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

[Gab]

WotC announces plans for 4e SRD and OGL

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.

Any idea (mention) of how this impacts other game worlds, such as Dark Sun? Does this mean we can't change races (Dark Sun races are different from the standard races) if we want to release something under the OGL?

 

[Kesh]

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

I think the question about Section 9 of the current OGL is more about: how can we re-use material published with the current OGL under the new SRD/OGL if the new one is more restrictive?

I'm sure Wizards has a clause to cover this, but it'd be nice if they explained it a bit more.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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...

That's just what I was thinking. I'd have much preferred a "core engine" d20 license remain to allow for the really creative stuff.

 

[slaughterj]

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.

It seems to me that if anyone is interested in using the 4e rules system (but not the other PHB content), then they should just go ahead and use it but not enter into the OGL at all. (The system itself is unlikely to be subject to patent protection, which only leaves trademarks and copyrights to be concerned about.) They of course need to avoid improper use of WOTC's trademarks and copyrights, but as a practical matter, it seems that the copyrighted content isn't as usable anyway under the 4e OGL and rules would need to be rewritten anyway, given the following statement:

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.

The ability to use rote copying of rules under 3.0/3.5 OGL seemed to be one of the most significant benefits of even being under the OGL, since (1) you didn't have to rewrite the same rules in your own books (e.g., Conan RPG, MnM, etc.), but instead could just copy them and move on, and (2) "everyone" understood the rules from one game to another (which a rewrite of the rules, even if intended to be the same result, could end up creating differing interpretations). Removal of this ability would seem to not affect module creation, etc. particularly, but it would make products that are alternative rule systems to be virtually unworkable (see, e.g., Gamma World which was tied in like this, and required jumping back and forth between d20 Modern and the Gamma World texts, to the point that it was nearly impossible to make a character, much less play the game). Therefore, if the rules system can't be rote copied under the OGL, then those who want to use the rules in different ways may be better off to just skip the OGL entirely and use the (presumably unpatented) system with their own rewritten rules (to avoid the copyright issues), since they would have to rewrite the rules in equivalent terms anyway (per the above quote).

 

[slaughterj]

That's just what I was thinking. I'd have much preferred a "core engine" d20 license remain to allow for the really creative stuff.

Presumably the 4e system will not be patented, which would mean anyone could still use it. They would just have to rewrite the rules instead of copying them (to avoid copyright issues), which is annoying and has to be done carefully to avoid differing interpretations from arising. They could even effectively say "compatible with the 4e game system" or some such without creating trademark problems, if done correctly. All of which can be done without even entering the OGL.

But I agree, there should just be a core d20 OGL for each version of the d20 system, that people can just copy and paste rules from for each different game - it makes things much simpler. It will be interesting to see how much of core d20 is really changed by this new version though, as it seems much probably wouldn't (e.g., roll 1d20 and add modifiers to see if you hit, succeed at a skill, or make a save), though presumably there are at least a few "fixes" (e.g., grapple) that might be considered changes to the core d20 system.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

To be honest, it sounds like they entirely gutted anything worthwhile about the OGL. Of course they're trying to "spin" it nicely, but what I'm reading is basically that, now, the new OGL/SRD will amount to the ability to create plug-in content (modules, new feats) for D&D and D&D only, but not IMPROVE upon the system nor utilize it for the construction of any other genre games. The ability to use d20 for every genre and style of game I played was the largest draw of the whole kit and kaboodle, for myself.

That, additionally, their spin cast gentle dispersion upon authors who utilized the former incarnation of the SRD to fashion these games is unfortunate.

The ability to rewrite the game from the ground up to create something similar to the game has always been available, by the very nature of the thing. I wouldn't try to fly that as a magnanimous gesture. That would be something akin to Microsoft releasing a press announcement that Windows was "joining the open source movement" by allowing the population at large to write 'computer operating systems' and selling developers a copy of Windows to look at for ideas while doing so, while warning the devs not to infringe upon any of their IP.

--fje

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The 3E OGL will allow the creation of 4E content, it'll just take a little more effort to make it clear that's what it is. And the True20 horse is out of the barn, and people will take good ideas from other games, like RuneQuest or 4E, and continue to make changes to True20 as long as they like.

Now then, let's hear your plans, Expeditious Retreat Press, Green Ronin and Goodman Games!

 

[woodelf]

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

Though it looks like still only if they involve physical objects. That is, the patents that have so far been granted don't challenge the long-standing requirement that a game have patentable physical elements to be patented. Though, given that mathematical algorithms have been granted patents despite math being unpatentable, i wouldn't be surprised to find an RPG mechanic patent granted, if somebody quietly applied and nobody objected.

 

[woodelf]

I think the question about Section 9 of the current OGL is more about: how can we re-use material published with the current OGL under the new SRD/OGL if the new one is more restrictive?

If they're separate licenses, you can't. It's that simple. Unless you get someone who owns the content you want to re-release it under the new license.

If it's a new version of the same license, however, you can simply choose to use the terms of the current version of the license, and ignore the restrictions in the new version--which i think is why someone was asking about Section 9 of th WotC OGL. And, therefore, presumably WotC will be releasing a whole new license, rather than updating the existing one, because otherwise their new terms are unenforceable.

 

[Psion]

If they're separate licenses, you can't. It's that simple.

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.