How are 3rd party companies producing stuff for 5e? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 the_black_vegetable Aug 19, 2015 10:25:20	As far as I know, 5e has no GSL. That being the case, how are there so many third party books that advertise themselves as being for 5e?
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Aug 19, 2015 10:39:30	The answer is simple: licensing is not necessary to make a product and have it be compatible for use with D&D - licensing is necessary to use actual D&D game material when making those compatible products. For an example, the Fifth Edition Foes book uses a different monster stat block layout (having no license to use the same layout as 5th edition does), and refers to various things which grant "tactical advantage" which is, from a legal standpoint, different from "advantage" (which they have no license to use in the same context as 5th edition does) despite that it is obvious to the reader what it refers to.
#3 Zardnaar Aug 19, 2015 11:15:30	They use the OGL.
(Reply to #3) the_black_vegetable	Zardnaar wrote:
#5 Mistwell Aug 19, 2015 11:33:47	the_black_vegetable wrote:
#6 the_black_vegetable Aug 19, 2015 11:38:04	Mistwell wrote:
#7 Mistwell Aug 19, 2015 11:47:51	the_black_vegetable wrote:
#8 Reinhart Aug 19, 2015 12:13:44	the_black_vegetable wrote:
#9 Mommy_was_an_Orc Aug 19, 2015 14:07:09	Reinhart wrote:
#10 Grazel Aug 19, 2015 14:22:52	They're playing it safe. As was already clarified in previous legal battles, you cannot copyright/limit a ruleset. That's why you can have knock-off Monopoly games using the same rules as Monopoly. It's possible certain terms could create an issue but not likely, TSR tried and failed to sue over the use of hit points and other terms previously. What is protected is bodies of text that describe game elements. This would potentially include the default 5e monster stat block layout but that'd be up to legal teams to battle out. These products are just playing it safe but based on precedent they could use terms like "grants advantage", "hit points", "fire resistance", "traits", etc. just as long as they're not reprinting the description of those terms using the wording that WotC has used for them. The OGL was meant to be a way to allow a clearer view of what could and couldn't be used and also exposed things normally covered under copyright that WotC wanted to allow them to use without fear. Note that certain monsters were not allowed like beholders and illithids as these were considered "iconic". Of course that doesn't stop many other games (including MMOs) from using them in some form. EQ franchise has owlbears straight from D&D and beholders under a different name. They even have a sort of displacer beast (they just lack the displacement power but have the look) called fearstalkers. Sometimes changing just one trait or the name is enough to avoid legal issues, that's why D&D switched to halfling from hobbit after a legal battle. While Tolkein used both terms for hobbits his estate was only concerned with D&D calling them hobbits as it was more "distinct" than the term halfling. TSR also ran in to issues form AD&D when they used pantheons from fictional works like Elric of Melnebone. Unfortunately due to the changing nature of our society and concerns over possible legal "carpet bombing" the 3rd party extensions to TTRPGs has cooled and the community is often left with just official products and personal house-rulings and custom content that they fear sharing with others, even for free. The OGL/SRD attempts by WotC were good attempts to restore some of the early D&D 3rd party product output but it also reenforced the concept that doing anything with the D&D rules was a no-no unless you were WotC or without their express permission.
#11 Mistwell Aug 19, 2015 14:46:10	Grazel wrote:
#12 Zardnaar Aug 19, 2015 16:24:05	Some of the monstets I have seen are straight from the MM. Maybe the layput is different IDK. I'm just buying adventures and have around 24 of them spread over 3 books. They are shorter ones usually along the lines of Dungeon magazine.
#13 Grazel Aug 20, 2015 16:50:48	Mistwell wrote:
#14 Mistwell Aug 20, 2015 17:16:37	Grazel wrote:
#15 Zardnaar Aug 20, 2015 20:18:23	Imagine how bad it would be if you could copyright rolling dice or basic english language words (teade marks maybe). 1st person to patent "the" wins.
#16 arnwolf666 Aug 20, 2015 20:27:13	copyright is the worse thing that ever happened to the development of new ideas.
#17 Nesian42Ryukaiel Aug 21, 2015 1:30:04	arnwolf666 wrote:
#18 Zardnaar Aug 21, 2015 2:00:00	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #15) shadowknave	Zardnaar wrote:
#20 Kahless Aug 21, 2015 18:21:18	Unless, you know, it was YOUR idea that was stolen by someone else to make millions...
(Reply to #18) arnwolf666	Zardnaar wrote:
#22 Zardnaar Aug 21, 2015 21:32:24	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #20) dave2008	Kahless wrote:
(Reply to #16) dave2008	arnwolf666 wrote:
#25 Elfcrusher Aug 22, 2015 6:30:27	Copyright is good, but the massively extended duration is bad. If you look at what Jefferson and others said (wrote) about it, it's clear that the purpose was to create an incentive to innovate, not because of some kind of natural right to own/control your ideas. But in the years since lawyers have managed to convince the general public that it's about "property" and therefore a right. It's ironic that Disney has been one of the biggest champions (read: donor to politicians) over extended copyright, but they got their start making animated movies using out-of-copyright stories (e.g. Kipling). Next time copyright extention comes up in congress, camp on your senator's doorstep.
#26 dmgorgon Aug 22, 2015 7:49:58	They way WotC is focused on D&D as a property is the problem. I found this statement from Monte Cook rather telling. It was within a year there that I discovered that none of this was actually going to happen. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying I was lied to. I'm a realist and I know plans change. But a complete reversal of that initial plan--that is to say, a focus entirely on licensing the brand and turning D&D from a game and into a property--that wasn't something I wanted to be a part of, particularly in what turned out to be a disappointingly difficult (extraordinarily political) work environment. Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?466410-AMA-with-Monte-Cook-(Numenera-D-amp-D-Monte-Cook-Games-Malhavoc-Press)/page9#ixzz3jYUp64G9
(Reply to #16) halvgrim	It would have been a smart move for WOTC to publish a licence earlier. If they publish a license next year, then they will probably find that some people have stepped over the line.That will lead to bad press and unneccesary tears on the internets.
#28 Rottle Aug 22, 2015 8:54:32	Creation of a campaigne world would hardly ever require stats or combat values. Mostly settings, environments, races that can be found ( if you have new races you can probably give basic AD&D stats that are super easy to convert to 5e), political systems of various nations/tribes/communities, and maybe a list of god like beings/ major religions/special groups( knights of the watch from greyhawk comes to mind). Great histories and stories are what I look for from campaigne worlds not blocks of stats, maybe that is odd of me but hey that's me, It's why I am enjoying the setting stuff from 5e even though I am not a fan of the 5e system, setting stuff ports really well into other systems easily. I can take 5e sword coast info and use it wonderfully in a 1e game with very little effort on my part. WoTC has been really good to those of use who love different flavors of DnD but still want to use their new stuff. I am very appricative of how they have handled 5e for those who aren't using that system. Might sound weird to say that but I like the direction WoTC has taken with D&D even if I don't like the direction they went with the rules....
#29 the_black_vegetable Aug 25, 2015 8:17:47	Update: I contacted WOTC and they sent me all the info I need to get a license. So it is possible.
(Reply to #23) arnwolf666	dave2008 wrote:
(Reply to #20) The_White_Sorcerer	Kahless wrote:
#32 Zardnaar Aug 26, 2015 3:54:40	The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
#33 Kahless Aug 26, 2015 5:36:30	Some people like to keep creative control of their property even after death. Look what happens when you don't (coughPeter Jacksoncough). And that was WITH estate approval. Unfortunately now we'll never see another Tolkein film again now because of it.
(Reply to #32) The_White_Sorcerer	Zardnaar wrote:
#35 Mistwell Aug 26, 2015 13:58:32	the_black_vegetable wrote:
#36 DaleMcCoy Aug 29, 2015 6:38:36	We are using the ogl. We changed a few terms, but mostly we changed the way some terms are used. We don't say, "gain advantage" but instead say "has an advantage" or "is at an advantage," or so on. We don't use dragonborn, yet (we have something in the works for that, but that is down the road), and we make every effort to make sure our material is as good as wizards' if not better.
(Reply to #15) Yunru	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #30) Huscarl	arnwolf666 wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

the_black_vegetable

Aug 19, 2015 10:25:20

As far as I know, 5e has no GSL. That being the case, how are there so many third party books that advertise themselves as being for 5e?

AaronOfBarbaria

Aug 19, 2015 10:39:30

The answer is simple: licensing is not necessary to make a product and have it be compatible for use with D&D - licensing is necessary to use actual D&D game material when making those compatible products.

For an example, the Fifth Edition Foes book uses a different monster stat block layout (having no license to use the same layout as 5th edition does), and refers to various things which grant "tactical advantage" which is, from a legal standpoint, different from "advantage" (which they have no license to use in the same context as 5th edition does) despite that it is obvious to the reader what it refers to.

Zardnaar

Aug 19, 2015 11:15:30

They use the OGL.

(Reply to #3)

the_black_vegetable

Zardnaar wrote:

Mistwell

Aug 19, 2015 11:33:47

the_black_vegetable wrote:

the_black_vegetable

Aug 19, 2015 11:38:04

Mistwell wrote:

Mistwell

Aug 19, 2015 11:47:51

the_black_vegetable wrote:

Reinhart

Aug 19, 2015 12:13:44

the_black_vegetable wrote:

Mommy_was_an_Orc

Aug 19, 2015 14:07:09

Reinhart wrote:

#10

Grazel

Aug 19, 2015 14:22:52

They're playing it safe. As was already clarified in previous legal battles, you cannot copyright/limit a ruleset. That's why you can have knock-off Monopoly games using the same rules as Monopoly. It's possible certain terms could create an issue but not likely, TSR tried and failed to sue over the use of hit points and other terms previously. What is protected is bodies of text that describe game elements. This would potentially include the default 5e monster stat block layout but that'd be up to legal teams to battle out. These products are just playing it safe but based on precedent they could use terms like "grants advantage", "hit points", "fire resistance", "traits", etc. just as long as they're not reprinting the description of those terms using the wording that WotC has used for them.

The OGL was meant to be a way to allow a clearer view of what could and couldn't be used and also exposed things normally covered under copyright that WotC wanted to allow them to use without fear. Note that certain monsters were not allowed like beholders and illithids as these were considered "iconic". Of course that doesn't stop many other games (including MMOs) from using them in some form. EQ franchise has owlbears straight from D&D and beholders under a different name. They even have a sort of displacer beast (they just lack the displacement power but have the look) called fearstalkers. Sometimes changing just one trait or the name is enough to avoid legal issues, that's why D&D switched to halfling from hobbit after a legal battle. While Tolkein used both terms for hobbits his estate was only concerned with D&D calling them hobbits as it was more "distinct" than the term halfling. TSR also ran in to issues form AD&D when they used pantheons from fictional works like Elric of Melnebone.

Unfortunately due to the changing nature of our society and concerns over possible legal "carpet bombing" the 3rd party extensions to TTRPGs has cooled and the community is often left with just official products and personal house-rulings and custom content that they fear sharing with others, even for free. The OGL/SRD attempts by WotC were good attempts to restore some of the early D&D 3rd party product output but it also reenforced the concept that doing anything with the D&D rules was a no-no unless you were WotC or without their express permission.

#11

Mistwell

Aug 19, 2015 14:46:10

Grazel wrote:

#12

Zardnaar

Aug 19, 2015 16:24:05

Some of the monstets I have seen are straight from the MM. Maybe the layput is different IDK. I'm just buying adventures and have around 24 of them spread over 3 books. They are shorter ones usually along the lines of Dungeon magazine.

#13

Grazel

Aug 20, 2015 16:50:48

Mistwell wrote:

#14

Mistwell

Aug 20, 2015 17:16:37

Grazel wrote:

#15

Zardnaar

Aug 20, 2015 20:18:23

Imagine how bad it would be if you could copyright rolling dice or basic english language words (teade marks maybe). 1st person to patent "the" wins.

#16

arnwolf666

Aug 20, 2015 20:27:13

#17

Nesian42Ryukaiel

Aug 21, 2015 1:30:04

arnwolf666 wrote:

#18

Zardnaar

Aug 21, 2015 2:00:00

arnwolf666 wrote:

(Reply to #15)

shadowknave

Zardnaar wrote:

#20

Kahless

Aug 21, 2015 18:21:18

Unless, you know, it was YOUR idea that was stolen by someone else to make millions...

(Reply to #18)

arnwolf666

Zardnaar wrote:

#22

Zardnaar

Aug 21, 2015 21:32:24

arnwolf666 wrote:

(Reply to #20)

dave2008

Kahless wrote:

(Reply to #16)

dave2008

arnwolf666 wrote:

#25

Elfcrusher

Aug 22, 2015 6:30:27

Copyright is good, but the massively extended duration is bad. If you look at what Jefferson and others said (wrote) about it, it's clear that the purpose was to create an incentive to innovate, not because of some kind of natural right to own/control your ideas. But in the years since lawyers have managed to convince the general public that it's about "property" and therefore a right.

It's ironic that Disney has been one of the biggest champions (read: donor to politicians) over extended copyright, but they got their start making animated movies using out-of-copyright stories (e.g. Kipling).

Next time copyright extention comes up in congress, camp on your senator's doorstep.

#26

dmgorgon

Aug 22, 2015 7:49:58

They way WotC is focused on D&D as a property is the problem.

I found this statement from Monte Cook rather telling.

It was within a year there that I discovered that none of this was actually going to happen. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying I was lied to. I'm a realist and I know plans change. But a complete reversal of that initial plan--that is to say, a focus entirely on licensing the brand and turning D&D from a game and into a property--that wasn't something I wanted to be a part of, particularly in what turned out to be a disappointingly difficult (extraordinarily political) work environment.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?466410-AMA-with-Monte-Cook-(Numenera-D-amp-D-Monte-Cook-Games-Malhavoc-Press)/page9#ixzz3jYUp64G9

(Reply to #16)

halvgrim

It would have been a smart move for WOTC to publish a licence earlier. If they publish a license next year, then they will probably find that some people have stepped over the line.That will lead to bad press and unneccesary tears on the internets.

#28

Rottle

Aug 22, 2015 8:54:32

Creation of a campaigne world would hardly ever require stats or combat values. Mostly settings, environments, races that can be found ( if you have new races you can probably give basic AD&D stats that are super easy to convert to 5e), political systems of various nations/tribes/communities, and maybe a list of god like beings/ major religions/special groups( knights of the watch from greyhawk comes to mind). Great histories and stories are what I look for from campaigne worlds not blocks of stats, maybe that is odd of me but hey that's me, It's why I am enjoying the setting stuff from 5e even though I am not a fan of the 5e system, setting stuff ports really well into other systems easily. I can take 5e sword coast info and use it wonderfully in a 1e game with very little effort on my part. WoTC has been really good to those of use who love different flavors of DnD but still want to use their new stuff. I am very appricative of how they have handled 5e for those who aren't using that system. Might sound weird to say that but I like the direction WoTC has taken with D&D even if I don't like the direction they went with the rules....

#29

the_black_vegetable

Aug 25, 2015 8:17:47

Update: I contacted WOTC and they sent me all the info I need to get a license. So it is possible.

(Reply to #23)

arnwolf666

dave2008 wrote:

(Reply to #20)

The_White_Sorcerer

Kahless wrote:

#32

Zardnaar

Aug 26, 2015 3:54:40

The_White_Sorcerer wrote:

#33

Kahless

Aug 26, 2015 5:36:30

Some people like to keep creative control of their property even after death. Look what happens when you don't (*cough*Peter Jackson*cough*). And that was WITH estate approval. Unfortunately now we'll never see another Tolkein film again now because of it.

(Reply to #32)

The_White_Sorcerer

Zardnaar wrote:

#35

Mistwell

Aug 26, 2015 13:58:32

the_black_vegetable wrote:

#36

DaleMcCoy

Aug 29, 2015 6:38:36

We are using the ogl. We changed a few terms, but mostly we changed the way some terms are used. We don't say, "gain advantage" but instead say "has an advantage" or "is at an advantage," or so on. We don't use dragonborn, yet (we have something in the works for that, but that is down the road), and we make every effort to make sure our material is as good as wizards' if not better.

(Reply to #15)

Yunru

Zardnaar wrote:

(Reply to #30)

Huscarl

arnwolf666 wrote: