...in any way, it seems.

That, I'm thinking, will cause a bit of a stink.

EDIT: ENWorld's got a thread going on it, too.

Very interesting. I suspect that the basic effect of this will not be more sales, but far more piracy being generated.

RPGPundit

My sense of it right now is that the new direction is to specifically encourage people writing adventures and modules (with perhaps some modular content--i.e feats, spells, races, monsters..) and not new rules systems or entire derivative game systems.

Yeah, Abyssal, I often wondered if WOTC cringed when something like True20 dropped. Cause then a consumer could run 'D&D' with nothing but third party products.

If that's the case, you'll quickly see a legal version of 4e rules using the OGL 1.0. I suspect Bradford's right about that one.

Quote from: Abyssal MawMy sense of it right now is that the new direction is to specifically encourage people writing adventures and modules (with perhaps some modular content--i.e feats, spells, races, monsters..) and not new rules systems or entire derivative game systems.

That's how they wanted the 3.0 OGL to happen, but it didn't work out that way. It looks like they're trying to put the genie back in the bottle, but I think they'll fail at doing it, what with the 1.0 OGL still being intact.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Exactly how do they intend to stop people refitting 4E rules to fit the 3.X OGL?

It would entail completely rewriting the rules in question - you might not be able to patent game rules, but you still own the copyright on a particular presentation of them - but given that we keep being reassured that 4E is "still a D20 game" would it really be that difficult?

I know several people who played in mostly online games that never bought any of the core books because they could use the SRD. You miss out on a few things, but can get those easily enough by asking politely on a message board.

In that respect at least, having the SRD be a near complete replacement cost WotC money. I have no idea how much money, but it seems like it was enough to trigger a change with 4e.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf that's the case, you'll quickly see a legal version of 4e rules using the OGL 1.0. I suspect Bradford's right about that one.

I think so, too.

The OGL is permission by WoTC to use text that is copyrighted by them. This permission has conditions and limitation most notably that you must give others the same permission as WoTC give you.

Reading through the various comments on Enworld and WoTC does not leave me with a good feeling about this.

First and most weird is the idea the SRD is going to be an index to the main books as to what text can be incorporated into a product.

Soo..... what to stop somebody from incorporating all the allowed text into a product and only the allowed text. Somebody over there in Wizard land is having a misunderstanding of how open source works.

Of course they could say "Only spell names and these particular stats may be used." which means you can say that this trap acts like four magic missile but not copy the description of what a magic missile is.

I was having a discussion about this with a couple of people about a open Original D&D. I said

"Look barring consulting a lawyer, you could just list everything in the D20 SRD that is found in OD&D and use that at first. If people want to know how a Magic Missile word or the detailed description of a goblin refer them to the OD&D PDF. This way you can get your modules and settings out. If the monster, spell, or treasure is not listed in the d20 SRD don't use it."

It could be that Wizards will do the same thing with the 4th edition SRD.

And too top it off there could be other conditions or limitations.

However what going to be interesting is how the current D20 SRD does as a RPG and will anybody attempt a 3.75.

QuoteThe OGL is permission by WoTC to use text that is copyrighted by them. This permission has conditions and limitation most notably that you must give others the same permission as WoTC give you.

Exactly, it lets you copy-and-paste. If you completely reword a description of a rule (and perhaps reformat important tables), there's nothing stopping you incorporating it into your game anyway. So long as you completely reword the description, it's OK.

There may be a problem if Wizards do something like trademarking the names of all the feats (for example), but a) that would be crazy and b) changing the names of feats is trivially easy.

Non-issue.  I expect an ungimped 4.0 SRD, released under the OGL v1.0a, within a month of the release of the 4.0 PHB.  I also expect that any necessary dodges will be covered with rewording of troublesome language--because copyright only covers expression of ideas, not the concepts themselves, and trademarks can be dodged with Brand X euphemisms--and that it will be out on the peer-to-peer networks.

Are you people saying we won't have something like a 4E version of d20srd.org, or only for $$$ on gleemax?

That would suck. I use that website all the time.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAre you people saying we won't have something like a 4E version of d20srd.org, or only for $$$ on gleemax?

That would suck. I use that website all the time.

All but guaranteed, actually.  There will not be a 3.X-style SRD for 4.0, not from WOTC.  What will be released will be gimped, and the new OGL will have parts in it that resemble the d20STL.  It is stated that wholesale copy-and-paste of the ruleset will not be possible under the new scheme, hence no new Conan or Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved (etc.) style of products.

I´m mildly amused about how everyone is two months behind me in grokking all this.