Section 9 of the Open Game License

Update: I talk about the impact of recent events on me here.

 There is been a lot of discussion over whether Wizards can revoke the OGL by de-authorizing it. This came about because of Section 9 of the open game license.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

I highlighted in bold the operative section. The theory goes if Wizards de-authorized the license then everybody who ever used OGL 1.0 or OGL 1.0a will be forced to go to OGL 1.1 even folks who made their stuff open content that had nothing to do with any of Wizard's offerings like the d20 SRD, or the d20 Modern SRD, for example, Cepheus, Mongoose Legends and so on.

I am not a lawyer but like any layman, especially one involved in making creative content, I learned enough so I can ask my attorney intelligent questions to make sure what I want to do has all the i's dotted and t's crossed. 

What I learned is that while the letter of the contract is important, the courts give great weight to intent. What the parties intending to do to when the license or contract was made. If you google contract law and intent you will find several excellent summaries of what intent means in common law countries like the US.

As for the OGL, this means that the old d20 FAQ becomes highly relevant.

The D20 FAQ captured on April 29th, 2001

While not a legal document it does show the intent of Wizards circa 2001 when they released the OGL.

Q: What is meant by the term "Open Gaming"?

A: An Open Game is a game that can be freely copied, modified, and distributed, and a system for ensuring that material, once distributed as an Open Game will remain permanently Open.

This is further supported by the fact that when Wizards released the highly restrictive Game System License several years later, they did not try to revoke the OGL although they did sunset the d20 Trademark License.

Next, is the fact what is meant by an authorized license? Many contend it means that the OGL can be revoked. Or some like myself, argue that it means that the version had to have been authorized by Wizards at some point. The fact that Wizards does not wish to continue offering it for its own stuff is irrelevant to its use for current and future material.

I believe my point of view is further supported by how ambiguity is handled in the US Courts. A person in 2001 and in 2022 would reasonably assume they can use the OGL and any associated open content as long as they met the terms of the license. 

This is further supported by the references in the d20 FAQ to what the term "Free" means in the context of the OGL.

Particularly this

This use of the term "free" is a recognition of the philosophy of the roots of the Open Source software movement. The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project, founded by Richard Stallman were the first formal efforts to codify the philosophy of Open Source software. It is the preference of the Free Software Foundation and Mr. Stallman to use the term "Free Software" rather than "Open Source", to keep the focus on the idea that the important part of the philosophy is the freedom to copy, modify and distribute computer software, rather than the more utilitarian objective of simply giving users access to the source code.

And the above is supported by the fact that the d20 page referred to the Open Gaming Foundation which is still in existence and has been recently updated.

Section 9 is, in my opinion, is a badly rewritten version of Section 9 of the GNU Public License  Ver 2 (the then current version) which reads. 

 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Finally as for Wizards making all open content magically use OGL 1.1 by focusing on authorized licenses. I submit folks are forgetting about 

You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content 

That is a choice, if the worst case scenario comes to pass, you can decline to use OGL 1.1 and omit the open content that is not original to your work and then release it other another license or under traditional copyright.

I can't say how things will go but I hope this helps as a more hopeful view of the possibilities than some of the other commentary that is out there.

Update

This was pointed out to me that was in the OGL FAQ as well.

Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

This gives weight to my assertion that Section 9 of OGL 1.0a is intended to operate like Section 9 of the GPL rather than a "scrap it" clause.

Also 

Concerning Bat in the Attic Games, Steady as She Goes

The proposed OGL 1.1 is not an open license. Fight for your hobby.

 Today Wizards of the Coast on DnD Beyond released an article called OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D. It talks about Wizards plans for a new version of the OGL. 

The recap the OGL stands for the Open Game License. According to Creative Commons, an open license means the content is free to use how you want it. In practice, this has meant that content was shared to let people use the content in any way, including commercially, the main requirements being that there is proper attribution of the original content used, and that any modifications are released under the same license. With the author listed as the creator of the modification.

The current two versions of the OGL v1.0 (3.X) and v1.0a meet the above criteria except for specific elements. 

• You are allowed to designate part of the work as product identity which basically saying I am not releasing this part of my book as open content. This is often used for licensed IP like Lord of the Rings or Star Trek. It is sometimes used when the author doesn't want to share their setting but wants to use and modify a popular system.

• You also explicitly agree to give up your right to cite compatibility to a trademarked product. This is something that you normally have the right to do when releasing a work when it is your content. I could have done this with Blackmarsh as I mostly used common monster names rather than anything specific out of the DnD editions.

The Changes

So what are the proposed changes?

First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. 

What OGL 1.1 will cover are electronic files like PDF, and printed books this right off mean that OGL 1.1 is no longer an open license as it restricts how you can use the open content. As the definition of open content means you can use it in the manner you see fit.

The next change

Second, we’re updating the OGL to offer different terms to creators who choose to make free, share-alike content and creators who want to sell their products.  

They list a number of requirements that amount to you having to report any sales of any products licensed under the OGL 1.1 as well as a description of what it is you are selling.  And if you make over a threshold ($750,000) then you will be expected to pay royalties by 2024. 

Wrapping it up

This will further bifurcate the third party publisher market. OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a content can't be used with OGL 1.1 content as a result of Section 12 of the current OGL.

12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.

Right now the world of 3PP is divided into those who use open content like Pathfinder, Cepheus, OSRIC, Old School Essentials, and those who publish in community content programs like the DM's Guild.  In fact, I predict there will be three major 3PP communities for Dungeons and Dragons, the ones that continue to use the OGL 1.0a license, those who use the OGL 1.1 license, and those who use community content programs.

I realize there is a lot of speculation and criticism out there that are made because OneDnD is the news of the days. I limited myself to what the article said. At various times in the history of open source and creative commons, unscrupulous companies and individuals tried to put out their own licenses including ones with terms very much like the above. Each and every time this has not ended well for the bad actors and their licenses. Either they reverted back to a traditional commercial license and ceased their use of the open content. Or they came into compliance. 

If you value your freedom to produce and more commonly share the content you create for Dungeons and Dragons then let Wizards know that you find these proposed terms unacceptable. Let them know that the community has the tools right now to fix the issue on their own and will do so as shown by what happen with DnD 4e, the GSL, and Pathfinder.

This is your hobby and your game now. Don't let Hasbro try to take that away from you.

Fight On!

Update

I added some comments on Section 9 of the OGL which appears to be a point of attack by the Wizards' legal team to shut down the OGL.

Section 9 of the OGL

Concerning Bat in the Attic Games, Steady as She Goes and further thoughts on the OGL

For those who are new.

I have long been an advocate of open content released under the open license. Blackmarsh is free for any of use in any manner you see if. Likely the entire content of the Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG is open content. 

Some past posts.

You are free now so go enjoy it.

An OGL Primer

A tale of two OGLs

Zweihander, Open Content, and a reply to Daniel Fox.

Ryan Dancy on the Open Game License

Finally some practical effects of making Blackmarsh open content. I would not have had the time or skills to do any of these projects but now folks who read Spanish, French, Italian and Hungarian can enjoy Blackmarsh in their languages as well as fans of Heroes and Other Worlds. 

And because these were solely the work of their respective author who put the work into making a version of Blackmarsh, they get to reap 100% of the financial rewards. Something I am fine with when I shared Blackmarsh as open content.

Blackmarsh in Spanish!

Périlleuses contrées: Fangenoire (Blackmarsh in French)

Italian version of Blackmarsh

Blackmarsh in Hungarian!

Blackmarsh for Heroes & Other Worlds

A Fantasy Sandbox in Detail Part XXIII

 Part XXII  Index Page

This is the twenty-third post in a series detailing the 34 steps I recommended for making a Fantasy Sandbox Campaign. 

Today's post will cover steps 29 to 32. 

29. Pick the 12 most important NPC or Monsters 
30. Write a paragraph describing each and fully stat them. 
31. Pick the most six common encounter type. (City Guard, Border Warders, Bloody Hand, Orcs) Write a paragraph and fully stat them.
32. Scan your description for any regional organization and write a paragraph on them. Fully stat the most common encounters involved with them.

My choice of using a small example like the Isle of Piall constrains my choices of what to pick for important NPCs, Monsters, encounters, and organizations. It does illustrate an important point about making a sandbox, its scope. 

The details increase geometrically with the area covered by the setting. Piall is five hex columns by five hex rows and has about 27 entries. Blackmarsh has 27 hex columns and 19 hex rows and has 94 entries. Finally my upcoming "Into the Majestic Fantasy Realms" has four maps each with 31 hex columns 41 hex rows along with 200+ entries each. The amount of detail grows geometrically as the size of the map grows. Make the map twice the size in terms of hex rows and columns, and you will have to put in four times the work. 

If you pick a smaller number of locales to flesh out on a larger map this will mean more to make up as the campaign progresses. For your first sandbox make it a size that you feel comfortable with. The time estimate that accompanied the first posts of this series was based on an area the size of Blackmarsh, a map the size of a regular piece of paper, with about 100 entries total.

What to Detail?

The most important NPCs or monsters on the Isle of Piall should be the ones that the players are likely to interact with. Once you determined this list then describe their capabilities and/or plans in detail. Given the limited scope of the Isle of Piall I opted to describe 14 individuals and their associated organizations.

The NPCs of Piall

Now for the news about Space the Final Frontier

Updating everybody on the pressing irrelevant question of the day. What uniforms will the US Space Force pick?

A bit of background. So among world's aerospace units, the triangular delta symbol is somewhat popular. So when the US Space Force was formed they went with this. Whose popularity probably is no small part influenced by a certain beloved late 60s series. 

So the question now is where their uniform will come from? From which navy of American sci-fi they will draw inspiration from?  Well, we now have our answer.

Another beloved sci-fi tv series but not the original but the reboot version. 

Enjoy!

Keeping Strict Time Records in Lord of the Rings

 So apparently J.R.R. Tolkien kept strict time records.

Chronology of the Lord of the Ring ($20)

Rob's Note: This is a link to a PDF purchase of an academic article. You can read the synopsis for free.

Rob's Note: I realize the sample image is hard to read. It was the best avaliable.

1D&D: The 5E Skill System Is not broken, but it may not work out for you.

 On the Alexandrian, Justin Alexander writes a 2,500-word review that tears apart the DnD 5e skill system. This appears to have been prompted by the fact that the One DnD playtest added a rule that 1 is a failure on ALL d20 rolls and a 20 is a auto success (and grants a point of inspiration) on ALL d20 rolls. In the current rules natural 1's and 20's only matter on the to-hit roll. Although myself and others I know apply it to ability checks, saves, and skill checks. 

The review is quite detailed in goes into some of the math behind the DnD 5e skill system. 

And it misses the entire point of the skill system. 

First off for those interested, here is a link from back in the day explaining what bounded accuracy is about and includes a link to the original article from Wizards explaining it.

Are peoples' competencies really as flat in D&D 5e as its math suggests?

What it boils down to is what is the author's view of the fantasy genre? (since DnD 5e is meant to handle various fantasy settings). In DnD case the specific question, is what is a 1st level character is like? What is a 6th level character like? A 12th level character? And so on up to the maximum level the author wants to write about. In 5e's case that is 20th level.

It is not apparent from Justin's review what he views what characters should be doing in non-combat situations at various levels. He references low-level 3.X a lot but doesn't say why. I am left with the impression that he feels somehow the 5e target numbers should match those of low-level 3.5?

For me the 5e authors take is apparent. You start out so-so: 55% success for easy (DC 10), 30% for moderate (DC 15), and 5% for Hard (DC 20). With a +4 attribute bonus and a +2 proficiency, you can get those up to 85% success for easy, 60% for moderate, and 35% for hard. This is at 1st level. 

To me, this means the authors feel when it comes to non-combat tasks that 5e 1st level characters have some measure of competence. If your view of the capabilities of first-level characters is not the same then the above isn't going to work for your campaigns.

At 20th level for most characters, the odds shift. Now characters often have a +5 attribute bonus, and a +6 proficiency bonus.   You going to automatically succeed at DC 10 (Easy) task. 85% success for DC 15 (Moderate) tasks, and 60% success for DC 20 (Hard) tasks.

If these odds don't reflect what you think 20th-level characters are capable of then 5e isn't going to work out. 

Bards and Rogues along with two feats in the later books give expertise. Rogues also have Reliable Talent at 11th level. Expertise doubles the proficiency bonus for some skills. This shifts the odds of success in skill and ability checks considerably. 

At 1st level, we are talking about a +10% improvement with any skills that have expertise. At 20th level Rogue and Bards with expertise will automatically succeed on DC 10 (Easy), and DC 15 (Moderate) tasks, and have a 90% chance of success on DC 20 (Hard) tasks. 

With Rogues, when they get Reliable Talent at 11th level, the player can declare that they roll a 10 with a skill check. This means they will succeed with everything up to a Hard task? 

Justin fail to mention that there are two more task levels DC 25 (Very Hard), and DC 30 (Almost Impossible). A 20th-level Rogue with reliable talent will always succeed at DC 25 task (10 + 17 = 27).

Is this bad? Is this poor math on the designer's part? No, it fits with their view of what Rogues (and Bards) are capable of at 1st, 11th, and 20th level. This is why I put a reference to something that I and others have written back in 2014. To show why 5e authors wrote up the classes and mechanics the way they did.

As for the change in the One DnD playtest, it is more about making the system reflect how hobbyists like you and me actually play 5e rather than trying to fix a non-existent math issue.

If that is not how you view the capabilities of a Rogue or a Bard then 5e isn't going to work for you. 

And certainly not for Justin Alexander.

Stuff in the Attic updated with Faeries and Demons!

 I shared these PDFs on other forums but forgot to update my Stuff in the Attic page.

Demons and Divine Servants

This booklet contains how I handle demons using my Majestic Fantasy rules along with a first pass on what Divine Servants are like. It also has a short essay on the nature of evil and demons. Note that when it comes to my take on fantasy settings I am not a fan of Milton's approach where Lucifer is a anti-hero. Although I did thoroughly enjoy the Lucifier series. 

Demons and Divine Servants

Sometimes I like to do things because I find them fun like making a in-game religious document. This is the Scroll of the Beginning which is a version of the Bible's Book of Genesis for some religions of the Majestic Fantasy Realms. This also relevant to the origins of the demons. 

Scroll of the Beginning

Faeries

For a long time, I struggled to come up with a "hook" that allowed me to roleplay Faeries. Faeries in the Majestic Fantasy are born from magic coalescing around strong emotions both positive and negative. In order to grow and thrive, they seek to recreate these emotions. The more emotions they master, the stronger they become. This booklet contains a short essay about their nature.

Faeries

Wrapping it up

Hope you find both of these useful for your campaign. As for Into the Majestic Fantasy Realms, I am in the midst of southern mountains and deserts describing what I find. Currently, I am about 75% of the way through all four maps.