D&D 5E Speak to me of unlicensed supplements

[Colin_Fredericks]

I know there are several companies and individuals creating supplements for "5th edition," by which they of course mean D&D... but they never say D&D because they don't have a license. This happened for original D&D as well - Mayfair's Role Aids - and for Kingdoms of Kalamar.

Who's doing it these days? Are they using the OGL, or are they just going with a "Don't violate copyright or trademark" approach? I know that Designers & Dragons has some detail about this, but I'm curious to learn more.

 

[delericho]

I know there are several companies and individuals creating supplements for "5th edition," by which they of course mean D&D... but they never say D&D because they don't have a license.

They're mostly using the OGL, which is indeed a license. It's just that one of the conditions of that license is that they don't claim compatibility by name.

This happened for original D&D as well - Mayfair's Role Aids - and for Kingdoms of Kalamar.

I'm afraid this is also mistaken - the "Kingdoms of Kalamar" materials for 3e were licensed products. That's why they explicitly said D&D on the front covers. (That license came about following a settled lawsuit over the "Dragon Archive" CD product.)

Who's doing it these days?

Goodman have done some adventures, I think, and Frog God (or is it Necromancer) have done one monster book and some adventures. I'm sure there are others, but I don't claim to be an expert.

Are they using the OGL, or are they just going with a "Don't violate copyright or trademark" approach?

Mostly they're using the OGL, and sticking to materials that were opened under 3e. They've been working around anything that's truly 5e-specific.

Edit: there are also some software products that seem to have some sort of informal (or just not-widely-known) licensing arrangement with WotC that allows them to use Basic materials only. Obviously, I don't know the details of the arrangements they have in place.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you don't use the OGL, you are allowed to say "Compatible with Dungeons&Dragons" similar to when you walk into a software store and see "Compatible with Windows" on third party products. Obviously you can't violate any other copyright or trademark if you do so.

If you do use the OGL, you are allowed to use more copyright and trademark stuff as is detailed in the license, but you are not allowed to say "Compatible with Dungeons&Dragons" as that is also specifically called out in the terms of use for the license.

I'm sure companies like Kobold Press have additional agreements with WotC, but most other 3rd party publishers are using the OGL and keeping 5e specific things pretty vague in their products.


*Edit* LOL, ninja'd by Delericho. Guess it's a good thing we said pretty much the exact same thing

 

[Colin_Fredericks]

They're mostly using the OGL, which is indeed a license. It's just that one of the conditions of that license is that they don't claim compatibility by name.

Sorry; I should have been more specific. Yes, the OGL is a license, and right, it doesn't license the trademark.

I'm afraid this is also mistaken - the "Kingdoms of Kalamar" materials for 3e were licensed products. That's why they explicitly said D&D on the front covers. (That license came about following a settled lawsuit over the "Dragon Archive" CD product.)

The original Kalamar, yes, but not the more recent material. Check out Shannon's discussion of this from back in 2008.

Thanks for the info!

 

[JeffB]

Kalamar preceeded 3e. The products were essentially for ad&d. Many of the modules were updated and re-named for 3e release. So ..unofficial....official...and unofficial again

 

[thalmin]

Actually, Kenzer's original Kalamar was done during TSR's AD&D days. It was not licensed, and I believe made no mention of D&D or AD&D.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm afraid this is also mistaken - the "Kingdoms of Kalamar" materials for 3e were licensed products. That's why they explicitly said D&D on the front covers. (That license came about following a settled lawsuit over the "Dragon Archive" CD product.)

As others have noted, there were Kingdoms of Kalamar products from back in the 1990's that were AD&D compatible, long before the issue with the "Dragon Archive" came about. Likewise, there's a Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting for D&D 4E.

Few people seem to know that David Kenzer is an intellectual property attorney, and knew he was on solid ground insofar as making compatible supplements without a license went.

Insofar as the 3E KoK books go, it's notable that some of them are licensed - and, as such, have the Dungeons & Dragons logo on them - while others are not. There's a reason why books like Player's Guide to the Sovereign Lands, which lacks the D&D logo, are still available from Kenzer Co., while other books (e.g. the ones that had the D&D logo) are no longer being sold by them directly.

 

[Colin_Fredericks]

How about the modern-age, 5th ed. supplements? Who's going with what kind of approach for that?