7 ms·

Thing is I don’t understand what OGL is for. Let’s say I decide that I want to publish a DnD adventure. Even with OGL I can’t say it is for DnD. They say I ca

Thing is I don’t understand what OGL is for. Let’s say I decide that I want to publish a DnD adventure. Even with OGL I can’t say it is for DnD. They say I can’t even say it is compatible with DnD, but I have my doubts about that. I describe a unique set and setting. Not using any Wizards of the Coast trademark in it. (Which honestly I don’t want because I want my thing to feel fresh and unique.) I don’t think the OGL licence would help me with that. Then of course there is game mechanics. I don’t want to repeat the players handbook. (You wouldn’t expect this kind of material to repeat the basic rules anyway.) But i do want to use terms from it. For example I would write: “The 3rd chest in the second level is locked and magically trapped. The DC of the trap is 13. On activativation it deals 1d6 poison damage. Inside the chest a Shimmering Ghillie Suit. The suit is a legendary magical item which grants its wearer advantage on stealth checks.” Obviously this uses a lot of DnD terminology. (DC, advantage, poison damage, stealth check, legendary item) But it does not infringe on the copyright on any WotC property. (Assuming that I have made a search for the Ghillie Suit not appearing in any published materials yet.) Do i need OGL to publish this? If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish?

Semaphor 4y ago
I think this would actually be fine. The problems happen, if an enemy is of the Druid class and can cast Web. Or at least that’s my understanding with all I’ve learned today ;) Mechanics are fine, "Creative" things like classes not. > If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish? IIRC the video game Solasta: Crown of the Magister is D&D5e under OGL, so they used a lot of SRD things. > Turn-Based Tactical RPG based on the SRD 5.1 Ruleset
- timvdalen 4y ago
  Solasta actually has a separate license: https://www.solasta-game.com/news/30-wotc-granted-us-a-license-to-use-the-dd-srd https://www.solasta-game.com/news/30-wotc-granted-us-a-licen...
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Ah, interesting, I thought they referred to the OGL.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > The problems happen, if an enemy is of the Druid class and can cast Web. It is generally a wise idea to not anger the druids anyway. :) > IIRC the video game Solasta Oh yeah. I did not think about video games. Makes sense.
mhd 4y ago
> If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish? Fear keeps the local publishers in line. Wizards of the Coast is basically the only big player in the industry, backed by an even larger corporation. "Third party publishers" are usually hobbyists or single-person operations, who really benefit not having to work under the threat of lawsuits or even C&Ds. And the RPG industry does have a history of that: TSR, the originators of D&D, were rather litigious, resulting early game companies like Judges Guild having to really conceal their NPC stats to not use verbiage from AD&D. Later TSR sued Mayfair for their Role Aids line (IIRC, Mayfair was helmed by one of the chief people now responsible at WotC). And then there was Palladium, makers of quasi-D&D and the ultimate kitchen sink setting Rifts, who really didn't like early online presence. Never mind that your most likely "publishing house" drivethrurpg.com has WotC as a big partner. Technically legal is one thing, having a license that's shared by thousands of other people who would be on your side out of poor necessity seems like a better foundation for your small game company.
- Macha 4y ago
  I'd argue that Paizo and Paradox are also decently sized competitors that could go head to head with Wizards in a legal battle if they had to.
  - bovermyer 4y ago
    Not with _Hasbro_ they can't.
    - Macha 4y ago
      Paradox has net revenue of $1.6B while Hasbro has $4.7B. While Paradox's main business is outside tabletop games, so is Hasbro's. So they're a lot more comparable in size than you might think. Paizo is of course smaller, but googling indicates they're about $50M (being a private company, the figure is obviously less reliable), which is smaller but not "squash like a fly" small. I'd be more worried about the likes of MCDM (Matt Colville's adventure/rules publishing co) or Pelgrane Press (13th Age).
timvdalen 4y ago
My current understanding is that you'd probably be fine to publish this without the OGL, as copyright law would _probably_ allow you to do this. The OGL is a sort of "you're definitely safe under these restrictions" promise. If you comply with it, the promise is that you definitely won't be sued. Of course, that promise is now being broken.
- ehutch79 4y ago
  The US copyright office has stated that game mechanics are not copyrightable. So rolling a d20, the 6 attributes, etc. The actual words on page are copyrightable though. You obviously can't copyright 'bears' as monsters, but beholders and mindflayers, etc are copyrighted. The specific stats are a grey area, but if you 'clean room' your bestiary, you should be good. You are absolutely right about this being more of a promise not to sue, more than anything else.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    The OGL specifically protects use of the copyrightable text of the mechanics, that's the whole point of the OGL-compatible System Reference Document. Anyone can write a d20 system with the same mechanics, but the more literal text you crib from the SRD, the more you expose yourself to litigation — unless you agree to the OGL. The OGL says, here, crib from and directly reference this copyrighted text so you can eliminate broad swaths of reinventing the wheel and focus on your compatible content. Third-party publishers on shoestrings adopted it en masse for both litigation safety and convenience.
mcv 4y ago
This is my view as well. I guess they have a point with sourcebooks that provide subclasses for existing official classes, but those were never of much interest to me. What I'm interested in is a new campaign setting for use with a specific ruleset. I understand setting an adventure in Faerun would be a derivative work, but surely it wouldn't if it's in a completely new setting? And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation, but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual, as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM. The fact that something competes is not enough; I can write a novel with wizards and dragons, and as long as I don't include characters or places from Tolkien or Harry Potter, it's not derivative, no matter how many themes and ideas are similar. Referring to classes and spells from the Player's Handbook shouldn't be a problem, because the Harry Potter Encyclopedia can refer to everything from the Harry Potter book. Am interesting aspect with publishing an adventure is of course that WotC also publishes adventures for D&D, but my adventure would not be derivative of those adventures; it exists entirely independent from them. It does not exist independently from the core rules (PHB, DMF and MM), but it doesn't compete with those. If that would still count as a copyright violation, then the Harry Potter Encyclopedia would also be a copyright violation the moment Rowling publishes her own encyclopedia. I think that would be rather weird. Shouldn't a violation be a violation of a specific work, rather than the context around it?
- trynewideas 4y ago
  > I understand setting an adventure in Faerun would be a derivative work, but surely it wouldn't if it's in a completely new setting? Anyone can write a setting book. A setting book that references specific copyrighted text — like the contents of the SRD, including classes, spells, creatures, magic items, and certain non-mechanical terms — runs into OGL space. If you create an entirely new set of terms and mechanics, you haven't created a derivative work, but you also haven't necessarily created a compatible work, and you certainly haven't created one as directly compatible as a potential competitor's OGL-compliant work. If you aren't writing for distribution, then none of this matters anyway. > And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation With the exception of some copyrighted monster names, it's explicitly not a violation under the OGL, and the ability to do so is a large part of the point of the OGL. > but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual You can't by name without a separate compatibility license, typically by way of publishing to the Dungeon Master's Guild, which is laden with a lot of other intellectual ownership gotchas. > as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM. If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description in the SRD or covered by the OGL, go for it. The broader point of the OGL was not having to reinvent those wheels in every product a publisher created.
pas 4y ago
> But it does not infringe on the copyright on any WotC property. It's not that simple. The main thing to remember is that even a threat of an expensive lawsuit is a pretty credible one in the US, because of how the system is set up. Yes, frivolous suits get thrown out pretty fast, but that's still not cheap (because you need to hire an attorney to communicate with the court on your behalf, because, again, the system is set up that way), and when it comes to copyright very few things are that clear cut. Just with a mod for a game it's easy to argue that without the game there's no mod, so the mod is a derivative work. And if your campaign is bolted to the mechanics, then it's not hard to argue that the campaign is basically genre-bending fanfiction (ie. copies the same themes into a new setting), so one might argue it should get the same legal treatment as a derivative work. Even if it's ~90% that you would win the case, it might cost you a lot, that's why this matters to businesses. (It likely doesn't matter to individuals or small clubs that publish things for free.)
Longlius 4y ago
The point of the OGL is so you can include or reference things from the System Reference Document in your publication. EDIT: I realize people might not know what an SRD is. It's basically the bare-bones document explaining the game and its mechanics with all the IP-encumbered names filed off. D&D 5E has an SRD (copy: https://www.5esrd.com/ https://www.5esrd.com/) which 3PPs use when making their own content for the system.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Semaphor 4y ago

I think this would actually be fine. The problems happen, if an enemy is of the Druid class and can cast Web. Or at least that’s my understanding with all I’ve learned today ;) Mechanics are fine, "Creative" things like classes not. > If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish? IIRC the video game Solasta: Crown of the Magister is D&D5e under OGL, so they used a lot of SRD things. > Turn-Based Tactical RPG based on the SRD 5.1 Ruleset

timvdalen 4y ago
Solasta actually has a separate license: https://www.solasta-game.com/news/30-wotc-granted-us-a-license-to-use-the-dd-srd https://www.solasta-game.com/news/30-wotc-granted-us-a-licen...
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Ah, interesting, I thought they referred to the OGL.
krisoft 4y ago
> The problems happen, if an enemy is of the Druid class and can cast Web. It is generally a wise idea to not anger the druids anyway. :) > IIRC the video game Solasta Oh yeah. I did not think about video games. Makes sense.

mhd 4y ago

> If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish? Fear keeps the local publishers in line. Wizards of the Coast is basically the only big player in the industry, backed by an even larger corporation. "Third party publishers" are usually hobbyists or single-person operations, who really benefit not having to work under the threat of lawsuits or even C&Ds. And the RPG industry does have a history of that: TSR, the originators of D&D, were rather litigious, resulting early game companies like Judges Guild having to really conceal their NPC stats to not use verbiage from AD&D. Later TSR sued Mayfair for their Role Aids line (IIRC, Mayfair was helmed by one of the chief people now responsible at WotC). And then there was Palladium, makers of quasi-D&D and the ultimate kitchen sink setting Rifts, who really didn't like early online presence. Never mind that your most likely "publishing house" drivethrurpg.com has WotC as a big partner. Technically legal is one thing, having a license that's shared by thousands of other people who would be on your side out of poor necessity seems like a better foundation for your small game company.

Macha 4y ago
I'd argue that Paizo and Paradox are also decently sized competitors that could go head to head with Wizards in a legal battle if they had to.
- bovermyer 4y ago
  Not with _Hasbro_ they can't.
  - Macha 4y ago
    Paradox has net revenue of $1.6B while Hasbro has $4.7B. While Paradox's main business is outside tabletop games, so is Hasbro's. So they're a lot more comparable in size than you might think. Paizo is of course smaller, but googling indicates they're about $50M (being a private company, the figure is obviously less reliable), which is smaller but not "squash like a fly" small. I'd be more worried about the likes of MCDM (Matt Colville's adventure/rules publishing co) or Pelgrane Press (13th Age).

timvdalen 4y ago

My current understanding is that you'd probably be fine to publish this without the OGL, as copyright law would _probably_ allow you to do this. The OGL is a sort of "you're definitely safe under these restrictions" promise. If you comply with it, the promise is that you definitely won't be sued. Of course, that promise is now being broken.

ehutch79 4y ago
The US copyright office has stated that game mechanics are not copyrightable. So rolling a d20, the 6 attributes, etc. The actual words on page are copyrightable though. You obviously can't copyright 'bears' as monsters, but beholders and mindflayers, etc are copyrighted. The specific stats are a grey area, but if you 'clean room' your bestiary, you should be good. You are absolutely right about this being more of a promise not to sue, more than anything else.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  The OGL specifically protects use of the copyrightable text of the mechanics, that's the whole point of the OGL-compatible System Reference Document. Anyone can write a d20 system with the same mechanics, but the more literal text you crib from the SRD, the more you expose yourself to litigation — unless you agree to the OGL. The OGL says, here, crib from and directly reference this copyrighted text so you can eliminate broad swaths of reinventing the wheel and focus on your compatible content. Third-party publishers on shoestrings adopted it en masse for both litigation safety and convenience.

mcv 4y ago

This is my view as well. I guess they have a point with sourcebooks that provide subclasses for existing official classes, but those were never of much interest to me. What I'm interested in is a new campaign setting for use with a specific ruleset. I understand setting an adventure in Faerun would be a derivative work, but surely it wouldn't if it's in a completely new setting? And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation, but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual, as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM. The fact that something competes is not enough; I can write a novel with wizards and dragons, and as long as I don't include characters or places from Tolkien or Harry Potter, it's not derivative, no matter how many themes and ideas are similar. Referring to classes and spells from the Player's Handbook shouldn't be a problem, because the Harry Potter Encyclopedia can refer to everything from the Harry Potter book. Am interesting aspect with publishing an adventure is of course that WotC also publishes adventures for D&D, but my adventure would not be derivative of those adventures; it exists entirely independent from them. It does not exist independently from the core rules (PHB, DMF and MM), but it doesn't compete with those. If that would still count as a copyright violation, then the Harry Potter Encyclopedia would also be a copyright violation the moment Rowling publishes her own encyclopedia. I think that would be rather weird. Shouldn't a violation be a violation of a specific work, rather than the context around it?

trynewideas 4y ago
> I understand setting an adventure in Faerun would be a derivative work, but surely it wouldn't if it's in a completely new setting? Anyone can write a setting book. A setting book that references specific copyrighted text — like the contents of the SRD, including classes, spells, creatures, magic items, and certain non-mechanical terms — runs into OGL space. If you create an entirely new set of terms and mechanics, you haven't created a derivative work, but you also haven't necessarily created a compatible work, and you certainly haven't created one as directly compatible as a potential competitor's OGL-compliant work. If you aren't writing for distribution, then none of this matters anyway. > And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation With the exception of some copyrighted monster names, it's explicitly not a violation under the OGL, and the ability to do so is a large part of the point of the OGL. > but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual You can't by name without a separate compatibility license, typically by way of publishing to the Dungeon Master's Guild, which is laden with a lot of other intellectual ownership gotchas. > as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM. If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description in the SRD or covered by the OGL, go for it. The broader point of the OGL was not having to reinvent those wheels in every product a publisher created.

pas 4y ago

> But it does not infringe on the copyright on any WotC property. It's not that simple. The main thing to remember is that even a threat of an expensive lawsuit is a pretty credible one in the US, because of how the system is set up. Yes, frivolous suits get thrown out pretty fast, but that's still not cheap (because you need to hire an attorney to communicate with the court on your behalf, because, again, the system is set up that way), and when it comes to copyright very few things are that clear cut. Just with a mod for a game it's easy to argue that without the game there's no mod, so the mod is a derivative work. And if your campaign is bolted to the mechanics, then it's not hard to argue that the campaign is basically genre-bending fanfiction (ie. copies the same themes into a new setting), so one might argue it should get the same legal treatment as a derivative work. Even if it's ~90% that you would win the case, it might cost you a lot, that's why this matters to businesses. (It likely doesn't matter to individuals or small clubs that publish things for free.)

Longlius 4y ago

The point of the OGL is so you can include or reference things from the System Reference Document in your publication. EDIT: I realize people might not know what an SRD is. It's basically the bare-bones document explaining the game and its mechanics with all the IP-encumbered names filed off. D&D 5E has an SRD (copy: https://www.5esrd.com/ https://www.5esrd.com/) which 3PPs use when making their own content for the system.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]