STL/OGL Legal Q

[T. Foster]

(crossposted from a 'lively' discussion on the Traveller^5 forum, figuring the d20 experts will be more likely to see it here):

Originally posted by Garf:
OGL - is a open source code. You can accesss all of the code (EVERYTHING) online, it is identical to the PHB as far as my REF knows since he doesn't take his PHB to work but is able to find accurate PHB references on line at the OGL official site. You can even publish a game using this code (including EVERYTHING) but you CANNOT, if you publish such a game, Call it a D20 game or use the d20 Logo.

STL - is a deal between Games publishers. If you are Publishing a game and want to call it a D20 game using the D20 logo, THEN you have to leave out those critical approximately 5 pages. However, since the OGL above allows players access to the those missing pages no player is ever FORCED to buy an extra book even if they buy a Trademarked d20 supplement because THEY can then go to the OGL and get the info they need FREE.

Per my understanding (which, keep in mind, may very well be faulty/incomplete, but not willfully wrong) this still isn't quite right -- the SRD (source reference document?) available at the OGL site does not contain the double-secret rule sections. Although apparently they could still be included in an non-STL OGL product, AFAIK no such product yet exists, and so the only current way to legally obtain those crucial double-secret pages is from one of WotC's Core rulebooks.

What's to stop some civic-minded publisher from producing a 5-page OGL pamphlet containing all the double-secret rules and then giving the thing out for free (a la GURPS Lite) I can't exactly say. Perhaps there's some legal reason. Perhaps just no one's thought it worth the trouble (since "everybody already owns the PHB"). But whatever the reason, AFAIK no one's done it yet.

Legal Question: Could a d20-licensed product get away with in the content of the book refering readers to such an aforementioned free pamphlet rather than (or in addition to) the PHB? Could they in the content of the book (as opposed to the mandatory license-dictated cover-blurb) say that "while the STL requires us to say you need the PHB, here's a free alternative for those of you who don't want to buy it"? For something like T20 which AFAIK only refers back to the PHB for those double-secret pages, this seems like a very good idea -- if it's allowed. I still wouldn't play T20 ('cause I don't like the d20 system rules), but philosophically I'd sure be a lot happier with it.

 

[Reginald]

Disclaimer: IANAL

To your first question: referring to the pamphlet would be in violation of the Trademark License v3.0 and the Trademark Guide v2.0.

To your second question: to state in the content that this pamplet is a better alternative to PHB would also be in violation.

You have to remember, these are royalty-free licenses. Publishers do not have to pay Wizards one red cent for the use of the trademarked logo. But Wizards do want an incentive. Endorse the purchase of their product. Make the product require the use of Wizards' product.

As I said before, the T20 product is aimed specifically to appeal d20/D&D gamers. It would be a bonus if other gamers who are somewhat interested in d20 to pick up T20 and the PHB but the d20 gamers are their target consumers.

 

[Gallowglass]

(Post deleted from T5 thread where it really had no business being and ported here, where it is at least vaguely on topic...)

Responding to some of T Fosters arguments in teh original thread:

Broadly of course you are right: the D20 STL does enforce the 'Requires the PHB statement', and getting the 'roll 4d6,take highest 3, for six stats' and the 'for level n+1, a PC needs an additional n*1000' is tricky (oops!). However, The Everquest RPG ( http://www.eqrpg.com/ ), is using both (actually a different xp formula I believe) AND is thus OGL only and they ARE literally saying "100% compatible with the 3rd-edition rules of the world's most popular fantasy tabletop roleplaying system". So OGL games are plausible, publishers have just so far mostly chosen to hitch their star to the greater security of the d20 STL (and given the wafer thin margins traditional in RPG's and the litany of dead companies I think that only prudent). Hunter has elsewhere on these boards hinted that QLI will consider doing an OGL version of T20 that doesn't require the PHB at all. These are not irrelevant, although I concede they are rarer and more recent developments

Now, we come to a couple of issues of semantics. First, my comment about "willfully misinterpreting" the situation wasn't meant to be aimed at anyone in particular, I apologise if it came across as directed at you! I am just very frustrated by the general tendency to bash WotC / d20 which is frequently done without regard for facts or logic (unlike this conversation where we have done pretty well so far actually). As for the "requires" / "demands" I don't see that QLI putting some text on even the cover of the T20 book (in order to comply with the license that allows them access to the marketing lever of the d20 Logo and an "in" to the d20 market) counts as a demand. A strong recommendation possibly, but I and every other purchaser can ignore it: compare for example RQIII, where for a useful game you really had to spend a (for the time) huge amount of money and even in the Games Workshop edition, splitting it in to two books was a con to conceal the price. I repeat, WotC do NOT require d20 licensees or retailers to only bundle d20 games with PHB's, so I don't agree that this is an issue of "force" (unlike GURPS which until the advent of GURPS lite, did require you to buy other books). Nor do I think WotC are "guilty" of anything other than trying to make a living whilst growing their market, which is the RPG hobby. Like all commercial enterprises they also attempt to get a greater slice of that market and that's a different debate. But I really don't see any rational grounds for attacking the d20 STL / OGL strategy as fundementally wrong. Mistaken, possibly.... Objecting to it personally, by all means. But suggesting that it is "offensive and absurd" in any objective sense I really find hard to understand, it is just a business strategy (and a less restrictive and "gouging" one than SJG's original GURPS Strategy, or indeed lord save them than Chaosium's current attitude to BRP...) that happens to have opened up the d20 rules system completely legally to the fan community and publishers who are prepared to abide by some fairly sensble rules: to whit, if you wish to play with WotC Toys (the d20 rules) you must play nice and poitely remind everyone that they are WOtC (d20 STL) or not pretend what you dio is WotC (OGL). And if you want to use them some one else, say Marc's Toys (T20), you have to have his permission (none of this fair use nonsense, using other IP reuires a seperate license...).

In so far as OGL/d20 makes a popular RPG rule system available to anyone, encourages third party development AND protects the IP of authors who want to use the rules, it seems like a win-win situation for everbody to me...

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Indeed Gallowglass

With a cooler head and some personally verified supporting information I can conceed to your comparison of D20 to Unix code.

Question, since you have at least heard of GW. do think that:

When a typical blister of minatures contains three imperial Gaurdsmen for 14 dollars Cdn. or one 'leader type' for 8. ... That it isn't gouging to introduce a new set of 'special figures' popularised by a book and charge 55 dollars for Five models?

Or to continue charging the same price of a 'squad' of plastic Space marines but reduce the box to eight models instead of ten so that you HAVE to buy the pewter heavy and special weapon toting marines in separate blisters?

or is that too, just understandable businessmen trying to make a living?

My reaction to the discovery of WotC's policies was at least partially based on the emotional foundation of my frustration at GW's practices. OF which the above are only a tiny sample. Just so you know, (Since you're from the heart of the former Empire as it where, unlike this poor colonial) GW's prices in England (and possibly in the rest of the U.K.) are a significant markdown compared to their prices all over north america. even getting a store in Canada or the US to give you the 'maximum' 20% markdown is not as good a deal (according annecdotal evidence from visiting hobbyists) as buying them at the source. (even after customs and excise has had their wicked way with one.)

Umm... so what was I asking yeah. to your mind is GW just an understandable business trying to make an honest profit As you've described WotC?

 

[Gallowglass]

Originally posted by Garf:
Indeed Gallowglass

With a cooler head and some personally verified supporting information I can conceed to your comparison of D20 to Unix code.

Question, since you have at least heard of GW. do think that:

When a typical blister of minatures contains three imperial Gaurdsmen for 14 dollars Cdn. or one 'leader type' for 8. ... That it isn't gouging to introduce a new set of 'special figures' popularised by a book and charge 55 dollars for Five models?

Or to continue charging the same price of a 'squad' of plastic Space marines but reduce the box to eight models instead of ten so that you HAVE to buy the pewter heavy and special weapon toting marines in separate blisters?

or is that too, just understandable businessmen trying to make a living?

My reaction to the discovery of WotC's policies was at least partially based on the emotional foundation of my frustration at GW's practices. OF which the above are only a tiny sample. Just so you know, (Since you're from the heart of the former Empire as it where, unlike this poor colonial) GW's prices in England (and possibly in the rest of the U.K.) are a significant markdown compared to their prices all over north america. even getting a store in Canada or the US to give you the 'maximum' 20% markdown is not as good a deal (according annecdotal evidence from visiting hobbyists) as buying them at the source. (even after customs and excise has had their wicked way with one.)

Umm... so what was I asking yeah. to your mind is GW just an understandable business trying to make an honest profit As you've described WotC?

I really can't comment on The Jokeshops (sorry, old UK gaming Fandom joke) mini's business, as I ceased all interaction with them circa WD100 (late 1980's) when they abandoned all pretense at covering anything other than Warhammer and its ilk, which are not my cup of tea. My understanding is that they have executed a given strategy very successfully. Part of that strategy was I believe predicated around "locking" consumers in, which I regard as morally suspect and is something which the d20 STL and OGL specifically precludes... The key difference here is that given the way the OGL and d20 STL are written, the cat is now out of the bag. WotC CANNOT (except by producing a D&D 4th Edition with diferent rules, and even then the "OLD" D20 would still be free for use) stop anyone who wants from publishing d20 system compatible games (provided those games comply with EITHER the OGL OR the OGL and the d20 STL). They have effectilvely given away the rules for free, on the assumption that by keeping ownership of the Trademarks (d20, Dungeons and Dragons) the net effect will be to encourage more people to buy their products. I think it's rather elegant and since it relies entirely on the free choice of the buying public, it is the direct opposite of strong-arm tactics such as GW have been accused of (or those employed by Mr gates). Whether it is truly "Open Gaming" or not is a seperate issue...