Unlike most other OSR games you won't find a page full of fine print legalese included in the Weird West Roleplaying Game Basic Rulebook. We had an interesting discussion about that on Twitter today and I'd like to spend a moment talking about my decision to publish with regular copyright, and the alternative to the OGL I've used for other OSR material.
The OGL was published 11 years ago in the days before Twitter, Blogger, Facebook, or even MySpace. The goal of the OGL was to extend the network of people producing 3rd party material for the D20 system while simultaneously stopping them from claiming their products were compatible with Dungeons & Dragons. While the OGL let you cut-and-paste from, or even reprint the text from the D20 System Reference Document, most publishers didn't do that and either reworded the text describing the game mechanics, or simply created new material that was compatible with the D20 system.
That was something you could do under regular copyright law, so the small press publishers didn't get as much from the deal as they perhaps thought. The OGL benefits the company that authored it much more than it does anyone else. The small press guys weren't quite as worried about frivolous lawsuits though, like the ones that were popular in the heady days of T$R.
Intimidation was certainly something that made the OGL popular. Most companies in the RPG industry are only in fact one or two people in size at most. They usually don't have much access to expensive legal counsel unless they're somehow involved in the legal profession themselves. The OGL FAQ mentions the threat of being sued 9 times, and pre-emptively rebuffs requests for a "plain english" version of the license, saying you should consult your legal counsel. That's sharply contrasted with Creative Commons which has detailed "legalese" versions and "plain english" versions as well as information about how the licenses work that doesn't include threatening language.
Once something is published under the OGL license, derivative works must also be published under that license - it's non-optional. That's similar to Creative Commons in some ways as many CC licenses include a "Share Alike" clause which has similar requirements. The difference is that a CC license includes the clause that any CC requirements can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. That's exactly like regular copyright as well - if you ask permission from the copyright holder you can negotiate the specific licensing agreement both parties want.
Weird West does not using any material from an OGL product. In addition to the other project goals I've talked about already, making something free from the OGL was a design goal. It's "clean" and the idea of now voluntarily applying the OGL to it instead of regular copyright (or even CC) like what some other companies are considering seems like a silly idea. Not to mention having to include all that legalese with the product (would I make a separate PocketMod for that?). In the forthcoming Weird Fantasy where I won't be limited by space I certainly don't have any plans to add it. I don't think the OGL offers anything that regular copyright or creative commons wouldn't do better. And without the threatening language.
I think some other publishers know the OGL may not a very good deal for them either... but they're worried about what will happen without the 'protection'.
:D
29 comments:
Do you have a link to the twitter conversation?
I'm going the public domain route for my projects. For things that utilize WotC property, I can understand using it, but it's not for everything.
The FAQ for the OGL is unsettling to read.
It was between too many different people that I don't think there's an easy way to go back and read it all. This was an important point though.
Many thanks!
Hear, hear! I wouldn't use it either, unless it was my only viable option! Weird West is your game! I paid my buck and got my copy, which is cool as hell! You don't owe me an OGL and you damn sure don't owe it to WotC!
Thanks James! :)
@James: +1.
The sooner that classic gaming can achieve the originality that doesn't need the OGL, the better.
Ho-lee-shit! That video was incredible! "1,000 euros by midnight or I'll set me eels on ya."
That right there is soooo going into a WoD chronicle.
@Christian: I was hoping you'd stop by and see that video. You really need to check out the entire series, I think you'd love it. :)
That video was... disturbing.
Hahaha. Did you see Elsie, boy? Did you dance with her?
I've always thought that the OGL was a bum deal for third party publishers in that it forced them to relinquish the right to use Wizards' marks to explicitly claim compatibility in exchange for an implicit, hand-wavy promise of legal safe harbor for what would in most cases be fair use anyhow.
However, I don't think that was an evil scheme by WotC (or not their main evil scheme). Mostly Wizards just wanted to unburden themselves of the financial risk associated with producing less profitable categories of products.
For a purely hobbyist publisher, though, even the hand-wavy promise of safe harbor might make the OGL worthwhile if Mattel ever turns it huge blazing eye upon our little enclave. I usually release material clearly free of Wizards' IP under a Creative Commons license.
The only reason I can see for anyone to use the OGL is if they want to produce something that is compatible with D&D, in which case it makes it a hell of a lot easier, especially if it's some form of rulebook. Let's face it, in the words of Sean "Boromir" Bean, "it is a gift".
But for anyone producing a non-D&D game, I think it would be madness for them to chain themselves to the OGL.
Weird West is compatible with D&D and similar RPGs. Here's how to convert Swords & Wizardry Monsters for Weird West for example.
I agree with pretty much all you have said Stuart.
But (you knew there had to be a but) there is a benefit to the OGL.
That benefit is access to all the other OGL content out there. Today I posted the first of many articles leveraging the OGL for fudge/fate games. As both Fudge and Pathfinder have compatible OGL all the years of published materials for the D&D3.x games and all the products for Pathfinder and all the products for the upcoming Goodman games OGL game can be mined and converted to Fudge and Fate.
As far as I know access to all that open content was one of the main reasons that Fudge is released under the OGL.
Unfortunately, Wizards of the Coast has dropped support for the 3.x line - effectively dropping support for OGL content as well. I think that will lead to the lone benefit of the OGL slowly losing value over time.
I publish as much as I can under a CC license. I do not us the ShareAlike constraint. I only add the OGL content where I have to - because of the viral properties of the OGL.
I agree with you and @Paul and @austrodavicus that for most people who don't want or need to link themselves to that catalog of previously published material then the OGL is likely not a good choice to license a new game.
@shaneknysh: This sort of thing?
Toughness: Gain 3 stamina, plus 1 additional stamina for each level beyond 3rd.
Unless you're copying and pasting the exact text or specific names, game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, whether or not someone has published it under OGL, CC, or regular copyright. That's why you see so much noun-verb, noun-noun, and adjective-noun naming conventions in some newer games. Toughness isn't copyrightable. R'lyeh Runes of Resilience would be.
Stuart,
Do you feel that the work carrying the OGL can 'break out' and get picked up in mainstream distribution?
Dungeon Alphabet made it to Borders via Goodman without the OGL...
I'm not sure that's a factor in getting a distributor (eg Alliance / Diamond) to carry your book.
Let me get this straight. If I am writing an OSR rulebook where I use all the mechanics from D&D but rename everything, the OGL need not apple? Is this your understanding?
Apply...not apple
@FrDave: Not sure who you're directing the question to...
Are you trying to create a clone of D&D and just change the names, or are you using the same type of mechanics to create a new game that's simply compatible with D&D?
@Stuart
I am trying to understand this line of thinking by asking a by hypothetical question. So that I get a more complete picture, I'd appreciate an answer for both (and what you think "new" means). Thanks.
I think someone trying to create a clone of D&D could run into trouble with copyright… but not in the way they expect. Not with the mechanics which is what everyone gets hung up on, but other copyrightable things like the layout of the book, organization of information, charts, placement of illustration, and the general "look and feel" of the graphic design. This is where Scrabulous ran into trouble with Hasbro and Scrabble (copying the name and the design of the board)
If you were to create an original game, like a Lovecraft, Sherlock Holmes or John Carpenter of Mars (all Public Domain) RPG and make it use the same mechanics as D&D or any other RPG (or combine them) then that should be okay (caveat: watch the video). You might have players roll 3d6 for their detectives and the entire thing could be compatible with original D&D. Don't copy the text of the rules when you're making your compatible game though.
I keep reading that mechanics can't be copyrighted and rules can't be copyrighted but I haven't seen any evidence of that being tested in court.
I don't think it would take a lawyer very long to prove that something isn't 'right' with my game - Strange Six Shooters - the one page psionic cowboys and aliens game.
Here's some more info from Attorney Mona Ibrahim who looks at the legal issues of 'clone' and fan games for Gamasutra.
I don't think it would take a lawyer very long to prove that something isn't 'right' with my game - Strange Six Shooters - the one page psionic cowboys and aliens game.
:D
I don't think you'd run into any problem with the game mechanics part. :)
I think the most important paragraph is:
"On the other hand an illegal clone relies heavily on the creative content of a game—namely the trademarks and trade dress of a game product, as well as the unique audiovisual and scripted elements of that game. Note that game clones containing patented mechanics may also run afoul of intellectual property law."
To me this indicates a broader interpretation than "copying and pasting the exact text or specific names, game mechanics aren't subject to copyright". The mechanics are not subject to copyright but there has to be more than just 'filing off the serial numbers'. A significant difference to the creative content. I won't get in legal trouble for creating a quasi-medieval fantasy game with knights and rogues because I am using a d20 for attack resolution. I'll get myself in trouble if all I am doing is translating the rules of D&D into a new and not significantly different setting.
By converting toughness alone it would be hard to prove that I am copying a significant part of the creative guts of the D&D game. Converting every single feat is entirely a different story.
I think the point is kinda moot. We both don't like the OGL. We both don't use the OGL for our own creations.
The only difference is I am using the OGL to convert content from one OGL game (Pathfinder) to another (Fudge). Were Fudge released under a different license I will walk away from the OGL never to return - but I do not see that ever happening.
I'm not aware of any current patents that cover anything specifically OSR style RPG. However, Wizards of the Coast does have a patent relating to Pokemon / Magic the Gathering, and there are more card based mechanics appearing in recent updates to their newest RPGs. So this point could depend on which game is in question.
Trademarks are handled differently than copyright and let you protect specific words (Dungeons & Dragons) or names (Nissa Revane). Trade dress is similar to a trademark and also protected. Nothing in the OGL gives you permission to use Trademarks or Trade dress. Copying the look and feel of B/X D&D is no more legal under the OGL than it is without it.
Under the OGL you are limited in your normal ability to refer to Trademarks of other OGL products. Everyone is focused on D&D, but what about other OGL games? I'm not sure whether this means none of them can indicate co-compatibility or not.
I won't get in legal trouble for creating a quasi-medieval fantasy game with knights and rogues because I am using a d20 for attack resolution. I'll get myself in trouble if all I am doing is translating the rules of D&D into a new and not significantly different setting.
Palladium Fantasy RPG did that, and it's been around since 1983. Here's how the attributes were converted:
STR > Physical Strength
INT > IQ
WIS > Mental Endurance
DEX > Physical Prowess
CON > Physical Endurance
CHR > Mental Affinity
COM > Physical Beauty
It doesn't end there either. :)
This has been an interesting discussion. It's left me wondering about the purpose of the retro clones… and also feeling like taking another look at Palladium Fantasy!
It's left me wondering about the purpose of the retro clones
It depends what you mean by "retro clones" - replications of D&D? Or any OGL-based game of any genre, not necessarily D&D-like?
If you're talking D&D clones, then their purpose is to use the safe haven of the OGL to reproduce D&D after a couple decades of fear, uncertainty and paranoia due to TSR/WotC's tendency to sue folks, even fans. I'm still convinced the OGL is the only safe way to replicate D&D.
While T&T, Palladium, etc., are clearly based on D&D, they weren't attempts to replicate it, so I'm not sure they can be used as examples of why "true" clones of D&D don't need the OGL.
Now if by retro-clones you mean any OGL-based game that is obviously not an attempt to replicate D&D, then I agree that the OGL is unnecessary and possibly even detrimental.
One thing to take into account though is how easy the OGL/SRD makes it for people to produce games these days. With a host of clones already out there, people don't even have to write their own games anymore. Instead they can simply edit OGC from existing games or the SRD and they've produced a game without having to write it from scratch. They also don't need to worry about renaming gaming terms (which some folks obviously do), especially as doing so may alienate some of the potential market.
If you're talking D&D clones, then their purpose is to use the safe haven of the OGL to reproduce D&D after a couple decades of fear, uncertainty and paranoia due to TSR/WotC's tendency to sue folks, even fans. I'm still convinced the OGL is the only safe way to replicate D&D.
So many questions there... but it's straying pretty far from the original topic for this post, so I'll leave it for another time. :)
Post a Comment