I realise that OGL is non-revokable, and for the most part, I consider it safe. But, I take Greg’s point about use of WotC’s IP. In my paranoid universe, the worst-case scenario is that a particular OGL title allegedly misuses that IP, causes a legal stir, and the subsequent outcome is a negative precedent for existing or future OGL material. I strongly suspect that WotC painstakingly considered this possibility before releasing the OGL, and I would consider this scenario highly unlikely. That said, TSR was wont to be inconsistent about enforcing rights to its own IP, and while WotC is no doubt more responsible, the possibility exists.

As you point out, WotC have given different treatment to 4E licensing. It may be correct to conclude that this is a result of lessons learned from the OGL, but given the recent rise of OGL use for non-d20 stuff, I’m sure WotC’s antenna is up.

BTW, I really enjoyed POL I and II. Particularly the maps, which kick butt.

It is that simple and that complex. The OSR is confusing and messy because it is not under the direction of any one group or person. Which is also it’s source of strength. The diversity of approach will allow people to enjoy the original rules in many novel and different ways.

@Erin of course there is always that threat of legal action. But many of the retro-clones are based on a d20 SRD that has been pared down . Some, particularly OSRIC, have gotten legal help in preparing their ruleset. Even if Wizards tries to use Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, and Sword & Wizardry it doesn’t change the fact that you are not require to use every item in the OGL. Omit enough d20 rules what you have is nearly indistinguishable from older editions.

Finally as to why Wizards allows it is that they can’t revoke it. It is a perpetual license. All they can do is not license future editions of D&D under the OGL. Which they did in the case of 4e.

@Nextautumn appreciate the compliment.
.-= Robert Conley´s last blog ..Adventure/Supplement Format, a question =-.

The lawsuit spectre looms. IMO, it’s just a matter of time before WotC realises their mistake and unleashes its lawyers. Unless someone else has some info on the publisher protections under the OGL, I think this is a real possibility…

@Herb : The nostalgia factor is BIG, though it was dismissed when I mentioned it in my original post. It’s a highly subjective element, so it will matter much to some, little to others. When I rev up my RC campaign, I am reminded of the early days; when I run Keep on the Borderlands, I’m back in 7th grade. It’s not so much that I want to go back there, but I have to admit to a very real level of comfort. But as Sade says, it’s never as good as the first time…
.-= Erin Smale´s last blog ..More on OSR =-.

Most of the OSR seems to be 35-45. We weren’t writing all those great letters to The Dragon or all those cool articles. We were printing our own Xeroxed supplement and selling it in a baggie, but damn we wished we were.

The nostalgia of the OSR is for being part of the community when the perceived distance from the pros and the guys in their basements wasn’t large and when the hobby was a creative hobby for adults not something kids did.

I can’t completely discount revenge but I still think the desire to have been part of a vibrant (to our eyes 30 years later at least) DIY culture is a big part of it.
.-= Herb´s last blog ..Wow… =-.

Another point, OSR is not really a “new” market. It’s essentially the same niche market of people who were previously able to legally buy PDFs of the old TSR product line. Withdrawing them from the market was a tactical mistake in my opinion. Where WOTC could have continued to draw income from this niche now that money is going elsewhere. My opinion is WOTC should not have said no to people who want to pay them money.

Personally, I’d love to see an official WOTC re-issue of the “white box”, including the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements. Why, because if you like that game there is no substitute for the real thing. S&W is a sad attempt really overall in view of the original White Box D&D content which it seeks to emulate. Free rules do not necessarily equate with good rules in my book.

On the other hand Labyrinth Lord does a much better job of capturing the feeling and essence of Basic D&D as an old school revival clone. If someone were looking for a clone of Basic D&D and wanted free rules it is as good as it gets.

An old geezer like me will simply trot out his old rules but my kids (now age 23+ adults) are unlikely to go out and buy the old rules off of the net when they can download a game like Labyrinth Lord for free. For them, it is about sharing a little of what they remember playing with Dad when they were teens. What will they play with their own children in 10-12 years time?

For a developer of a new game the OGL and OSR are a bit of a problem. You can release product to take advantage of the current interest or you can continue on with what you yourself are interested in. One thing is for sure. The OGL/OSR Genie is out of the bottle now, what will eventually come of it all is hard to guess at.

Greg

James answers this by pointing out that the OGL is non-revokable. WotC has no choice but to sleep in the bed they made.

@justaguy : I wish I had your Zen mindset.

I don’t want to see WotC fail, but I do wish they would pay some attention to non-4E gamers. Ask OSR people what they like and what they want, find out where the 25+ segment is at, launch a line of “OSR-compatible” material. It isn’t a stretch for them to make the OGL work for them again. Unless WotC’s intent is to orphan it as a goodwill measure, which may or may not be good – I need more information before reaching a conclusion on that one.

@James Edward Raggi IV : What I should have said was, I don’t think WotC will cotton on to how much profit the OGL is actually costing them. I had similar thoughts when the OGL was new, but the landscape was different then, because 3rd-party publishers were cranking out 3E stuff right alongside WotC. With respect to the OSR, the OGL isn’t augmenting WotC’s line–it’s competing with it.

I’ll admit that accusing WotC of ignoring me (as a 38-year-old gamer) is somewhat hypocritical–after all, I’m not paying a lot of attention to them. But looking at WotC’s web site and product lines, it’s clear that they’re concentrating chiefly on 4E. I’m suggesting that they embrace OSR rather than ignore it. After all, it’s being published under their license. One would think they’d have an interest.

Four figures for a few months of indie publishing is impressive, by any standard. While you state that you’re spending more than you’re earning, I’ll hazard a guess that your operating costs are much lower than WotC’s. For the effort and overhead required to produce a smattering of OSR titles, I can’t see why WotC wouldn’t want a finger in the OSR pie.

Even if there is no money to be made on the Big Game Publisher level, there is money to be made on the small-scale. I have ambitious plans and have spent more than I’ve made so far, but I grossed around $4500 in the last 5 months of 2009 with very little distribution. This S&W White Box, by my rough estimates since I’m not a BHP insider, is generating a 4-figure profit for its publisher, or very nearly so. And the market is only growing, and as more of these things do get on store shelves, the potential for a real share of the market is there.

>>In fact, so long as the OGL remains a legally binding document, they encourage it. And that’s the OK part. I submit that WotC will never, in their arrogant, laughable idiocy, cotton on to the fact that their OGL is costing them money.

WotC does fully realize that, which is why 4e has the much more restrictive GSL and is not released under the OGL.

However, the OGL is non-revokable, and any changes to it may be completely ignored since the original license states that any version of the OGL can be used, so… they’re stuck with it now.

I will also say that as a 35 year old gamer, I don’t feel ignored by WotC. They might be focusing on a younger gamer, but ignored? Nah. Again maybe I’m just not angry enough at them to feel that way.

And unless the research has changed in the past year, I’m pretty sure that the disposable income thing skews towards the teenagers. Yeah, 25+ probably have more /income/, but they also tend to have more responsibilities. Student loan payoffs, kids, mortgages, etc. and they don’t have parents footing the bill.