D&D 5E Still no OGL (or other license) for 5e? Why not clone 5e with the OGL?

[Evenglare]

Searching, reading, and deciding for yourself will not impress a court if you get called on something.

If you really want to publish, speak to an IP Lawyer.

Chances are if anything happened he would get a C&D WAY before he ever even got mention of a court. Unless you know of a time when someone directly went to court completely surpassing a C&D.

 

[Umbran]

Chances are if anything happened he would get a C&D WAY before he ever even got mention of a court. Unless you know of a time when someone directly went to court completely surpassing a C&D.

Yes, but a C&D still means financial loss. The resources put into R&D? Spent without chance to recoup. Money spent on physical product? Gone, as you probably end up having to destroy said product.

Screwing up the legalities means you risk doing a lot of work for no gain. If you're fine with throwing your money away, by all means, don't consult a lawyer!

 

[MarkB]

I'd imagine that the recent news of Hasbro and Warners Bros teaming up to make a new Dungeons & Dragons movie probably doesn't bode well for any attempts to stretch current D&D licensing. With both Hasbro and a Hollywood studio interested in protecting their brand and capitalising on any spin-offs in the event of a successful movie, they're more likely than ever to want to keep things buttoned down tight.

 

[Lucas Yew]

I just wish that I'm no longer scared of getting sued for just putting up a darned stat block with numbers on a personal webpage to brag to others... For example, TRS under that Lorr..Whatever's tyranny did so; MCG just disallows it openly with their Fan Policy, if I'm not mistaken.

Which is precisely why I love OGL, CC, and such things. At least they have definite directions on which is safe to copy around, and are also quite lenient about what is free.

 

[Remathilis]

I just wish that I'm no longer scared of getting sued for just putting up a darned stat block with numbers on a personal webpage to brag to others... For example, TRS under that Lorr..Whatever's tyranny did so; MCG just disallows it openly with their Fan Policy, if I'm not mistaken.

Which is precisely why I love OGL, CC, and such things. At least they have definite directions on which is safe to copy around, and are also quite lenient about what is free.

IANAL, but if previous 4e material is any indication, I think you can be safe if you follow a few common sense guidelines.

1.) Don't reprint the rules on how-to play. If you need to refer to those rules, link to the Basic Document.
2.) Don't reprint things WotC already made. You can make a new version of the ranger without reprinting the already published rules. Likewise, you don't need to reprint the sorcerer base class to make a new subclass. (If you're in doubt, look at how WotC has provided rules in the UA docs).
3.) Make your own adventures, but don't reprint WotC stat blocks (if all else fails; use page number citation).
4.) Don't sell your stuff.

WotC isn't going to go after fansites unless you are giving away boatloads of their material for free or trying to sell your own PHB. My personal site has some new races, spells, and magic items (some of which are conversions of other WotC material) but I don't think they are worried about my page and dozen or so hits it will have. Most everything is Fair Use.

Again, IANAL, but that's what I'm doing right now.

 

[Mistwell]

IANAL, but if previous 4e material is any indication, I think you can be safe if you follow a few common sense guidelines.

Or, yah know, just use their fansite kit rules.

Link.

And you can also just email them a link to your site and ask, and hopefully they respond. They're not trying to play hide the ball with anyone.

 

[Henry]

Or, yah know, just use their fansite kit rules.

Link.

And you can also just email them a link to your site and ask, and hopefully they respond. They're not trying to play hide the ball with anyone.

Just having read that, doesn't it prohibit you from posting any rules-related content to a fan site?

...We encourage you to use these materials, post your character sheets for Dungeons & Dragons®, create fan fiction, display your personal artwork, and just have fun on your Fan Site.

Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use is subject to the Game System License http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome. For questions concerning digital rights for all other Wizards brands, please visit www.wizards.com/customerservice.

"Does not allow you to distribute your own free-to-use games, modules, or applications for any of our brands" sounds a awful lot like being prohibited to post rules content, because in the previous paragraph they specify "art and fan fiction." A new fighter subclass or a new set of poisons for instance could easily be legally interpreted as a "module", even though we understand the term "module" differently. It DEFINITELY prohibits me from posting an adventure scenario for others to use.

So before using their Fan Site rules, it really doesn't feel like too safe of a "safe harbor" even it someone wants to use their Fan Site for a harmless bunch of rules options to,share with other D&D players.

 

[Remathilis]

Just having read that, doesn't it prohibit you from posting any rules-related content to a fan site?

"Does not allow you to distribute your own free-to-use games, modules, or applications for any of our brands" sounds a awful lot like being prohibited to post rules content, because in the previous paragraph they specify "art and fan fiction." A new fighter subclass or a new set of poisons for instance could easily be legally interpreted as a "module", even though we understand the term "module" differently. It DEFINITELY prohibits me from posting an adventure scenario for others to use.

So before using their Fan Site rules, it really doesn't feel like too safe of a "safe harbor" even it someone wants to use their Fan Site for a harmless bunch of rules options to,share with other D&D players.

But it references the 4e GSL, which 5e currently lacks, creating this gray area.

I am using the Fansite Kit (mostly for art) but if WotC REALLY wants to C&D my personal conversions of Rakasta and Vryloka or the Summon Shadow spell, go ahead. It would take me 5 minutes to delete their wiki entries and TBH I'd be surprised they even found it and thought it was worth the letter.

 

[77IM]

Savage Worlds has a pretty strong licensing program that's not 100% open: https://www.peginc.com/licensing/

TL;DR fan works are allowed as long as you don't charge money for them, and commercial works are allowed pending prior approval (and from the volume of commercial works available, it looks like the approval process is easy and effective for all involved), and any licensed works needs to have a Savage Worlds logo on the front and some licensing text added.

I'd love to see 5e adopt something like this instead of the OGL. The OGL (and the d20 License) resulted in a ton of CRAP products flooding the market, and in the long term that really hurt 3e/3.5.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

It's very simple to produce content for 5E under the existing OGL. Follow these rules (IANAL but this is how all the smart 3PP are doing it so far

1. stick to the OGL as given, so adhere to its stipulations and requirements rigorously.

2. Do not duplicate stat block formats or other visuals that could lead to your product being mistaken for official D&D 5E content. Do not use any material you can attribute to open content or original content.

3. You are deriving mechanical equivalence from the 3rd edition OGL product, so do not reference 5E official products, and for the love of all gods don't label your product D&D compatible; it's not....it's compatible with the 5th edition of everyone's favorite fantasy game, nod nod wink wink. Strictly speaking this is very conformist with the OGL because you are not duplicating the exact mechanics of the source (3.5 rules). Mechanical equivalency with 5E is not forbidden in the OGL at all. It's how the retroclones were legally produced; the OGL was specifically written to allow 3PP to create derivative works founded on 3.5, and mechanical equivalency with 5E seems to satisfy that criteria. Odds are any OGL that might be considered by WotC will not be as permissive as the existing OGL, for the record.

4. Do not duplicate 5E text. Only duplicate identified useable OGL open content text if you absolutely must.

5. Rigorously adhere to the OGL IP exceptions. No mind flayers in a 5E compatible product because they are protected IP in the OGL 1.0a, for example.

6. If you convert or derive material from OGL sources make sure you attribute them correctly.

7. If you're nervous, look for name-equivalency when necessary; i.e. negative energy vs. necrotic. I think you don't need to worry that much, though.

8. Do not stick D&D anywhere on your product. (Second warning). 5E or 5th edition compatible is fine, apparently. Or if you're really nervous just label it "compatible with the very latest edition of the game as of 2015" or something.

9. Make sure you identify and protect your own IP in the OGL, but feel free to identify anything that is open content you want, or which derives from other open content.

10. As a reminder make sure your use of art is legal (i.e. you paid for it and attribute it correctly, and most likely make sure it's not designated as open content unless you and the artist intend for it to be).

....So stick to the OGL as written and you can already do this. It's just like writing for OSR retroclones, and you don't even need to emulate the rules, just the numerics and mechanical equivalency.