Is Runequest Still OGL? Should Conan go 4e?

[Aragorn300]

Is Runequest still OGL? I noticed that the OGL liscence still has "Wizards" on it and their new "GSL" makes it bloody well impossible to to anything creative without fearing they will take it over? I have gotten some friends onto runquest previously because I liked playing something non-D20. But all of them wanted to stay with D20 3.o because anyone, and everyone could tinker and come up with their own version...If Runequest is still OGL I could finally talk them into trying their hands at Rune. :idea:

Also have a little survey--should Conan go D&D 4e compatable...I vote no but then I just got my copy of 2nd ed so I might be a bit prejudiced.

 

[DigitalMage]

Is Runequest still OGL?

Yes, it is OGL and always will be now as once released under the OGL you cannot effectively close off open game content.

As for Conana 4e - having read the GSL I would say no. I don't play Conan (although my mate bought it at UK Games Expo and will likely run it in the future) but I would warn caution for any company to move an existing product line over to 4e.

If Conan were to go 4e under the GSL, all OGL Conan stuff would have to be withdrawn. Also if WOTC decided to change the GSL so that Mongoose didn't want to abide by it, or WOTC just rescinded Mongoose's use of it, then Mongoose couldn't resurrect the OGL line and use info that appeared in GSL products.

Basically, I would say it was too risky (and would put me off the idea of playing Conan as I really can't be arsed learning a new game systemm, whereas the current system seems similar enough to 3.5 for me to understand the rules without having to read anything).

 

[AKAramis]

when you release an OGL line under a revision to the GSL, you agree to withdraw all the old materials of the line moved over. Explicit in the GSL.

It also terminates any prior rights to Wizards' IP's.

It looks quite like a strongarm attempt to put the cat back in the bag now that it's had kittens, and tries to grab the kittens as well.

In a particularly viscious mode of interpretation, it could be interpreted that a 4E line abrogates the permission to use the Wizards OGL itself, as it's a licensed Wizards IP that establishes a relationship with Wizards...

 

[T.L.]

Agree, and I see another vicious question (I am not a lawyer): I write an OGL system, both creating my own rules and using open content from, let's say game "A" (company X) and game "B" (company Y). Then another guy uses some bits of my system and writes his own open game content, and so on. That's the strength of the OGL. Now, company X switches to D&D 4. The new edition of game "A" is now under the GSL. What happens to the old OGL content, to my OGL system and the other guy's?

 

[Aragorn300]

Those are all of my worries...I have the 4e PHB and will no doubt play it, as it is a decent system--but everyone who GM's regularly dreams of doing their own setting or variant, etc.

I love mixing and matching stuff... my favorite book wizards made was Unearthed Arcana which is all variant rules...It made customizing a game easy.

One thing Conan is superior to 4e on is that it is a great low magic game...wizards in RE Howard's work were truly powerful, but Conan could kill a demon or monster or wizard without magic weapons just strength and sinew...although 4e has non-magic classes, they treat every "power" just like magic. It makes everyone seem like a magic user.

I dont want Conan 4e, and I'm worried about the future of OGL.
I had my own idea for a system and setting that I would make OGL since I would love for people to do their own tinkering, but worry it would get sued...It puts a damper on the whole spirit of OGL.

 

[weasel_fierce]

All this confusion makes me wonder why people didn't create a different open source license type, rather than borrow the one from WOTC

 

[DigitalMage]

All this confusion makes me wonder why people didn't create a different open source license type, rather than borrow the one from WOTC

Well, because of the take up of teh OGL to produce d20 stuff most publishers were familiar with it and may have already paid solicitors / lawyers to look it over - a new licence would be unfamiliar and therefore may have acted as a deterrent to using material under that licence.

Also, it allows Open Game Content from stuff already released under the OGL to be used, though quite how useful this would be with a completely different system to d20 is arguable. But if Mongoose had wanted to take some OGC from Action! or even my LowDie system, they could and use that with the RuneQuest rules.

But yes, I agree that this new GSL clause regarding the OGL can be more problematic as some systems are completely different, but as they were released under the OGL they would still be subject to the clause.

 

[AKAramis]

Agree, and I see another vicious question (I am not a lawyer): I write an OGL system, both creating my own rules and using open content from, let's say game "A" (company X) and game "B" (company Y). Then another guy uses some bits of my system and writes his own open game content, and so on. That's the strength of the OGL. Now, company X switches to D&D 4. The new edition of game "A" is now under the GSL. What happens to the old OGL content, to my OGL system and the other guy's?

My understanding is that you can still use their SRD if you have a copy; they just can't give you a new copy once they take that line to 4E.

 

[T.L.]

It's mine too, but as I said, I am not Hasbro's lawyer ^_^

 

[Swampy]

I'm not a lawyer so this could be wrong but I believed that the OGL couldn't be taken away. So how would WotC go about stopping people from using it if they went to 4e and produced a setting under GSL which for what ever reason was withdrawn.

It seems to me that you are agreeing to use one system and not use your IP under a different system. If you stop using one system then how can you be prevented from using a different system that can't be withdrawn.

 

[DigitalMage]

If you stop using one system then how can you be prevented from using a different system that can't be withdrawn.

Because by accepting the terms of the GSL in order to produce 4e stuff you are voluntarily sacrificing rights to use the same info for an OGL product. Also, that clause continues even after termindation of the GSL agreement.

 

[Aragorn300]

Ironically, I've seen a lot of stuff that was OGL put into 4e...the head development guy for D&D was Mike Mearls, and Mearls had a very good
Variant Players guide called Iron Heroes that had mostly OGL content.
4e took feats every other level and combat mastery feats (renamed powers) from Iron Heroes. I wonder how much other great stuff under the OGL is now untouchable under the GSL?

I hope somebody from mongoose is watching this thread...I am still hoping to find out if RuneQuest will remain truly open...at least they still have the SRD on their site.

They play their cards right, instead of being a nostalgic game for 40 year olds on the American side of the pond, it could finally get the respect it deserves. Ditto for Traveller.

 

[Swampy]

If you stop using one system then how can you be prevented from using a different system that can't be withdrawn.

Because by accepting the terms of the GSL in order to produce 4e stuff you are voluntarily sacrificing rights to use the same info for an OGL product. Also, that clause continues even after termindation of the GSL agreement.

I understand that there is a an agreement that the publisher can't go back to the OGL, but it seems unworkable.

Its like if Tesco said to you we will give you the right to use our store for free but you can't go to Sainsburys ever again, and we have the right to stop you using our store and then you still can't use Sainsburys.

I would be surprised if they could successfully sue anyone who signed up for GSL and after WotC said that they couldn't use the GSL again then went on top produce stuff under the OGL.

 

[AKAramis]

Given the way RQ appears written, Mongoose could probably rerelease it under the GNU FDL, or one of the other open gaming licenses.

 

[DigitalMage]

I would be surprised if they could successfully sue anyone who signed up for GSL and after WotC said that they couldn't use the GSL again then went on top produce stuff under the OGL.

True, but IANAL and so I cannot say what is and is not possible - but I and perhaps some companies would err on the side of caution.

Also, it wouldn't stop you doing any OL stuff again just reusing stuff released under the GSL.

 

[AKAramis]

I would be surprised if they could successfully sue anyone who signed up for GSL and after WotC said that they couldn't use the GSL again then went on top produce stuff under the OGL.

True, but IANAL and so I cannot say what is and is not possible - but I and perhaps some companies would err on the side of caution.

Also, it wouldn't stop you doing any OL stuff again just reusing stuff released under the GSL.

As the others, IANAL... but the intent is obvious.

The wording would require any further open license of the same or closely related line to be released under a non-Wizards OL; the entire line is closed off the moment the GSL is accepted.

Also, it precludes later releasing under a different Open License IF the material includes anything from a Wizards OGL1.0a SRD, because you have to use the Wizards OGL1.0a or later to use the material in the D20 SRDs.

Further, few companies could afford to fight a suit by Wizards over enforcement. No matter how right you are, fighting the legal arsenal that the first few cases would get thrown at them by Hasbro would likely be more than most companies budgets in total. In part, because it might be possible, given US courts, to get the entire OGL invalidated.

 

[T.L.]

We still have the "crème de la crème" of OGL systems: Pathfinder, RuneQuest, Traveller...

...the head development guy for D&D was Mike Mearls, and Mearls had a very good
Variant Players guide called Iron Heroes that had mostly OGL content. 4e took feats every other level and combat mastery feats (renamed powers) from Iron Heroes.

It is well written but I've always found it too close to a video game like Diablo or WOW (no offense, it's just not fun for a rpg IMHO). Now I understand why WotC hired him and why I dont like the 4th edition ^_^

 

[Swampy]

Further, few companies could afford to fight a suit by Wizards over enforcement. No matter how right you are, fighting the legal arsenal that the first few cases would get thrown at them by Hasbro would likely be more than most companies budgets in total. In part, because it might be possible, given US courts, to get the entire OGL invalidated.

I thought that the OGL was set up in such a way that it couldn't be withdrawn by anyone and as long as it was put in the book you couldn't be touched for using it. I suppose that I am looking at what the spirit of the contract meant rather than the letter of the law.

 

[DigitalMage]

I thought that the OGL was set up in such a way that it couldn't be withdrawn by anyone and as long as it was put in the book you couldn't be touched for using it. I suppose that I am looking at what the spirit of the contract meant rather than the letter of the law.

A company's use of the OGL can be revoked if they breach the terms of the licence (e.g. do not reference OGL etc).

However if it is used correctly then theoretically, and as I understand it, anything indicated as Open Game Content released under the OGL can indefinately be used by others in their OGL products (which is why publishers can continue to use the 3.5 SRD info even though WOTC might not want them to).

However if a publisher elects to pursue the GSL and converts over a product line (e.g. Conan) the Licensee agrees to "cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product".

So if for example Mongoose converted Conan to 4e under the GSL - the cease producing and disrtributing all OGL Conan products (and if there was a Conan SRD, I believe they would have to take that down as well).

However, other people and companies are still within their rights to use OGC from the OGL Conan lines, and even incorporate that into products for sale. And if there was a Conan SRD that you managed to grab before Mongoose took it down I believe you would be within your rights to post it (i.e. distribute it) on your own website, much like Sovelior Sage does with the 3.5 SRD.

As always note that IANAL.

 

[AKAramis]

Further, few companies could afford to fight a suit by Wizards over enforcement. No matter how right you are, fighting the legal arsenal that the first few cases would get thrown at them by Hasbro would likely be more than most companies budgets in total. In part, because it might be possible, given US courts, to get the entire OGL invalidated.

I thought that the OGL was set up in such a way that it couldn't be withdrawn by anyone and as long as it was put in the book you couldn't be touched for using it. I suppose that I am looking at what the spirit of the contract meant rather than the letter of the law.

The GSL essentially tries to close that...

If you switch to the GSL on a line, you are agreeing to give up rights to use the Wizards OGL on that line forever.