|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 7, 2023 6:14:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 7, 2023 6:37:31 GMT -6
An excellent thread. I see those "why isn't there a clone of XX role playing game?" posts on various boards and have to comment about how most games don't have any form of OGL, so making a clone is very difficult. Nice to see that there is a list of games that have them.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 7, 2023 8:24:40 GMT -6
Very timely indeed. Mongoose published their (first edition) Traveller and RuneQuest SRDs under the WotC OGL 1.0a, so we're all still waiting to see what happens of they "withdraw their offer". Microlite also uses it, as does The Black Hack. The problem is that for 20 years the WotC OGL 1.0a seemed essentially bullet-proof, so everyone used it to provide Open Gaming Content for their games even though their systems didn't need the D&D 3.5 SRD. I have been struggling to find any SRD that isn't using the OGL 1.0a, to the extent that I may end up writing my own (hopefully in collaboration with some others). robertsconley might be able to shed some light on using alternative licences like Creative Commons (of which there are many). I do note that there is a lot of online mix-up between OGL and SRD! I'm not familiar with Over the Edge, the link to download their OGL and SRD doesn't seem to work? Just one final point, I'm not sure the rest of the world agrees that nuChaosium's "NOGL" is what you say it is...  www.enworld.org/threads/chaosium-releases-basic-role-playing-srd.671172/ |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 7, 2023 10:48:18 GMT -6
I'm not familiar with Over the Edge, the link to download their OGL and SRD doesn't seem to work? (direct link in case you have trouble) You have to scrol lto the bottom of the page to find it. Also, it didn't work right away with Chrome for me, for some reason. Firefox did the trick, though. Later tries also worked with Chrome. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 7, 2023 17:42:04 GMT -6
I'm not familiar with Over the Edge, the link to download their OGL and SRD doesn't seem to work? You have to right click save as to download |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 7, 2023 17:42:59 GMT -6
Another contender will be Troll Lords' Castles & Crusades - they'll be going OGL-free soon and have an established 3PP system. They're not exactly OD&D so we won't get anything like our beloved exact clones that way, but to be honest, I think for the OSR we should be looking to something like C&C. I mean, it's still possible WotC will eat crow on this and the clones can stay (and supplements and adventures can be outside the OGL anyway). But perhaps this is a good time to rally around a single core with all our "flavours", for even easier pick'n'mix, regardless. Has anyone heard whether Frog God Games have made any contingency plans for Swords & Wizardry? EDIT: Okay, got the WaRP System download via Firefox (doh, right-click! didn't try that). Well, that looks very un-D&D-like so I assume it's in the clear, though it's still under the OGL. But it's really far removed from D&D, so probably not great for OSR games. It would probably be very helpful for the "industry" to come up with a preferred version of CC that all the little RPG publishers can get behind. robertsconley any thoughts on that? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 7, 2023 18:40:59 GMT -6
I do note that there is a lot of online mix-up between OGL and SRD! So true. In a nutshell, the OGL is a license to (legally) create derivative works of the SRD. So, if the OGLs 1.0 and 1.0a really did go away, then their respective SRDs (of D&D 3.0 and 3.5) would become largely pointless. The issue (for D&D retro-clone developers) with the alternative OGLs listed above is that they provide license to create derivative works of other, non-D&D, SRDs. So... which of these is the nearest to the D&D SRDs? I guess that would be C&C, yeah? Is there a C&C SRD-like document? |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 8, 2023 3:38:58 GMT -6
Is there a C&C SRD-like document? As far as I can see, no. I'm still looking into it. Also looking into MÖRK BORG. morkborg.com/content/ |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 8, 2023 9:23:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by barrataria on Jan 8, 2023 11:25:48 GMT -6
Is there a C&C SRD-like document? As far as I can see, no. I'm still looking into it. I recall seeing discussion of TLG sending takedown requests/demands to someone that tried to start an SRD website. I don't recall who/when or if it happened more than once, but for whatever reason they didn't want the (considerable) open content on a website. |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jan 8, 2023 14:28:25 GMT -6
I also posted this on the One D&D board.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 9, 2023 10:15:34 GMT -6
It would probably be very helpful for the "industry" to come up with a preferred version of CC that all the little RPG publishers can get behind. robertsconley any thoughts on that? Many are already deciding to go the Creative Commons route. Some Attribution only or CC-BY, but the other half going with the share-alike route as well or CC-BY-SA. Blackmarsh is already dual licensed (which means you can pick one of the two) under CC-BY and the OGL. My current project Into the Majestic Fantasy Realms will also be dual-licensed assuming that the OGL 1.0a is still around. So I am covered for both if the OGL 1.0a goes away. For my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I will have the luxury of seeing what happens after the OGL 1.1 is released. The larger issue is that trust in the irrevocability of OGL 1.0a has been shattered regardless of the outcome. This doesn't mean we should not fight for as keeping it allows us continued access to the literal millions of words shared with it. However it does means that going forward large segments of the hobby and industry are going to seek true independence from Wizards of the Coast. If the OGL 1.0a remains viable but you don't want to trust it. My recommendation is to use CC-BY. Clearly note which parts are not open content under CC-BY like your company name. Using CC-BY will allows the open content to be used as product identity in a work that combines it with open content released under the OGL. The OGL allows product identity to used but only if there is a separate license to use it. The separate license in this case is the CC-BY. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 10, 2023 7:02:31 GMT -6
Is there a list of OSR games without OGL ?
I realease a small sword'n'planet setting named Zongor, under CC0, but it's in French - and should be made better.
|
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 10, 2023 17:30:53 GMT -6
...and don't forget FATE RPG's parent game system, FUDGE RPG.
|
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 10, 2023 17:31:42 GMT -6
Is there a list of OSR games without OGL ? I realease a small sword'n'planet setting named Zongor, under CC0, but it's in French - and should be made better. I released two retro-clone games into the public domain, making them truly free and open source forever:
#OpenDnD
If you are a creator, #DontSign the new agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 10, 2023 20:58:40 GMT -6
...and don't forget FATE RPG's parent game system, FUDGE RPG. oh, right. Fudge was sort of the original open source game right? I never got into it. The special Fudge dice and the name kind of turned me off so I didn't give it a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 11, 2023 4:32:04 GMT -6
Many are already deciding to go the Creative Commons route. Some Attribution only or CC-BY, but the other half going with the share-alike route as well or CC-BY-SA. I guess this means that publishers whose products are not derivatives of a D&D SRD are switching to CC? But what about publisher whose products are derivatives of a D&D SRD (e.g., the "close" retro-clones) that will become "unauthorised" (whatever that may mean) post OGL 1.1? Surely these publishers can't simply switch to CC... can they? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 11, 2023 7:45:27 GMT -6
But what about publisher whose products are derivatives of a D&D SRD (e.g., the "close" retro-clones) that will become "unauthorised" (whatever that may mean) post OGL 1.1? Surely these publishers can't simply switch to CC... can they? They, including myself, will have to put some work in to make sure their systems are free of SRD content. For example, changing Hit Points to Hit-to-kill or combat endurance. Matt Finch is having a live stream on Swords & Wizardry tonight. Which may or may not have an impact on my Majestic Fantasy RPG. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMtk9SAjUI&ab_channel=MattFinchAs for myself, I ran the Majestic Fantasy RPG through a text similarity tool (used to detect plagiarism) and found that I have a very low overlap with the d20 SRD or Matt Finch's Swords & Wizardry, Core 2nd Printing. All this means that except for a few section, I wrote everything in my own words. Doesn't mean I am in the clear. So far I think I am pretty good on the lore (the descriptive text accompanying the mechanics) I tweaked things to how I view running a medieval fantasy campaign. Next I will have to look at my various lists (spells, monsters, magic items, etc) and see what has to be altered or tweaked. While I use a lot of D&Dish stuff, in general in my campaigns I like to work with a pretty bland generic list of stuff. The variation comes from fleshing out the individuals avoiding what I call all Klingon are honorable warrior syndrome. It is fortunate that I went this route when this situation arose. Hope that makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 11, 2023 8:03:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 11, 2023 10:14:41 GMT -6
A lot of the mechanical stuff is likely no problem - ability scores, hit points, etc. If you're no sure some research should clear up whether that stuff has already leaked into the greater world. Even spells are no big deal - look at any number of games (GURPS, Rolemaster, Palladium, etc.) and see how close you can get.
It gets trickiest with monsters and possibly magic items, I think, because a lot of those really haven't appeared outside D&D. But then again, those are the easiest to homebrew. New "stuff" has always been a major preoccupation of players, so why limit your adventures to the stuff already in Monsters & Treasure?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 11, 2023 10:19:04 GMT -6
However, before putting in the work to de-OGLify I'm going to sit tight and see if one clear front runner emerges in the race to create the next Open notD&D. When it does I'll consider converting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 11, 2023 11:10:45 GMT -6
I ran the Majestic Fantasy RPG through a text similarity tool (used to detect plagiarism) and found that I have a very low overlap with the d20 SRD or Matt Finch's Swords & Wizardry, Core 2nd Printing. All this means that except for a few section, I wrote everything in my own words. Doesn't mean I am in the clear. Where does one find such software? I'd be curious as to how close the S&W WB rules are to the d20 SRD. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 11, 2023 12:13:55 GMT -6
Hey good to hear from you. I still recommend the hell out of the Swords & Wizardry Quick Start as a way to get up to speed quickly with refereeing D&D in general. The general rule which I been advised when I engaged IP attorneys from time to time is that if you going the "mechanics can't be copyrighted" route AND want to stay close i.e. compatible with a target system. It is advisable to have a knowledge attorney review your work before publications. Which cost money. I had success but not that much success. So I have to weigh risks versus compatibility. I have some offers of free help from attorney game but there only so far I can go with that. The plan as such is to 1) Hear what Matt Finch has to say tonight 2) Identify areas where I copied and pasted from the S&W SRD 3) Compare my various lists to the d20 SRD and the S&W SRD to identify unique IP. 4) Then weigh the risks involve using the published examples like Thieves Guild, Palladium 1e, Worlds without Number, etc. With Into the Majestic Fantasy Realms, the job is easier. For example I just replaced Drow with Dark Elves. As for the EFF they tend to take a maximalist view as to creative freedom. I been following them a long long time as a software developer and sometime what they want doesn't account for what you have to deal with in the real world. But they are still a useful resource. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 11, 2023 12:16:55 GMT -6
I ran the Majestic Fantasy RPG through a text similarity tool (used to detect plagiarism) and found that I have a very low overlap with the d20 SRD or Matt Finch's Swords & Wizardry, Core 2nd Printing. All this means that except for a few section, I wrote everything in my own words. Doesn't mean I am in the clear. Where does one find such software? I'd be curious as to how close the S&W WB rules are to the d20 SRD. First off what you want are text similarity tools, they are usually accompanied by a plagiarism set of tools. But text similarity compares two files which is what we want here. There is a lot of scam stuff out there. And the best ones are usually priced for institutional use. However, the underlying research behind them is of academic interest so you can find some free functional tools out there. I been using this. people.f4.htw-berlin.de/~weberwu/simtexter/app.html |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jan 11, 2023 12:43:27 GMT -6
They, including myself, will have to put some work in to make sure their systems are free of SRD content. For example, changing Hit Points to Hit-to-kill or combat endurance. So basically, they're all going to have to turn into Dangerous Journeys or Lejendary Adventures? @_@ |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 11, 2023 13:31:19 GMT -6
They, including myself, will have to put some work in to make sure their systems are free of SRD content. For example, changing Hit Points to Hit-to-kill or combat endurance. So basically, they're all going to have to turn into Dangerous Journeys or Lejendary Adventures? @_@ Maybe not that baroque. |
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 11, 2023 14:05:51 GMT -6
Hey good to hear from you. I still recommend the hell out of the Swords & Wizardry Quick Start as a way to get up to speed quickly with refereeing D&D in general. Thank you, that's really kind. I'm thinking, in light of all this, of genericizing the Quick Start into an OD&D-esque style of game, while referring folks back to a list of rules for specifics. Why go with a published example as opposed to a more general/generic approach? Is it to drive sales or a different reason? Well, there is that. TBH, I think that this is going to end up in court and hopefully some clarity emerges. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 11, 2023 16:11:50 GMT -6
They, including myself, will have to put some work in to make sure their systems are free of SRD content. For example, changing Hit Points to Hit-to-kill or combat endurance. Based on what folks like EFF are saying, do you really have to go to those lengths, or is it enough to simply scrub your games of PI? Thanks for the posts above robert. I'm similarly concerned about the whole of the non-SRD/non-IP content being "derivative" of the original. A (so called) "close retroclone" (of OD&D) likely has gone to considerable effort to fly as close to OD&D as possible. This means it might, say, have the very similar organisation as the 3LBBs, might contain a similar collection of tables, the content of each individual table might be similar, might even rewrite most of the same phrases as the original. Under 1.0a a substantial portion of this is derivative of the SRD, so it's difficult to argue the whole is a derivative of OD&D. Without 1.0a, it all becomes (intentionally!) derivative of OD&D. I'm thinking a transition away from 1.0a would be difficult for the "close retroclones". The end product might not really be a "close retroclone" anymore, and so one wonders whether these games can even survive this transition (if it becomes necessary) and still serve their intended purpose. i guess the whole question of "how close is too close" will surface again, and really we'll never know until it is tested in court. That's a big ask of the average micro-publisher with an ordinary day job and a family to feed. |
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 11, 2023 16:39:34 GMT -6
Under 1.0a a substantial portion of this is derivative of the SRD, so it's difficult to argue the whole is a derivative of OD&D. Without 1.0a, it all becomes (intentionally!) derivative of OD&D. Depending on whom you read/believe, such a derivative is technically allowed, without an OGL, assuming that one isn't crossing into what is copyrightable. IOW, most close retroclones could stand on their own, without an OGL. Again, depending on how you take it, by following the OGL, those retroclones end up shooting themselves in the foot. It seems counterproductive, but here we are, at the point where folks (including a lot of lawyers that have dice in the game) are pointing out that the OGL was a fool's quest to begin with. Not sure if they're quoted earlier, if not, I can dig up the links. There's so much digital ink being spilled over this topic, hard to keep up. |
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Jan 11, 2023 16:58:18 GMT -6
|
|
