copy/paste the 5E statblock format... but even that I don't think is insurmountable.

 

[ko6ux]

To be clear, Section 7 indicates that you cannot indicate compatibility unless you have another agreement that says you can (emphasis mine).

Yea but it's easy to work around this restriction by just claiming compatibility with "5th Edition" without referencing the 5th edition of what. You can't claim compatibility in conjunction with a trademark unless you have a licensing agreement for that trademark, so you just don't use the trademark. D&D is such a leader in tabletop RPGs that just citing the edition is pretty much enough. You might confuse a very small number of people, but most consumers can read between the lines. You don't get the full marketing benefit that you would if you were able to say "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition", but I don't think it's that big of a disadvantage.

 

[Alzrius]

Yea but it's easy to work around this restriction by just claiming compatibility with "5th Edition" without referencing the 5th edition of what. You can't claim compatibility in conjunction with a trademark unless you have a licensing agreement for that trademark, so you just don't use the trademark. D&D is such a leader in tabletop RPGs that just citing the edition is pretty much enough. You might confuse a very small number of people, but most consumers can read between the lines. You don't get the full marketing benefit that you would if you were able to say "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition", but I don't think it's that big of a disadvantage.

I know; I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was just pointing out that releasing 5E under the OGL does not mean that you can say "compatible with Dungeons & Dragons" right on the cover if you make use of it.

 

[Morrus]

Not to pick nits... but isn't the issue *not* a '5E OGL', but rather a 5E SRD to add to the OGL?

Not even slightly.

The issue is a logo or trademark compatibility license. Nobody needs a new OGL. Nobody *really* needs a logo or trademark compatibility license.

To be clear, Section 7 indicates that you cannot indicate compatibility unless you have another agreement that says you can (emphasis mine).

Yes. So you don't use the D&D logo or the words "Dungeons & Dragons". Not a terrible obstacle.

 

[Hussar]

I just backed the Primeval Thule kickstarter for 5e, so, it's not like there aren't companies jumping in to produce 5e stuff. What we don't have this time around is the massive numbers that we saw in 3e. Probably because the bar of entry is a bit higher - IMO, the lack of 5e OGL scares off a lot of people who might have jumped in but can't be bothered talking to a lawyer about it.

Whether this is a bad or good thing I don't know.