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

[Just Another User]

I wonder if all this is someway related to all the (IMO sometime unesplicable) changes that they did in 4e. Like if they made some of those changes to better differentiate between i.e. 3e Elf and 4e elf to better "protect" the latter.

 

[Darklion]

The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows “copy and paste” publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.

Man, that sucks. I understand the reasoning, but if the rules are summarized rather than quoted, it becomes next to worthless as a reference.

"Rats, I didn't bring my PHB, so I don't know what it says about casting a spell while concentrating on another one."

"So look it up in the SRD!"

"Ok, um... 'In general, this may be allowed. Consult your hardcopy PHB.'"

I know I'll be able to download the PDF version of the PHB, but frankly the extensively-hyperlinked, all-text SRD is vastly more accessible for quick referencing than a PDF-based document.

The community standards clause will follow the same spirit as the current version. It will lay out in broad brushstrokes what’s appropriate and what isn’t in a D&D-compatible product. If publishers have any questions, they’re always welcome to ask WotC about specifics. This clause applies to content, and wouldn’t apply to (say) a shoddy or ugly cover. (Note that this is a rare occurrence anyways; according to Scott Rouse, there has only been one case in the last two years where the community standards clause came into effect, and that was amicably resolved.)

So much for the "open" gaming license. It's open, except for all the stuff you can't do with it.

 

[Yair]

So endeth the era of open gaming*. It was good while it lasted.

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



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

That was my first thought. I agree with

Same way any third-party product could enforce its copyright, I'd imagine. Obviously they can't enforce the 4e license on anything that was actually covered by the 3e license. But any material that's new to 4e will be covered. If you write a module with an ogre in it, and the ogre uses 3e stats, the 3e license applies. If you use the 4e stat block, the 4e license applies.

And I also agree that this means that anyone using the False OGL [false as in - there is nothing Open about it, and it isn't a continuation of the old OGL at all] would not be able to draw on any 3e OGC (unless he owns the rights to it regardless of the OGL).

* From the clues given, it doesn't look like the new OGL will offer the possibility of open content at all. Online registration, "community" standards, limitations on the bredth of products... coupled to a lack of shared open source material (the new SRD doesn't appear to be much of an SRD too) - color me disimpressed. This is the first thing that is making me doubt moving to 4e.

 

[Yair]

What defines a separate license? If anyone had the temerity (and cash) to take it to court, and they had a license with the same name by the same company, there are legal principles that could apply here that might not come out in wizards favor*.

Of course, the operative words here are "If anyone had the temerity (and cash)".

* - Disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. Consult competent legal counsel before taking any action, yadda yadda.

Since WotC does own, errg, I mean employs lawyers, I'm pretty confident they could phrase things in a way that will make legal sense. Perhaps the "OGL" won't really be called an "Open Gaming License".

 

[Darklion]

Since WotC does own, errg, I mean employs lawyers, I'm pretty confident they could phrase things in a way that will make legal sense. Perhaps the "OGL" won't really be called an "Open Gaming License".

According to section 9, all WOTC really has to do is say that OGL New is not an updated version of the OGL Classic, but a separate and unrelated license. Therefore, section 9 doesn't apply and the new rules (sorry, the new "summaries") cannot be relicensed.

They could even call it OGL 2.0 -- all they need to do is add a clause that says it is not an update to OGL 1.0, but a total rewrite. Viola.

 

[MerricB]

Since WoTC has already established that 4e is derivative of 3e-- or at the very least, is certainly derivable from existing 3e Open Content-- I am really curious to see how this is legally enforceable.

4e isn't derived from Open Content. It's derived from Closed Content.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Nothing more than my personal opinion but I don't like it one bit. If that's how they feel about the new OGL just wait until they see people start creating "almost 4e" from the better 3e OGL. I've already got many elements of 4e in my home games and don't doubt I and hundreds of others could pull an OSRIC using it as a base.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

4e isn't derived from Open Content. It's derived from Closed Content.

Or at the very least, it's derivable from Open Content.

You skipped that part.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

4e isn't derived from Open Content. It's derived from Closed Content.

I suspect that's a pretty tough legal argument to make. It would take someone with a Hasbro-sized legal team to challenge WotC on this one, though.

And I just noticed that Malhavoc wasn't in on the conference call. There dies one of my dreams.

 

[Andre]

So far I haven't read anything definitive about OGC. With the 3E OGL, any new content based on the core mechanics must be open (though many publishers, some quite popular, have done what they can to avoid this requirement). Fluff can be closed, but the underlying crunch must be open.

Has WOTC indicated anything about this in reference to the 4E OGL?