PDA

View Full Version : Homebrew License Information



Afgncaap5
2014-05-02, 06:33 PM
So, has WotC said one way or the other what their stance is going to be on open sourcing stuff? I mean, they sort of opened up the basic rule set to anyone with the d20 srd, and Pathfinder has something similar (I think). I know in 4e, though, they put in those weird clauses about open content for 4e being permitted if people waived their ability to participate in the d20 srd open content stuff.

While it's still too early to know if I'd want to release my own homebrew material into the wild (and while I'm pretty sure no one would read it even if I did), I'm curious to know how their legal department will be handling such things.

Lokiare
2014-05-02, 08:14 PM
So, has WotC said one way or the other what their stance is going to be on open sourcing stuff? I mean, they sort of opened up the basic rule set to anyone with the d20 srd, and Pathfinder has something similar (I think). I know in 4e, though, they put in those weird clauses about open content for 4e being permitted if people waived their ability to participate in the d20 srd open content stuff.

While it's still too early to know if I'd want to release my own homebrew material into the wild (and while I'm pretty sure no one would read it even if I did), I'm curious to know how their legal department will be handling such things.

It would be suicide at this point for them not to open the game up in that way. People would simply ignore it and make OGL clones of it. Paizo would probably make a decent clone and WotC D&D would just close up shop.

If they do open up the game like that then it might work if they can make quality content and keep people from making better content. In other words they have to be able to out quality paizo, and I just don't think they are capable of that.

Afgncaap5
2014-05-02, 09:02 PM
So you think that they're in a bad place, business-wise, either way? But they'll probably lean towards permitting it in a 3.5-ish manner?

NoldorForce
2014-05-03, 12:49 AM
WotC (and of course Hasbro) learned its lesson with the OGL, so I very much doubt that any license as open as that will go through. What's more realistic is that they'll publish something more akin to the GSL or Pathfinder's license (which is - rampant hypocrisy - very similar in effect to the GSL), where folks can't republish most of the game mechanics but can build off the existing framework.

Lokiare
2014-05-04, 11:47 AM
WotC (and of course Hasbro) learned its lesson with the OGL, so I very much doubt that any license as open as that will go through. What's more realistic is that they'll publish something more akin to the GSL or Pathfinder's license (which is - rampant hypocrisy - very similar in effect to the GSL), where folks can't republish most of the game mechanics but can build off the existing framework.

The difference is that Pathfinder's license can't be pulled on a whim like the 4E GSL, which is one of the major things that 3rd parties objected to. The other major thing that they objected to that Paizo doesn't have in their license is the inability to use other licenses if you use their license, which was the biggest thing that made Paizo spin off Pathfinder. The original 4E GSL basically said if you use this license you can't produce OGL content. Paizo saw that and said, "I don't think so."

NoldorForce
2014-05-04, 08:59 PM
The difference is that Pathfinder's license can't be pulled on a whim like the 4E GSL, which is one of the major things that 3rd parties objected to.Are you certain of that? Section 8 of Pathfinder's license certainly allows for removal of said license if Paizo wishes.

The other major thing that they objected to that Paizo doesn't have in their license is the inability to use other licenses if you use their license, which was the biggest thing that made Paizo spin off Pathfinder. The original 4E GSL basically said if you use this license you can't produce OGL content. Paizo saw that and said, "I don't think so."I believe that Wizards realized that problem and fixed it, since their FAQ mentions that section 6 is gone from the GSL. And seeing as how Dungeon/Dragon were being reconsolidated under the Wizards banner, Paizo's old business would have dried up if they didn't do something fast...like, you know, publishing a clone of 3E with no legal repercussions. Any concept of making material exclusively for one edition or another was frankly secondary.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-05, 12:37 AM
Are you certain of that? Section 8 of Pathfinder's license certainly allows for removal of said license if Paizo wishes.

Oh, but you should have seen WOTC's original draft of their 4E license. It basically said that they could force you to destroy all your inventory of homebrew 4E books, without having to specify a reason, and if they did so any IP in those books would automatically pass to them. Yes, they took that part out after the uproar, but there's a reason why there's not a lot of third-party 4E material.

Person_Man
2014-05-08, 08:10 AM
Mike Mearls and other writers associated with the project have put out statements in support of the 3.0/3.5 OGL in the past, and some tentative statements saying that they want something like it for Next.

They'll throw the community some sort of OGL-ish bone, but I'm going to go on record saying that there will be some sort of poison pill in it that prevents meaningful 3rd party support for Next.

Wizards of the Coast was a company run by gamers. The OGL was created by gamers when D&D was a dying niche hobby with miniscule sales.

Hasbro is a billion dollar corporation, and in such organizations these sorts of decisions are made by lawyers and executives, not writers. And D&D is now a mulch-million dollar business with a ton of branding potential.

They'll say nice things about it, but I highly doubt there will be a real OGL. Which is idiocy, really, because the real money from D&D comes from it's branding potential (video games, cartoons, comics, miniatures, board games, etc) and not from the game itself. So it would make more business sense to basically give the game away for free, and make all your money selling secondary items to it's fans. But again, I doubt the lawyers will see it that way.

Composer99
2014-05-08, 11:39 AM
They'll say nice things about it, but I highly doubt there will be a real OGL. Which is idiocy, really, because the real money from D&D comes from it's branding potential (video games, cartoons, comics, miniatures, board games, etc) and not from the game itself. So it would make more business sense to basically give the game away for free, and make all your money selling secondary items to it's fans. But again, I doubt the lawyers will see it that way.

On that note, I wonder how much money Drizzt has made for D&D publishers over the years...?

NoldorForce
2014-05-10, 08:34 AM
Wizards of the Coast was a company run by gamers. The OGL was created by gamers when D&D was a dying niche hobby with miniscule sales.

Hasbro is a billion dollar corporation, and in such organizations these sorts of decisions are made by lawyers and executives, not writers. And D&D is now a mulch-million dollar business with a ton of branding potential.

They'll say nice things about it, but I highly doubt there will be a real OGL. Which is idiocy, really, because the real money from D&D comes from it's branding potential (video games, cartoons, comics, miniatures, board games, etc) and not from the game itself. So it would make more business sense to basically give the game away for free, and make all your money selling secondary items to it's fans. But again, I doubt the lawyers will see it that way.WotC had been owned by Hasbro since 1999, so calling it a "company run by gamers" has never really made sense since before 3E was published. In fact the OGL was originally intended to stifle competition (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e), not to benefit gamers in any particular way. (Curiously enough - :smallsigh: - it backfired badly.)

But I doubt that anything like the OGL will contribute meaningful branding potential. Any sort of licensed spinoff media is orthogonal to the openness (or not) of the core game; that kind of stuff is best hashed out with lawyers and media-types rather than enthusiastic-yet-naive gamers. (Compare the leadership of, say, Palladium to Fantasy Flight.)

Sartharina
2014-05-30, 06:20 PM
WotC had been owned by Hasbro since 1999, so calling it a "company run by gamers" has never really made sense since before 3E was published. In fact the OGL was originally intended to stifle competition (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e), not to benefit gamers in any particular way. (Curiously enough - :smallsigh: - it backfired badly.)\Actually - I don't think it did until late in 3.5's run, after it had achieved Market Saturation... though it did leave the market open for Pathfinder to steal everything.

da_chicken
2014-05-30, 07:34 PM
Actually - I don't think it did until late in 3.5's run, after it had achieved Market Saturation... though it did leave the market open for Pathfinder to steal everything.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I mean, does anybody else remember how many people were playing Vampire and Werewolf before 2000? And then 6-7 years later where the game was? Sure, they shot themselves in the foot when they rebooted the Word of Darkness, but that was in 2006 or so. The game was struggling hard before that. Sure, Exalted always has fans and sold decently, but the whole White Wolf Storytell[er|ing] lineup seemed to go from the RPG that everybody was playing to the RPG that one guy buys and he can't find a group for.