Slashdot Mirror

Back when Wizards of the Coast took over D&D, one of the striking things then-Vice President Ryan Dancey said was that TSR (the former publisher) has obviously not listened to customers and had lost relevancy for that reason.

Now, Ryan Dancey is no longer at WotC, and WotC is not listening to customers, and what do you know? WotC is losing relevancy. People are going to buy the products they want, in the format they want, from the retailer they want, and you can never make them buy something different. It's as simple as that.

Fortunately the 3.x rules are open source so D&D can never die, in spite of WotC's seemingly intentional efforts to run their business into the ground. It just can't be called D&D for trademark reasons.

They never did. The current 3e/3.5e SRD is quite far from "Free" in many regards, and the d20 System License is full-blown branding

It seems you understand the difference between the SRD, the OGL, and the D20 License, but a lot of readers might not. So others can follow as we get technical: the OGL is the Open Gaming License, which I and some others would argue is not really very open. The SRD is the System Reference Document, which are the D&D 3.x rules as trimmed down and released under the OGL. The D20 System License is a separate license one could use to put a "D20 System" logo on one's product, which was supposed to indicate some level of compatibility with D&D. To get that logo one had to consent to rather odious and very non-free license terms.

What about the SRD is not free? I don't see how the "Product Identity" clause of the OGL affects the SRD because the SRD doesn't include any WotC "Product Identity." Are you referring to something else?

WoTC's Open Gaming License applicable to D&D 3rd edition and later is available here: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html

This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow the character's spoken commands.
...
Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.

Are you insane? Posting this comment on Slashdot???

d20 is popular because the base rules are free, as in freedom, as in Free Software; because there was and is an existing base of rules to draw upon for your own derivative works as long as you accord that same privilege to others!

Take a look at the Open Gaming License that most d20 games use.

Then talk to us about why d20 became popular.

You also need a WOTC license, of course.

Do you? If you get rid of some of the feats and change the races around a bit, most of the D&D 3rd ed rules fall under the D20 system's Open Gaming Licence.

Obviously you couldn't use the setting or any of the game's content, but it wouldn't be very hard to tweak the engine itself such that it wasn't infringing on WotC's rights.

If I wanted to take some GPL'd libraries and framework to create a program for Open Gaming, I'd be unable to--as the GPL is likely incompatable with the OGL (see www.opengamingfoundation.org) despite being very compatable in intent and even outlook & purpose. And so, I wind up just using the OGL (or my own license, or someone else's) and when you want to use my code and RMS's code to make something new, you can't.

What's interesting here is that the onus of responsibility falls on the GPL to allow these derivatives rather than taking the authors of the OGL to task for writing a GPL-incompatible license (despite the GPL's clear popularity when the OGL was written). What is particularly ironic about this incompability is that the Open Gaming Foundation claims to be "based on the Free Software GNU General Public License ". But even if you're not willing to do that, all is not lost -- what happened when you asked the copyright holders of the two works for permission to make this derivative? Copyrighted works can be licensed any number of ways to any number of other parties. Perhaps they would grant you special permission to make your work. Also, why is it any GPL licensor's duty to let you create such a derivative by default?

Before Linux, MS actually sold a flavor of UNIX. Had "Free Software" not ran so contrary to their basic business model, we'd probably have MS Office for UNIX now. Rather that throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the collaborative features that MS Office has had for years might actually work with the Free Software OS RMS and LT happily put together.

Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. GNU predates the release of the Linux kernel. The existence of GNU and/or the Linux kernel does not prevent Microsoft from continuing the development of their UNIX-like system nor does it prevent them from writing MS Office for any OS they wish (including any free software OS). It seems to me that Microsoft's decision to can a program you appear to want is best addressed by talking to them, not chastising RMS. It appears that the Free Software Foundation is not interested in throwing aside their goals for mere popularity:

People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, "feels that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions." And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the "popularity of Linux".

Adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux in combination with non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road.

I think they already have.

AD&D came after that, it was published in 1978 as three hardcover books: Player's Guide, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. It's a format that's follow even to this day. Various player race were introduced, and the rules were changed so that races are no longer classes.

Then came AD&D 2nd edition in 1989. For a while, they went to a 3 ring binder format for you to keep track of all the monsters, which drove me crazy. It may have been a good idea for adding new monsters, but pages tear and fall out all the time.

D20, or D&D 3rd edition, returned to the original Dungeon and Dragon name. The changes are quite drastic compare to any of the previous editions of D&D/AD&D.

The most recent release is 3.5E, which was last year. (2003)

For a history of D&D/TSR, take a look at here

The core of D20 is also published here as a set of rtfs.

Wizards of the Coast has attracted a ton of third party roleplaying game content to its d20 system because, according to the license, anyone can make supplements or even whole games based on the d20 game mechanics and other 'Open Gaming Content'. (See here for some plain English info.)

Maybe somebody should try making Lego-like toys with a similar license -- it would be very cool if manufacturers converged on interchangable components, from the complex (Mindstorms-like stuff, and 'Expert Set' gearing componentry) to the low (simple old-style bricks). And if some company wanted to make the idiotic prefab pieces that predominate today, they could do that too.

Why is it so hard to understand?

• Freecraft is an RTS engine written from scratch by some people who liked Warcraft. As far as been determined, no one at Blizzard has worked on the code for Freecraft.
  
• Freecraft can read in Warcraft map data. One can create a map set that does not corresponde to anything Blizzard has put out. In fact, Freecraft came with a demo level that did not look like any of the original warcraft levels.
  
• Freecraft can read in Warcraft sprite data. One can create a sprite set that does not look anything like what Blizzard has put out. In fact, Freecraft came with a set of sprites that are obviously not the Blizzard sprites.
  

It's not software, but you may consider www.opengamingfoundation.org's Open Gaming License as a model for this.

As I understand it, all or nearly all of the changes have been included in System Reference Document, which you can easily get for free (or maybe a couple bucks if you want to print it all out).

Apart from fancy binding, pretty pictures, and flavor text that you can get from 3E, what are the 3.5E books gonna have that isn't here?

Something along the lines of the
Open Gaming Licence,
that spells out what a work of fanfic may/may not do,
and what legalese one must comply with to publish it.

Sorry to be nitpicky, but the Online Gaming League is the only OGL that I know of, and I don't see what it could possibly have to do with the Open Gaming Foundation. I mean seriously, the first person shooter geeks shouldn't be confused with the d&d dorks. They at least deserve that much.

Yes, the GPL grants permissions, but it also takes away rights, such as the right to first sale of binary-only copies.

Hmm. If you are using someone else's code under the GPL, then you never had a right to sell their code in the first place. So I don't see how the GPL takes anything away from you.

Right of First Sale: The legal term that means "the ownership of a thing ends after the first sale, and the new owner can do Pretty Much whatever they want with the thing."

In other words, if I buy a copy of a GPL's software program and the vendor tells me "here's where you get the source" exteranally from the program files (and, yes, that IS explicitly stated as allowable in the GPL), I could normally just pass the program on to someone else, but the GPL seems to say that I have to communicate the same thing that the vendor told me, or else I've commited copyright infringment.

If I buy a game from ID software, ID can't really tell me not to take the disks after I'm done using it and sell them to a used-computer depo. But if the game was GPL'd, and ID tells me where to get the source outside of the disks (say, in a pamplhet in the box), I'm violating the GPL by "redistributing" the binary without the "source."

The GPL, and other sticky copyleft licenses like it (such as the Open Gaming License), is a contract where you pay for the right to use the code by agreeing to release your use of it under the GPL. You're not "getting something for free."

You're getting a "one-way ticket into copyleftland," to sound like an MSife for a moment. Considering how vauge "derivitive work" can be, I'd be shy releasing a GPL'd program and then going to (profitable) proprietary software too.

About the only valid complaint against the GPL is "what's to stop some meanie from saying a project I write six months after I finish my GPL project should be covered by the GPL because its 'derivitive', and thus dragging me into court?"

(I'm not as familiar with the GPL as I am with the OGL, but the OGL has a 30-day cure period and a much clearer definition of "use." Not to mention that the RPG industry is nowhere near as litgious or fragmented as the software industry.)

...and not the work of Gygax. This fetid thing is the brainfart of one Ryan S. Dancey, a (former) executive at WOTC. He has since left to run his own company focused on the Open Gaming License. Several articles a couple years ago on various sites claimed D&D was going open source. It's not, and never will. It's more like M$'s "shared source" malarky.

I read the OGL. It's junk. Do not think it has the same purpose/principle/goals behind it that the GPL does. The OGL exists so that WOTC can steer the entire game industry. All these little game companies were spawned because of the OGL, and the OGL will be their downfall. If any other game company had money (Decipher is the closest), they would sue WOTC for anti-trust violations. Hard core /. gamers should think about all the similarities between M$ and WOTC.

D&D is the reason why there are so many other RPG's out there. I know, because stupid D&D rules are one of the reasons why I made my own game.

And some more insight into the history lesson going on here...Hasbro only bought WOTC because Pokemon was a cash cow at the time. Now that it's dying (yah!), Hasbro is worried. They never understood what they were getting.

To add to this, the license under which the D20 SRD has been released is the Open Gaming License, available here on the OGF site.

This license gives fairly broad rights to most people willing to build upon the d20 ruleset, almost certainly including non-commercial games, but IANAL, so don't take my word on it.

AD&D is generally taken to refer to the second edition Dungeons & Dragons Rules.

Neverwinter Nights will be based on the 3rd edition D&D rules (D&D3e), which is different from AD&D.

A link to the 3rd Edition System Reference Document with all the core rules released to the Open Gaming Foundation (including Psionics!) may be found here.

Although certainly Wizards is a dominant force in the Pen-and-Paper (PnP) RPG market, it's by no means the only company on the block, nor is it a Microsoft-like Goliath with only a few paltry Davids as competition. White Wolf games are still very popular, and for many are the first introduction into PnP gaming. The White Wolf LARP rules attract alot of theater types, which then gravitate toward the PnP games.

Also, even though FASA has closed it's doors, the Shadowrun and Battletech games have been transferred to another company. These games have loyal followers as well. And I'm sure Steve Jackson Games isn't going to roll over and die any time soon. And there are hundreds of companies still putting out product on a regular basis, ranging from the classics to new and unique systems.

In fact, I see Wizards as being a good thing for the roleplaying community. Granted, not everyone likes the AD&D "high fantasy" genre. And quite a few people who do like it have been outraged by the rules change evident in 3rd edition--the same people who took five years to get over their outrage when 2nd edition came out. Whether you love AD&D or hate it, love 3E or hate it, you have to admit that it's breathing new life into roleplaying games, and bringing over some new gamers who had previously only played twitch games on some console. And it's also providing a way for new RPG publishers to get a foothold in the market.

Unlike TSR, Wizards won't sue your ass if you want to make a game module and print it without their permission. All you have to do is put the Open Gaming Licence in your module or game supplement, and you can slap a "D20" logo which officially marks it as "D&D compatible". How many of us older gamers remember the glory days of Role Aids game supplements? It sickened me when T$R went after the little guys with their evil lawsuits, and persecuted them for the crime of wanting to contribute to the gaming community. But now, anyone can create adventure modules, monster guides, sourcebooks, and whole campaign worlds, and sell them with no royalty fees whatsoever, getting 100% of the profit of those sales.

Doesn't sound like the policies of a monopoly to me...

This product is being developed by Bioware: not Lucasarts or Black Isle or Interplay

It will feature a new engine not based on Omen

The game is currently being developed as single player

It is unconfirmed whether or not the game will use D20 or not, D20 is currently being used in the yet to be released Star Wars RPG from WotC

No, the D20 TL does in fact say you can't use parts of the previously "open" game. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

It would be like Sun releasing Java's code under the GPL, but requiring that you pass a certification test to use the Java trademark. The certification test doesn't stop you from using the code however you like; it just says under what conditions you can call it Java.

No, it would be like Sun releasing Java's code under the GPL, but requiring you to remove part of it if you use the Java trademark, regardless of the modifications you've made.

The D20 license constrains you to remove the otherwise "open" character creation rules if you're distributing something with the D20 trademark. Technically, yes, it's a restriction on the trademark rather than the rules, but it's still a backdoor way to accomplish the same thing... what sense would it make to restrict the full Linux distro to only things that didn't say "Linux" on them?

Read the license, please. It's at the OGF website and looks quite modelled after the GPL. In particular, it allows you to reproduce, verbatim, the rules (subject to trademark restraints).