D&D 4E WotC announces plans for 4e SRD and OGL

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

7. With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?

The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.

Dang, that kind of sucks. The radically-diverged OGL products were one of the coolest things to come out of D&D 3e. I was really looking forward to seeing what kind of True20-equivalent games might evolve from 4e through the OGL. Guess I'll have to do it myself, and never show it to anyone but my own players...

I am not sure about this either, but then, maybe the OGL for 3.x (assuming it can't suddenly be made illegal, which the reference to "this particular version" seems to confirm) would be sufficient for such products.

But would something like Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes still be possible? How much of a constraint is the fact that there are classes in the PHB and so on?

This

Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before.

could alleviate a lot of problems. If this implies that there will be a 4E d20 Modern game (this is alone would be great news to me!).

Apparently they are planning to have multiple OGLs.
Reminds me of "Creative Commons" Licenses. The CCLs grant different rights to users, depending on the preference of the author. Or like the GPL (GNU Public License) and LGPL (Lesser GPL). The GPL one requires derived products to use a fully compatible GPL license (meaning GPL libraries are usually not useable by any party that wants to create "closed source" products based on open source). T

...

Waiting to 2009 for most 3rd party products? Wow, that's some time. But then, I guess the WotC products and "Phase I" products will be sufficient to keep me busy. It's not like I use a lot of non-WotC books in the first place. (But maybe they should consider shifting it to December, 1st of 2008? Or do they want to avoid that?)

I have trouble determining how "much" the 5,000 $ initial fee for the Phase I really is to the "big names" of the OGL market, but I guess it's the price that WotC deemed appropriate to ensure that enough of the big names will invest the money, and that the "riff-raff" stays out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Dang, that kind of sucks. The radically-diverged OGL products were one of the coolest things to come out of D&D 3e. I was really looking forward to seeing what kind of True20-equivalent games might evolve from 4e through the OGL. Guess I'll have to do it myself, and never show it to anyone but my own players...

I kind of agree, however I don't think this can really stop the radically-diverged product.

You could still release, say, Mutants and Masterminds, with the text "Fully compatible with the 4th Edition of the world's most popular role playing game!" You wouldn't be able to reference the exact rules, but you don't really need to most of the time. If your product is radically diverged, most of the exact rules would have to be changed anyway, ya?

Especially if the SRD is more guidelines, less specific stats, you wouldn't often be able to point back to it, anyway. And since that defines what content is open, if it's not in the SRD, all you CAN do is reference it obliquely.

It makes it more awkward, but not impossible. Game mechanics, after all, aren't copyrighted (IIRC), and I could still make a 4e-compatible product that used the basic 4e rules (3 tiers, at-will/per-encounter/per-day abilities, d20 vs. a DC, etc) without ever having to reference anything that Wizards has claim over. More difficult, and requiring more careful footwork, but still possible in an Arcana Unearthed kind of way, where you dance around D&Disms, invent your new isms, and make things with substantially similar rules that don't vary any more than your nearest house-ruled campaign will.

And there's the mention of future, broader OGLs and SRDs coming down the pipe, too. The d20 Modern might be more generic. And the community could always publish an "IP-Free" OGL and SRD of their own that doesn't reference D&D in any kind of way.

But those last are all kind of dreamland material. Practically, what this means is that publishers who want to to crazy creative stuff right out the gate can either go the "Arcana Unearthed" route of oblique references and slightly different rules, or can just wait and see if future OGL/SRD pairings will be more suited to their product (Spycraft and M&M, for instance, might be better off using the d20 Modern version).

 

[S'mon]

Well, if you're willing to go beyond "good faith", I hear it's kind of questionable whether pure game mechanics can be legally protected as intellectual property (but I am most definitely not an expect on the subject).

Game mechanics are not copyright protected, but innovative mechanics may be patentable in the USA (WotC has one for an element of M:TG).

As an IP lecturer, my impression is that for third parties publishing their own d20-based games (rather than eg scenarios for D&D); their best bet is to continue to use the 3.0/3.5 OGL and ignore 4e.

 

[buzz]

But those last are all kind of dreamland material. Practically, what this means is that publishers who want to to crazy creative stuff right out the gate can either go the "Arcana Unearthed" route of oblique references and slightly different rules, or can just wait and see if future OGL/SRD pairings will be more suited to their product (Spycraft and M&M, for instance, might be better off using the d20 Modern version).

I get the impression that the 4e OGL will be aimed at publishers who want to create D&D support product, and the 4e Modern OGL will be aimed at those who want to go crazy with d20-based, stand-alone RPGs.

 

[Piratecat]

How does this interact with Section 9 of the existing OGL?

What is to prevent publishers from using an earlier version of the OGL?

Nothing, Ben. Use of the older OGL isn't restricted. Erik Mona specifically asked that, and Scott gave a clear answer.

 

[Orcus]

Necro is IN

Necromancer Games is IN, most likely in conjunction with Paizo. We will have products for GenCon or shortly thereafter.

Products include:

1. Tome of Horrors 4E: if WotC leaves monsters out of the offial rules, we will put them back in (cant say which ones cause we dont have the rules yet). Plus all the classics from the original Tome that you want in your 4E game will be back.

2. Advanced Player's Guide: Designed in part by industry insider Ari Marmell, if they left classes and races out, we put them back in (Of course, we can't say if bards or druids or barbarians or gnomes or half-orc are or arent in 4th edition, but we know some stuff has been cut, and whatever is missing we will create for you with work by respected designer Ari Marmell.)

3. Tegel Manor. A 4E version of the 1E Judges Guild classic.

4. Winter's Tomb. A free, downloadable PDF along the lines of Wizard's Amulet, Necro's Ennie-winning introductory adventure, that will help jump start your 4E campaign.

Winter's Tomb will be available at the first day 4E products can be released. Tome 4E should be available at GenCon with the Advanced Player's Guide. Tegel is also targeted for GenCon. Dates could slip pending WotC's delivery of the design kits.

We have been planning this stuff for months, privately. I want to thank WotC for allowing us to be a part of the process and to help support 4E. You guys need to know that the conference call was professional and very business like. It is clear they have given a TON of thought and planning to this. Open Gaming is NOT an afterthought for WotC--it is something that they have spent alot of time on. They are working with us, and that is a really, really good thing. I can't tell you how pleased I have been with the process.

But back to the products. You trusted us to help put the 1E back into 3E, now we are doing the same for 4E!

Viva Necro! And Viva Open Gaming!

 

[Alnag]

So they actually confirmed plans for D20 Modern 4e, right?

 

[GreatLemur]

I get the impression that the 4e OGL will be aimed at publishers who want to create D&D support product, and the 4e Modern OGL will be aimed at those who want to go crazy with d20-based, stand-alone RPGs.

That'd be cool. A d20 Modern SRD could actually be a much more generic and logical starting point for divergent OGL games than a D&D one, anyway.

Damn, I'd really love to hear what they're considering for the new d20 Modern. If they could finally get rid of the whole silly advanced classes / prestige classes split, I'd be damned happy. Or, better yet, get rid of them both, and treat the basic classes like True20's generic "heroic roles". But now I'm veering way off-topic.

2. Advanced Player's Guide: Designed in part by industry insider Ari Marmell, if they left classes and races out, we put them back in

Ha-ha! I knew there'd inevitably be a lot of that going on. Awesome. I suspect you guys will clean up, with that one.

 

[MarkAHart]

The Necromancer Games products sound fantastic...makes me wish I was going to GenCon!

 

[Piratecat]

So they actually confirmed plans for D20 Modern 4e, right?

If you ask me, Bill accidentally let that slip. But yes, it wasn't a "if we do d20 Modern," it was "it would have to wait for d20 Modern." So I think it's safe to say that it'll arrive at some point.