New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[mamba]

Sorry, who is "they"? Third party publishers can't do NFTs, computer games, and such, you mean?

WotC is 'they', sorry if that was not clear. I.e. WotC gets their wish in that regard

 

[Alzrius]

3) WotC can reserve rights to commercial videogames, software, movies, TV, novels and such. That's fair.

I'd argue against the novels clause; while we can dicker over what constitutes a "novel" per se, the exclusion of prose fiction is a bit too problematic considering what's in a lot of adventure modules and related materials. Heck, I've read novels and short story collections published under the OGL which had game stats for characters and items used in the story, which I got a kick out of, and I'd rather not see those excluded going forward.

 

[Riley]

The one thing needed, for me, is Wizards affirming the irrevocability of the old OGL, such as with the 1.0b you suggest.

Anything else, I won’t care much.

 

[Umbran]

I'd argue against the novels clause; while we can dicker over what constitutes a "novel" per se, the exclusion of prose fiction is a bit too problematic considering what's in a lot of adventure modules and related materials.

This is a license for material in the SRD. Not for working with D&D-isms in a general sense. How much do you need explicit SRD content in your novel?

Heck, I've read novels and short story collections published under the OGL which had game stats for characters and items used in the story, which I got a kick out of, and I'd rather not see those excluded going forward.

So, you have a novel, and then an OGL setting supplement for your novel.

 

[Dausuul]

My first proposal would be the status quo ante. 1D&D gets an SRD released under the OGL, just like 5E, and then people who want to use the D&D trademarks and product identity can use the DM's Guild, under whatever terms Wizards cares to set. Seems like that was working fine for everybody, why mess with it?

Alternatively, here's another option: Wizards releases a new version of the OGL which closes the loopholes they seem to be trying to exploit. They declare it an authorized version, so any current licensee can migrate to it. Then they do whatever they like with 1D&D.

 

[Malmuria]

The question I have is whether you even need a license to create a game that has some combination of six ability scores, hit points, hit dice, saving throws, and a fantasy/dungeon theme. At what point do mechanics become expression? As far as I can see, the OGL is an expression of beneficence from a company that has more resources than independent creators but may not actually be in the right, legally.

 

[Umbran]

I’d be ok with 1.1 having reporting and royalties and limiting to various media types and on approved platforms (like DnD Beyond) IF they opened up IP to use. Similar to DMsGuild, but open up all settings, And they keep the existing OGL of course. Pretty much a lot of what you had in your OP.

Hm. The settings bit is horse-trading outside the license itself. Might be an interesting way for them to get us to accept a license that, say, has a higher royalty rate than we might like to see.

 

[mamba]

The question I have is whether you even need a license to create a game that has some combination of six ability scores, hit points, hit dice, saving throws, and a fantasy/dungeon theme. At what point do mechanics become expression? As far as I can see, the OGL is an expression of beneficence from a company that has more resources than independent creators but may not actually be in the right, legally.

all true, but that was true for 1.0a as well

 

[Yaarel]

A restriction that I have sympathy for would be the open license forbids bigotry.

Heh, but I wouldnt really trust other people to be in the position to decide what is or isnt bigoted.

So, I am unsure how a contract would approach that.

 

[Umbran]

The question I have is whether you even need a license to create a game that has some combination of six ability scores, hit points, hit dice, saving throws, and a fantasy/dungeon theme.

You don't, technically. But, arguing that is outside the scope of this (+) thread.

Assume that having some licenses as safe harbors is a good thing. What should those licenses look like?