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

[Cheiromancer]

Could one use the 3.5 OGL to create a rule-set that runs 4E material? IIRC there is an OGL rule-set that simulates 1st edition mechanics and feel. I imagine that one could do the same for any edition that comes along. If 4E is derived from 3.5E, then by tinkering with the 3.5 SRD you could get as close as you like.

Off hand, the only way I can see WotC preventing a 3rd party end-run around the 4E OGL is by including lots of product identity in it that would be closed from any mutation of the 3E SRD.

It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

 

[catsclaw227]

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

<snip>

Viva Necro! And Viva Open Gaming!

Excellent news, Clark!!! I am again (and have always been) a Necro fan. Good to see you diving head-first feet back into the pond.

Will the products be Paizo/Necro, similar to the way SSS was doing Necro products in the past, or will it be much more collaborative, with Paizo and Necro working together on the product development?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Could one use the 3.5 OGL to create a rule-set that runs 4E material?

Theoretically speaking, since 4e has been "in development" in active 3.5 play since before Bo9S, the answer is obviously yes.

If 4E is derived from 3.5E, then by tinkering with the 3.5 SRD you could get as close as you like.

Yes, but it doesn't seem that there would be an easy way to incorporate literal 4e content into a 3.5 document, if truly WOTC's intent is to release it under a "new" OGL. And by new I mean, obviously, not an update of, and utterly unconnected to, the existing OGL.

Off hand, the only way I can see WotC preventing a 3rd party end-run around the 4E OGL is by including lots of product identity in it that would be closed from any mutation of the 3E SRD.

The only way? No. The best way is for them to say, "Don't do this, please," and escalating if necessary to, "Right or wrong, we'll sue your butt off..."

I strongly suspect most folks will play nice.

It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

It would be interesting if anyone was inclined to test the issue, but I doubt that will happen. I think it will all unfold pretty uninterestingly.

 

[Minicol]

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

Aaaaah ... Such good news !

Thanks a lot !

 

[Psion]

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

Well, nothing maybe except that if you publish under the terms of an old license, you don't get the bennies of the new license.

So take your pick.

 

[Psion]

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.)

Well, right there, WotC may have gained 1 4e sale.

 

[GreatLemur]

The only way? No. The best way is for them to say, "Don't do this, please," and escalating if necessary to, "Right or wrong, we'll sue your butt off..."

I strongly suspect most folks will play nice.

Yeah, I'd hate to see us end up in the kind of antagonistic relationship a lot of the fan community had with TSR, towards the end. Remember when people used to call them "T$R" back on that ur-Internet of BBSes and newsgroups?

 

[Desdichado]

The only way? No. The best way is for them to say, "Don't do this, please," and escalating if necessary to, "Right or wrong, we'll sue your butt off..."

I strongly suspect most folks will play nice.

It would be interesting if anyone was inclined to test the issue, but I doubt that will happen. I think it will all unfold pretty uninterestingly.

Isn't this essentially just the OSRIC scenario all over again, though? Using the open edition to "reverse engineer" a less open edition to release compatible material through the open license?

 

[Traycor]

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.)

So... does that mean that WotC will have to ask Necro for permission to put the bard in a future splat released by WotC? I would hate to see WotC creating wonky mechanics for some of the basic classes just because it needed to be different from what a 3rd party has published.

And even worse, I'd hate to see them required to give the classes wierd names to avoid 3rd party published name. Celtic Bard class or whatnot.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

This bit seems strange to me, because it sounds as if - effectively - the d20 license has been renamed to the OGL license, and the old-style OGL license has disappeared.

Speculation: With 3e it was anticipated that the majority of companies would go for d20 licensed products, and it was a bit of a surprise that Mongoose, Green Ronin (and others?) have been able to take the OGL side and run with it to bring out whole new, successful product lines; I've got no idea about the actual facts and figures but when I visit my FLGS it seems that there are a lot more OGL than third party d20 products out there.

Further Speculation: Direct competitors rather than participators in an add-on market isn't what they want, so in practice WotC want to kill the OGL license and leave only the d20 license there (the one which predicates the use of the PHB alongside the product). For some reason (maybe the OGL name has more traction now?) they want the license to be headlined as 'OGL' even though the new license seems soundly based on the older, more restrictive d20 license.

Of course, this breeds the possibility of confusion, because when someone says 'OGL' they won't necessarily know whether it is 'old, unrestricted 3e OGL' or 'new, restricted 4e OGL'.

So it seems like a bit of a mess regarding naming standards to me, but it will be interesting to see how things pan out.

Cheers