Phase 1 of OGL / SRD

Any comments from Paizo about the new information on the 4e OGL/SRD? Anything you found heartening? Anything cause concern? I know you are probably still wait and see until you see the actual game, but I'm just curious of your initial reaction to the stricter terms.

Edit: For those curious, check out enworld.org.

I know you are probably still wait and see until you see the actual game, but I'm just curious of your initial reaction to the stricter terms.

Unless I misread the information, Paizo won't be seeing the game until either they pony up $5000 or the books are released in June. No speak peaks this time unless you want to pay for the privilege.

I think that's true, but that's probably to Paizo's advantage - it separates out the serious publishers from the fly-by-night publishers.

With the OGL tied more closely to D&D, how would that impact the future impact of games like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds – games that in 3e used the core d20 concept but diverged radically from D&D?

The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. 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.

Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before.

Whoa.

How does this affect the Paizo feel/Golarion atmosphere regarding the Pathfinder Chronicles setting?

This is an interesting bit:

"The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. 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."

I wonder exactly what that means... if you can't use the ENTIRE core rule books? ie. You may never write your own version of a gnome or a half-orc and you can't have alternate magic rules?

Should be interesting to see when it gets leaked... :)

I think that's true, but that's probably to Paizo's advantage - it separates out the serious publishers from the fly-by-night publishers.

I'm certain that's the intention and I'm sure it is to any publisher's advantage to get in on Phase 1 if they are serious about supporting 4E. However, the extent to which the OGL has changed and the amount of control WotC is attempting to exercise at this stage suggest to me that it may prove a deal with the Devil.

Thank God I'm not a D20 publisher; I can just sit back and watch the show from a safe distance.

They didn't say that 3rd party publishers won't be able to create campaign settings. So I imagine that Paizo is free to create their own world. But they won't be able to make Pathfinder Chronicles RPG a standalone product.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

This is an interesting bit:

"The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. 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."

I wonder exactly what that means... if you can't use the ENTIRE core rule books? ie. You may never write your own version of a gnome or a half-orc and you can't have alternate magic rules?

Should be interesting to see when it gets leaked... :)

They want to prevent Green Ronin from updating True20 to 4E or another Muntants&Masterminds game. They want to ensure that you have to buy the D&D core books.

It sounds like you will be able to release alternate monster manuals and campaign settings.

Disclaimer: this is only a guess, but a logical guess from the way they're talking.

We are very pleased that Wizards of the Coast is extending the Open Gaming movement into a new edition of the game. We have already signaled our interest in moving forward with Phase 1, which involves getting a look at the OGL. Assuming that the new form of the agreement is acceptable, we will definitely look at the new game to see if it makes sense for Paizo to publish products that support it.

We have not yet made a decision regarding fourth edition and won't until all the cards are on the table. The difference going forward is that the card game has now started, and the dealer is getting ready to begin play.

I wonder exactly what that means... if you can't use the ENTIRE core rule books? ie. You may never write your own version of a gnome or a half-orc and you can't have alternate magic rules?

What I suspect it means is that an "alternate Player's Handbook" is a no-no under the new OGL. That is, it will be impossible to create new 4E-derived D20 games on the model of Arcana Evolved or Spycraft 2.0. All new 4E-derived D20 "games" will be mods to the 4E PHB rather than stand-alone products built on the game mechanics of 4E.

In other words, WotC wants to be sure that if anyone creates any new games out of the 4E SRD's mechanics, they want a piece of the action.

This statement also sounds like all 3rd party campaign settings will need to adhere to the same pantheon as well. Not sure if I am reading that correctly or not, but that is what it seems like it is saying.

This statement also sounds like all 3rd party campaign settings will need to adhere to the same pantheon as well. Not sure if I am reading that correctly or not, but that is what it seems like it is saying.

That seems very unlikely. Indeed, I'll be amazed if the 4E SRD includes much in the way proper names beyond what is already open content via the 3E SRD.

We have not yet made a decision regarding fourth edition and won't until all the cards are on the table. The difference going forward is that the card game has now started, and the dealer is getting ready to begin play.

It's about damn time they stopped shuffling, too. :)

Glad to hear things are finally starting to move forward.

ENWorld news page

Hmm, interesting.

2. Tell us about the 4e OGL and SRD.

The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date. Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee.

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 community standards clause will follow the same spirit as the current version. It will lay out in broad brushstrokes what’s appropriate and what isn’t in a D&D-compatible product. If publishers have any questions, they’re always welcome to ask WotC about specifics. This clause applies to content, and wouldn’t apply to (say) a shoddy or ugly cover. (Note that this is a rare occurrence anyways; according to Scott Rouse, there has only been one case in the last two years where the community standards clause came into effect, and that was amicably resolved.)

In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.

Do they know the difference bewteen OGL and SRD? Has anyone seen an OGL 3.5? all I see is OGL 1.0a.

I'm guessing that this means WotC layers will pounce on anyone who uses the 1.0a OGL with the 2.0 SRD. Specifically.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

Emphasis mine.

It will be interesting to see if anyone challenges their pack of Lawyers and releases 4.x compatible material under 1.0a in July.

I may have to try this. Looks like an email to Linae Foster when I get home is in order.

For the quantity that I have railed against WotC, I have to admit, this is a good compromise. The $5000 price tag makes sure that joe schmoe doesn't create a company just to see the rules, There's (just) enough time for 3rd party publishers to have something for GenCon and gives preferencial treatment to the big guys that can afford it.

I was expecting the OGL to contain ways to not make your own RPG which it appears they have done. This way they could use a slightly modified version of OGL 1.0A (call it OGL 2.0 for now).

One thing I noticed: "Companies working together as partners only pay one fee."

This is nice. It allows Necro and Paizo to only guy 1 copy. Paizo can decide if they want to make AP3 (or 4 and beyond) 4E without having to pay full price.

That seems very unlikely. Indeed, I'll be amazed if the 4E SRD includes much in the way proper names beyond what is already open content via the 3E SRD.

Well what I am saying is that it said publisher must use the 4e PHB as it's basis. So would that include pantheon as well? If so that sucks cause I am really diggin' Pathfinders deities.

We are very pleased that Wizards of the Coast is extending the Open Gaming movement into a new edition of the game. We have already signaled our interest in moving forward with Phase 1, which involves getting a look at the OGL. Assuming that the new form of the agreement is acceptable, we will definitely look at the new game to see if it makes sense for Paizo to publish products that support it.

We have not yet made a decision regarding fourth edition and won't until all the cards are on the table. The difference going forward is that the card game has now started, and the dealer is getting ready to begin play.

Erik, and you, the other Paizo people, would you please stop being creative, open-minded and respectful of your customers ?

;)

This statement also sounds like all 3rd party campaign settings will need to adhere to the same pantheon as well. Not sure if I am reading that correctly or not, but that is what it seems like it is saying.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Where are you seeing this?

The current OGL can only apply to the 4.0 SRD if it's released under something that's a "new version" of that license. If WotC includes language that makes the new OGL a legally different license than the old one (maybe it's an "Opened Game License" or something like that), the clause is irrelevant.

Well what I am saying is that it said publisher must use the 4e PHB as it's basis. So would that include pantheon as well? If so that sucks cause I am really diggin' Pathfinders deities.

I think what this means is that the new OGL will not allow publishers to produce "alternate PHBs" à la Arcana Evolved or (ironically) Iron Heroes. In short, you can't create stand-alone 4E-compatible games. I think that's the thrust of this. I rather expect much of the "fluff" of the 4E PHB won't make it into the new SRD.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Where are you seeing this?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was talking about the statement in which they said that all 3rd party publishers must use the 4e PHB as the basis for their products. Wouldn't that mean that pantheons for campaign settings would have to be the PHB deities?

Well what I am saying is that it said publisher must use the 4e PHB as it's basis. So would that include pantheon as well? If so that sucks cause I am really diggin' Pathfinders deities.

No, no. They don't want another True20. True20, for all tense and purposes is a slightly repackaged d20. WotC does the work in developing the system; GR benefits from their research.

When they say that the PHB is the basis, they mean the system. Fluff is still (from what it sounds) going to be closed content so 3rd parties won't be able to use their pantheon.

I think what this means is that the new OGL will not allow publishers to produce "alternate PHBs" à la Arcana Evolved or (ironically) Iron Heroes. In short, you can't create stand-alone 4E-compatible games. I think that's the thrust of this. I rather expect much of the "fluff" of the 4E PHB won't make it into the new SRD.

Ah Ok thanks for clearing that up Maliszew. Lawyerspeak makes my head hurt :).

The current OGL can only apply to the 4.0 SRD if it's released under something that's a "new version" of that license. If WotC includes language that makes the new OGL a legally different license than the old one (maybe it's an "Opened Game License" or something like that), the clause is irrelevant.

See, now we're getting into leagalese. We'll have to wait until June, I guess. suits me fine, since i'm not planning on getting it, just looking at the OGL.

The sense we got on the conference call with WotC yesterday was they were trying to keep new RPGs from springing up using the 4.0 OGL (specific examples cited by other attendees on the call were Mutants & Masterminds and Spycraft which don't use the 3/3.5 core rule books as their core) and not to prevent 3rd parties from creating new campaign settings that use the 4.0 core rules books as their core.

We haven't actually seen nor read the OGL yet. As Erik mentioned, we've expressed interest and are moving forward.

I'd strongly encourage the community to hold off on conspiracy theories until everyone's read the 4.0 OGL. Speculation based on the transcript of the statements of folks on the call is not a good basis for determining what the new OGL actually says. :-)

Kevin Brennan wrote:

The current OGL can only apply to the 4.0 SRD if it's released under something that's a "new version" of that license. If WotC includes language that makes the new OGL a legally different license than the old one (maybe it's an "Opened Game License" or something like that), the clause is irrelevant.

See, now we're getting into leagalese. We'll have to wait until June, I guess. suits me fine, since i'm not planning on getting it, just looking at the OGL.

From the way they're talking, I imagine Kevin's idea is right. A quick note: "Subsequent content will be added when it is Open Source." I've never heard OGL material referred to as "Open Source" I've heard it called Open Content, but never as source. The new OGL maybe an Open Source Licence.

I'd strongly encourage the community to hold off on conspiracy theories until everyone's read the 4.0 OGL. Speculation based on the transcript of the statements of folks on the call is not a good basis for determining what the new OGL actually says. :-)

Fair enough, I'll stop. One last note, I am more encouraged from this press release then I am worried.

I think what this means is that the new OGL will not allow publishers to produce "alternate PHBs" à la Arcana Evolved or (ironically) Iron Heroes. In short, you can't create stand-alone 4E-compatible games. I think that's the thrust of this. I rather expect much of the "fluff" of the 4E PHB won't make it into the new SRD.

I agree. And the spirit of that thought is supported by:

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.

It sounds like there is a desire to prevent pointless repetition and, as you said, the production of stand alone OGL products based on 4e.

In some ways the 4e OGL now operates with the d20 stl apart of the assumed whole. In other words, you can create a new class, race, or what have you but they still want players buying the PHB for "everything else". It makes sense and for Wizards' it is a good idea. Can't wait to hear what else is in store. From what little we know it seems pretty sound so far and will still allow third parties to create some great material.

I am encouraged as well.

I'd strongly encourage the community to hold off on conspiracy theories until everyone's read the 4.0 OGL. Speculation based on the transcript of the statements of folks on the call is not a good basis for determining what the new OGL actually says. :-)

No conspiracy theories on my part. I am excited to see what was said. But you are right, speculation at this point is simply ephemeral musings. I happy Paizo got contacted and that you guys are going to be looking over what the OGL has to offer.

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.

Conspiracy theories are fun though!

From what I read into this, I highly doubt you'll be able to play D&D using just the SRD, as you can today.

They will probably have notes like "this is what a feat is and how to make one" but the actual feats in the PHB probably won't be listed for free on sites like d20srd.org. Just my guess of course.

I am encouraged as well.

We shall see. I'm personally of the opinion that the utterly unrestricted nature of the 3E OGL led to some amazing designs that simply will not be comparably possible under the 4E version. We may well see lots of extremely good third party D&D support products under this new OGL but what we won't see are exciting new games that use the 4E rules to go in new directions and I think that's a shame. A gaming world where Mutants & Masterminds or Spycraft 2.o are no longer possible is a less vibrant one for me.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was talking about the statement in which they said that all 3rd party publishers must use the 4e PHB as the basis for their products. Wouldn't that mean that pantheons for campaign settings would have to be the PHB deities?

Previous posters are right, this basicly means people can't create a game like Spycraft without making sure that WotC gets a piece of the pie.

As for your concern, that the D&D fluff presented in the PHB like the pantheons might one day be forced onto all settings? I don't think we ever need to worry about that. To enforce something along those lines, the deities presented in the PHB would have to be included in SRD and that would basicly put them into the public domain as far as the copyright goes.

Doing something like that would be an increadibly bad move for the D&D brand. Losing intellectual property is always a big no-no. That's why monsters like the beholder never appeared in the SRD for 3rd edition.

Doing something like that would be an increadibly bad move for the D&D brand. Losing intellectual property is always a big no-no. That's why monsters like the beholder never appeared in the SRD for 3rd edition.

Bingo.

I haven't seen the new SRD obviously, but I would not be the least bit surprised if we find that a lot of 4E's terms will not be included in it. I'm talking about things like "eladrin" and "dragonborn." A lot of the shift in the "story" of D&D under 4E has as much to do with IP considerations and "building the brand" as it does with making the game better mechanically.

Call that a conspiracy theory, if you like, but I doubt I'm wrong.

alleynbard wrote:

I am encouraged as well.

We shall see. I'm personally of the opinion that the utterly unrestricted nature of the 3E OGL led to some amazing designs that simply will not be comparably possible under the 4E version. We may well see lots of extremely good third party D&D support products under this new OGL but what we won't see are exciting new games that use the 4E rules to go in new directions and I think that's a shame. A gaming world where Mutants & Masterminds or Spycraft 2.o are no longer possible is a less vibrant one for me.

Fortunately, they're still possible, just not with the 4.x mechanics.

I find this amusing.

Frex:

Fortunately, they're still possible, just not with the 4.x mechanics.

That they are. That's the main thing that's different now than when 3E was released: it's now possible to continue to freely and legally support v.3.5 (or 3E or D20 Modern) in a way you couldn't do with 2E or 1E (OSRIC to the contrary). I suspect the 3E community will remain much more "alive" than other out-of-print D&D for this reason and it's possible, though highly unlikely, that someone might find a way to make some money off the foot-draggers and wrong-thinkers who stay behind with the "unfun" 3E.

From WotC boards: Wizards

Someone asked if you could play the game with just the new SRD, and WotC_Andy said "The SRD will not be a replacement for the Player's Handbook."

alleynbard wrote:

I am encouraged as well.

We shall see. I'm personally of the opinion that the utterly unrestricted nature of the 3E OGL led to some amazing designs that simply will not be comparably possible under the 4E version. We may well see lots of extremely good third party D&D support products under this new OGL but what we won't see are exciting new games that use the 4E rules to go in new directions and I think that's a shame. A gaming world where Mutants & Masterminds or Spycraft 2.o are no longer possible is a less vibrant one for me.

Agreed. If it weren't for games like Conan, Spycraft, Game of Thrones, etc. I wouldn't have purchased ANY WotC books.

There's also no way in hell that I'd abandon those games.

I haven't seen the new SRD obviously, but I would not be the least bit surprised if we find that a lot of 4E's terms will not be included in it. I'm talking about things like "eladrin" and "dragonborn."

So, you could create your own setting but you couldn't populate it with the races from the PHB? Wouldn't that discourage players from using those races?

I notice:

Buy the OGL/SRD now, get to publish August 1, 2008.
WotC is reserving a 55 day exclusive period, unlike with the release of 3E where there were OGL products available the same day at Gen Con.
I wondered how they were going to manage that.
It will also allow them to look for "quirks" in the license, again as showed at Gen Con 2000 when some of those original products used the deities from the PHB.

Also, if you do not buy it now, you can not publish OGL until January 1, 2009. An even bigger exclusionary period for small companies. Combined with the direct statement of WotC wanting only "serious" publishers, it looks like they intend to keep the 4E market a lot more restricted.

And I see the "community standards" part is being wrapped into the OGL.

Overall, WotC is keeping the OGL, but it seems they finally got their lawyers to actually set it up so that it can only be used to produce supporting products, and not competing products.
Well, unless people stick with 3E. ;)

So, you could create your own setting but you couldn't populate it with the races from the PHB? Wouldn't that discourage players from using those races?

Just as much as using a binder in Pathfinder.

So, you could create your own setting but you couldn't populate it with the races from the PHB? Wouldn't that discourage players from using those races?

The examples I gave might not be the ones we won't see in the SRD but I'd bet good money on the fact that quite a lot of terminology will be withheld from the SRD, both to encourage the purchase of the 4E PHB and to protect D&D's IP. This will have minimal impact on players, I suspect, but it will ensure that third parties won't be able to swipe WotC's cool new concepts for X, Y, and Z and make money off them without giving WotC their cut.

Now, I obviously don't know the specific terms of either the new OGL or SRD, but the impression I'm getting is that WotC is trying to build up a new vocabulary of terms and concepts that are specific to D&D in an effort to "build the brand," almost certainly for deployment in other, more lucrative media. That's why we wound up with lots of new names for stuff and why the look of many elements are changing -- to make the new edition distinctive.

So, don't get hung up on my specific examples, because they may be incorrect. However, do expect that the new SRD will close off much more content than did its predecessor.

Since I promised I said I am not going to discuss conspiracy theories, I came up with this.

They're Mearls and the Rouse,
Mearls and the Rouse,
*having trouble coming up with funny alternate lyrics*
To do their mousy work, they'll overthrow the Earth
They're dinky, They're Mearls and the Rouse, Rouse, Rouse, Rouse, Rouse.

Mearls, are you pondering what I am pondering?
I think so Rouse, but how exactly does the beholder poop?

My theory is the SRD will simply be an index to areas in the core books that are open, along with some 'how to design content' guidelines.

As much as I don't want to see it go, I think the d20srd.org will not be able to update to 4th edition.

From WotC boards: Wizards

Someone asked if you could play the game with just the new SRD, and WotC_Andy said "The SRD will not be a replacement for the Player's Handbook."

That's not surprising. It always boggled my mind how much Wizards gave away with the SRD. I figured they would have to look for a way to clamp down on that aspect of the SRD. Its kind of sad to see a no-frills reference document go away but I can understand why they might want to do that.

All in! Paizo for the win!

Also, if you do not buy it now, you can not publish OGL until January 1, 2009. An even bigger exclusionary period for small companies. Combined with the direct statement of WotC wanting only "serious" publishers, it looks like they intend to keep the 4E market a lot more restricted.

Good! A smaller, more serious set of publishers means that the content will be a lot better quality. D20 and the OGL caused a lot of great quality products to be produced for 3.5, these boards exist of proof of that, but for every Pathfinder there has been a dozen truely aweful independant productions. Gaming stores began to seriously distrust the D20 brand name, because if they bought a copy of every D20 book that cane out you would end up with shelves full of badly written books.

Granted, it will prevent a DM from publishing his campagain world as a on off product until 2009, but that's okay. You'll be able to produce them eventually, and by 2009 4th edition will be well established and you'll have had a lot of time to play the game and iron out any details in your world.

Since I promised I said I am not going to discuss conspiracy theories, I came up with this.

They're Mearls and the Rouse,
Mearls and the Rouse,
*having trouble coming up with funny alternate lyrics*
To do their mousy work, they'll overthrow the Earth
They're dinky, They're Mearls and the Rouse, Rouse, Rouse, Rouse, Rouse.

Mearls, are you pondering what I am pondering?
I think so Rouse, but how exactly does the beholder poop?

Ooh oohh!

They're Mearls and the Rouse,
Mearls and the Rouse,
One is a Writer,
The other works in-house
They work for WotC
Writing games you see
Theyr'e Mearls and the Rouse Rouse Rouse Rouse

After June you see
They'll have carved up the SRD
By the start of 2009
Playtesting 5th E will be online.

They're Mearls and the Rouse,
Yes, Mearls and the Rouse,
Their legal campaign
Is easy to explain

To make the SRD
Useless to you and Me
Redacted, Theyr'e Mearls and the Rouse Rouse Rouse Rouse
Rouse Rouse Rouse Rouse
Rouse!

Good!... but for every Pathfinder there has been a dozen truly awful independent productions.

I don't believe for a second that having a $5000 entrance fee will mean that 4e support products will be of better quality.