# The Day Has Come! It's An OGL! And A Store To Buy & Sell D&D 5E Products!



## Feeroper

*OGL & SRD officially announced!!! Also, Dungeon Masters Guild*

Go to the official D&D page now to check it out!!

For clarification purposes, this is the same OGL, but a new SRD.

From the site:

The Systems Reference Document (SRD) contains guidelines for publishing content under the Open-Gaming License (OGL). The Dungeon Master’s Guild also provides self-publishing opportunities for individuals and groups.

Regarding the Dungeon Master's Guild specifically:

There’s a new way to buy and share D&D adventures. With the Dungeon Master’s Guild, you’ll be able to self-publish material set in the Forgotten Realms using monsters, spells, characters, and locations.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Here is the direct link:

http://dnd.wizards.com/

http://www.dmsguild.com/

http://www.dmsguild.com/join.php

*edit*  Are they talking about the existing SRD and OGL, or a new one?  Sounds like it's using the existing ones.  Which really isn't an announcement I guess.


----------



## Matthan

I can't find the actual OGL/SRD, but it sure looks like there is a license out there.  Wow.


----------



## Nagol

Odd: first glance shows only a single feat made it into the SRD -- Grappler.


----------



## Matthan

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dungeon-masters-guild-now-open


----------



## Matthan

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd


----------



## CapnZapp

Whoa


----------



## Nagol

Matthan said:


> I can't find the actual OGL/SRD, but it sure looks like there is a license out there.  Wow.




http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf


----------



## Sacrosanct

Updated SRD here: http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf

400 pages, FYI


----------



## Matthan

Nagol said:


> http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf




Found it a minute later.  Looks like the SRD is a slight expansion of the Basic Rules that covers all the classes but not all the archetypes.


----------



## EditorBFG

My browser on my phone wouldn't work for a bit, so I was just coming here to post this. Huge news! You can write Forgotten Realms content and sell it on their marketplace? They might use your content in digital products? Crazy, and sure to be hotly debated.


----------



## Nagol

Sacrosanct said:


> Here is the direct link:
> 
> http://dnd.wizards.com/
> 
> http://www.dmsguild.com/
> 
> http://www.dmsguild.com/join.php
> 
> *edit*  Are they talking about the existing SRD and OGL, or a new one?  Sounds like it's using the existing ones.  Which really isn't an announcement I guess.




Same OGL, new SRD


----------



## Matthan

Okay, just funny to me, but they included the Warlock and the Invocations that reference eldritch blast, but they didn't include eldritch blast in the open spells.


----------



## TreChriron

Note: There is a long paragraph of Product Identity at the start of the SRD. Creators should play attention. Also, the actual text of the SRD is Open Content! What does that mean? You can't copy it and sell it as a book. Frankly, that inclusion is subtly brilliant. Also, for 5e purists, the DM's Guild + D&D Marketplace is looking like a nice opportunity...


----------



## Sacrosanct

I can't help but chuckle.  After waiting 2 years, I modified Felk Mor to be OGL compliant and literally sent out some review copies yesterday.

And now we get this today lol.


----------



## wedgeski

Excellent. Liking the base-line integration with the on-line store.

Lots of reading to do!!


----------



## rooneg

Matthan said:


> Found it a minute later.  Looks like the SRD is a slight expansion of the Basic Rules that covers all the classes but not all the archetypes.




Yeah, it's weird. They refer to other archetypes numerous times and say they're available at the end of the class description, but there's only ever one archetype there. Needs some editing work...


----------



## Valador

Who wants to be really nice and break down into laymans terms what is allowed/disallowed now? I'm at work and it's all blocked. :-(


----------



## Nine Hands

I think the real news here is that you can make stuff for Forgotten Realms and sell it.  That is brilliant.

I am going to be dusting off my Waterdeep Saga adventures (my wife and I ran a living campaign a long time ago), revise them for 5E and get them uploaded.  I don't even care if I make any money


----------



## Sacrosanct

A few things of note:  If you want to publish your own world, it has to be OGL and not sold through the DMGuild.  That's only for Faerun.  But be careful, because you still can't use product identity as outlined in the license.

That's my understanding.  I admit I could be reading it wrong.  I did not see anywhere where there are extra authorizations for using logos and PI if you sell only through DM's guild.


----------



## Kramodlog

The store seems to close to D&D Classics. I imagine RPGnow did this under license. 

An online store seems unavoidable nowadays. WotC actually seems to be getting with the times.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Valador said:


> Who wants to be really nice and break down into laymans terms what is allowed/disallowed now? I'm at work and it's all blocked. :-(




View attachment 73083


----------



## Matthan

goldomark said:


> The store seems to close to D&D Classics. I imagine RPGnow did this under license.
> 
> An online store seems unavoidable nowadays. WotC actually seems to be getting with the times.




They are partnered with Onebookshelf (the drivethru guys).  DMs guild splits revenue with 50% to creator 25% to wizards and 25% to OBS.


----------



## CapnZapp

Sacrosanct said:


> http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf



By the way, this is EXACTLY what I need as the DM out of the core three books.

I would LOVE if they were to publish a single hardcover with the PC gen rules, the monsters, and the loot all within a single set of covers; and dumping all the waffling rest to some other book I then can choose not to buy.


----------



## Kramodlog

Matthan said:


> They are partnered with Onebookshelf (the drivethru guys).  DMs guild splits revenue with 50% to creator 25% to wizards and 25% to OBS.




Oach! 50%!? That is a big price to pay to get to use the platform and the FR IP. 

I see they are selling/giving AL adventures. Yeah, things aren't looking good for Paizo. WotC's move is a game changer.


----------



## Nagol

CapnZapp said:


> By the way, this is EXACTLY what I need as the DM out of the core three books.
> 
> I would LOVE if they were to publish a single hardcover with the PC gen rules, the monsters, and the loot all within a single set of covers; and dumping all the waffling rest to some other book I then can choose not to buy.




Personally, I'd want all the sub classes at least.  More than a single feat would be nice too.


----------



## CapnZapp

"Creators can upload whatever kind of Forgotten Realms material they’d like to the Dungeon Masters Guild, but we’ll be featuring side treks, monsters, and backgrounds on the site. At this time, the Guild is only accepting Forgotten Realms material that uses the fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons rules."

Yay for more focus on Forgotten Realms!

I think the Realms has kind of been forgotten by WotC recently, seeing how they studiously forge out to showcase some other setting time and time over...


----------



## Matthan

goldomark said:


> Oach! 50%!? That is a big price to pay to get to use the platform and the FR IP.
> 
> I see they are selling/giving AL adventures. Yeah, things aren't looking good for Paizo.




The next few days (weeks) are going to be really interesting as people weigh the pros and cons of which route to go with.  I'm not a creator, but I thought 50% was generous since they're opening up the FR IP.  We'll see.  I just saw the Scarred Lands kickstarter is going to be 5E OGL compliant.  I'm excited to see what shakes out.


----------



## CapnZapp

Nagol said:


> Personally, I'd want all the sub classes at least.  More than a single feat would be nice too.



Much wants more, what can I say?


----------



## Riley

Looks great!... maybe.  But the organization of the store might be a problem, as every product seems to list 'Dungeon Masters Guild' as the publisher, rather than the people who actually wrote it.

For example, I notice that 'Savage Heroes' by Kobold Press is available for purchase:  http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170...ackgrounds?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45469

View attachment 73084

I have enough experience with Kobold Press to trust that the product should almost certainly meet a baseline level of competence - and might even be great!  However, the phrase 'Kobold Press' only seems to appear in an image, and the author names (Rich Howard, Rodrigo García Carmona, Dan Dillon) mean nothing to me.  

I've only spotted the product because I saw that logo in the cover thumbnail.  I'm not sure how I would ever come across this product when the store is full of self-published products.


----------



## CapnZapp

goldomark said:


> Oach! 50%!? That is a big price to pay to get to use the platform and the FR IP.



I wistfully look back on the times when Apple was considered the crook for their outrageous cut...

Le sigh.


----------



## Nagol

Matthan said:


> The next few days (weeks) are going to be really interesting as people weigh the pros and cons of which route to go with.  I'm not a creator, but I thought 50% was generous since they're opening up the FR IP.  We'll see.  I just saw the Scarred Lands kickstarter is going to be 5E OGL compliant.  I'm excited to see what shakes out.




If they are opening up the FR IP, there must be a  separate license for the Guild.  Have you seen one?  I couldn't locate anything.  Otherwise, if you use the OGL+SRTD, you don't have access to FR IP.


----------



## Obryn

I confess, I didn't think we'd see the day. Good job, WotC.


----------



## CapnZapp

Nine Hands said:


> I think the real news here is that you can make stuff for Forgotten Realms and sell it.  That is brilliant.
> 
> I am going to be dusting off my Waterdeep Saga adventures (my wife and I ran a living campaign a long time ago), revise them for 5E and get them uploaded.  I don't even care if I make any money




This is EXACTLY the spirit!

(Of course, WotC would be even more pleased if you let them charge $9.99 a chapter and keep the proceedings too)


----------



## Kramodlog

CapnZapp said:


> I wistfully look back on the times when Apple was considered the crook for their outrageous cut...
> 
> Le sigh.




How much was that again?


----------



## CapnZapp

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170766/DDEX2-Elemental-Evil-Complete-Bundle-BUNDLE

$31.66 is quite a lot for a bunch of essentially scrabbled notes. 

It will be interesting to see whether this commercialization of the AL will create a demand for prettified modules.

_Edit:_ And whether they will increase their protection of the AL modules themselves. Now that they make money out of them, an easily googled password seems... is inadequate appropriate in this context?


----------



## Kramodlog

Matthan said:


> The next few days (weeks) are going to be really interesting as people weigh the pros and cons of which route to go with.  I'm not a creator, but I thought 50% was generous since they're opening up the FR IP.  We'll see.  I just saw the Scarred Lands kickstarter is going to be 5E OGL compliant.  I'm excited to see what shakes out.




For some it will be worth it. Selling a few pages of a PDF at 1$ a pop with the FR logo on it, on a site that will get lots traffic from fans, will be relatively lucrative. 

Maybe more /established/ambitious 3PP can probably negociate deals. I wouldn't be surprised if Kobold gives a smaller share.


----------



## scruffygrognard

Based on my quick glance, it looks like the SRD is the basic rules.  If so, that's a bit of a let-down.


----------



## Remathilis

Praise Pelor, Vecna, or whoever was responsible!


----------



## CapnZapp

goldomark said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Kobold gives a smaller share.



I wistfully look back on the times when Dungeon Masters Guild was considered the crook for their outrageous cut...

...how the minutes fly!


----------



## TwoSix

They've got a bunch of art resources available for free for people who want to make DMs Guild products.  That's pretty nice.

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170633/DMs-Guild-Creator-Resource--Demon-Art?src=newest_in_dmg


----------



## Cybit

We can FINALLY freaking talk about it now, lol.


----------



## Gecko85

Riley said:


> Looks great!... maybe.  But the organization of the store might be a problem, as every product seems to list 'Dungeon Masters Guild' as the publisher, rather than the people who actually wrote it.
> 
> For example, I notice that 'Savage Heroes' by Kobold Press is available for purchase:  http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170...ackgrounds?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45469
> 
> I have enough experience with Kobold Press to trust that the product should almost certainly meet a baseline level of competence - and might even be great!  However, the phrase 'Kobold Press' only seems to appear in an image, and the author names (Rich Howard, Rodrigo García Carmona, Dan Dillon) mean nothing to me.
> 
> I've only spotted the product because I saw that logo in the cover thumbnail.  I'm not sure how I would ever come across this product when the store is full of self-published products.




Likewise, if not for Twitter I wouldn't have immediately known this was by Matt Mercer of Critical Role: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170...rs?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45469_0_0_0_0


----------



## FallenAkriel

The SRD expand on the basic, every PHB classes is there but only with one subclass each. Only 1 Feat. Multiclass is there, majority of spells, magic items and monsters. Which is fantastic! Super useful.


----------



## Marandahir

It's not the basic rules – it's much, much more than that! It's a subrace and subclass for every race and class! It's most of the spells, magic items, items, monsters, and miscellany in the three core rulebooks.  

It's a vast expansion on what was already free to play in the basic rules. This is huge!!!


----------



## Staffan

goldomark said:


> Oach! 50%!? That is a big price to pay to get to use the platform and the FR IP.



I think OBS takes 40% in general - at least that's what I gather from a tweet from Fred "Evil Hat" Hicks where he mentioned that Evil Hat had sold $87k via OneBookShelf and OBS's cut of that was $34k. 34/87 is about 40%.

So basically you're paying 10 percentiles extra for the DM's Guild stuff.


----------



## JeffB

Nice Job WOTC. Glad to see this, and hopefully we will see a lot more  printed and non kick-started support coming out.  This could get me back to running 5e.


----------



## TwoSix

scruffygrognard said:


> Based on my quick glance, it looks like the SRD is the basic rules.  If so, that's a bit of a let-down.



It's much more than that.  All the classes with one subclass each, multiclass rules, the bulk of the spells, lots of magic items, and a good portion of the Monster Manual.

Edit - non-SRD monk subclassed!


----------



## Jester David

WOOOOOOOO!!

This is going to take some digesting.



scruffygrognard said:


> Based on my quick glance, it looks like the SRD is the basic rules.  If so, that's a bit of a let-down.




It has the other races and classes. So it's a LOT more.


----------



## Lazorne

It looks like every class is there but no all the subclasses.


----------



## CapnZapp

Cybit said:


> We can FINALLY freaking talk about it now, lol.




FINALLY a new thread, and the old one can finally get its long overdue rest...


----------



## Cybit

As for digital versions of the core 5E books - I think that is still a conversation WotC (Magic the Gathering side) has to have with game stores.


----------



## Ath-kethin

TwoSix said:


> It's much more than that.  All the classes with one subclass each, multiclass rules, the bulk of the spells,




Ironically, the _eldritch blast_ cantrip is missing, even though the warlock class section includes the invocations that require or affect it.


----------



## Cybit

CapnZapp said:


> FINALLY a new thread, and the old one can finally get its long overdue rest...




We haven't been able to say anything about it for so long - reading that thread was brutal sometimes lol.


----------



## CapnZapp

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ially-announced!!!-Also-Dungeon-Masters-Guild


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

If a user publishes something, does he or she retain ownership of the content?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Nagol said:


> If they are opening up the FR IP, there must be a  separate license for the Guild.  Have you seen one?  I couldn't locate anything.  Otherwise, if you use the OGL+SRTD, you don't have access to FR IP.




I've seen mention of a "Community Content Agreement for the DMs Guild program", but I haven't been able to find it.


----------



## jamesjhaeck

Ath-kethin said:


> Ironically, the _eldritch blast_ cantrip is missing, even though the warlock class section includes the invocations that require or affect it.



I'm inclined to believe that not including _​eldritch blast _was an error, not an intentional choice.


----------



## Barantor

SRD - Lot more than the basic rules, it's basically "5E Basic 2.0" or something like that as it comes with all classes with one archetype, all races, magic items, multiclass rules and some more.

OGL - Very generic, I await the discussion on the AMA and further analysis by actually knowledgable people before I am too excited, though this does make me want to start my setting in print.

DM Guild Marketplace - Some concern that any content must be set in Forgotten Realms to be sold there from the basic 'checkbox' list on the dnd site linking there. Adventurer's League adventures for sale is interesting as is the advanced knowledge of some authors of the site.


----------



## TwoSix

Ath-kethin said:


> Ironically, the _eldritch blast_ cantrip is missing, even though the warlock class section includes the invocations that require or affect it.



Interestingly, it looks like _none_ of the cantrips are included.  At all.

Edit - Never mind, I found some.  I think it must just be the ones from the basic rules?  Checking.


----------



## Remathilis

scruffygrognard said:


> Based on my quick glance, it looks like the SRD is the basic rules.  If so, that's a bit of a let-down.




Not quite...

The remaining 8 classes are in there (barbarian, bard) and 5 races (dragonborn, gnome) but so far only ONE subrace per race and one Subclass per class. 

Subraces: Hill dwarf, High Elf, Lightfoot Halfling, Rock Gnome
Subclasses: Frenzied Berserker, Lore Bard, Life Cleric, Land Druid, Champion Fighter, Open Hand Monk, Devoted Paladin, Hunter Ranger, Thief Rogue, Draconic Sorcerer, Fiend Warlock, Evoker Wizard

Multiclassing is in, only one feat as an example: (Grappler) 

One Background is given: Acolyte, as an example

Equipment is All-In

There are spells Missing (Eldritch Blast stuck out for me). Proper-nouns are missing. 

Most magic items are in 

Looks like more non-IP monsters are in as well. 

It looks right now like a mix between the 3.5 SRD and the 5e Basic rules, which is exactly what most of us would want.


----------



## Jester David

The DM Guild site even seems to be selling Adventurer's League modules. 

New SRD. New short adventures. Pay store for FR content. Freedom to legally play in the Realms.
This should make everyone happy.
This is all so far beyond awesome.


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll

On the dms guild content guidelines it states: "Your work can use any of the fifth edition D&D rules published by Wizards of the Coast, plus decades of published material for the Forgotten Realms setting." this implies any material previously published, including all archetypes, spells, races and sub races, and classes, from all WotC sources including UA material such as Minotaurs and Swashbuckler,  Aaracora or however it's spelled, Favoured Soul, etc.

The PDF linked to however is like Basic Set Plus.

Now I'm confused.


----------



## Barantor

Jumblejacks said:


> I'm inclined to believe that not including _​eldritch blast _was an error, not an intentional choice.




Tweeted Mike Mearls on this, I will let  you know if I get a reply.


----------



## Weird Dave

Whoah. Trying to process it all and figure out what this means for existing products. Likely going to spruce them up with a Forgotten Realms touch and release them on the DM's Guild site. At least update them with the new 5.0 OGL document, might leave it at that.


----------



## Ath-kethin

Remathilis said:


> There are spells Missing (Eldritch Blast stuck out for me). Proper-nouns are missing.
> 
> Most magic items are in
> 
> Looks like more non-IP monsters are in as well.



They mention that the proper names from stuff is not Open Content.  I find it interesting that in some cases the names are just removed ("_instant fortress_" spell) and in some cases changed ("Apparatus of the Crab").


----------



## rooneg

The Grassy Gnoll said:


> On the dms guild content guidelines it states: "Your work can use any of the fifth edition D&D rules published by Wizards of the Coast, plus decades of published material for the Forgotten Realms setting." this implies any material previously published, including all archetypes, spells, races and sub races, and classes, from all WotC sources including UA material such as Minotaurs and Swashbuckler,  Aaracora or however it's spelled, Favoured Soul, etc.
> 
> The PDF linked to however is like Basic Set Plus.
> 
> Now I'm confused.




I don't see what's confusing. If you're writing for DM's Guild (i.e. their online marketplace where they get a cut) you can use whatever. If you're using the OGL you get the subset of D&D 5e that made it into the SRD.


----------



## Pauper

As for the online store, most D&D Adventurers League adventures are available for purchase, many running $3 or $5. Seems like the only adventures missing are the Epic adventures (which are convention-exclusive).


----------



## Charles Wright

sanishiver said:


> If a user publishes something, does he or she retain ownership of the content?




"*Does Wizards own any unique IP that I create in my publications?*Wizards does not own any of the unique IP that you create in your publications. Wizards does own the IP that they contribute, plus the agreement will grant Wizards and other DMs Guild authors a license to use your IP. That said, if your work merits incorporation into “canon,” Wizards will contact you about purchasing your IP outright."

http://www.dmsguild.com/whatisdmsguild.php


----------



## jamesjhaeck

Ath-kethin said:


> They mention that the proper names from stuff is not Open Content.  I find it interesting that in some cases the names are just removed ("_instant fortress_" spell) and in some cases changed ("Apparatus of the Crab").



I wrestled with filing the serial numbers off of spells like_ hunger of Hadar_ for EN5ider, considering options like _dark hunger, _etc., and WotC's decision in the SRD was... to exclude it completely! I guess that's valid.


----------



## Kite474

So this is definitely good news... I think? So is it possible to create your own material now and say its compatible with 5e D&D with all the correct terms, and as for the DMG site does the emphasis on Forgotten Realms mean that we might as well give up hopes on other settings for a while? Also will there eventually be a SRD site with all its material like Pathfinder's?


----------



## Riley

Riley said:


> Looks great!... maybe.  But the organization of the store might be a problem, as every product seems to list 'Dungeon Masters Guild' as the publisher, rather than the people who actually wrote it.
> 
> For example, I notice that 'Savage Heroes' by Kobold Press is available for purchase:  http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170...ackgrounds?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45469
> 
> View attachment 73084
> 
> I have enough experience with Kobold Press to trust that the product should almost certainly meet a baseline level of competence - and might even be great!  However, the phrase 'Kobold Press' only seems to appear in an image, and the author names (Rich Howard, Rodrigo García Carmona, Dan Dillon) mean nothing to me.
> 
> I've only spotted the product because I saw that logo in the cover thumbnail.  I'm not sure how I would ever come across this product when the store is full of self-published products.






Gecko85 said:


> Likewise, if not for Twitter I wouldn't have immediately known this was by Matt Mercer of Critical Role: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170...rs?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45469_0_0_0_0




Also - in both cases, there is not enough preview info to know what exactly to expect in the product.  For example, it was only after purchasing the Kobold Press product that I discovered it is probably just an excerpt from "Southlands Heroes" - which I already own.  It will be interesting to see if there is any difference at all, such as reformatting to use standard 5e phrases such as 'advantage' and the like.  Still, I'm only out $4 for it.  If it was one of the more expensive products, I might be seriously annoyed.


----------



## Barantor

Of note, the only artifact is the "Orb of Dragonkind" which is a Dragonlance Setting item if I remember right.

None of the Greyhawk artifacts are included which makes me a bit sad.


----------



## TwoSix

Jumblejacks said:


> I wrestled with filing the serial numbers off of spells like_ hunger of Hadar_ for EN5ider, considering options like _dark hunger, _etc., and WotC's decision in the SRD was... to exclude it completely! I guess that's valid.



It isn't just proper name spells, I think.  I'm sure there's a system to it, but they trimmed off a decent number of spells.  Just from the Ranger list:

Animal Friendship
Ensnaring Strike
Goodberry
Hail of Thorns
Hunter's Mark
Beast Sense
Cordon of Arrows
Conjure barrage
Lightning Arrow
Grasping Vine
Conjure Volley
Swift Quiver


----------



## Mythmere1

Things are moving fast in the publisher world. 
The guy who does the online SRD for Pathfinder is going to be putting one up for 5th edition as well. The website is going to be www.5eSRD.com and material will probably start going up later today. The 5eSRD page hasn't propagated yet, but it will probably show up in a couple of hours.


----------



## Ath-kethin

Barantor said:


> Of note, the only artifact is the "Orb of Dragonkind" which is a Dragonlance Setting item if I remember right.
> 
> None of the Greyhawk artifacts are included which makes me a bit sad.




The Orb of Dragonkind predates Dragonlance, and the Dragon Orbs in that setting were very different from the Orbs of Dragonkind in the game at large.  Of course, there were five or six different Orbs of Dragonkind published, if memory serves (not even counting the Dragonlace ones). The 5e version of the Orbs is more or less a synthesis of the entire lot (including the Dragonlace version).


----------



## Inchoroi

sanishiver said:


> If a user publishes something, does he or she retain ownership of the content?




They do, except where the content used is already the IP of WotC or another entity, I think was the gist of it.

I'm considering trying to commission art for my FR conversion of Isle of Dread...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Well, time to do more writing


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll

So for Dms Guild, fill your boots with anything published (bear in mind the agreement form when publishing requires you to tick at least one of three Wizards campaigns (eg ToD) that your content is compatible with.

But for OGL, a more limited pool to draw from. A world without wild magic surges or forest gnomes. 

I see.


----------



## Sacrosanct

In case anyone is curious, the free art packs? (the ones that can only be used in DMGuild approved products)?  Each one has about 20 images, all very high quality.


----------



## TwoSix

Finally!

View attachment 73086


----------



## Louis Brenton

Fantastic news.  I'm working today so I haven't had a chance to read the whole SRD yet, so I may be a bit premature in my following claim:  This may well be the biggest & best news in D&D in 2016.  I sincerely hope it proves to be exactly that.


----------



## CapnZapp

Feeroper said:


> Go to the official D&D page now to check it out!!



Thank you for providing the original scoop, Feeroper, before ENWorld added your thread to their article.


----------



## Inxanity

Some of the prices are interesting. $6 for 6 monsters? Why are they charging (even if it's only $1) for adventures that were previously given away for free (by WoTC) during 3.5, or in the case of Harried in Hillsfar ($3), Shackles of Blood ($4), and Occupation of Szith Morcane ($4) which were released in Dragon+ for free?


----------



## CapnZapp

Inxanity said:


> Some of the prices are interesting. $6 for 6 monsters? Why are they charging (even if it's only $1) for adventures that were previously given away for free (by WoTC) during 3.5, or in the case of Harried in Hillsfar ($3), Shackles of Blood ($4), and Occupation of Szith Morcane ($4) which were released in Dragon+ for free?



You, Sir or Madam, are clearly not born yesterday.

But somebody else might be


----------



## Matt-M-McElroy

Riley said:


> Looks great!... maybe.  But the organization of the store might be a problem, as every product seems to list 'Dungeon Masters Guild' as the publisher, rather than the people who actually wrote it.




You can see the author and artist names listed on the right in the "Product Information" column. Plus, some creators are putting their bio in the product description itself (and the big Kobold Press logo on the cover helps too).

Regards,

Matt


----------



## Talath




----------



## CrusaderX

I have been wanting to buy a good adventure that can be run as a follow-up to Lost Mine of Phandelver.  Something other than the 3 current official adventure path adventures from WotC.  I've been hoping for awhile now that WotC would come out such a product.

Now, I assume someone will actually create such an adventure.

Make it good.  Make it fun.  And I'll be first in line to buy it.


----------



## Alzrius

Wow...I honestly didn't think they'd do it. 

Good for you WotC! 

...now please update the SRD with additional content!


----------



## Shemeska

So how strictly are they defining FR as a setting? Everywhere on Toril or just Faerun? Does that include the cosmology and elements that have been mentioned therein? So long as you set it on Toril?


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

This is pretty exciting. Time to select the best of the content I've created for the Realms and see how it does in the marketplace.


----------



## Barantor

http://www.dmsguild.com/whatisdmsguild.php

So is 50% royalty the norm for selling on these sorts of sites?

Says at the bottom other settings might be included in the future, here is crossing my fingers that I am able to sell my Greyhawk adventures in the future.


----------



## jayoungr

So if it's the same OGL, that means the basics of 5E are "released" _forever?_  That is severely awesome.


----------



## Shemeska

Come on WotC. Let me play in Sigil. Let me run wild with the 'loths.


----------



## Nellisir

jayoungr said:


> So if it's the same OGL, that means the basics of 5E are "released" _forever?_  That is severely awesome.




Version 1.0a of the OGL. That's it!


----------



## Kramodlog

So, can writers use all FR products, novels and video games included?


----------



## Mark CMG

CapnZapp said:


> I wistfully look back on the times when Apple was considered the crook for their outrageous cut...
> 
> Le sigh.





They are giving an awful lot of support and material and IP use for that cut.  Seems more than fair to me.


----------



## Alzrius

TreChriron said:


> Also, the actual text of the SRD is Open Content! What does that mean? You can't copy it and sell it as a book.




Er, if it's Open Content then you _can_ copy it and resell it as a book. So long as they don't also copy any Product Identity, which is straightforwardly-listed in the SRD, and make sure to abide by the other OGL terms and conditions (e.g. reprinting the OGL in full), then there's no reason why they can't copy it and sell it as a book.


----------



## Ath-kethin

A potential issue I see: incompatible competing treatments of archive material.  Let me explain.

Let's say that I create a thorough update of the 2e Al-Qadim setting.  Assuming it qualifies (and since it was nominally set in the Forgotten Realms, it should), does it get vetted by WotC?  I would assume not.  But if, say, any of the many other people interested in doing the same thing submit/publish their own version of the setting, what happens?  Besides massive confusion, that is.

Unlike browsing at a game store, we can't really just read the whole thing, or even skim through it, and decide from there whether it's worth buying.  That's something that I don't really worry about most of the time, but I imagine I am not alone in my concern for the treatment of beloved older properties, whether it be Al-Qadim, or Cormyr, or Greyhawk, or whatever.


----------



## Sacrosanct

I'd like to see some official clarification re: OGL vs. DM guild allowances.  I.e., "You are prohibited from using terms like "Underdark" and "beholder" if you use the OGL only, but if you make a DM Guild compatible product, you can use them."


----------



## Gilwen

CapnZapp said:


> http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170766/DDEX2-Elemental-Evil-Complete-Bundle-BUNDLE
> 
> $31.66 is quite a lot for a bunch of essentially scrabbled notes.
> 
> It will be interesting to see whether this commercialization of the AL will create a demand for prettified modules.
> 
> _Edit:_ And whether they will increase their protection of the AL modules themselves. Now that they make money out of them, an easily googled password seems... is inadequate appropriate in this context?




I'm hoping it means that the editing will get better!


----------



## Remathilis

Ath-kethin said:


> They mention that the proper names from stuff is not Open Content.  I find it interesting that in some cases the names are just removed ("_instant fortress_" spell) and in some cases changed ("Apparatus of the Crab").




Yeah, its basically the 3.5 SRD naming scheme. 

I also noticed the the "designated IP" is unchanged from 3.5, which means it references the City of Union, but not the Feywild.


----------



## Nellisir

Sacrosanct said:


> I'd like to see some official clarification re: OGL vs. DM guild allowances.  I.e., "You are prohibited from using terms like "Underdark" and "beholder" if you use the OGL only, but if you make a DM Guild compatible product, you can use them."




Sounds like a useful FAQ for the people interested in DM Guild material. The SRD/OGL stuff is straightforward: same rules as always. Work off the SRD, don't use the books.


----------



## Von Ether

CapnZapp said:


> "Creators can upload whatever kind of Forgotten Realms material they’d like to the Dungeon Masters Guild, but we’ll be featuring side treks, monsters, and backgrounds on the site. At this time, the Guild is only accepting Forgotten Realms material that uses the fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons rules."
> 
> Yay for more focus on Forgotten Realms!
> 
> I think the Realms has kind of been forgotten by WotC recently, seeing how they studiously forge out to showcase some other setting time and time over...




I wrote this whole long diatribe to only realize you were sarcastic. Yeah, the way they go on, thou think they got the FR video game licence back or something.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

Hey gang. Glad to see people are excited about the DMs Guild announcement today and it's probably no surprise that I've been reading through your posts and questions. We're pretty slammed so we won't be diving in and answering questions here today, but we do have an AMA on reddit this Friday where we'll have Mearls and Chris Lindsay tackle a lot of these topics, so please make sure you join us then (here's teh basic info: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/403anl/ama_with_wotc_10am_pst_15th_of_january/). We're also answering a few things via twitter to clear up any confusion. 

Speaking of confusion, I wanted to reiterate that the content for the DMs Guild doesn't need to be Forgotten Realms, but that Forgotten Realms is the only IP that we're opening up for use from our side. If you have something that could fit in any setting, like Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter or Gunslinger, or an adventure that could take place anywhere, or a new monster - that all fits!

Anyway, I'll be lurking and if you need me for anything you can always find me on twitter [MENTION=25792]Trevor[/MENTION]_Wotc or [MENTION=17465]Wizard[/MENTION]s_DnD!


----------



## lkj

On his twitter feed, Perkins seems under the impression that non-FR content can go on the DM Guild site. He even retweeted someone stating basically that.  

Is there perhaps some clarification that is needed in the faq and chart? Is Perkins wrong? Or is there something I'm not getting that makes everyone right?

AD


----------



## Mark CMG

Ath-kethin said:


> They mention that the proper names from stuff is not Open Content.  I find it interesting that in some cases the names are just removed ("_instant fortress_" spell) and in some cases changed ("Apparatus of the Crab").





Product Identity is meant to make sure they don't accidentally release something they don't wish to.  Their PI list looks as someone might expect with proper names, trademark names, and the usual suspects in monsters.


----------



## Nellisir

Barantor said:


> OGL - Very generic, I await the discussion on the AMA and further analysis by actually knowledgable people before I am too excited, though this does make me want to start my setting in print.




It's the same OGL as has been around since 2000. 

Rule 0 is to work only off the SRD. Do not use the rulebooks when writing Open Game Content.
Rule 1 is CLEARLY label any and all Open Game Content you are distributing.
Rule 2 is update the damned copyright section (AKA S.15) with your copyright notice.


----------



## Barantor

lkj said:


> On his twitter feed, Perkins seems under the impression that non-FR content can go on the DM Guild site. He even retweeted someone stating basically that.
> 
> Is there perhaps some clarification that is needed in the faq and chart? Is Perkins wrong? Or is there something I'm not getting that makes everyone right?
> 
> AD




Setting Agnostic and FR stuff can go on DMsGuild site, stuff about the "World of Caoimaobau" needs to be sold elsewhere.

http://www.dmsguild.com/whatisdmsguild.php

The chart references 'settings' not anything else. So settings other than FR? Go sell elsewhere. FR or non-setting stuff? Sell on DMsguild if you want. FR stuff has to be sold on DMsguild since it is their IP you are just adding your own IP ideas onto it.


----------



## lkj

OK. I think I get it now. You can publish non-FR non setting specific stuff on the Guild. The restriction is that if you want to publish non FR setting material you can't do it on the Guild.

AD

P.S. And no, I don't know exactly what makes it setting material. Presumably subclasss and new classes etc are ok. But a campaign world book wouldn't be


----------



## Barantor

Tweeted me back:

 @_*MikeM*_earls was the exclusion of the cantrip "Eldritch Blast" in the SRD an oversight or intent?

Mike Mearls &#8207 @_*MikeM*_earls  5m5 minutes ago
Mike Mearls Retweeted Barantor
Oversight - we have an email and contact info embedded in the PDF for precisely this sort of thing. 

So basically we need to all email about eldritch blast lol.


Here is the email he mentions. askdnd@wizards.com


----------



## ccs

Inxanity said:


> Some of the prices are interesting. $6 for 6 monsters? Why are they charging (even if it's only $1) for adventures that were previously given away for free (by WoTC) during 3.5, or in the case of Harried in Hillsfar ($3), Shackles of Blood ($4), and Occupation of Szith Morcane ($4) which were released in Dragon+ for free?




Because they've realized they CAN?
Why just give something away when you can make another $ or two?

But don't worry, if you don't want to pay for something, the rest of the internet still exists....


----------



## Alzrius

WotC_Trevor said:


> Speaking of confusion, I wanted to reiterate that the content for the DMs Guild doesn't need to be Forgotten Realms, but that Forgotten Realms is the only IP that we're opening up for use from our side. If you have something that could fit in any setting, like Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter or Gunslinger, or an adventure that could take place anywhere, or a new monster - that all fits!




Trevor, thanks for the clarification.

One follow-up I wanted to ask is that, in addition to setting-agnostic materials, what about materials that are made for an original setting (and are written such that they aren't agnostic enough that they could conceivably fit into the Realms). For example, if I wrote an adventure for a setting where the world labored under eternal night, had all the gods being absent, and there were no elves or dwarves.

Is that allowed under the DM's Guild? Would it matter if I did or didn't have specific terms indicating a particular setting, e.g. if I called out that the adventure was "set in the World of Darkenfall" or something like that?


----------



## Barantor

lkj said:


> OK. I think I get it now. You can publish non-FR non setting specific stuff on the Guild. The restriction is that if you want to publish non FR setting material you can't do it on the Guild.
> 
> AD
> 
> P.S. And no, I don't know exactly what makes it setting material. Presumably subclasss and new classes etc are ok. But a campaign world book wouldn't be




Yeah basically I can use the 5E OGL/SRD to make my campaign setting book, but I can't sell it on DMsGuild site since it isn't FR or non-specific.

If I made a bunch of monsters that I didn't link to my campaign book I could publish those in DMsGuild since they wouldn't be setting specific.

If I made a class that is just an add-on archetype or a whole new one, I could publish that one on DMsGuild so long as it didn't reference non-FR world origins.

etc, etc, hopefully you get it lol.


----------



## MerricB

Sacrosanct said:


> A few things of note:  If you want to publish your own world, it has to be OGL and not sold through the DMGuild.  That's only for Faerun.  But be careful, because you still can't use product identity as outlined in the license.
> 
> That's my understanding.  I admit I could be reading it wrong.  I did not see anywhere where there are extra authorizations for using logos and PI if you sell only through DM's guild.




If you publish using the DM Guild, you don't use the SRD/OGL *at all*. 

You have access to *all* D&D rules, not just those in the SRD.

You have access to the Forgotten Realms.

It's incredible!

Cheers!


----------



## Irennan

''Creators can upload whatever kind of Forgotten Realms material they’d like to the Dungeon Masters Guild, but we’ll be featuring side treks, monsters, and backgrounds on the site''

This basically means that Ed Greenwood could publish his FR lore there... wow


----------



## carmachu

Jester Canuck said:


> The DM Guild site even seems to be selling Adventurer's League modules.
> 
> New SRD. New short adventures. Pay store for FR content. Freedom to legally play in the Realms.
> This should make everyone happy.
> This is all so far beyond awesome.




Not quite everyone happy. If you want something OGL outside the realms(ravenloft, planescape, greyhawk) looks like your SOL at the moment.


----------



## overgeeked

TreChriron said:


> Also, the actual text of the SRD is Open Content! What does that mean? You can't copy it and sell it as a book...




Forgive my ignorance, but how's that?


----------



## Barantor

MerricB said:


> If you publish using the DM Guild, you don't use the SRD/OGL *at all*.
> 
> You have access to *all* D&D rules, not just those in the SRD.
> 
> You have accsss to the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> It's incredible!
> 
> Cheers!




The only downside to that side of things is that ANYTHING published on DMsguild can be used by any other DMsguild author without the original creator getting anything but word credit. If you create the best storyline ever for Baldur's Gate, someone else can come along, give you text credit and build completely new adventures as side plots off of yours.

It's a risk, you get more access to the whole of D&D 5E, but you lose a lot of the rights to your own IP.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Shemeska said:


> Come on WotC. Let me play in Sigil. Let me run wild with the 'loths.




I'd wager that, as WotC explores more worlds in an official capacity, they'll add more worlds to the playground for people to support. But you know, they don't want you publishing Shemmy's Guide to the Planes before they put their official stamp on it.

Though if they don't hire you, me, and [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] to write their 5e PS presentation, I don't know WHERE their priorities are.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

Alzrius said:


> Trevor, thanks for the clarification.
> 
> One follow-up I wanted to ask is that, in addition to setting-agnostic materials, what about materials that are made for an original setting (and are written such that they aren't agnostic enough that they could conceivably fit into the Realms). For example, if I wrote an adventure for a setting where the world labored under eternal night, had all the gods being absent, and there were no elves or dwarves.
> 
> Is that allowed under the DM's Guild? Would it matter if I did or didn't have specific terms indicating a particular setting, e.g. if I called out that the adventure was "set in the World of Darkenfall" or something like that?




That sounds like something that would be better served under the SRD and then sold on OBS or similar sites. But Chris Lindsay should be able to give you some more definitive info at the AMA.


----------



## MerricB

carmachu said:


> Not quite everyone happy. If you want something OGL outside the realms(ravenloft, planescape, greyhawk) looks like your SOL at the moment.




The thing is, you always were if using the old OGL. No-one could ever use that IP of Wizards.

And they've said that more settings will be added. (I guess once they get to them in their storylines...)


----------



## Miladoon

Wouldnt it be funny to see Paizo show up as an author on the DMguild?


----------



## jamesjhaeck

Miladoon said:


> Wouldnt it be funny to see Paizo show up as an author on the DMguild?




I feel that ship has long since sailed.


----------



## lkj

WotC_Trevor said:


> Hey gang. Glad to see people are excited about the DMs Guild announcement today and it's probably no surprise that I've been reading through your posts and questions. We're pretty slammed so we won't be diving in and answering questions here today, but we do have an AMA on reddit this Friday where we'll have Mearls and Chris Lindsay tackle a lot of these topics, so please make sure you join us then (here's teh basic info: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/403anl/ama_with_wotc_10am_pst_15th_of_january/). We're also answering a few things via twitter to clear up any confusion.
> 
> Speaking of confusion, I wanted to reiterate that the content for the DMs Guild doesn't need to be Forgotten Realms, but that Forgotten Realms is the only IP that we're opening up for use from our side. If you have something that could fit in any setting, like Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter or Gunslinger, or an adventure that could take place anywhere, or a new monster - that all fits!
> 
> Anyway, I'll be lurking and if you need me for anything you can always find me on twitter [MENTION=25792]Trevor[/MENTION]_Wotc or [MENTION=17465]Wizard[/MENTION]s_DnD!




And of course, Trevor answered my question before I even asked it. We'll just blame that on a fast moving thread and not my apparently remedial observation skills.

AD


----------



## CapnZapp

Barantor said:


> The only downside to that side of things is that ANYTHING published on DMsguild can be used by any other DMsguild author without the original creator getting anything but word credit. If you create the best storyline ever for Baldur's Gate, someone else can come along, give you text credit and build completely new adventures as side plots off of yours.
> 
> It's a risk, you get more access to the whole of D&D 5E, but you lose a lot of the rights to your own IP.



Thems the breaks.

On the upside, becoming known as the guy/gal who wrote "the best storyline ever for Baldur's Gate", you should pretty much be set for the foreseeable future.

Think of it this way: when YOU are incredibly successful, you can start your own megamillion company. Then you get 50% "without doing anything" because you've earned it. 

This deal is for those of us not in that position.


----------



## Evenglare

Damnit wizards. You almost had it. YOU ALMOST had it. Until this. Your work has to be set in the Forgotten Realms. Additional settings may open up later. I don't want to create adventures in that world you already have that covered. Everyone and their dog already has that covered. Why would I want to add to an already bloated world!? I'd have LOVED to make some dragonlance stuff, or even Mystara, Ravenloft perhaps? NOPE!

Damnit wizards, you almost had me.


----------



## Allensh

scruffygrognard said:


> Based on my quick glance, it looks like the SRD is the basic rules.  If so, that's a bit of a let-down.




Nope. Paladin is in there, as is Sorcerer, so more than Basic.

Allen


----------



## prosfilaes

goldomark said:


> Oach! 50%!? That is a big price to pay to get to use the platform and the FR IP.




My response was exactly opposite. As was said up thread, DriveThruRPG is 40%, and people find that quite acceptable. A 10% additional surcharge to use Forgotten Realms? That's cheap.


----------



## Tony Vargas

I was going to ask if there wasn't some bland corner of FR where we could set more generic adventures, but if setting-'agnostic' is OK, no problem.

For the most part the SRD seems to have enough to work with, but excluding sub-classes could turn out to be a problem.  The Fighter & Rogue can cast spells or not depending on archetype, and have gotten new archetypes recently  - though, I suppose SCAG is 'FR,' so OK on DM'sGuild - and the maneuver mechanics are sequestered under the Battlemaster archetype, so 'building off' them is out.


----------



## Morrus

prosfilaes said:


> My response was exactly opposite. As was said up thread, DriveThruRPG is 40%, and people find that quite acceptable. A 10% additional surcharge to use Forgotten Realms? That's cheap.




That said, the store gets half of your revenue, not your profit;  if you pay even a penny for any part of the production process, you're getting less money than the store is.  That certainly makes it more a prospect for individuals than for publishers paying artists, editors, layout/design staff, etc.


----------



## Mark CMG

prosfilaes said:


> My response was exactly opposite. As was said up thread, DriveThruRPG is 40%, and people find that quite acceptable. A 10% additional surcharge to use Forgotten Realms? That's cheap.





FWIW, I think exclusive OBS publishers give up 30% and non-exclusive give up 35%, so we're not talking about a huge difference here.  It's amazingly generous, IMO, for WotC to allow that much of their IP to be used and give 50% of the take to the publisher/author.


----------



## Miladoon

Oh, was it posted up top? I skimmed to the bottom.


----------



## Jester David

Evenglare said:


> Damnit wizards. You almost had it. YOU ALMOST had it. Until this. Your work has to be set in the Forgotten Realms. Additional settings may open up later. I don't want to create adventures in that world you already have that covered. Everyone and their dog already has that covered. Why would I want to add to an already bloated world!? I'd have LOVED to make some dragonlance stuff, or even Mystara, Ravenloft perhaps? NOPE!
> 
> Damnit wizards, you almost had me.



Then they have you. 

You can create setting agnostic adventures and crunch and sell those on DMGuild. As seen by the Kobold Press stuff or the Blood Hunter class. 
_*OR *_you can write stuff for your own setting and sell that elsewhere, such as your own website or another OBS site (such as DriveThruRPG) using the OGL rather than the DMGuild licence. 

Okay, you can't do Dragonlance or Mystara yet. But you could do an adventure set there with the names tweaked ever so slightly.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

Evenglare said:


> Damnit wizards. You almost had it. YOU ALMOST had it. Until this. Your work has to be set in the Forgotten Realms. Additional settings may open up later. I don't want to create adventures in that world you already have that covered. Everyone and their dog already has that covered. Why would I want to add to an already bloated world!? I'd have LOVED to make some dragonlance stuff, or even Mystara, Ravenloft perhaps? NOPE!
> 
> Damnit wizards, you almost had me.



You can totally do that - that's what the SRD is for! Except for the other setting stuff that is Wizards IP. We'll be opening up more of that as we go though, so if that's really your cup of tea there will be a bit more waiting involved.


----------



## rooneg

Allensh said:


> Nope. Paladin is in there, as is Sorcerer, so more than Basic.
> 
> Allen




Yet also less than Basic in some cases. There's only a single background, a single subrace for each race and there are at least some differences in the spell lists (the one I picked up on was the lack of Fire Bolt, but there might be more). It's a little weird. I'd sort of hoped that the SRD would be a strict superset of the Basic PDFs, but apparently that's not the plan. I figure Eldritch Blast being left out is an oversight (since it's so central to the Warlock), but the fact that they dropped virtually all the backgrounds tells me that they're not looking to make the SRD a playable game. It'll still be enough to build on if you want to, but it's not usable out of the box.


----------



## Mark CMG

Morrus said:


> That said, the store gets half of your revenue, not your profit;  if you pay even a penny for any part of the production process, you're getting less money than the store is.  That certainly makes it more a prospect for individuals than for publishers paying artists, editors, layout/design staff, etc.





The flipside of that being that you're only giving up an extra 15-20% to have tons of WotC IP (as well as WotC artwork and some other publishing goodies) over what OBS would normally get . . . PLUS a built in marketing platform.  All of that could be huge to the bottomline and quantity of sales for most smaller publishers.  There's going to be a land rush for those available images, I'd imagine.  For my own part, I'll be sticking with the OGL and SRD independent of the DMGuild, I think.  I don't see the advantage in it for my own efforts (and that's fine by me too).  I'd say it is largely a win-win.


----------



## Barantor

CapnZapp said:


> Thems the breaks.
> 
> On the upside, becoming known as the guy/gal who wrote "the best storyline ever for Baldur's Gate", you should pretty much be set for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Think of it this way: when YOU are incredibly successful, you can start your own megamillion company. Then you get 50% "without doing anything" because you've earned it.
> 
> This deal is for those of us not in that position.




On the downside...

You write a book of archetypes for the dmsguild. You publish them there and they sell pretty well.

I come along and cherry pick the 4 best out of that, republish them in my guide for fighters that includes some of my own info and archetypes. I say it was from "CapnZapp" really tiny print at the beginning where most contributions are. It steps up to the front page and makes a lot of money, you get nothing even though those were your original ideas.

I'm a bit more protective of my ideas, so I don't see this as a good deal. If your ideas haven't been seen anywhere or are radically different than the normal tropes of D&D yet you want to use 5E as a base, I would advise selling elsewhere and keeping your rights a bit more.


----------



## Shadow Demon

I think this SRD approach shows us the WoTC wants to discourage the use of "class levels" for monsters which is the example given in the adventures. By limiting to a single archetype, there may be that rare NPC that has class levels.  The given examples also form a template for publishers to create their own archetypes.

If you go with Dungeon Master's Guild, then you get to use it all.


----------



## Jester David

carmachu said:


> Not quite everyone happy. If you want something OGL outside the realms(ravenloft, planescape, greyhawk) looks like your SOL at the moment.



Meh. 
That's not an unvalid complaint. But it's pushing. It's a weak complaint. 

We've never been able to publish using any of their IP before. Fanzines have done so, but toed the line in the process. Now they're opening up their most popular world for free use and people are complaining. 
Even Paizo doesn't let you make money off their IP. You can use their settings, but ONLY for non-commercial ventures. 

It's like giving everyone iced cream and having them complain is isn't their favourite flavour.


----------



## Shadow Demon

As far a "Fire Bolt" being missing, this may also be an oversight. This spell can still used in a cantrip list because it is also present in both mage and archmage NPC templates that are included in the SRD.


----------



## Iosue

I find it highly ironic that people are complaining about other people using their IP from a product made from other people's IP.


----------



## Mark CMG

Jester Canuck said:


> Meh.
> That's not an unvalid complaint. But it's pushing. It's a weak complaint.
> 
> We've never been able to publish using any of their IP before. Fanzines have done so, but toed the line in the process. Now they're opening up their most popular world for free use and people are complaining.
> Even Paizo doesn't let you make money off their IP. You can use their settings, but ONLY for non-commercial ventures.
> 
> It's like giving everyone iced cream and having them complain is isn't their favourite flavour.





I have to agree.  It's hard to get on board with complaints about not having something no one ever had.  Who knows, they may open other settings up later or wish to license them out.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Barantor said:


> You write a book of archetypes for the dmsguild. You publish them there and they sell pretty well.
> 
> I come along and cherry pick the 4 best out of that, republish them in my guide for fighters that includes some of my own info and archetypes. I say it was from "CapnZapp" really tiny print at the beginning where most contributions are. It steps up to the front page and makes a lot of money, you get nothing even though those were your original ideas.




Well, WotC probably figured "Hey, other people have been taking our stuff and republishing it and making money off it for years... might as well let everyone else have a taste of what that feels like too."


----------



## Sacrosanct

The more and more I read about this, the more surprised I am.  In a good way.  As a game creator/publisher, this is more than I could have reasonably asked for.  I was expecting/hoping for a 5e equivalent of the OGL.  We got that.  It's been added to the SRD.  And on *top of that*, we get to use everything in the rules as long as it's in the DM's guild?  That's....amazing.  Simply amazing.  The complaints about not being able to use other settings seem sooooo minor compared to the fact that you can put out an adventure with everything from the rules in it, including PI.  I don't see how anyone can really complain.  It's like hoping for the 64 color crayon set and getting the whole 256 color set.  Well, OK, we might not have metallic mauve yet, but we got almost 200 extra colors we weren't expecting.


----------



## prosfilaes

Morrus said:


> if you pay even a penny for any part of the production process, you're getting less money than the store is.  That certainly makes it more a prospect for individuals than for publishers paying artists, editors, layout/design staff, etc.




I don't get how that follows. What matters is how much money you're getting, not how much money other people are getting. If I understand the economics of game stores, the store gets about 50% the face price of a book and the publisher only 25%, but that model has long gone on. If using the Forgotten Realms gets you more money, then it's profitable to use it. As a company, I'd worry much more about the loss of control, but with WotC agreeing to write out a full contract if they want to publish anything, much of that concern goes away.

Asparagus Jumpsuit just closed its doors, the owner saying that he was going to start a company that used his own system, not FATE and Pathfinder. It's reasonable to not want to play in someone else's sandbox, and the biggest companies don't tend to... but there's a lot of tiny companies with their own systems that don't have anywhere near the sales of the stronger 3rd party D&D/Pathfinder sellers.


----------



## Barantor

Iosue said:


> I find it highly ironic that people are complaining about other people using their IP from a product made from other people's IP.




My whole warning is that if you have a good idea, don't throw it into DMsguild because you have more control over it on your own. The second you throw an original idea in the DMsguild pool it becomes an open IP inside that system and you lose most of the control of it.

If folks don't mind that and want to make a buck? More power to them, I'll stick to other avenues since I don't really need the rest of the 5E rules, nor things outside the SRD/OGL.


----------



## Mark CMG

Sacrosanct said:


> The more and more I read about this, the more surprised I am.  In a good way.  As a game creator/publisher, this is more than I could have reasonably asked for.  I was expecting/hoping for a 5e equivalent of the OGL.  We got that.  It's been added to the SRD.  And on *top of that*, we get to use everything in the rules as long as it's in the DM's guild?  That's....amazing.  Simply amazing.  The complaints about not being able to use other settings seem sooooo minor compared to the fact that you can put out an adventure with everything from the rules in it, including PI.





Plus, if you put something out that is generic under the DMGuild auspices, and you feel it can be used for another setting, word will get around fast enough in various forums and social media.


----------



## rooneg

Shadow Demon said:


> As far a "Fire Bolt" being missing, this may also be an oversight. This spell can still used in a cantrip list because it is also present in both mage and archmage NPC templates that are included in the SRD.




That indicates that it may just be an oversight, which would be awesome (similar cases exist for other spells, for example Counterspell) but I don't see how it "can still be used" just because it's referred to. There's no OGL content that defines what the spell does, so you can't include the rules for that spell in an OGL product, as I understand it.


----------



## Barantor

rooneg said:


> That indicates that it may just be an oversight, which would be awesome (similar cases exist for other spells, for example Counterspell) but I don't see how it "can still be used" just because it's referred to. There's no OGL content that defines what the spell does, so you can't include the rules for that spell in an OGL product, as I understand it.




Email wizards with the email provided at the beginning of the SRD about the lack of the spell. Mike Mearls told me as much when I asked him about the absence of Eldritch Blast. It seems they did some copy pasting and overlooked some things.


----------



## rooneg

Barantor said:


> Email wizards with the email provided at the beginning of the SRD about the lack of the spell. Mike Mearls told me as much when I asked him about the absence of Eldritch Blast. It seems they did some copy pasting and overlooked some things.




Oh, I already did, for both this and for the Eldritch Blast thing. I'm all about sending in bug reports ;-)


----------



## Mark CMG

prosfilaes said:


> I don't get how that follows. What matters is how much money you're getting, not how much money other people are getting. If I understand the economics of game stores, the store gets about 50% the face price of a book and the publisher only 25%, but that model has long gone on. If using the Forgotten Realms gets you more money, then it's profitable to use it. As a company, I'd worry much more about the loss of control, but with WotC agreeing to write out a full contract if they want to publish anything, much of that concern goes away.
> 
> Asparagus Jumpsuit just closed its doors, the owner saying that he was going to start a company that used his own system, not FATE and Pathfinder. It's reasonable to not want to play in someone else's sandbox, and the biggest companies don't tend to... but there's a lot of tiny companies with their own systems that don't have anywhere near the sales of the stronger 3rd party D&D/Pathfinder sellers.





You're not wrong!  And it's cool if someone doesn't mind staying small or hopes to get big on their own while retaining more control over their IP and their own system.  I've no personal belief that CMG will ever be a big dog in the yard, and that's fine.  If lightning in a bottle was common, we'd have another metaphor for it.


----------



## Morrus

prosfilaes said:


> I don't get how that follows.




It's a value decision every company or individual needs to make for themselves. I would imagine some experiments to see what the added value of the FR branding is.


----------



## Shadow Demon

rooneg said:


> That indicates that it may just be an oversight, which would be awesome (similar cases exist for other spells, for example Counterspell) but I don't see how it "can still be used" just because it's referred to. There's no OGL content that defines what the spell does, so you can't include the rules for that spell in an OGL product, as I understand it.




That is correct. In an adventure, the spell description is rarely included. Since SRD allows modification of existing text, I could define some mage template somewhere in between mage and archmage and include "fire bolt" in the cantrip list.


----------



## Feeroper

CapnZapp said:


> Thank you for providing the original scoop, Feeroper, before ENWorld added your thread to their article.




No problem! Thanks for the recognition! At least I had my 15 mins of fame before the news page was updated


----------



## overgeeked

Any creators out there know where people are getting the DMGuild logo, the bits of clipart, the paper background, and the template being used for many of the products so far? Yes, I see the 14 art resource packs listed, and no, none of them are what I'm talking about.


----------



## Mark CMG

Feeroper said:


> No problem! Thanks for the recognition! At least I had my 15 mins of fame before the news page was updated





Well played, Scoop-roper.


----------



## rooneg

Shadow Demon said:


> That is correct. In an adventure, the spell description is rarely included. Since SRD allows modification of existing text, I could define some mage template somewhere in between mage and archmage and include "fire bolt" in the cantrip list.




Ok, sure, but you'd still need a copy of the Player's Handbook or Basic PDF to actually play your adventure. That's fine for an adventure, but would be unfortunate for someone looking to make a new not-quite-d&d core book or something. One of the main things I like about a system with an OGL SRD available is the theoretical ability to keep the game alive past the point where WotC (or whoever) is supporting the game. Ideally, a playable subset of the game would be available in OGL content so you could relatively easily make a pathfinder style new game if WotC closes up shop or goes off the deep end or something. This SRD is very close to being that, I'm totally sure it could be done, but there are some weird omissions like this that make it harder (as opposed to the obviously intentional omissions, like the lack of almost all of the backgrounds and feats, which also make it harder, but are unlikely to be changed in a revised version of the SRD).


----------



## Shadow Demon

rooneg said:


> Ok, sure, but you'd still need a copy of the Player's Handbook or Basic PDF to actually play your adventure. That's fine for an adventure, but would be unfortunate for someone looking to make a new not-quite-d&d core book or something. One of the main things I like about a system with an OGL SRD available is the theoretical ability to keep the game alive past the point where WotC (or whoever) is supporting the game. Ideally, a playable subset of the game would be available in OGL content so you could relatively easily make a pathfinder style new game if WotC closes up shop or goes off the deep end or something. This SRD is very close to being that, I'm totally sure it could be done, but there are some weird omissions like this that make it harder (as opposed to the obviously intentional omissions, like the lack of almost all of the backgrounds and feats, which also make it harder, but are unlikely to be changed in a revised version of the SRD).




I think the omissions are the point that it is for adventures, NPC templates, monsters, etc not for someone to try and create 5e clone. However, I am of the opinion that this is last of the "reboot" editions like what happen between 2e and 3e or 4e and 5e. The definition of what an edition is from here on out will similar to the 1e and 2e transition as  "wintergreen" edition.


----------



## Kite474

rooneg said:


> Ok, sure, but you'd still need a copy of the Player's Handbook or Basic PDF to actually play your adventure. That's fine for an adventure, but would be unfortunate for someone looking to make a new not-quite-d&d core book or something. One of the main things I like about a system with an OGL SRD available is the theoretical ability to keep the game alive past the point where WotC (or whoever) is supporting the game. Ideally, a playable subset of the game would be available in OGL content so you could relatively easily make a pathfinder style new game if WotC closes up shop or goes off the deep end or something. This SRD is very close to being that, I'm totally sure it could be done, but there are some weird omissions like this that make it harder (as opposed to the obviously intentional omissions, like the lack of almost all of the backgrounds and feats, which also make it harder, but are unlikely to be changed in a revised version of the SRD).



Well they are intending for this Edition to last as long as humanly possible. Also I have a feeling that if for some reason they would leave this Edition behind the CRB would most likely be available via PDF from their site by that point and if not...... There are other ways, ways in which the internet is really really good at.


----------



## designbot

Legally speaking, it's really not clearly defined what you can or can't do on the Dungeon Master's Guild. You're supposed to read the Content Guidelines, which explicitly grant permission to use the Forgotten Realms, but do not place any restrictions on creating your own campaign setting. Then you're supposed to click through a Community Content Agreement, which grants permission to use "Owner's IP" including "Portions and elements of Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings", but again, places no restrictions on using your own setting.

It looks like there's nothing stopping you from hosting stuff using your own campaign setting on the Dungeon Master's Guild—you just might not want to if you want to retain any exclusive copyright to it:



> “User Generated Content” shall be defined as the copyrightable elements included in your Work, such as original characters, scenes, locations and events. Per the terms of this Agreement, you expressly agree that your User Generated Content, once submitted to the Program will become Program IP and useable by other members of the Program as well as the Owner as described in this Agreement.


----------



## carmachu

Jester Canuck said:


> Meh.
> That's not an unvalid complaint. But it's pushing. It's a weak complaint.
> 
> We've never been able to publish using any of their IP before. Fanzines have done so, but toed the line in the process. Now they're opening up their most popular world for free use and people are complaining.
> Even Paizo doesn't let you make money off their IP. You can use their settings, but ONLY for non-commercial ventures.
> 
> It's like giving everyone iced cream and having them complain is isn't their favourite flavour.



 But further some of us want stuff that can be dropped into any setting and not have to constantly reskin it like the last 3 AP's that have come out for 5th.

Its only weak to you, if you like FR. If you dont, its more valid, but its still good to have it then not(OGL)

Not really. Not everyone likes FR, although quite a few do.


----------



## rooneg

Shadow Demon said:


> I think the omissions are the point that it is for adventures, NPC templates, monsters, etc not for someone to try and create 5e clone. However, I am of the opinion that this is last of the "reboot" editions like what happen between 2e and 3e or 4e and 5e. The definition of what an edition is from here on out will similar to the 1e and 2e transition as  "wintergreen" edition.




Oh, I think it's pretty clear (based just on the single feat and background that were included) that WotC doesn't want it to be trivial to bootstrap a new game based on this SRD. That said, I hope they look at the bug reports and at least tweak some of the spell lists so that the content they've released can be internally consistent, just because it's weird to refer to spells that don't exist in the SRD.

As to new versions post 5e, I'm not sure. We'll have to see where WotC is in 10 years. Regardless, I LOVE the fact that this SRD exists and could be used to bootstrap a new 5e style game in the future. It's truly my favorite version of D&D, and I'm extremely pleased to see that the elements I like (pseudo-vancian casting with spells that scale based on spell slot level, advantage/disadvantage, the idea of backgrounds) are clearly there in OGL content so they can be reused. Yes, you probably could have done that with judicious use of older OGL content, but it's far easier now, which means it's now essentially certain that there will always exist a 5e style RPG I can use.


----------



## Bugleyman

Personally, 5E won't be viable for me until I can get the complete rules in a stand-alone digital format -- I'm done being at the mercy of books going out of print -- but this is a step in the right direction, and I applaud it as such.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

carmachu said:


> But further some of us want stuff that can be dropped into any setting and not have to constantly reskin it like the last 3 AP's that have come out for 5th.
> 
> Its only weak to you, if you like FR. If you dont, its more valid, but its still good to have it then not(OGL)
> 
> Not really. Not everyone likes FR, although quite a few do.




I'll drop this in here again because the conversation is moving so fast. Something like what you're talking about, something that isn't specific to any setting and isn't skinned with any specific campaign or IP in mind, is totally able to be hosted, shared and sold on the DMs Guild site. You can do this right now, and several people already have (new class and class features from Matt Mercer, Monsters as PCs from Kobold press, etc.).


----------



## BoldItalic

Am I right in thinking that the reason for including just one subrace/subclass/feat etc. in the SRD is not to provide a complete game but rather to provide a precedent (and thus implied permission) for creating your own custom subraces/subclasses/feats and so on for your OGL content?


----------



## Shadow Demon

rooneg said:


> Oh, I think it's pretty clear (based just on the single feat and background that were included) that WotC doesn't want it to be trivial to bootstrap a new game based on this SRD. That said, I hope they look at the bug reports and at least tweak some of the spell lists so that the content they've released can be internally consistent, just because it's weird to refer to spells that don't exist in the SRD.
> 
> As to new versions post 5e, I'm not sure. We'll have to see where WotC is in 10 years. Regardless, I LOVE the fact that this SRD exists and could be used to bootstrap a new 5e style game in the future. It's truly my favorite version of D&D, and I'm extremely pleased to see that the elements I like (pseudo-vancian casting with spells that scale based on spell slot level, advantage/disadvantage, the idea of backgrounds) are clearly there in OGL content so they can be reused. Yes, you probably could have done that with judicious use of older OGL content, but it's far easier now, which means it's now essentially certain that there will always exist a 5e style RPG I can use.




Yep, there is nothing here that I disagree with. It is just so extremely unlikely that Hasbro/WoTC would have ever put out an 5e OGL if the plan wasn't to keep "core" forever. Especially, considering how they got burned the last time they abandoned their ruleset. Yeah, archetypes are going to change over time, monsters are going to get tweaked, spells are going to be added. This SRD "core" is going to be D&D for the long haul.


----------



## Staffan

TreChriron said:


> Note: There is a long paragraph of Product Identity at the start of the SRD. Creators should play attention. Also, the actual text of the SRD is Open Content! What does that mean? You can't copy it and sell it as a book. Frankly, that inclusion is subtly brilliant. Also, for 5e purists, the DM's Guild + D&D Marketplace is looking like a nice opportunity...




That's not how Open Content works. Open Content is the stuff people get to use under the OGL. Product Identity is reserving a portion of what would otherwise be open content as off-limits.

For example, let's say you're writing a book about the gods of your setting. You could do a Open Content/Product Identity declaration that goes something like this: "All spells, feats, magic items, stat blocks, and other game mechanics in this book are Open Content. Names of people, places, organizations, and so on are Product Identity." You should probably be more specific than that, but it works for the purposes of this example.

Then, your book contains this feat:



> *Blessing of Anderia*
> 
> You have been blessed by Anderia, goddess of war. Once per encounter, you can call upon her power to gain advantage on all attacks for a round, and any attacks against you have disadvantage until the start of your next turn.




Then, another creator could include that feat in a hypothetical book, as long as they didn't mention Anderia. Perhaps they could instead call it "Blessing of the War Goddess".




Barantor said:


> On the downside...
> 
> You write a book of archetypes for the dmsguild. You publish them there and they sell pretty well.
> 
> I come along and cherry pick the 4 best out of that, republish them in my guide for fighters that includes some of my own info and archetypes. I say it was from "CapnZapp" really tiny print at the beginning where most contributions are. It steps up to the front page and makes a lot of money, you get nothing even though those were your original ideas.
> 
> I'm a bit more protective of my ideas, so I don't see this as a good deal. If your ideas haven't been seen anywhere or are radically different than the normal tropes of D&D yet you want to use 5E as a base, I would advise selling elsewhere and keeping your rights a bit more.



What you're missing is that the DM's Guild is under the control of Wizards, which means they can say "That's not how this is supposed to work. Bad Barantor! No soup for you!" Moreover, they have explicitly said that they _will_ do that: 



			
				DM's Guild Content Guidelines said:
			
		

> Create, don’t copy. We reserve the right to stop publishing and selling your work if we think it goes against the spirit of the Dungeon Masters Guild program. All authors should respectfully use the content originally created by Wizards of the Coast or other Dungeon Masters Guild creators. For example, if a Dungeon Masters Guild author releases a trilogy of adventures, and another author takes those three adventures, compiles them, and republishes them as a single collection, without substantive original additions or changes, then we would stop publishing and selling that collected work because it adds no value to the Dungeon Masters Guild community content. It’s simply one author copying another author’s work and looking to make a royalty on it.




Also, if you were releasing stuff under the OGL instead, people could do exactly what you say, without any recourse at all. And still, people have been releasing a _lot_ of stuff under the OGL over the last 15 years. Paizo are releasing their whole Pathfinder RPG under the OGL, and they seem to be doing fine. There are numerous settings released as OGL, and they have been doing OK.


----------



## Barantor

Staffan said:


> What you're missing is that the DM's Guild is under the control of Wizards, which means they can say "That's not how this is supposed to work. Bad Barantor! No soup for you!" Moreover, they have explicitly said that they _will_ do that:




It is, but they won't go after me if I give credit to you for the original idea, and I add new content on to it to make it more of my own. I could have 2 of your archetypes, 8 of my own and it wouldn't go against their Terms of Service so long as I give you text credit.

From the DMsg Site: http://www.dmsguild.com/whatisdmsguild.php


> *If I use content from other DMs Guild authors, do I need to credit them?*
> As more authors contribute to the DMs Guild’s pool of community content, we do not expect to maintain perfect attribution every time an author re-uses elements originally contributed by another author. Such attributions are not strictly required. However, we do think two things would be best practices for all DMs Guild contributors:
> 
> 
> 
> When re-using a larger element that you have taken from another DMs Guild author’s work, include a reference to the original work as a link to it on DMsGuild.com within your PDF. For example, if you are using a Rainbow Unicorn creature that you found in another author’s work, you might reference that inside your own work where you provide stats for the Rainbow Unicorn the first time, using an internal citation such as, "(Rainbow Unicorn from Cloud Forest by Jane Doe)"
> On your title’s credit page, make a list of such references.




Also this:


> Create, don’t copy. We reserve the right to stop publishing and selling your work if we think it goes against the spirit of the Dungeon Masters Guild program. All authors should respectfully use the content originally created by Wizards of the Coast or other Dungeon Masters Guild creators. For example, if a Dungeon Masters Guild author releases a trilogy of adventures, and another author takes those three adventures, compiles them, and republishes them as a single collection, without substantive original additions or changes, then we would stop publishing and selling that collected work because it adds no value to the Dungeon Masters Guild community content. It’s simply one author copying another author’s work and looking to make a royalty on it.




It remains to be seen where their 'line' is on this as it is a new program. I'm of the mind of keeping my ideas out of this pool since I don't care for FR and can sell things just using the OGL/SRD instead. The only temptation I might have is if they put in Greyhawk as an IP, but they seem to be slowly writing that setting out of existence or incorporating it's ideas into FR.


----------



## Sacrosanct

BoldItalic said:


> Am I right in thinking that the reason for including just one subrace/subclass/feat etc. in the SRD is not to provide a complete game but rather to provide a precedent (and thus implied permission) for creating your own custom subraces/subclasses/feats and so on for your OGL content?




My guess is it's because you can use everything from the books if you follow the DM's guild guidelines.  So it's a way to incentivize people to create DM Guild compatible products.


----------



## Barantor

Sacrosanct said:


> My guess is it's because you can use everything from the books if you follow the DM's guild guidelines.  So it's a way to incentivize people to create DM Guild compatible products.




It's a way for them to retain more control over their IP than they have with OGL's in the past. They don't want another pathfinder.


----------



## Alzrius

So it's becoming more and more clear that the 5E SRD and the DM's Guild are two completely separate things. As it stands right now, I'm wondering if you could even publish a DM's Guild product under the OGL via the 5E SRD (and managed to do it right, what with making sure that all of WotC's IP was PI, etc.) or if that would be an immediate no-go under the DM's Guild store.


----------



## carmachu

Thank you for the information Trevor


----------



## lkj

Just as an initial impression, does it strike anyone else that this sets up a platform by which they might be able to support other settings, like Greyhawk?  Perhaps Forgotten Realms is the first out (as is usual) and the test dummy? I could forsee them adding a 'Greyhawk Guild Packaage' in the future and open it up to support that way. And if popular, I suppose that could lead to official releases. Seems like that would be a smart way to give the setting material to everyone, see how much it actually gets used, and then gauge how much official print or digital support to provide.

AD


----------



## Kite474

lkj said:


> Just as an initial impression, does it strike anyone else that this sets up a platform by which they might be able to support other settings, like Greyhawk?  Perhaps Forgotten Realms is the first out (as is usual) and the test dummy? I could forsee them adding a 'Greyhawk Guild Packaage' in the future and open it up to support that way. And if popular, I suppose that could lead to official releases. Seems like that would be a smart way to give the setting material to everyone, see how much it actually gets used, and then gauge how much official print or digital support to provide.
> 
> AD




I have a feeling more settings will open up as they introduce official adventures for those said settings. They want to keep the IP of D&D strong so for now they are using its most popular setting to build that brand. As for WHEN we will actually see those adventures.... No one knows except Wizards, and boy do I hope its soon.


----------



## 77IM

Miladoon said:


> Wouldnt it be funny to see Paizo show up as an author on the DMguild?




I would not be at all surprised if this happened some day. SEGA makes Nintendo games now. Microsoft and Apple both make software that runs on each others' platforms. Wizards has nothing to lose by letting Paizo join the fray, and if the savvy business people at Paizo see an opportunity (e.g. converting PF/Golarion Adventure Paths into 5E/FR for cheap), it could happen.


----------



## Barantor

lkj said:


> Just as an initial impression, does it strike anyone else that this sets up a platform by which they might be able to support other settings, like Greyhawk?  Perhaps Forgotten Realms is the first out (as is usual) and the test dummy? I could forsee them adding a 'Greyhawk Guild Packaage' in the future and open it up to support that way. And if popular, I suppose that could lead to official releases. Seems like that would be a smart way to give the setting material to everyone, see how much it actually gets used, and then gauge how much official print or digital support to provide.
> 
> AD




From:http://www.dmsguild.com/whatisdmsguild.php


> *Is this going to remain Forgotten Realms only, or are other settings/IPs to be considered in the future??*
> We intend to open up additional settings and IP as time goes on. However, for the time being, we will remain focused on the _Forgotten Realms_.




Seems like they want to, I really hope for Greyhawk but my gut says that one would be dead last in the list.


----------



## Mark CMG

Barantor said:


> It's a way for them to retain more control over their IP than they have with OGL's in the past. They don't want another pathfinder.





Not quite, in that they never gave setting IP away with previous SRDs either.  What they've done here is no barrier to another PF, particularly with the one feat, one background, one archetype, etc.  It's work to do but doable to start with those bits and make another PF if one was so inclined.  They've done nothing to make that impossible.  What they HAVE done is give an alternative to that with their DMGuild platform to draw those who wish to be a part of the bigger D&D picture to not have to create as much on their own and be tied more closely to the D&D brand with their products than the d20 System Trademark License ever did.


----------



## Staffan

Barantor said:


> It remains to be seen where their 'line' is on this as it is a new program. I'm of the mind of keeping my ideas out of this pool since I don't care for FR and can sell things just using the OGL/SRD instead. The only temptation I might have is if they put in Greyhawk as an IP, but they seem to be slowly writing that setting out of existence or incorporating it's ideas into FR.



People would be just as able to copy your stuff if you use the SRD instead, with about as much attribution (except it would be in the SRD Section 15 instead of on the credits page).


----------



## Staffan

Mark CMG said:


> Not quite, in that they never gave setting IP away with previous SRDs either.  What they've done here is no barrier to another PF, particularly with the one feat, one background, one archetype, etc.  It's work to do but doable to start with those bits and make another PF if one was so inclined.  They've done nothing to make that impossible.  What they HAVE done is give an alternative to that with their DMGuild platform to draw those who wish to be a part of the bigger D&D picture to not have to create as much on their own and be tied more closely to the D&D brand with their products than the d20 System Trademark License ever did.




My hunch is that the 5e SRD would allow you to make another Arcana Unearthed (same engine, but different races, classes, feats (mostly), and spells), but not another Pathfinder (clone).


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun

This is really cool. I know it is a shame that only Forgotten Realms is available for DM's Guild, they have already said that is not permanent. I can't wait to see all of the official stuff that ends up coming out as a result of this.

Perhaps I should polish up all of my Dragonlance stuff just in case.


----------



## rooneg

Staffan said:


> People would be just as able to copy your stuff if you use the SRD instead, with about as much attribution (except it would be in the SRD Section 15 instead of on the credits page).




That's entirely dependent on what you claim as product identity. If you claim basically everything that isn't a game rule then there's relatively little of your adventure/supplement/whatever that can be safely reused.


----------



## Jester David

carmachu said:


> But further some of us want stuff that can be dropped into any setting and not have to constantly reskin it like the last 3 AP's that have come out for 5th.
> 
> Its only weak to you, if you like FR. If you dont, its more valid, but its still good to have it then not(OGL)
> 
> Not really. Not everyone likes FR, although quite a few do.



If you don't want to reskin there'll still be the inevitable torrent of agnostic OGL adventures and crunch. In addition to anything generic on the DM Guild. 

The DM Guild is FR and agnostic. The OGL is agnostic and homebrew. The *only* stuff you can't do is explicit stuff for other WotC worlds. Heck, if you're putting it up for free, you could even do 5e Golarion content.


----------



## Mark CMG

Staffan said:


> My hunch is that the 5e SRD would allow you to make another Arcana Unearthed (same engine, but different races, classes, feats (mostly), and spells), but not another Pathfinder (clone).





I don't think PF is actually a clone, though.  It's got plenty of differences from 3.5 D&D, enough that it's more like AU than say S&W is to (O)D&D.


----------



## rooneg

Staffan said:


> My hunch is that the 5e SRD would allow you to make another Arcana Unearthed (same engine, but different races, classes, feats (mostly), and spells), but not another Pathfinder (clone).




You'd have mostly different archetypes for the classes, different feats, different backgrounds, potentially a slightly different set of character generation rules (since they aren't included in the SRD). It could still feel quite a bit like 5e though. I mean consider that Pathfinder made plenty of changes relative to 3.5. I'd say that a game based on the 5e SRD would be rather like Pathfinder's relationship with 3.5, as opposed to the relationship between something like Dark Dungeons and BECMI D&D, where there's very little actual mechanical difference between the two.


----------



## nedjer

Thought you'd all get excited about this, But 20 pages already


----------



## BoldItalic

Jester Canuck said:


> If you don't want to reskin there'll still be the inevitable torrent of agnostic OGL adventures and crunch. In addition to anything generic on the DM Guild.
> 
> The DM Guild is FR and agnostic. The OGL is agnostic and homebrew. The *only* stuff you can't do is explicit stuff for other WotC worlds. Heck, if you're putting it up for free, you could even do 5e Golarion content.




Although the stated intention is that agnostic (non-FR) content can be hosted on DMGuild, if you try to upload anything you have to specify one or more of the three storylines (ToD/EE/RoD) that it belongs to. And they are all FR ...


----------



## TerraDave

Morrus said:


> That said, the store gets half of your revenue, not your profit;  if you pay even a penny for any part of the production process, you're getting less money than the store is.  That certainly makes it more a prospect for individuals than for publishers paying artists, editors, layout/design staff, etc.




I see it as the replacement for Dungeon magazine (or Dragon for that matter). 

You, GR, KP, FG, and all the others do have the clarification of the SRD.


----------



## Jester David

BoldItalic said:


> Although the stated intention is that agnostic (non-FR) content can be hosted on DMGuild, if you try to upload anything you have to specify one or more of the three storylines (ToD/EE/RoD) that it belongs to. And they are all FR ...




That's the categories for searching. Tags. You choose three from that entire list. You don't have to pick a storyline.
You'll notice it includes other editions and settings as well:
View attachment 73091


----------



## lkj

Barantor said:


> Seems like they want to, I really hope for Greyhawk but my gut says that one would be dead last in the list.





Well, this DM Guild idea seems well in line with the comments some of the folks (Perkins?) were making about finding non traditional ways to support other settings. I'm cautiously optimistic.

AD


----------



## pukunui

Does this mean that we might finally see some kind of statblock management software? Typing up customized statblocks for monsters and NPCs is one of the most time-consuming parts of being a 5e DM (at least for me). It'd be nice to be able to, say, take one of the generic NPC stats in the back of the MM, select a race other than human, and have all the racial traits and adjustments slotted in automatically. Or, say, take your basic generic hobgoblin and switch up their gear, add a few hit dice, maybe even an extra ability or two, and not have to make all the adjustments myself.


----------



## CapnZapp

Barantor said:


> On the downside...
> 
> You write a book of archetypes for the dmsguild. You publish them there and they sell pretty well.
> 
> I come along and cherry pick the 4 best out of that, republish them in my guide for fighters that includes some of my own info and archetypes. I say it was from "CapnZapp" really tiny print at the beginning where most contributions are. It steps up to the front page and makes a lot of money, you get nothing even though those were your original ideas.
> 
> I'm a bit more protective of my ideas, so I don't see this as a good deal. If your ideas haven't been seen anywhere or are radically different than the normal tropes of D&D yet you want to use 5E as a base, I would advise selling elsewhere and keeping your rights a bit more.



Nah. 

If you want to play in somebody else's playground, you need to follow their rules.

Feel free to hold your ideas close to your chest. I won't hold my breath for you successfully publihsing them anytime soon.

In the meanwhile, everyone wanting to add their contribution to a vibrant rpg scene, with no other recompense than a lot of joy provided, will find this deal fantastic!


----------



## Staffan

Mark CMG said:


> I don't think PF is actually a clone, though.  It's got plenty of differences from 3.5 D&D, enough that it's more like AU than say S&W is to (O)D&D.




I'd say that Pathfinder in 2009 is pretty much a clone of D&D as per 2003, with some extra spice added (rage powers for barbarians, bloodlines for sorcerers, and such). I would have very little trouble running The Bastards of Erebus using the 3.5e core rules. Pathfinder in 2016 has gone on to be a beast of its own - running Pyramids of the Sky Pharaoh with the 3.5e core rules would be very difficult, because it's full of monsters I've never heard of, NPCs using weird classes, traps with strange magic, something called "haunts", and so on.


----------



## Barantor

Staffan said:


> People would be just as able to copy your stuff if you use the SRD instead, with about as much attribution (except it would be in the SRD Section 15 instead of on the credits page).






rooneg said:


> That's entirely dependent on what you claim as product identity. If you claim basically everything that isn't a game rule then there's relatively little of your adventure/supplement/whatever that can be safely reused.




Exactly as rooneg says. If I create a world setting and name it etc and claim all of that as my IP and state very clearly that the rules are Wotc's IP, then I can sell that setting as I like under the OGL and go after folks that infringe on my IPs.

If I were to publish things in the DMsg (dungeon master's guild) then I cannot claim those IPs. If I were to post "Gilliam the Swordsman" NPC in a book of NPCs and another author in the DMsg posted that NPC and gave me text credit, he/she can still make money off their creation and I get nothing but the text credit from them.

I could take that same swordsman, post it in Drivethrurpg and not DMsg and claim his name as a unique NPC name, use the OGL and then nobody could copy me willy-nilly from the DMsg.


----------



## Shemeska

I'm A Banana said:


> I'd wager that, as WotC explores more worlds in an official capacity, they'll add more worlds to the playground for people to support. But you know, they don't want you publishing Shemmy's Guide to the Planes before they put their official stamp on it.
> 
> Though if they don't hire you, me, and [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] to write their 5e PS presentation, I don't know WHERE their priorities are.




I've managed to dip my toes into the setting in each of the last two editions, and I'd love to do something for 5e as well. I'd also be more than happy collaborating with either you and/or Quickleaf, and a number of others as well that I've collaborated with before, or just had drinks with at GenCon. 

The chances are slender to see Shemmy's 'Guide to Sigilian Dress Makers and Soul-Gem Purveyors', 'The Big Book of Baernaloths', or 'Why Yugoloth-Blooded Tieflings are the Best Tieflings'. But I'd love to work on Planescape/Sigil/the 'loths in 5e either officially or through the DM's Guild should that ever be possible.

The irony is that the same day that WotC came out with this, I added more freelancing to my plate from others.


----------



## Inglorin

Ok, that was a lot to read. Happy gaming. 

Some questions remain (at least for me):
- Am I in any way limited to english products? It could be VERY interesting for other markets, even if the basic rules are not available in translation, to produce monsters, scenarios and such. 
- Can I use this new 5.0 SRD in combination with other (older) SRDs like the 3.5 one?


----------



## Barantor

Staffan said:


> People would be just as able to copy your stuff if you use the SRD instead, with about as much attribution (except it would be in the SRD Section 15 instead of on the credits page).






rooneg said:


> That's entirely dependent on what you claim as product identity. If you claim basically everything that isn't a game rule then there's relatively little of your adventure/supplement/whatever that can be safely reused.






CapnZapp said:


> Nah.
> 
> If you want to play in somebody else's playground, you need to follow their rules.
> 
> Feel free to hold your ideas close to your chest. I won't hold my breath for you successfully publihsing them anytime soon.
> 
> In the meanwhile, everyone wanting to add their contribution to a vibrant rpg scene, with no other recompense than a lot of joy provided, will find this deal fantastic!




Oh I'm not completely against the idea of the system, only that folks need to understand what they are getting into is all. Many seem to be very, very confused about this system.

I might dip in the pool if they ever let loose with Greyhawk, but I like my other ideas staying mine.


----------



## mflayermonk

This is what David Bowie would have wanted.


----------



## Mark CMG

Staffan said:


> I'd say that Pathfinder in 2009 is pretty much a clone of D&D as per 2003, with some extra spice added (rage powers for barbarians, bloodlines for sorcerers, and such). I would have very little trouble running The Bastards of Erebus using the 3.5e core rules. Pathfinder in 2016 has gone on to be a beast of its own - running Pyramids of the Sky Pharaoh with the 3.5e core rules would be very difficult, because it's full of monsters I've never heard of, NPCs using weird classes, traps with strange magic, something called "haunts", and so on.





I hear what you're saying and I understand your point but I think the word "clone" gets misused including in this case.  Someone could run a 1E adventure in C&C but I wouldn't call C&C a clone either.  "Clone" implies identical such as S&W with (O)D&D or as was said above "Dark Dungeons and BECMI D&D" by rooneg.  Even the first PF was a departure from 3.5, hence folks immediately calling it 3.75.  I think with the current SRD and some help from the 3.5 SRD, as well as some OGC from other OGL products, a reasonable 5.25 could be produced in the next couple of months.  I don't think it is necessary but it appears quite possible.  Of course, if someone wants to put in that much work, they might be better off going with the DMGuild avenue and rake in the cake.  The conditions for producing another PF just don't exist currently.  We'll see what happens in a couple/few years if/when WotC wants to start working on a 6E, the DMGuild begins to show signs of no longer being a revenue source for them, and core books sales have dropped to the point of making new printings a losing bargain.  Then a 5.25 might be a consideration, particularly if the rumblings are that 6E won't support the OGL right out of the gate.  Having their fortunes too closely tied to D&D and no prospect of a clean 4E OGL was what triggered PF.  WotC unleashed a golem designed by Paizo but not of their choosing.


----------



## Napftor

As someone who wrote pretty extensively in the glory days of 3.x, let me just say that this is certainly a banner day for third-party publishers who want to embrace 5e. Whether or not you want to use FR and the Guild, it looks like the glory days are returning for gamers and publishers alike and I welcome our new/old overlords and the wealth of awesome gaming goodness to come!


----------



## overgeeked

I posted this question earlier but it seems to have been lost along the way:

Any creators out there know where people are getting the DMGuild logo, the bits of clipart, the paper background, and the template being used for many of the products so far? Yes, I see the 14 art resource packs listed, and no, none of them are what I'm talking about.


----------



## overgeeked

overgeeked said:


> I posted this question earlier but it seems to have been lost along the way:
> 
> Any creators out there know where people are getting the DMGuild logo, the bits of clipart, the paper background, and the template being used for many of the products so far? Yes, I see the 14 art resource packs listed, and no, none of them are what I'm talking about.




Not sure if it is kosher to post a link, but I've located an adventure template over here.


----------



## Miladoon

overgeeked said:


> Not sure if it is kosher to post a link, but I've located an adventure template over here.




Snagged, thanks


----------



## BoldItalic

overgeeked said:


> I posted this question earlier but it seems to have been lost along the way:
> 
> Any creators out there know where people are getting the DMGuild logo, the bits of clipart, the paper background, and the template being used for many of the products so far? Yes, I see the 14 art resource packs listed, and no, none of them are what I'm talking about.




There an adventure template that has the logo in it.

(edit) Ninja'd


----------



## Kramodlog

I wonder what will be the impact on Dragon+. 

The mag will certainly promote some of the featured products made by 3PP and the community. I wonder if they will buy the rights to some articles to offer them for free or offer royalties based on downloads to writters. 

Finally, a very interesting product from WotC.


----------



## darjr

Oh good points! D+ could be cool doing that.


----------



## Nellisir

Barantor said:


> Oh I'm not completely against the idea of the system, only that folks need to understand what they are getting into is all. Many seem to be very, very confused about this system.
> I might dip in the pool if they ever let loose with Greyhawk, but I like my other ideas staying mine.




I get what you're saying, and don't disagree with it - people could do exactly as you say.

It's also true that this exact same argument has been used since the very first appearance of the OGL, and the number of real violations of this sort has been amazingly small. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage ticks slightly upwards on the DM Guild, but that's because anything FR related published on there is already "shared" in a sense, by being located in the Forgotten Realms.  So yes, if you publish a really cool site, or set of locations, on the DMGuild, it's possible other people will want to use them and build on them. It's a cooperative effort.  Some of it you'll like, some of it you won't.

The same thing occurs on Canonfire!, if you want to be Greyhawk specific. I ended up written into a book, and never saw a dime off of it.


----------



## Mortellan

Nellisir said:


> The same thing occurs on Canonfire!, if you want to be Greyhawk specific. I ended up written into a book, and never saw a dime off of it.




Well Nellisir, let's hope some year soon you or Barantor or heck, myself can get paid for doing Greyhawk for once. Time to start reviewing my body of Canonfire-work just in case!


----------



## Psikerlord#

This is most excellent indeed. Looking forward to see what folks come up with!


----------



## Mark CMG

Mortellan said:


> Well Nellisir, let's hope some year soon you or Barantor or heck, myself can get paid for doing Greyhawk for once. Time to start reviewing my body of Canonfire-work just in case!




Hear! Hear!


----------



## jreyst

The 5e *Online* SRD is now available at http://www.5esrd.com/

Note that it is extremely "raw" right now, meaning a lot of work needs to be done to clean it up and fix/add links but here it is to start!

Any questions or if you want to help, just email me at jreyst@gmail.com to get edit access!


----------



## darjr

Woot! Thanks! I have to say I'm floored by how good this all is.


----------



## God

Impressed. I wasn't sure if WotC would actually be able to follow through, but they've made a good start. Would love to see something (anything) other than FR made available in the DM's Guild, and some of the holes in the SRD content patched, but this is great. And thank me for the XXSRD.com folks. If WotC still isn't going to sell me an electronic version of the rules, at least I can use the Interwebz to check rules questions there.

EDIT: Also ... what classic adventures are set in the Realms? I assume the DM's Guild rules would allow someone to update those to 5E rules, with new art and maps, and republish them? What about old adventures from Dungeon Magazine? Is that content wholly-owned/under WotC control and so fair game? If Al-Qadim = FR, there were some good adventures back in the day ...

DOUBLE-EDIT: And what stuff from other settings (Spelljammer, Planescape, Ravenloft) that bled over into the Realms? Wasn't there a "Realmspace" product? That would seem to open up Spelljammer to a large extent. Surely there were some Realms-spawned Darklords in Ravenloft, which would seem to open up that can of worms.


----------



## variant

Do we know if they will be offering print on demand through dmsguild.com?


----------



## darjr

Looks like someone is already doing an OGL 5e compatible white box game 
https://plus.google.com/+StanShinn/posts/E1z5zhMJCvJ


----------



## EthanSental

good question variant.....I'd hope it would be an option at some point.

Glad to see the OGL/SRD in any user format...made my day to see the front page of enworld when I got home from work.


----------



## TreChriron

Staffan said:


> That's not how Open Content works. Open Content is the stuff people get to use under the OGL. Product Identity is reserving a portion of what would otherwise be open content as off-limits....




Nice summary, I know all this already (not that my post would have helped demonstrate that...) However my combination of misspellings and the nonsense about the text made me look coo-coo for Cocoa Cocoa puffs. 



overgeeked said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but how's that?






Alzrius said:


> Er, if it's Open Content then you _can_ copy it and resell it as a book. So long as they don't also copy any Product Identity, which is straightforwardly-listed in the SRD, and make sure to abide by the other OGL terms and conditions (e.g. reprinting the OGL in full), then there's no reason why they can't copy it and sell it as a book.




My Bad. I was reading too fast. I saw text and didn't register *Open License* right after it. In my defense I had not started my first cup of coffee...  I may also have been slightly excited about the news... but I won't admit to it.

So, redact my previous post please and simply insert "wow, that was nice. They listed all the Product Identity stuff right up front! Also, kudos to WOTC for releasing the SRD and making 5e open!!"


----------



## dd.stevenson

Yeah, I immediately had the same question: Is AQ in the FR?


----------



## jamesjhaeck

dd.stevenson said:


> Yeah, I immediately had the same question: Is AQ in the FR?




That's a great question for their Reddit Ask Me Anything on Friday!


----------



## Iosue

variant said:


> Do we know if they will be offering print on demand through dmsguild.com?




From the What is DMs Guild? page.



> *Can I sell my Dungeon Masters Guild title in print as well as PDF?*
> 
> Yes, you can sell your title through OneBookShelf’s print-on-demand program, as well as in PDF. However, preparing print specification files requires professional-level skill with Adobe InDesign or a similar program. If you or someone you know has such skills, then refer to the details on this page. When you have print files ready, use the Contact Us page to get in touch with us about the next steps. OneBookShelf staff will not be able to coach you on print file creation, so make sure you (or someone you have contracted) have used the print file templates and checklists and have covered all of the detailed specs for your print files.




So whether something is print-on-demand depends entirely on the creator.


----------



## overgeeked

Jumblejacks said:


> That's a great question for their Reddit Ask Me Anything on Friday!




Al-Qadim and Kara-Tur. *fingers crossed*


----------



## Gnarl45

Iosue said:


> So whether something is print-on-demand depends entirely on the creator.




It's not as difficult as whoever wrote your quote made it sound.

InDesign isn't hard to use. The harder part is making sure your illustrations meet the 240% ink coverage. It's technical but you have plenty of guys from Bengladesh that will do it for very cheap on freelancer websites like Fiver or Upwork.


----------



## dd.stevenson

TreChriron said:


> My Bad. I was reading too fast. I saw text and didn't register *Open License* right after it. In my defense I had not started my first cup of coffee...  I may also have been slightly excited about the news... but I won't admit to it.
> 
> So, redact my previous post please and simply insert "wow, that was nice. They listed all the Product Identity stuff right up front! Also, kudos to WOTC for releasing the SRD and making 5e open!!"



I hear you: I'm floored that they released the SRD under the OGL. I didn't believe that I was reading correctly until I saw this page.


----------



## Parmandur

Cool; I guess the hold up wasn't writing the OGL, but the infrastructure for the DMGuild, and getting advance content from a select portion of the community, so there would be meat at launch.


----------



## jmucchiello

The SRD5 is not perfect as is. The missing feats, backgrounds, and subclasses should at least be listed in the document so that 3rd party usage can refer to them. The feats chapter could  be something like "This is a list of known feats...." with just the one feat being described fully as a sample. "Other known Fighter archtypes include..." etc. This would put the names in the SRD5 for reference in 3rd party projects without the fear of a "My PHB" product which just reprint the PHB as was done in the 3.x era.

Still, I am surprised the OGL rides again. A banner day, indeed.


----------



## chibi graz'zt

BEST NEWS EVER, or at least for this month


----------



## Reinhart

Parmandur said:


> Cool; I guess the hold up wasn't writing the OGL, but the infrastructure for the DMGuild, and getting advance content from a select portion of the community, so there would be meat at launch.




No, there was no infrastructure for the DMsGuild. It's just a reskin of the OneBookShelf sites like DriveThruRPG and RPGNow. You can even log in with your DriveThruRPG account and find your entire OBS/DriveThru library there. You're literally just giving up 23% of your revenue to sell it on their version of DriveThru instead of the regular version. Luckily I don't see anything that prevents you from selling in both store-fronts, unless you're dead-set on writing your own Forgotten Realms adventures.


----------



## MerricB

Reinhart said:


> No, there was no infrastructure for the DMsGuild. It's just a reskin of the OneBookShelf sites like DriveThruRPG and RPGNow. You can even log in with your DriveThruRPG account and find your entire OBS/DriveThru library there. You're literally just giving up 23% of your revenue to sell it on their version of DriveThru instead of the regular version. Luckily I don't see anything that prevents you from selling in both store-fronts, unless you're dead-set on writing your own Forgotten Realms adventures.




The tricky bit is this line here: 

"(b) Except for short promotional excerpts used to promote your Work, you may not display, recreate, publish, distribute or sell your Work (or derivatives thereof) outside of the Program administered on OBS websites or through other platforms or channels authorized or offered by Owner."

(Owner=Wizards of the Coast).
(Program=Dungeon Masters Guild and the website, www.DMsGuild.com)

Cheers!


----------



## Reinhart

MerricB said:


> The tricky bit is this line here:
> 
> "(b) Except for short promotional excerpts used to promote your Work, you may not display, recreate, publish, distribute or sell your Work (or derivatives thereof) outside of the Program administered on OBS websites or through other platforms or channels authorized or offered by Owner."
> 
> (Owner=Wizards of the Coast).
> (Program=Dungeon Masters Guild and the website, www.DMsGuild.com)
> 
> Cheers!




Ouch! Good catch, Merric! So to justify selling on DMG you need to see a 30% increase in sales over what you'd see if you just made it an OBS exclusive.


----------



## Mark CMG

Reinhart said:


> Ouch! Good catch, Merric! So to justify selling on DMG you need to see a 30% increase in sales over what you'd see if you just made it an OBS exclusive.





Last I heard, exclusive publishers on OBS sites give up 30% to them and non-exclusive publishers give up 35%. Giving up an additional 15-20% for access to that IP, art, and marketing (selling alongside official D&D products) is a no brainer for anyone wanting to produce FR material.


----------



## dd.stevenson

So I guess the SRD at least is good to be translated into other languages.


----------



## Miladoon

You see, this is what happens when cases are settled out of court and there is no jury duty.





Reinhart said:


> Ouch! Good catch, Merric! So to justify selling on DMG you need to see a 30% increase in sales over what you'd see if you just made it an OBS exclusive.




Other authors have unrestricted access to whatever you drop on OBS. I admit, this is not for every product I write, but I would love to see how program authors take an idea I upload and run with it. The DMsG model is open, expandable, and subject to IP purchase.

I think the key to happy game publishing here is to expand into OGL and DMsG products.


----------



## MerricB

Reinhart said:


> Ouch! Good catch, Merric! So to justify selling on DMG you need to see a 30% increase in sales over what you'd see if you just made it an OBS exclusive.




Or if you want complete access to the 5E rules and the Forgotten Realms property. Those may be enough by themselves. 

But I'm very curious about how the "derivatives" line applies. If I use a character in a DMG product, am I barred from using that character in non-DMG products?

Cheers!


----------



## Olaf the Stout

BoldItalic said:


> Am I right in thinking that the reason for including just one subrace/subclass/feat etc. in the SRD is not to provide a complete game but rather to provide a precedent (and thus implied permission) for creating your own custom subraces/subclasses/feats and so on for your OGL content?




I'd say you're spot on with this.


----------



## Reinhart

Mark CMG said:


> Last I heard, exclusive publishers on OBS sites give up 30% to them and non-exclusive publishers give up 35%. Giving up an additional 15-20% for access to that IP, art, and marketing (selling alongside official D&D products) is a no brainer for anyone wanting to produce FR material.




Definitely a no-brainer if you're dead-set on making Forgotten Realms products, because otherwise you'd have no other options. If you're just using the OGL and SRD5 though you could still just sell your product else-where instead. I'm assuming DriveThru is taking 35% in my calculations, which means that WotC's 50% creates a 23% hit to revenue. To compensate for that drop, you either need a 30% increase in sales volume, or somehow a 30% increase in sticker price with the same volume of units.

After the Sword Coast Legends debacle I'm not sure if WotC marketing is that much better than regular DriveThruRPG marketing. Heck, I'm not yet sure WotC isn't just outsourcing said marketing to OneBookShelf.


----------



## Reinhart

MerricB said:


> Or if you want complete access to the 5E rules and the Forgotten Realms property. Those may be enough by themselves.
> 
> But I'm very curious about how the "derivatives" line applies. If I use a character in a DMG product, am I barred from using that character in non-DMG products?
> 
> Cheers!




I'm also curious, but I certainly don't want to be the first to demonstrate what triggers those boundaries.


----------



## aco175

jreyst said:


> The 5e *Online* SRD is now available at http://www.5esrd.com/
> 
> Note that it is extremely "raw" right now, meaning a lot of work needs to be done to clean it up and fix/add links but here it is to start!
> 
> Any questions or if you want to help, just email me at jreyst@gmail.com to get edit access!




I bookmarked this and wanted to say thank you but did not see a link on the site to post comments to.  I think it is great that the monsters on there as well so I do not need to input them from the MM anymore.


----------



## Warbringer

mflayermonk said:


> This is what David Bowie would have wanted.




As he says .. Ch..ch..changes


----------



## darjr

And using ALL the D&D 5e rules vs what is in the SRD.


----------



## Mark CMG

Reinhart said:


> I'm assuming DriveThru is taking 35% in my calculations, which means that WotC's 50% creates a 23% hit to revenue.




WotC and OBS are getting 50% (how they divide it up, I have no idea) and the publisher/author takes 50%.  Trust me when I say that anything sold next to D&D products will far outsell anything not sold that way, all other things being equal (art, production values, quality, etc.).


----------



## Reinhart

Mark CMG said:


> Trust me when I say that anything sold next to D&D products will far outsell anything not sold that way, all other things being equal (art, production values, quality, etc.).




I definitely think you might be right. If the increase in Fantasy Grounds participation is any indicator, Official D&D branding is a big seller. At least, it will be until the DMG market gets too saturated for most of the products to stand out in.


----------



## Hussar

This is fantastic news.  I know I've been something of an OGL critic in the past, but, I'm very, very happy to see this.  For one, they are retaining a fair degree of control over things, unlike the 3e OGL release, where it boomed and busted very quickly.  This time around, there will be no Book of Erotic Fantasy crap because they'll just quietly pull it and it'll never be an issue.  

Plus, since they're overseeing print on demand as well, that means, hopefully, at least a quick once over of anything going to print, so we won't see cut and paste errors like orcs becoming ores.  

Additionally, because they can control the license of what settings are getting supported, hopefully, they can coincide that with the AP releases.  So, if the next (or the one after that, whatever) is Ravenloft, then we can get a slew of OGL Ravenloft goodies.  At a guess, I'd say they'd build in a bit of a time delay as well.  The Ravenloft (to use that example) AP comes out after much fanfare for a month or two beforehand, sells for, say, a month, and then the Ravenloft SRD hits the shelves.  Prime the pump, so to speak.

But, still, fantastic news.



Inglorin said:


> Ok, that was a lot to read. Happy gaming.
> 
> Some questions remain (at least for me):
> - Am I in any way limited to english products? It could be VERY interesting for other markets, even if the basic rules are not available in translation, to produce monsters, scenarios and such.
> - Can I use this new 5.0 SRD in combination with other (older) SRDs like the 3.5 one?




Quoting this from a few pages back, where it got lost in the scrum.  This is a point I hadn't thought of, but, really, it's brilliant.  What a fantastic way to crowdsource translations and then make them easily available all over the world.  I can't see that as anything other than win-win for WotC.


----------



## Hussar

Reinhart said:


> I definitely think you might be right. If the increase in Fantasy Grounds participation is any indicator, Official D&D branding is a big seller. At least, it will be until the DMG market gets too saturated for most of the products to stand out in.




Oh, without a doubt.  There's a reason that the old STL was a big deal.  Losing the STL was also a big deal as well.  But, certainly, look at Fantasy Grounds.  Good grief, they've massively increased in user base in the past year.


----------



## aco175

I have not looked at the other board pages here but I do not see anything on the DNGuild site either.  Is there a page where I can suggest ideas for modules.  Right now my group finished Phandalin and are roaming around the Sword Mountains with several smaller sites completed.  I want to take them to Leilon and the tower of whatever it was called that destroyed the town.  I would like to see a place to suggest ideas or have someone tell me that they already have what I'm looking for.  It could even be a place for colaborative writing.  
I know for myself if I 'publish' anything on the site it would most likely be free until I thought something was worthy of charging money for.  Most all my notes and maps are for my game and would need work to be at the point to post.  I would not mind putting some things out for free and take other peoples same.  I mostly want to play and be able to spend less time planning.  
I downloaded the blank adventure template and it would seem to help if one plays around a bit with it.


----------



## Mark CMG

Reinhart said:


> I definitely think you might be right. If the increase in Fantasy Grounds participation is any indicator, Official D&D branding is a big seller. At least, it will be until the DMG market gets too saturated for most of the products to stand out in.





That saturation point on the DMGuild is probably going to be a couple/few years off, at least.  There will be an initial boom where everyone who ever had an idea for an adventure scrambles to be an early adopter and learns how much work it is.  We'll watch the complaints from buyers saying they're seeing the same art in too many similar products.  There will be a period when we see a bunch of folks trying to parallel the WotC release schedule thematically and winding up be just one in a crowd.  Then, I think we'll see some cream rise to the top as some quality risk-takers do their own thing and pick out some underserved sections of FR and put some new but well-integrated spins on subjects folks discover they didn't know they'd need.  These will be the ideas and products WotC would do well to latch onto as they move forward.

Make no mistake, DMGuild is a talent show with WotC in a front row seat.  Much in the same way they snagged the consistent and prolific Mike Mearls out of the Era 3.5, they have the chance to re-invigorate their freelancer list from what shows up from many unexpected corners of the gamerverse.  The best of the folks that will do well on DMGuild will be creators who are both innovators and know how to follow the rules WotC has set up, and WotC will have access to the hard sales data and customer feedback to know precisely who is doing what.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

Reinhart said:


> No, there was no infrastructure for the DMsGuild. It's just a reskin of the OneBookShelf sites like DriveThruRPG and RPGNow. You can even log in with your DriveThruRPG account and find your entire OBS/DriveThru library there. You're literally just giving up 23% of your revenue to sell it on their version of DriveThru instead of the regular version. Luckily I don't see anything that prevents you from selling in both store-fronts, unless you're dead-set on writing your own Forgotten Realms adventures.




You also get access to all the WotC 5E IP if you publish through DMsGuild.

If you publish outside of that you are limited to the 5E SRD.


----------



## Miladoon

Olaf the Stout said:


> You also get access to all the WotC 5E IP if you publish through DMsGuild.
> 
> If you publish outside of that you are limited to the 5E SRD.




I don't think limited is the right word but I think FR will be hands off.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> This is fantastic news.  I know I've been something of an OGL critic in the past, but, I'm very, very happy to see this.  For one, they are retaining a fair degree of control over things, unlike the 3e OGL release, where it boomed and busted very quickly.  This time around, there will be no Book of Erotic Fantasy crap because they'll just quietly pull it and it'll never be an issue.
> 
> Plus, since they're overseeing print on demand as well, that means, hopefully, at least a quick once over of anything going to print, so we won't see cut and paste errors like orcs becoming ores.
> 
> Additionally, because they can control the license of what settings are getting supported, hopefully, they can coincide that with the AP releases.  So, if the next (or the one after that, whatever) is Ravenloft, then we can get a slew of OGL Ravenloft goodies.  At a guess, I'd say they'd build in a bit of a time delay as well.  The Ravenloft (to use that example) AP comes out after much fanfare for a month or two beforehand, sells for, say, a month, and then the Ravenloft SRD hits the shelves.  Prime the pump, so to speak.
> 
> But, still, fantastic news.



The new SRD can be used under the OGL exactly as it was in the 3E era.

They have ALSO added the DMG options on top of that and the controls you list apply there, but only there.  Perhaps it has enough added value that it effectively produces this result.  But the OGL is still the OGL.




Quoting this from a few pages back, where it got lost in the scrum.  This is a point I hadn't thought of, but, really, it's brilliant.  What a fantastic way to crowdsource translations and then make them easily available all over the world.  I can't see that as anything other than win-win for WotC.[/QUOTE]


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> This is fantastic news.  I know I've been something of an OGL critic in the past, but, I'm very, very happy to see this.  For one, they are retaining a fair degree of control over things, unlike the 3e OGL release, where it boomed and busted very quickly.  This time around, there will be no Book of Erotic Fantasy crap because they'll just quietly pull it and it'll never be an issue.
> 
> Plus, since they're overseeing print on demand as well, that means, hopefully, at least a quick once over of anything going to print, so we won't see cut and paste errors like orcs becoming ores.
> 
> Additionally, because they can control the license of what settings are getting supported, hopefully, they can coincide that with the AP releases.  So, if the next (or the one after that, whatever) is Ravenloft, then we can get a slew of OGL Ravenloft goodies.  At a guess, I'd say they'd build in a bit of a time delay as well.  The Ravenloft (to use that example) AP comes out after much fanfare for a month or two beforehand, sells for, say, a month, and then the Ravenloft SRD hits the shelves.  Prime the pump, so to speak.
> 
> But, still, fantastic news.



The new SRD can be used under the OGL exactly as it was in the 3E era.

They have ALSO added the DMG options on top of that and the controls you list apply there, but only there.  Perhaps it has enough added value that it effectively produces this result.  But the OGL is still the OGL.


----------



## Ramicus

*D's OBS/WoTC $$ Take...and a crystal ball reading*



Staffan said:


> I think OBS takes 40% in general - at least that's what I gather from a tweet from Fred "Evil Hat" Hicks where he mentioned that Evil Hat had sold $87k via OneBookShelf and OBS's cut of that was $34k. 34/87 is about 40%.
> 
> So basically you're paying 10 percentiles extra for the DM's Guild stuff.




OBS takes 40% when you do not sell exclusively on OBS (which is basically DTRP and RPGNow).
OBS takes 35% if you sell a product exclusively through OBS. 
Last I knew, these were the general terms, barring any recent changes to their agreements.

That means since there is a right to exclusivity (cannot sell anywhere else) that this contract is charging te author/publisher 15% more than the typical exclusive marketplace contract for OBS (35%), all of which goes to WotC. Additionally, WotC is charging OBS 10% for the exclusive marketplace itself, leaving them each with 25% of the net sales margin on the User Created content. 

From OBS perspective, they are paying WotC a 10% premium on their standard "exclusive market contract" which normally carries a 35% net sales margin in exchange for an exclusive WotC marketplace for 5e User-Created Content with a license for FR IP under explicit contractual conditions.

From the Creative User perspective, each author is paying WotC a 15% Premium on the normal exclusive market net sales margin of 65% in order to be able to utilize the WotC FR IP under explicit contractual conditions. That results in a 50% net sales margin for the author/publisher.

To summarize, WotC is getting 25% of the product's net sales margin: 15% comes from you, the author, and 10% comes from OBS. That's the cost of the FR IP to both the author and the marketplace combined.

They way they've explained it works and is far more publisher-centric. In business terms, WotC has all the cards - and licensing is never free.

Normal exclusive market net sales margin charge: 35% to OBS, 65% to author/publisher.
DG net sales margin charge: 25% (-10%) to OBS, 25% to WotC, 50%(-15%) to author/publisher.

In all, the concept is win-win for user-created content. I also suspect this means that the WotC focus will NOT be on official FR materials - at first. Something like this model would certainly gauge how much market saturation there is for FR, and provide WotC insight into how well new products might sell based on continued interest. It will also dilute the WotC profitability of new FR material at first.....as the marketplace gets established.

My crystal ball says that going forward, WotC  continues to focus on other settings, as they have already been dabbling at, and let's the fan base provide its own FR-fix while they grow some other IP to profitability. This isn't necessarily bad because they do have some cool IP besides FR, and it creates good will with the customer base by meeting their needs in new, creative ways while still making money on the FR IP.

Just my take.


----------



## 77IM

Now I'm wondering if there comes a point at which Hasbro just buys OneBookShelf and makes it a division of Wizards of the Coast.


----------



## Mark CMG

77IM said:


> Now I'm wondering if there comes a point at which Hasbro just buys OneBookShelf and makes it a division of Wizards of the Coast.





They'd have to staff it.  So, I find it unlikely.  They seem to want to keep their actual employee numbers very, very low under the current business model.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

I have to give it to WotC: they finally figured out how to publish Forgotten Realms content en masse, without having to worry about keeping everything lined up with Canon Realmslore. 

That's quite the problem solved right there.


----------



## unnatural 20

So, how would Forgotten Realms cannon proceed? Author A writes "A Guide to The Spellplague 2: More Troubled Times" and Author B keeps the timeline but pens a sourcebook killing Elminster. Am I understanding right or is that protected IP?


----------



## CapnZapp

Mark CMG said:


> anything sold next to D&D products will far outsell anything not sold that way, all other things being equal (art, production values, quality, etc.).



This.

People saying "don't fall for WotC's offer, better to keep your ideas to yourself" don't seem to get that there are basically two alternatives:

1a) Self-publish. Sell next to nothing. 
1b) Gain no recognition. Erect a temple to yourself in your basement. Not even demons will bother manifesting.

2a) Write a popular product. Give it more or less away (possibly for free, if you're hell-bent on not giving any money to DM's Guild). 
2b) Gain world-wide recognition. Get job offers. Freelance opportunities. Quit your day job. Buy Hefner's Mansion, and sell tickets for others to worship at your temple if lawful, or build a monster-infested dungeon below it if chaotic.

The point is that as a nobody, don't expect to make any money. Yet. First, you need recognition. 

Then, when you're the next Eberron creator or Monte Cook, and only then, we can talk about making money.

_(Not that I recommend you to expect becoming rich in the rpg business. Much better to just expect the joy of giving, and treating your writing as a not-for-profit hobby. But since I direct this towards people thinking their ideas are directly worth money, this is what I ended up with)_ 

TL;DR: Don't hold on to your rights for your first few products, since they don't represent wealth. They represent a foot in the door.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

unnatural 20 said:


> So, how would Forgotten Realms cannon proceed?



From what I understand (so far), users can create adventure content for the marketplace, but it's not official Realmslore (i.e., canon).

WotC has the option to contact a user and purchase their content, then utilize it in official Realms products, at which point it becomes part of the Realms.

EDIT: Realms adventures are already on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to canon, which is a good thing. Plenty of room for people to write "Elminster: I Slay Thee" adventures that way. 

EDIT #2: It looksl like WotC will consider user-generated content for their digital partners, not necessarily for print publication. (_...The best work will also be eligible to be selected by the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards, to provide our digital partners with salable, downloadable content (DLC) for games such as the Neverwinter MMO and Sword Coast Legends. ..._)


----------



## CapnZapp

aco175 said:


> I would like to see a place to suggest ideas or have someone tell me that they already have what I'm looking for.



How about right here at ENWorld...?


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Looking at how royalties are paid out, I saw this: 



> You can withdraw your accumulated royalties via PayPal by going to the My Money section of the Account page. There is a $2 fee taken from each withdrawal, but you will pay no other PayPal fees to receive the money. To prevent certain types of fraud, we have to hold your royalties for 60 days after the date of a sale before the royalties from that sale are eligible for withdrawal by PayPal.




Seems like a 60 day interest free loan to me, and then they charge you $2 for the privilege of handing over your money.


----------



## spectacle

The fraud concerns are real though, without the waiting period it would be easy to scam money by buying thousands of copies of your own work and then demanding a refund from paypal after the money has been paid out.


----------



## Yaarel

Remathilis said:


> Yeah, its basically the 3.5 SRD naming scheme.
> 
> I also noticed the the "designated IP" is unchanged from 3.5, which means it references the City of Union, but not the Feywild.




The names ‘*Feywild*’ and ‘*Plane of Faerie*’ appear in the 5e SRD, in the section, _Monsters:Type:Fey_.

Also, the terms ‘Feywild’ re Fey and ‘Shadowfell’ re Undead, appear in a few spell descriptions in the SRD.

Therefore, all of these terms are legal to use, with regard to the OGL.

Probably, it was an oversight to omit Feywild and Shadowfell from the section, _Appendixlanes_.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

spectacle said:


> The fraud concerns are real though, without the waiting period it would be easy to scam money by buying thousands of copies of your own work and then demanding a refund from paypal after the money has been paid out.



Thank you.

I realize now that I should have ended my prior post with a request for examples of what types of fraud WotC would be concerned about.


----------



## delericho

Mark CMG said:


> You're not wrong!  And it's cool if someone doesn't mind staying small or hopes to get big on their own while retaining more control over their IP and their own system.




In theory, the way to do it is to use the DM Guild to build some name recognition and then, once people know to associate your name with quality material you then jump out of that sandbox and produce your own system/setting/adventures.

That's more or less how Paizo and Green Ronin did it, anyway.


----------



## Yaarel

Nellisir said:


> It's the same OGL as has been around since 2000.
> 
> Rule 0 is to work only off the SRD. Do not use the rulebooks when writing Open Game Content.
> Rule 1 is CLEARLY label any and all Open Game Content you are distributing.
> Rule 2 is update the damned copyright section (AKA S.15) with your copyright notice.




Exactly how does one CLEARLY label Open Game Content?

For example, a creator of spell uses the phrase ‘gains an advantage’. The ‘fluff’ of the spell is the IP of the creator. But how does one clearly convey that the term ‘advantage’ comes from the SRD?

Similarly, a spell list lists all the spells used in the product, but it includes SRD spells and creator spells mixed together. How does one label the difference.

A creator of a class, uses the Fighter description from the SRD but then adds a new subclass to it.

There are other situations that are even more difficult to disentangle.

What is the rule of thumb?

Are all things assumed to be the IP of the creator unless they happen to also exist in the SRD?


----------



## BMaC

So, stupid question perhaps, but if I write an adventure based around Githyanki (they are WoTC IP and explicitly off limits in the OGL) in the Forgotten Realms I can now publish it with the DM Guild?


----------



## Iosue

bristolscale7 said:


> So, stupid question perhaps, but if I write an adventure based around Githyanki (they are WoTC IP and explicitly off limits in the OGL) in the Forgotten Realms I can now publish it with the DM Guild?




Yes, exactly.


----------



## BMaC

Iosue said:


> Yes, exactly.




That's great--and when you include the map and art resources they have made it available it becomes fantastic.


----------



## Deleven

CapnZapp said:


> By the way, this is EXACTLY what I need as the DM out of the core three books.
> 
> I would LOVE if they were to publish a single hardcover with the PC gen rules, the monsters, and the loot all within a single set of covers; and dumping all the waffling rest to some other book I then can choose not to buy.




If they dont do it, do it yourself at lulu for example 

lulu.com


----------



## Morrus

Yaarel said:


> Exactly how does one CLEARLY label Open Game Content?
> 
> For example, a creator of spell uses the phrase ‘gains an advantage’. The ‘fluff’ of the spell is the IP of the creator. But how does one clearly convey that the term ‘advantage’ comes from the SRD?
> 
> Similarly, a spell list lists all the spells used in the product, but it includes SRD spells and creator spells mixed together. How does one label the difference.
> 
> A creator of a class, uses the Fighter description from the SRD but then adds a new subclass to it.
> 
> There are other situations that are even more difficult to disentangle.
> 
> What is the rule of thumb?
> 
> Are all things assumed to be the IP of the creator unless they happen to also exist in the SRD?




If you're designing a spell and trying to withhold everything except the word "advantage", you're not really getting into the spirit of the OGL. You should designate the whole spell. It's reasonable to hold back certain proper names or other setting-specific IP, but not the whole spell.


----------



## Morrus

spectacle said:


> The fraud concerns are real though, without the waiting period it would be easy to scam money by buying thousands of copies of your own work and then demanding a refund from paypal after the money has been paid out.




You'll have to explain that to me. You pay for thousands of copies, then ask for the money back. How do you profit from that scam?

That said, OBS doesn't have a waiting period on its other sites. I wonder what makes this one different?


----------



## spectacle

Morrus said:


> You'll have to explain that to me. You pay for thousands of copies, then ask for the money back. How do you profit from that scam?
> 
> That said, OBS doesn't have a waiting period on its other sites. I wonder what makes this one different?




Step 1: Put up product for sale
Step 2: buy $1000 worth of your own product
Step 3: request payout and get your 50% share; $500
Step 4: demand refund, get your $1000 back
Step 5: Profit! You now have 500 dollars more than you started with. 

You probably want to use a couple of fake identities if you want to stay out of prison and enjoy your ill-gotten gains.


----------



## Morrus

spectacle said:


> Step 1: Put up product for sale
> Step 2: buy $1000 worth of your own product
> Step 3: request payout and get your 50% share; $500
> Step 4: demand refund, get your $1000 back
> Step 5: Profit! You now have 500 dollars more than you started with.
> 
> You probably want to use a couple of fake identities if you want to stay out of prison and enjoy your ill-gotten gains.




As far as I recall, you can't get automatic refunds for digital products from PayPal.  They're not eligible for protection. You can start a dispute and request it from the seller, who in this case would refuse.

If that worked, folks would have been doing it at DTRPG by now. DTRPG has instant payouts - you can withdraw your balance at any time.


----------



## Zireael

The news motivated me to post here again instead of poking around various OGL (and completely unrelated) projects and ideas.

I don't quite get how Dungeon Master's Guild is supposed to work. Do they accept non-English sources and/or adventures?


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Well, color me gorram flabbergasted. They actually bloody did it. About friggin' time--it only took them, what, 15 months or so after the product was fully launched, or nearly a year and a half after the initial launch? (from the PHB, rather than the Basic rules)


----------



## kenmarable

spectacle said:


> Step 1: Put up product for sale
> Step 2: buy $1000 worth of your own product
> Step 3: request payout and get your 50% share; $500
> Step 4: demand refund, get your $1000 back
> Step 5: Profit! You now have 500 dollars more than you started with.
> 
> You probably want to use a couple of fake identities if you want to stay out of prison and enjoy your ill-gotten gains.




The above scenario would be extremely rare. I'm not in WotC's head, but if I had to guess, I would say the 60-day window has two likely purposes:

1) Someone produces "5e Lord of the Rings" or "Elminster's Book of Erotic Fantasy" right before the end of a pay cycle and sells a bunch before OBS/WotC catches it and removes it. You would need some sort of window for them to be able to take notice and take action and be sure before the payout happens. 60 days is a long window for that, but may be necessary.

2) Getting another player involved in the transaction (WotC) means more administrative work. In my experience in coordinating businesses, it's usually exponential. So adding a 3rd company doesn't make it 3 times more complicated, but 9 times more.  More paperwork and bureaucracy means more time. Again, 60 days might be rather long for that, but it might be what's necessary. 

So, 60 days does seem to be a bit long when 30 days would seem more standard, but at least it's not quarterly, I suppose. I know many (non-rpg) businesses that pay quarterly. As with the rest, the terms aren't rainbows and unicorns, but certainly nothing outrageous either. Simply more numbers to crunch when considering if either option is right for you.


----------



## Nikosandros

Morrus said:


> That said, OBS doesn't have a waiting period on its other sites. I wonder what makes this one different?




Maybe that's a way of making sure that creators don't put up inappropriate material. WotC said that there isn't a specific approval process, but if they find you in violation of their terms, the product is eliminated and you don't get paid your royalties. This long delay insures that the second part of the "punishment" is meaningful. Just an hypothesis, of course.


----------



## Nikosandros

dd.stevenson said:


> So I guess the SRD at least is good to be translated into other languages.



Yesterday I saw that a good portion of the SRD had already been translated to Italian.


----------



## Alzrius

Nikosandros said:


> Yesterday I saw that a good portion of the SRD had already been translated to Italian.




That is terrible because I use up all of my 5English!


----------



## delericho

Nikosandros said:


> Maybe that's a way of making sure that creators don't put up inappropriate material. WotC said that there isn't a specific approval process, but if they find you in violation of their terms, the product is eliminated and you don't get paid your royalties.




??

I don't see anything in the Community Content Agreement about not paying accrued royalties. And while it does give them the right to stop selling any given product for any reason (or, indeed, no reason at all), that doesn't cover sales that have already been made.

I don't think this gives them the right to unilaterally declare you to be in violation of their terms or to withhold the monies listed in the agreement - surely both of those would be matters for lawyers?


----------



## Mark CMG

delericho said:


> In theory, the way to do it is to use the DM Guild to build some name recognition and then, once people know to associate your name with quality material you then jump out of that sandbox and produce your own system/setting/adventures.





There does seem to be that potential.




delericho said:


> That's more or less how Paizo and Green Ronin did it, anyway.





Most of them built their reps at WotC then left (or were part of layoffs) to start or join such companies (and there are quite a few others).


----------



## Morrus

delericho said:


> ??
> 
> I don't see anything in the Community Content Agreement about not paying accrued royalties. And while it does give them the right to stop selling any given product for any reason (or, indeed, no reason at all), that doesn't cover sales that have already been made.
> 
> I don't think this gives them the right to unilaterally declare you to be in violation of their terms or to withhold the monies listed in the agreement - surely both of those would be matters for lawyers?




Unless it has changed since I last looked at it, it specifically allow them to withhold payment.


----------



## Jester David

After some hours I have realized two real problems with the services:

1) Name. Dungeon Master's Guild has the acronym DMG. Cute, but hard to differentiate from the DM's Guide in conversation. This is awkward, especially on Twitter when you really want a distinct acronym.

2) No compatibility licence. If you're going OGL instead of DMG (see!) then you can't use the terms "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D&D" or a wealth of others. It's harder to advertise your products and advertise them as compatible.


----------



## Nikosandros

Morrus said:


> Unless it has changed since I last looked at it, it specifically allow them to withhold payment.



Indeed. The exact quote is the following:



> There will not be an approval process by Wizards or OneBookShelf per se. However, if you’re found to be breaking our content guidelines, there will be repercussions. For example, your content can be pulled from the site, you might be ejected from the Dungeon Masters Guild as a content creator, and *you would receive no payment for copies sold.*


----------



## darjr

Use GLD instead.


----------



## Orlax

So hey maybe someone can answer me something real quick.  I read the new ogl.  Did I miss read it when I saw it say that I can't in my product state that the stuff I'm creating is compatible with D&D 5e and that you will want the players handbook, monster manual, and dungeon master's guide?


----------



## Mark CMG

Yaarel said:


> The names ‘*Feywild*’ and ‘*Plane of Faerie*’ appear in the 5e SRD, in the section, _Monsters:Type:Fey_.
> 
> Also, the terms ‘Feywild’ re Fey and ‘Shadowfell’ re Undead, appear in a few spell descriptions in the SRD.
> 
> Therefore, all of these terms are legal to use, with regard to the OGL.
> 
> Probably, it was an oversight to omit Feywild and Shadowfell from the section, _Appendixlanes_.





Might be the other way around and they meant to exclude them or add them to the PI list.  During the roll out of the first SRD, there was a "Gentleperson's Agreement" in place to allow some time for them to clean up their SRD (and adjust the OGL) before finalizing it.  In turn, WotC didn't drag their feet and released the material knowing the community of publishers wouldn't be dicks about it.  I, personally, would feel the same way this time around.  If they post later today that they didn't mean for ‘Feywild’ and ‘Plane of Faerie’ to be in the SRD or meant them to be in the PI list, I would honor that.  Despite the long delay from the release of 5E to this SRD release, this is a big step for WotC and I don't intend to try and screw them over if they make a little mistake here and there.  I hope others in the community will feel similarly.


----------



## Nikosandros

Orlax said:


> So hey maybe someone can answer me something real quick.  I read the new ogl.  Did I miss read it when I saw it say that I can't in my product state that the stuff I'm creating is compatible with D&D 5e and that you will want the players handbook, monster manual, and dungeon master's guide?



That's always been the case. When using the OGL you wave the right of indicating compatibility with specific brands.


----------



## delericho

Morrus said:


> Unless it has changed since I last looked at it, it specifically allow them to withhold payment.




Section 7c says "No royalties accrue on sales resulting in consumer refunds, charge backs, or fraud." but that's pretty specific. In particular, WotC can't simply declare something to be fraud, since that has a specific legal meaning.



Nikosandros said:


> Indeed. The exact quote is the following:




Where's that quote from? It's not in the CCA as given in the OP in this thread - though I appreciate that that may not be definitive.


----------



## Yaarel

Morrus said:


> If you're designing a spell and trying to withhold everything except the word "advantage", you're not really getting into the spirit of the OGL. You should designate the whole spell. It's reasonable to hold back certain proper names or other setting-specific IP, but not the whole spell.




Are the articles in the In5ider magazine ‘getting into the spirit of the OGL’?

As far as I can tell, the authorship of the articles generates income, retains its intellectual property, and does not contribute it to the OGL.

At the same time, the authorship wants to respect the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast.

The articles likewise find it unfeasible to disentangle every instance of OGL SRD content from IP content. For example, if an article invents a new monster and mentions that it has ‘15 hit points’, is it really necessary to CLEARLY spell out how the term ‘hit points’ derives from the SRD and is part of OGL, not part of the IP?

It seems to me, the only things that need to be spelled out ‘clearly’ are:

1. The product is, in fact, using the Open Gaming License, thus is referring to and/or modifying terms in the SRD.
2. Any new IP content that the authorship wishes to donate to the public, as part of the Open Gaming License, must be explicitly granted.
3. Everything else can be assumed to be protected intellectual property.

Thus creative content that blends the SRD with privately owned intellectual property, is automatically protected. Except, of course, anybody can use the SRD too, and blend it with their own IPs, respectively.


----------



## Mark CMG

Jester Canuck said:


> After some hours I have realized two real problems with the services:
> 
> 1) Name. Dungeon Master's Guild has the acronym DMG. Cute, but hard to differentiate from the DM's Guide in conversation. This is awkward, especially on Twitter when you really want a distinct acronym.





I've been using DMGuild.  It's not an acronym but I want no mistakes about what I am referring to when discussing such things.




Jester Canuck said:


> 2) No compatibility licence. If you're going OGL instead of DMG (see!) then you can't use the terms "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D&D" or a wealth of others. It's harder to advertise your products and advertise them as compatible.





This has always been the case.  Some companies will use the work around of saying something like "The World's Most Popular . . ." or some other sidestep on their covers but I always thought such legal loopholes were sketchy and avoided them.


----------



## Jester David

Mark CMG said:


> This has always been the case.  Some companies will use the work around of saying something like "The World's Most Popular . . ." or some other sidestep on their covers but I always thought such legal loopholes were sketchy and avoided them.



Both 3e and 4e had a compatibility licence. 
We're used to working around things somewhat now, but a new licence would have been nice, with logos and such we could use. 

Would the old d20 compatibility licence apply?


----------



## delericho

Jester Canuck said:


> Would the old d20 compatibility licence apply?




The d20 license was terminated years ago, in the run up to 4e. It can't be used by anyone any more. (Well... except WotC, I guess, since they own it.  But they don't really have any incentive.)


----------



## Morrus

Yaarel said:


> Are the articles in the In5ider magazine ‘getting into the spirit of the OGL’?




Very much so.  They are exactly what the OGL was intended to do.



> As far as I can tell, the authorship of the articles generates income, retains its intellectual property, and does not contribute it to the OGL.




Of EN5ider? Anything under the OGL by definition has to include at least 5% new open content, or it's in breach of the license. The OGL page tells you what's not open (article titles, proper names, art, logos, mainly). The majority of the content is designated open.  (Heck, I've published entire books which are designated OGC. My new game, WOIN, is designated OGC).

It's not hard to distinguish open and closed content. Companies have been doing it for 16 years now. Just check out some OGL products of the last decade or two - including the Pathfinder RPG. Or Mutants & Masterminds. It may take a little effort, but that's a very small cost. A few companies use slightly ambiguous designations which are dubious, legally, but nobody's ever taken anybody to task over it.


----------



## Orlax

Yaarel said:


> Are the articles in the In5ider magazine ‘getting into the spirit of the OGL’?
> 
> As far as I can tell, the authorship of the articles generates income, retains its intellectual property, and does not contribute it to the OGL.
> 
> At the same time, the authorship wants to respect the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> The articles likewise find it unfeasible to disentangle every instance of OGL SRD content from IP content. For example, if an article invents a new monster and mentions that it has ‘15 hit points’, is it really necessary to CLEARLY spell out how the term ‘hit points’ derives from the SRD and is part of OGL, not part of the IP?
> 
> It seems to me, the only things that need to be spelled out ‘clearly’ are:
> 
> 1. The product is, in fact, using the Open Gaming License, thus is referring to and/or modifying terms in the SRD.
> 2. Any new IP content that the authorship wishes to donate to the public, as part of the Open Gaming License, must be explicitly granted.
> 3. Everything else can be assumed to be protected intellectual property.
> 
> Thus creative content that blends the SRD with privately owned intellectual property, is automatically protected. Except, of course, anybody can use the SRD too, and blend it with their own IPs, respectively.




I may also be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure the way the licence is written people are allowed to make derivative content based upon anything released under the ogl as open game content.  Like if I create a feat, anyone can use that feat in their work because the feat is open game content.  What they arguably couldn't use is the story around how one might get the feat.  

For instance if the blade singer from the scag was published under the ogl I could take all of the mechanics of it, change its name, and the surrounding fluff (in my setting Blade Singers are a natural occurrence it requires no training just the luck of a natural Blade singer actually picking up and fostering a connection with a bladed weapon) and be totally fine because that's the copywriteable content, and product identity.


----------



## Nikosandros

delericho said:


> Where's that quote from? It's not in the CCA as given in the OP in this thread - though I appreciate that that may not be definitive.




I got it from the Dungeon Master's Guild webpage. It's the 5th paragraph from the bottom.


----------



## Morrus

Jester Canuck said:


> Would the old d20 compatibility licence apply?




It was rescinded years ago.


----------



## Mark CMG

Jester Canuck said:


> Both 3e and 4e had a compatibility licence.





I assumed you knew that and were just talking about using the OGL only, so I didn't bring it up.  Of course, the d20 STL was the licensing mechanism whereby publishers might show compatibility which was available during the early 3.XE period though it was revoked after some time before 4E ever came out. 4E didn't use the OGL (the GSL was another animal entirely and shouldn't really be discussed in the same vein as the OGL lest it lead to confusion) but using the GSL and having avenues to suggest compatibility were all lumped in together and were all revoked toward the end of the 4E era.  The OGL alone cannot be revoked.




Jester Canuck said:


> We're used to working around things somewhat now, but a new licence would have been nice, with logos and such we could use.





That's what the DMGuild is meant to be, the outlet for those wanting to be published and show compatibility.




Jester Canuck said:


> Would the old d20 compatibility licence apply?





No.  The d20 STL is no longer available for use.


----------



## Orlax

Mark CMG said:


> That's what the DMGuild is meant to be, the outlet for those wanting to be published and show compatibility.





But I want to create a campaign setting...  I'm not saying this isn't a happy day, but the fact that I can't make a campaign setting, and say it is compatible with 5e D&D because forgotten realms is the only thing we can talk about is infuriating.


----------



## Yaarel

Jester Canuck said:


> Both 3e and 4e had a compatibility licence.
> We're used to working around things somewhat now, but a new licence would have been nice, with logos and such we could use.
> 
> Would the old d20 compatibility licence apply?




It seems to me, the DM Guild is the new d20.

Moving products thru the DM Guild venue allows full access to much more IP than the d20 allowed. Yet it steers the collective creativity toward a specific setting. This helps the community stay on the same page - the pages of the FR canon. Thus the community benefits more from each others creative content. Also it helps avoid the 2e crisis of too many settings, that fractured the D&D community. It also creates a kind of quality control, since the community will judge it according to its quality and compatibility in comparison to other FR products.

Creators who want to break free from the FR setting, will have the OGL and its SRD to work with.


----------



## Mark CMG

Orlax said:


> But I want to create a campaign setting...  I'm not saying this isn't a happy day, but the fact that I can't make a campaign setting, and say it is compatible with 5e D&D because forgotten realms is the only thing we can talk about is infuriating.





Their playground, their rules.  How big is the setting?  Can it be a lost continent of FR?


----------



## Umbran

EzekielRaiden said:


> About friggin' time--it only took them, what, 15 months or so after the product was fully launched, or nearly a year and a half after the initial launch?




Yes, and I think that's a *good* thing, not a failure.  Much as some folks may suggest, I don't think there's much evidence that drinking from the fire hose from day one is actually beneficial.  Taking a longer (and thus more *patient*) view, this seems like a good time for such a move.


----------



## delericho

Nikosandros said:


> I got it from the Dungeon Master's Guild webpage. It's the 5th paragraph from the bottom.




Ah, I see. Thanks.

It's worth bearing in mind that that's not actually part of the agreement, which is the crucial bit, legally speaking.

It only really matters if there's a dispute over whether something meets the standards or not. In most cases, it should be pretty clear (if someone puts up "Star Wars 5e", that's clearly a no-no!). But there are always the corner cases - if WotC pulls something because "it's pornographic", while the author asserts that it's not, then that's a much tougher call. And while WotC absolutely have the right to stop selling the item, if it happens to have sold $1000 in copies in the meantime then they _probably_ don't have the right to unilaterally withhold the $500 in royalties.

But IANAL. (I also haven't seen the agreement "in the wild" - only the quotation of it in the OP of this thread. So it's possible I'm working from incomplete, outdated, or otherwise inaccurate data. Either way, I'm not claiming to be an authority, just querying something that doesn't sound quite right.)


----------



## Mark CMG

Morrus said:


> Anything under the OGL by definition has to include at least 5% new open content, or it's in breach of the license.




An OGC minimum was something that was part of the d20 STL, not the OGL.  One assumes there is a minimum, since the license only applies to OGC, but no percentage is in the OGL terms.


----------



## Orlax

Mark CMG said:


> Their playground, their rules.  How big is the setting?  Can it be a lost continent of FR?




It entirely changes the nature of clerics, and magic items, how magic functions (fluff wise that is), and has its own background mythology, which while involving the outer planes, explicitly holds back their denizens from participating in great numbers on the material plane, except by the help of specific evil orders, and plenty of time to get the evil plot rolling.

I get that it's their playground, I just wish they chose a better setting as the default, and foreseeably only D&D campaign setting.  I say that as someone that's been a staunch defender that fr wasn't going to be their only campaign setting, but with this even I'm fairly certain it is.  They won't even allow 3rd parties to build and associate a campaign setting with D&D, I can no longer believe they will do it either.

I'm also just sour because I damn near jumped for joy on the train this morning when I saw an ogl and a digital framework to upload content instantly.  It's just discouraging that the thing I really want to write can hardly use any of it, and can't even be advertised as working with the rules set.  So feel free to ignore my caterwauling at the moment.  I'm sure I'll think of other things to write that are more setting agnostic (frankly I just don't want to have to learn like 4000 years of history to someone else's setting just so I can set up a mining town with a Rage Drake problem).


----------



## delericho

Orlax said:


> I get that it's their playground, I just wish they chose a better setting as the default, and foreseeably only D&D campaign setting.  I say that as someone that's been a staunch defender that fr wasn't going to be their only campaign setting, but with this even I'm fairly certain it is.




Given that they've explicitly said they intend to add other settings later, why would you make that assumption? After all, haven't we just ended a long spell where lots of people doubted they'd do something they'd said?


----------



## Patrick McGill

Orlax said:


> It entirely changes the nature of clerics, and magic items, how magic functions (fluff wise that is), and has its own background mythology, which while involving the outer planes, explicitly holds back their denizens from participating in great numbers on the material plane, except by the help of specific evil orders, and plenty of time to get the evil plot rolling.
> 
> I get that it's their playground, I just wish they chose a better setting as the default, and foreseeably only D&D campaign setting.  I say that as someone that's been a staunch defender that fr wasn't going to be their only campaign setting, but with this even I'm fairly certain it is.  They won't even allow 3rd parties to build and associate a campaign setting with D&D, I can no longer believe they will do it either.
> 
> I'm also just sour because I damn near jumped for joy on the train this morning when I saw an ogl and a digital framework to upload content instantly.  It's just discouraging that the thing I really want to write can hardly use any of it, and can't even be advertised as working with the rules set.  So feel free to ignore my caterwauling at the moment.  I'm sure I'll think of other things to write that are more setting agnostic (frankly I just don't want to have to learn like 4000 years of history to someone else's setting just so I can set up a mining town with a Rage Drake problem).




If the mining town can be dropped into any Campaign setting (as in it is setting neutral), then you can indeed put it up on the Dungeon Master's Guild. So no real need to learn much FR lore if that's something you'd like to do.


----------



## Mark CMG

Orlax said:


> I get that it's their playground, I just wish they chose a better setting as the default, and foreseeably only D&D campaign setting.  I say that as someone that's been a staunch defender that fr wasn't going to be their only campaign setting, but with this even I'm fairly certain it is.  They won't even allow 3rd parties to build and associate a campaign setting with D&D, I can no longer believe they will do it either.





Look at it this way . . . If FR is a bad setting, and all DMGuild roads lead to FR, then you have less competition in the marketplace.  Using the OGL had largely become synonymous with making D&D stuff back in the 3.XE period, and I am guessing the outpouring of stuff that will follow this move will prove to be largely the same.  Sure, there's other OGL stuff besides D&D compatible stuff, but let's never kid ourselves where the 800-lb gorilla sits and who has the majority of the influence.  If you want you setting on the market and to be distinguished from other D&D settings, you're better off without direct compatibility, IMO.  And once you have the overarching setting available, the individual components/locations can be put out as generic locations without FR or your own setting references, and put up on DMGuild if you really feel it necessary.


----------



## Reynard

The DMGuild limitation on campaign settings makes some sense when you consider that campaign settings are one of the easiest things to do badly. Adventure writing is hard. Creating balanced mechanics is hard. these things take real work from a design perspective. Anyone can blather one for 30K or 40K or 100K words about their homebrew world and how their elves are so much better. If WotC wants to avoid glut in the DMGuild store it is certainly one way to do it. Now if they had only managed a way to cut down on the number of alternative rangers we are going to see...


----------



## Orlax

delericho said:


> Given that they've explicitly said they intend to add other settings later, why would you make that assumption? After all, haven't we just ended a long spell where lots of people doubted they'd do something they'd said?




You know what... Fair enough.  Like I said I'm just discouraged because of the immediate pick up of thinking I could get to work on a product then let down of still not being able to release what I'd really like to.


----------



## delericho

Orlax said:


> Like I said I'm just discouraged because of the immediate pick up of thinking I could get to work on a product then let down of still not being able to release what I'd really like to.




Yeah, I get that. I'd love to see some Eberron or Dark Sun goodness.


----------



## Orlax

Reynard said:


> The DMGuild limitation on campaign settings makes some sense when you consider that campaign settings are one of the easiest things to do badly. Adventure writing is hard. Creating balanced mechanics is hard. these things take real work from a design perspective. Anyone can blather one for 30K or 40K or 100K words about their homebrew world and how their elves are so much better. If WotC wants to avoid glut in the DMGuild store it is certainly one way to do it. Now if they had only managed a way to cut down on the number of alternative rangers we are going to see...




This is also very true.


----------



## Orlax

delericho said:


> Yeah, I get that. I'd love to see some Eberron or Dark Sun goodness.





Ooh man, who actually holds the copywrites for those settings?  Technically those guys have enough of a following on the eberon and darksun namez that they could do ogl releases without identifying D&D within its promotion.  Same with dragon lance...


----------



## delericho

Orlax said:


> Ooh man, who actually holds the copywrites for those settings?  Technically those guys have enough of a following on the eberon and darksun namez that they could do ogl releases without identifying D&D within its promotion.  Same with dragon lance...




WotC own all three. They may be interested in licensing them out (they have in the past for Dragonlance), though there's no indication of anyone talking about them.

My guess is that if the designers were really keen to do a setting, they'd go for something new-but-similar, the way Bruce Heard is doing a kinda-Princess Ark setting. That way, they can leverage the recognition from their names but retain full IP rights. Either that, or wait for the settings to be added to DMguild - I'm perhaps more confident than you that "not yet" may mean "but soon".


----------



## Orlax

delericho said:


> WotC own all three. They may be interested in licensing them out (they have in the past for Dragonlance), though there's no indication of anyone talking about them.
> 
> My guess is that if the designers were really keen to do a setting, they'd go for something new-but-similar, the way Bruce Heard is doing a kinda-Princess Ark setting. That way, they can leverage the recognition from their names but retain full IP rights. Either that, or wait for the settings to be added to DMguild - I'm perhaps more confident than you that "not yet" may mean "but soon".




Trying to maintain a cooler head on it, and not buy into the whole never going to happen thing, I think it won't be till some time after the movie drops that we will see a move away from fr.  I think I finally have to cede that associating D&D with FR as much as possible is the strategy leading up to the movie.  I think they are hoping the movie will do well, and will also bring in some new blood to the table top game itself.  Hence making sure the only fully licensed material is either setting agnostic or set in the same setting as the movie (so as to keep it accessible to the new blood).  Once the new blood is in, then they introduce them to the idea of a setting change a ways after that (hopefully accompanied by a movie set in the new setting, I'd love to see a warforged on screen).


----------



## Orlax

Anyways I gotta figure out what I want to write first, and how much I want to cobble together as a single product.


----------



## estar

Yaarel said:


> Exactly how does one CLEARLY label Open Game Content?




In general you put a paragraph some where that explains in plain English what is open content and what is not.

In practice there are two extremes.

The first is to just say the entire document except for the art and certain trademarks are open content.

The second is to say something like this.

Designation of Open Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, all creature and NPC statistic blocks are designated as Open Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or other open content sources

This is typically used in adventures where the only the stat blocks are open content and the rest is considered an original work and declared product identity. This also is used a lot in supplements that are licensed property (For example Conan, Stargate, etc)

When this is used the work is pretty much useless in terms of reusing it. 

However far more common with supplements is that the declaration of open content will say that the text in shaded areas or the following chapters are considered open. In which case it is clear what portion of the work is open and what is not. It what I did with the my own Majestic Wilderlands Supplements. It has three sections, the first two are 100% open content, the third (the setting description) is declared product identity.






Yaarel said:


> For example, a creator of spell uses the phrase ‘gains an advantage’. The ‘fluff’ of the spell is the IP of the creator. But how does one clearly convey that the term ‘advantage’ comes from the SRD?




My view is that the author should designate everything about that spell as open content. If he doesn't then he is being a jerk and not acting in according to the spirit of the OGL.




Yaarel said:


> What is the rule of thumb?




For you as the author? Hand the work to a couple of your friends. If they can figure it out then you are done. If they can't then work some more on your deceleration of open content. 




Yaarel said:


> Are all things assumed to be the IP of the creator unless they happen to also exist in the SRD?




Yes the author has the copyright to all original content.

The Open Game License is about giving one author giving permission to use their work under certain conditions. The condition set by Wizards for the d20 SRD and now the 5e SRD is that anything you use or DEVIRE from, you have to give others the same right to reuse that content.

As for your original content it up to you to decide to share. My advice is to be generous. Don't get worked up about sharing the fluff of a spell or a monster. Likely it won't make much sense without the stuff that you clearly declared as product identity. So put all your spells in a chapter, all your monsters into a chapter, and declare both of those open content. That way you have covered yourself in regardless to anything you used from Wizards.

But some authors are really not happy doing this. They feel possessive enough about their work that they only want to share the minimum. If this is the case then probably what best is to hire an IP attorney to comb over the work and give you advice as to what you must declare open content. 

But then again, even a IP attorney can't tell you how things will play out in court. So again if you don't want the headaches then be generous as to what you make open content.

Finally put away your 5e books. Don't look at them or use them as references while you are writing. Only use the SRD. Where author screwed up in the initial days of the 3.0 SRD was using their MMs, PHBs and DMGs while they write.


----------



## tuxgeo

. . . "caught up" reading the thread, finally . . . 



Remathilis said:


> Praise Pelor, Vecna, or whoever was responsible!




Wouldn't it have to be _Oghma_, "the binder?"


----------



## Kris

Sorry if this seems like a dumb question (or if it's already been asked) - but how does this affect artwork appearing in 3rd party DMGuild products?

For example, lets say that a publisher commissions me to draw a map of a little village and a dungeon for their DMGuild adventure - are those maps then considered 'open content' (and can be used by other publishers)?

I'm not saying that I'm against anything like that - I'd just be interested to know how that would work (as it might affect the wording of any future contracts I'm asked to sign ...as this wouldn't fall within the usual 'exclusive' / 'non-exclusive' terms and conditions).

_
EDIT - and can that artwork only appear in DMGuild products? (as this would have an impact on whether or not I'd be able to licence an existing image out to a DMGuild publisher too)_


----------



## Beleriphon

Orlax said:


> Ooh man, who actually holds the copywrites for those settings?  Technically those guys have enough of a following on the eberon and darksun namez that they could do ogl releases without identifying D&D within its promotion.  Same with dragon lance...




Wizards of the Coast for all of them. If it came out for D&D I can almost guarantee you that it will be a copyright/trademark for Wizards.



Kris said:


> Sorry if this seems like a dumb question (or if it's already been asked) - but how does this affect artwork appearing in 3rd party DMGuild products.
> 
> For example, lets say that a publisher commissions me to draw a map of a little village and a dungeon for their DMGuild adventure - are those maps then considered 'open content' ...and can therefore be used by other publishers too?
> 
> I'm not saying that I'm against anything like that - I'd just be interested to know how that would work (as it might affect the wording of any future contracts I'm asked to sign ...as this wouldn't fall within the usual 'exclusive' / 'non-exclusive' terms and conditions).
> 
> _
> EDIT - and can such artwork only then appear in DMGuild products? (as this would have an impact on whether or not I'd be able to licence an existing image out to a DMGuild publisher too)_




If I read it correctly the OGC stuff only applies to text, and even if it doesn't one can easily make sure that original art pieces are excempt by stating as such in the OGL section explaining what is OGC. Additionally section 5 of the OGL has this:



			
				OGL Section 5 said:
			
		

> 5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.




I'd take that to mean that if you are commissioned to for artwork all you need to do is include in your contract that you provide permission for the art to be used only in a specific product, and that not additional rights beyond being used in said product are extended. That covers OGL section 5 by removing the any ability of the commissioner of said art to do anything other than use it the way you've agreed to. That being said, I'm not a lawyer but the OGL is written in a pretty straight forward manner so it should work as expected.


----------



## Jester David

The DMGuild seems to be a separate program, but I'm still uncertain if you can use the OGL with it: i.e. can you declare content posted on the site Open Content?
To my non-lawyer eyes, it seems like the agreement refers to "the work", which is defined as the title. So you can sell the content elsewhere, so long as the title itself is exclusive. You can make a variant with the same content (which seems to be what happened to Kobold Press' content) but cannot sell that exact PDF elsewhere.

Or if you can withdraw the content. 
Right now the exclusive licence seems irrevocable, so you can only stop publication but not take your content and publish it elsewhere if you change your mind. 
To my non-lawyer reading, if you create an adventure you retain the IP (characters, setting, etc) but you are effectively giving away the adventure text itself for the chance of selling copies.

Am I right? Dead wrong?


----------



## Beleriphon

Edit because I'm a dope and can't read.

The relevant section that seems to apply are sections 2 and 5. Again I'm not seeing anything that would allow somebody else to take original content since I don't think the wording of the agreement applies to art, but again not a lawyer please contact your lawyer.


----------



## Morrus

Beleriphon said:


> For those of you that don't have an RPGNow/DTRPG whatever account to check here's the current Community Content Agreement for DM Guild.




Was the initial post too obscure?


----------



## Beleriphon

No Morrus, I just had a complete reading comprehension failure, and because apparently the first page has a Hide bonus higher than my Passive Perception.


----------



## BoldItalic

This being the "Year of The Four-Letter Acronym" (Y4LA), I suggest that we all use the abbreviation "DMsG" for the Guild, to avoid confusion with the other DMG.

Okay, I just invented the Y4LA.


----------



## Bugleyman

**hopes PDFs of the 5E core books are in the offing**

Come on, WotC!  I've got a few hundred dollars burning a hole in my pocket...


----------



## Remathilis

BoldItalic said:


> This being the "Year of The Four-Letter Acronym" (Y4LA), I suggest that we all use the abbreviation "DMsG" for the Guild, to avoid confusion with the other DMG.
> 
> Okay, I just invented the Y4LA.



I prefer DMGD


----------



## spectacle

Beleriphon said:


> If I read it correctly the OGC stuff only applies to text, and even if it doesn't one can easily make sure that original art pieces are excempt by stating as such in the OGL section explaining what is OGC. Additionally section 5 of the OGL has this:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take that to mean that if you are commissioned to for artwork all you need to do is include in your contract that you provide permission for the art to be used only in a specific product, and that not additional rights beyond being used in said product are extended. That covers OGL section 5 by removing the any ability of the commissioner of said art to do anything other than use it the way you've agreed to. That being said, I'm not a lawyer but the OGL is written in a pretty straight forward manner so it should work as expected.



OGL and DMGuild are completely different licenses though. It doesn't seem like you're allowed to exempt any part of a DMGuild product from the mandatory sharing, so if you commission something for use on the DMGuild make sure to negotiate the rights to share it.


----------



## Beleriphon

spectacle said:


> OGL and DMGuild are completely different licenses though. It doesn't seem like you're allowed to exempt any part of a DMGuild product from the mandatory sharing, so if you commission something for use on the DMGuild make sure to negotiate the rights to share it.




Yes, they are and I misspoke. As for art work, the DMGuild agreement doesn't make that clear. The impression I'm getting is that art isn't included but then again it might be part of the Work as defined by 2.(c) and 5.(c):


			
				Section 2.(c) said:
			
		

> “User Generated Content” shall be defined as the copyrightable elements included in your Work, such as original characters, scenes, locations and events. Per the terms of this Agreement, you expressly agree that your User Generated Content, once submitted to the Program will become Program IP and useable by other members of the Program as well as the Owner as described in this Agreement.





			
				Section 5.(c) said:
			
		

> Exclusive License to all User Generated Content in your Work. Effective as of the date we first make your Work available through the Program, you grant us the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to all User Generated Content included in your Work. You agree that the User Generated Content is available for unrestricted use by us without any additional compensation, notification or attribution, including that we may allow other Program authors, the Owner and other third parties to use the User Generated Content.




Now, the issue is of course one of copyright now since extending a license to publish a specific image by a particular person don't give that person automatic copyright to that image. My interpretation is that to have become Program IP (ie. usable by everybody) the Author needs to be the one that holds the specific copyright to that particular image. But, being that I'm not an attorney (or an American) please contact an American attorney that specializes in copyright law.


----------



## Bupp

I'm curious, I've converted a bunch of stuff to 5e from old Dragon Magazines. Monsters, magic items, and spells, mostly. All pretty setting agnostic. I've posted it on my blog and shared it around here and other message boards. Am I cool just making a collection and publishing?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Beleriphon said:


> Yes, they are and I misspoke. As for art work, the DMGuild agreement doesn't make that clear. The impression I'm getting is that art isn't included but then again it might be part of the Work as defined by 2.(c) and 5.(c):.




My impression is that art isn't included, based on the "Here is some free art you can use, as long as you only use it for DM guild stuff." art packs that are there.


----------



## delericho

Bupp said:


> I'm curious, I've converted a bunch of stuff to 5e from old Dragon Magazines. Monsters, magic items, and spells, mostly. All pretty setting agnostic. I've posted it on my blog and shared it around here and other message boards. Am I cool just making a collection and publishing?




I don't think so, for various reasons.

A lot of the early issues are in a bit of a limbo copyright-wise - some authors retained some rights while others did not, and some of the contracts are unavailable for checking. Effectively, nobody can use that material.

Anything in the modern era (at least issue 251 onwards) is copyright WotC, and _may_ be useable. But I think they're only currently allowing FR-specific things to be added. So any FR-specific monsters should be fine, but anything else is probably still off-limits.

In any case, it might be best to drop them a line - this does sound like the sort of thing they might be quite keen to see on DMguild, so they may well be happy for you to go ahead.

A very important note: I'm not a lawyer. If you're going to publish, you'll want to consult one.


----------



## Kramodlog

Jester Canuck said:


> 2) No compatibility licence. If you're going OGL instead of DMG (see!) then you can't use the terms "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D&D" or a wealth of others. It's harder to advertise your products and advertise them as compatible.




Can you use the OGL to up date a product that you want to release on DmG? Say I want to take Unearthed Arcana's Incantations and up date them to 5e and sell them on DmG, is it possible?


----------



## Nylanfs

And PCGen has the gamemode and datasets out!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ar-you-like-5e-so-do-we&p=6798878#post6798878


----------



## Nellisir

goldomark said:


> Can you use the OGL to up date a product that you want to release on DmG? Say I want to take Unearthed Arcana's Incantations and up date them to 5e and sell them on DmG, is it possible?




I assume you mean the 3e Unearthed Arcana, which WotC did release under the OGL.

I don't see any reason why not. It's Open Game Content, and you can update it to 5e via the OGL & 5eSRD, or do an end-run around anything that's missing from the SRD by going DMGU-only. The latter would restrict you to releasing only via DMGU, but you could indicate compatibility with Dungeons & Dragons.


----------



## Nellisir

Yaarel said:


> Exactly how does one CLEARLY label Open Game Content?
> For example, a creator of spell uses the phrase ‘gains an advantage’. The ‘fluff’ of the spell is the IP of the creator. But how does one clearly convey that the term ‘advantage’ comes from the SRD?
> Similarly, a spell list lists all the spells used in the product, but it includes SRD spells and creator spells mixed together. How does one label the difference.
> A creator of a class, uses the Fighter description from the SRD but then adds a new subclass to it.
> There are other situations that are even more difficult to disentangle.
> What is the rule of thumb?
> Are all things assumed to be the IP of the creator unless they happen to also exist in the SRD?




First of all, you still hold the copyright to material you release under the OGL. The OGL is an additional license that allows you to use other people IP in exchange for sharing your own.

That said, I consider declaring the proper names of characters, places, events, and so forth Product Identity, and making everything else OGC, to be the default, baseline option. It is, in large part, exactly as complicated as you chose to make it.

For instance, you write a new spell. You could call it _Ygart's Goldenfist_, or you could call it _goldenfist_. The first is more complicated than the second. If you interweave a lot of fluff material into the mechanics of the spell ("Ygart hated dwarves, and the spell inflicts double damage on dwarves."), it's more complicated than if you put the fluff in one paragraph and the description of the spell effect in a separate paragraph. (I'd say the latter is also better writing.)

You can also use different fonts to designate PI from OGC. Atlas Games did this on some occasions. I thought it was a big hassle.

Overall, I think the more difficult you make your OGC, the less reward you're going to get out of it. There are publishers I stopped buying from because their declarations were intentionally obscure. There are products I picked up because I knew I could reuse parts of them, if I wanted to, without leaping through giant hoops.

The hard fact is that almost everyone who's inclined to self-publish thinks their stuff is better than yours, and your stuff isn't worth stealing. If they do think yours is better, then it's probably good enough to have a significant audience that will recognize a plagarized product, since your audience and the ripoff artist's audience are the same.

If you're really concerned that no one else use a really awesome monster you created, or a spell, or a feat, then you're probably better off not publishing at all, or creating your own system and not using the OGL, rather than trying to build a private palace on a public foundation.


----------



## Kramodlog

Nellisir said:


> I assume you mean the 3e Unearthed Arcana, which WotC did release under the OGL.






> I don't see any reason why not. It's Open Game Content, and you can update it to 5e via the OGL & 5eSRD, or do an end-run around anything that's missing from the SRD by going DMGU-only. The latter would restrict you to releasing only via DMGU, but you could indicate compatibility with Dungeons & Dragons.



Can someone sell on DmG without saying it is D&D compatible and just use the SRD?


----------



## Nellisir

goldomark said:


> Can someone sell on DmG without saying it is D&D compatible and just use the SRD?




That seems to be a grey area, but I haven't read the DMGU stuff. Not a market I'm particularly interested in right now, so I only know what's been posted on ENW.


----------



## Morlock

I guess now we know what Mearls means when he says, "soooooooooon."

Or, wait, was he talking about something else?

Bah, great news at any rate.


----------



## MoonSong

An amazing birthday gift...

Seriously, I really want to know where they draw the line on content on DM guild. Let's suppose I write and illustrate a "the many hats of the rogue" sourcebook and put it on sale via DM guild, can I get away with using my pictures anywhere else? will they think of them as covered by this exclusive perpetual license? 



TwoSix said:


> Finally!
> 
> View attachment 73086




I need to wait nine months before the En5ider exclusivity wears off. 



Staffan said:


> My hunch is that the 5e SRD would allow you to make another Arcana Unearthed (same engine, but different races, classes, feats (mostly), and spells), but not another Pathfinder (clone).



Nop, this SRD is under the old OGL, so you are free to pathfinderize 5e if you wish, or even to adapt PF content to 5e using the OGL.



mflayermonk said:


> This is what David Bowie would have wanted.



Why? Why do all teh good musicians die while the cheap autotuned boybands thrive???


darjr said:


> And using ALL the D&D 5e rules vs what is in the SRD.



The 5e srd has barely anyhtign that wasn't OGC before, the templates and names (Warlock is OGC now!!) are the important part.  




Hussar said:


> Quoting this from a few pages back, where it got lost in the scrum.  This is a point I hadn't thought of, but, really, it's brilliant.  What a fantastic way to crowdsource translations and then make them easily available all over the world.  I can't see that as anything other than win-win for WotC.




Maybe will try to translate to German, Spanish and Japanese, if only to practice. (And the OGL still remains king)


----------



## BoldItalic

Bugleyman said:


> **hopes PDFs of the 5E core books are in the offing**
> 
> Come on, WotC!  I've got a few hundred dollars burning a hole in my pocket...




I can arrange for a Nigerian bank to look after the dollars for you ...


----------



## Elderbrain

Question: I see that certain things were left out of the OGL (some subraces, spells, subclasses, and stats for certain monsters such as the Mind Flayer, etc.) Does this mean that if I publish my own campaign world, I cannot even MENTION the existence of such things? (i.e. "The Darkforge cavern complex, once controlled by Dwarves, is now infested with Mind Flayers.") I can't state that a given forest is populated by Wood Elves, just High Elves or generic "Elves"? Can I state something along the lines of "All the classes and races in the PH exist in the World of Redilia, and are available for PCs to choose from"?


----------



## Parmandur

goldomark said:


> Can someone sell on DmG without saying it is D&D compatible and just use the SRD?





No: to use DmG, it is open to the community and D&D 5E compatible, by definition, and not OGL.  If you want to be OGL, you would use DriveThruRPG, though, but not be able to claim compatibility or sell on their new portal.


----------



## Parmandur

Mearls has said on Twitter that Wizards has been working on this for 6 years; that would mean they conceived this with 4E in mind??


----------



## Kris

Kris said:


> Sorry if this seems like a dumb question (or if it's already been asked) - but how does this affect artwork appearing in 3rd party DMGuild products?
> 
> For example, lets say that a publisher commissions me to draw a map of a little village and a dungeon for their DMGuild adventure - are those maps then considered 'open content' (and can be used by other publishers)?




OK, so to answer my own question regarding the 'open content' nature of any art/maps appearing in a DMGuild product...

_"You're free to choose from the library of art and maps that we'll be providing, or you can create or commission your own. Paying for art and maps that you commission is your responsibility. All such art and maps must also adhere to our content guidelines and Community Content Agreement."_


----------



## Umbran

Parmandur said:


> Mearls has said on Twitter that Wizards has been working on this for 6 years; that would mean they conceived this with 4E in mind??




Depends which "this" you mean.  They had the OGL already, and specifically chose to *not* release 4e under it.  So, that part of it, not so much.

The community publishing portal aspect seems pretty edition (and even game system) agnostic as a concept.  They may have come up with the idea while 4e was out there, I don't know if that equates to "4e in mind".


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Mearls has said on Twitter that Wizards has been working on this for 6 years; that would mean they conceived this with 4E in mind??



If it's exactly 6 years.  A few less months less and Essentials would've been current.  So, at least, they were probably thinking of doing it with that.  Also, you have to wonder whether it was something they started working on 6 years ago, with the expectation it'd take 6 months or a year or two that just too a whole lot longer than expected.   It does seem like the kind of on-line support that was supposed to draw people to DDI, just dialed down a bit and outsourced (and _à la carte_ instead of subscription).  It would certainly have been amazing to see 4e on the OGL with a real SRD - the basic system always seemed a little better suited to the broader action genres than traditional heroic fantasy, specifically.


----------



## Echohawk

Beleriphon said:


> Wizards of the Coast for all of them. If it came out for D&D I can almost guarantee you that it will be a copyright/trademark for Wizards.



Except for at least Warcraft, Diablo, Kingdoms of Kalamar, Rokugan, and Lankhmar all of which have had D&D branded products, but which do not belong to WotC.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Parmandur said:


> Mearls has said on Twitter that Wizards has been working on this for 6 years; that would mean they conceived this with 4E in mind??




Or they were thinking about a new edition already at that point, which is entirely plausible.


----------



## Beleriphon

Echohawk said:


> Except for at least Warcraft, Diablo, Kingdoms of Kalamar, Rokugan, and Lankhmar all of which have had D&D branded products, but which do not belong to WotC.




Thus almost guarantee you. There's a bunch of other stuff, especially in early books, but for the most part the vast majority of published material for D&D is an IP currently owned by Hasbo via Wizards of the Coast.


----------



## neobolts

Elderbrain said:


> Question: I see that certain things were left out of the OGL (some subraces, spells, subclasses, and stats for certain monsters such as the Mind Flayer, etc.) Does this mean that if I publish my own campaign world, I cannot even MENTION the existence of such things? (i.e. "The Darkforge cavern complex, once controlled by Dwarves, is now infested with Mind Flayers.") I can't state that a given forest is populated by Wood Elves, just High Elves or generic "Elves"? Can I state something along the lines of "All the classes and races in the PH exist in the World of Redilia, and are available for PCs to choose from"?





The short answer is, if you want to be fully OGL/SRD compliant, you should build on the base you've been provided. That said, there are two different notes about your example: 
You'd be ok mentioning wood elves in passing but not drawing on their mechanics, WotC didn't invent wood elves, just the specific rules for how their particular wood elves work. 
On the other hand, mind flayers are absolutely forbidden. See page 1 of the OGL/SRD, the section on Product Identity. There's a short list of D&D original creations by WotC or their predecessors; they aren't allowing them to be used under the OGL.


----------



## Beleriphon

neobolts said:


> On the other hand, mind flayers are absolutely forbidden. See page 1 of the OGL/SRD, the section on Product Identity. There's a short list of D&D original creations by WotC or their predecessors; they aren't allowing them to be used under the OGL.




But you could make Psychic Squidfaces, Floating Eyeballers (I'm fond of Eye Terrors myself), and a host of other creatures that do the same things as illithids, beholders, or what have you. They can't be a copy paste job from the MM but you could certain emulate the abilities of the monsters without too much trouble. It is more work for you to get them in your material, but the option is there.


----------



## Umbran

Tony Vargas said:


> If it's exactly 6 years.  A few less months less and Essentials would've been current.  So, at least, they were probably thinking of doing it with that.  Also, you have to wonder whether it was something they started working on 6 years ago, with the expectation it'd take 6 months or a year or two that just too a whole lot longer than expected.   It does seem like the kind of on-line support that was supposed to draw people to DDI, just dialed down a bit and outsourced (and _à la carte_ instead of subscription).




There might be much sense in that - the original concept may have been a DDI way for fans to publish content for other (subscribing) fans.  Maybe that took longer than expected to develop, and was scrapped, or the infrastructure to support it was going to end up expensive, or something, and was set aside when they started full-on work on the new edition.

Now, with a different approach to the game, they think, "How can we help the fans support themselves?"  And the simple answer of, "Partner with someone who already does the hosting, sales, and such," becomes pretty darned obvious.


----------



## prosfilaes

Mark CMG said:


> This has always been the case.  Some companies will use the work around of saying something like "The World's Most Popular . . ." or some other sidestep on their covers but I always thought such legal loopholes were sketchy and avoided them.




Legally, trademark law lets you identify compatibility, for good reason. The OGL limits that right, but I don't see any reason to go beyond the straightforward text of the license. WotC demanded certain things, but we aren't obliged to work to avoid requests they never made.


----------



## prosfilaes

Beleriphon said:


> But you could make Psychic Squidfaces, Floating Eyeballers (I'm fond of Eye Terrors myself), and a host of other creatures that do the same things as illithids, beholders, or what have you. They can't be a copy paste job from the MM but you could certain emulate the abilities of the monsters without too much trouble. It is more work for you to get them in your material, but the option is there.




It's been done a lot, but it makes me uncomfortable. If WotC was more litigious about this, "floating eyeballers" seems like a perfect target for a copyright suit. I think it much more honorable to just go a different way. Between the SRD MM, the three Tomes of Horrors, three Creature Collections, the 5 Pathfinder Bestiaries and any number of other D&D/PF/OSR bestiaries, there's another option. Note what Paizo did to replace the Slaad; they produced the Proteans that fulfilled the need for CN outsiders without being the least bit like the Slaad.


----------



## Mark CMG

prosfilaes said:


> Legally, trademark law lets you identify compatibility, for good reason. The OGL limits that right, but I don't see any reason to go beyond the straightforward text of the license. WotC demanded certain things, but we aren't obliged to work to avoid requests they never made.





"Obliged?"  Naw.  Of course not.  Still, it always seemed a bit skeevy.  Maybe I'll rethink that position with this new era.  I know how to be skeevy.  Humorously skeevy, so it's not as onerous.


----------



## Staffan

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Nop, this SRD is under the old OGL, so you are free to pathfinderize 5e if you wish, or even to adapt PF content to 5e using the OGL.



Yes, the SRD is under the OGL, but the SRD is "incomplete."

The 3.5e SRD covered almost everything mechanical about 3.5e, except certain monsters, wealth-by-level, settlement generation, and the base algorithm for making a character (Choose a race and class, roll/buy stats, select these things in this order). So it was easy for Paizo to grab the SRD, recreate the missing bits (somewhat changed - the PF WBL rules are different from D&D's, for example), and then do a tune-up to create Pathfinder from the SRD.

But the 5e SRD does not cover the same things. You only have one sub-race per race, one sub-class per class, one feat, one background, and so on. In addition many spells and monsters are missing. So if you wanted to make a complete 5e based on the SRD, you would need to make a lot of new stuff.


----------



## Staffan

prosfilaes said:


> It's been done a lot, but it makes me uncomfortable. If WotC was more litigious about this, "floating eyeballers" seems like a perfect target for a copyright suit. I think it much more honorable to just go a different way. Between the SRD MM, the three Tomes of Horrors, three Creature Collections, the 5 Pathfinder Bestiaries and any number of other D&D/PF/OSR bestiaries, there's another option. Note what Paizo did to replace the Slaad; they produced the Proteans that fulfilled the need for CN outsiders without being the least bit like the Slaad.




Floating eyeballers in particular have been in use in many games other than D&D without either TSR or Wizards getting litigious. I remember that the old Ultima games had Gazers, for example, and Doom had Cacodemons and Pain Elementals.


----------



## Kramodlog

Nellisir said:


> That seems to be a grey area, but I haven't read the DMGU stuff. Not a market I'm particularly interested in right now, so I only know what's been posted on ENW.




I guess it is the market that buys En5ider, which is compatible with 5e.


----------



## Kramodlog

Parmandur said:


> No: to use DmG, it is open to the community and D&D 5E compatible, by definition, and not OGL.




What if I use the OGL to make something that is 5e compatible?


----------



## MoutonRustique

I am incredibly impressed by this approach.

I am "flabberghasted" by how _intelligent_ this is. I can't help but sound like a [word], but : I can hardly believe these are basically the same people who ran DDI and birthed (and kept) the GSL.

I don't know what changed, but I'm glad it did. It's too bad my preferred edition won't benefit from it (as it is still squarely IP-locked-down), but I'm very glad the 5e fans get to have this amazing gift.

Hat off to WotC. Well played sir, _very_ well played.


----------



## Kramodlog

Parmandur said:


> Mearls has said on Twitter that Wizards has been working on this for 6 years; that would mean they conceived this with 4E in mind??




Considering how many iterations of the MtG RPG were developped by WotC over the years, this shouldn't be a surprise. 

All it took is the right combination of people in the bureaucracy.


----------



## darjr

The idea of doing this may have even sparked the idea of a new edition.


----------



## Reynard

goldomark said:


> Considering how many iterations of the MtG RPG were developped by WotC over the years, this shouldn't be a surprise.
> 
> All it took is the right combination of people in the bureaucracy.




Don't underestimate the value of timing, either. Technology and culture have evolved over the last 6 years and I have no doubt this is easier to do successfully than it would have been in 2010. It is basically paid mods for tabletop with an official store.


----------



## MoonSong

Staffan said:


> Yes, the SRD is under the OGL, but the SRD is "incomplete."
> 
> The 3.5e SRD covered almost everything mechanical about 3.5e, except certain monsters, wealth-by-level, settlement generation, and the base algorithm for making a character (Choose a race and class, roll/buy stats, select these things in this order). So it was easy for Paizo to grab the SRD, recreate the missing bits (somewhat changed - the PF WBL rules are different from D&D's, for example), and then do a tune-up to create Pathfinder from the SRD.
> 
> But the 5e SRD does not cover the same things. You only have one sub-race per race, one sub-class per class, one feat, one background, and so on. In addition many spells and monsters are missing. So if you wanted to make a complete 5e based on the SRD, you would need to make a lot of new stuff.




Yes, "incomplete". But only so much. A lot of the stuff they didn't include already was OGC, names like Assassin, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, The school names.... And you can borrow key parts from the PRD and the 3.0 SRD. Anyway that wasn't my point, my point was everything in Pathfinder is up for grabs!


----------



## rooneg

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Yes, "incomplete". But only so much. A lot of the stuff they didn't include already was OGC, names like Assassin, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, The school names.... And you can borrow key parts from the PRD and the 3.0 SRD. Anyway that wasn't my point, my point was everything in Pathfinder is up for grabs!




This, exactly this. Going from 5e SRD to playable game is a matter of pulling character creation rules, extra subraces, and some spells from Pathfinder, building a set of backgrounds, recreating the feats (or just dropping them entirely) and then fleshing out some alternative archetypes. Honestly, I don't even mind the whole "you need to make alternate archetypes" bit. Anyone who's interested in making a new 5e style game will almost certainly WANT to rebuild those, either because they don't like what WotC did with their versions or because they want archetypes that better fit into their presumed setting (imagine a Krynn style world where you have custom domains for each Deity, wizard archetypes for the 3 orders of wizardry, etc). No, you can't easily build something 100% compatible with 5e, but you can do a heck of a good job of making a something that builds on what they've given us but still breaks new ground in some places.


----------



## MoonSong

rooneg said:


> This, exactly this. Going from 5e SRD to playable game is a matter of pulling character creation rules, extra subraces, and some spells from Pathfinder, building a set of backgrounds, recreating the feats (or just dropping them entirely) and then fleshing out some alternative archetypes. Honestly, I don't even mind the whole "you need to make alternate archetypes" bit. Anyone who's interested in making a new 5e style game will almost certainly WANT to rebuild those, either because they don't like what WotC did with their versions or because they want archetypes that better fit into their presumed setting (imagine a Krynn style world where you have custom domains for each Deity, wizard archetypes for the 3 orders of wizardry, etc). No, you can't easily build something 100% compatible with 5e, but you can do a heck of a good job of making a something that builds on what they've given us but still breaks new ground in some places.




Wait no xp? what kind of approval is that? n_n

Yes, I've been thinking of making a hidden urban fantasy variant and another kind of fantasy other than medieval fantasy.


----------



## Nellisir

goldomark said:


> I guess it is the market that buys En5ider, which is compatible with 5e.



Well, I was referring to the section of the market that's only served by the DMGU, which is to say the section that needs something Forgotten Realms-related. That's how the DMGU is being pitched. The general "compatible with 5e" market doesn't require the DMGU, although that might turn out to be a more profitable sales avenue.

I'm interested in making stuff using the 5e SRD that is compatible with 5e. I'm not interested in making Forgotten Realms material. My immediate needs are met, and I don't need the DMGU, so I haven't waded through the legalese there.

Although...

If someone takes an older product, say The Code of the Harpers, and updates the spells in it to 5e, and releases it on DMGU but adds the OGL, defining all mechanics as OGC, does that actually place them under the OGL?  Not proper names or anything like that, just the basic spells themselves.  Because that'd be an interesting backdoor way to get a lot of earlier material updated and into the realm of OGC.


----------



## rooneg

Nellisir said:


> If someone takes an older product, say The Code of the Harpers, and updates the spells in it to 5e, and releases it on DMGU but adds the OGL, defining all mechanics as OGC, does that actually place them under the OGL?  Not proper names or anything like that, just the basic spells themselves.  Because that'd be an interesting backdoor way to get a lot of earlier material updated and into the realm of OGC.




Umm, there's nothing I can find anywhere that even comes close to giving you the right to relicense arbitrary content under the OGL while posting it on DMGU. Heck, it's not even clear that you can post arbitrary OGL content that you didn't create to the DMGU at all (I expect this to come up in their reddit AMA later this week). Relicensing random WotC stuff is right out.


----------



## Nellisir

rooneg said:


> Umm, there's nothing I can find anywhere that even comes close to giving you the right to relicense arbitrary content under the OGL while posting it on DMGU. Heck, it's not even clear that you can post arbitrary OGL content that you didn't create to the DMGU at all (I expect this to come up in their reddit AMA later this week). Relicensing random WotC stuff is right out.




Either the DMGU allows OGL material or it doesn't; there's no point in only allowing OGL "that you create", because then you can't even use the SRD.

Note that I'm not looking for a way to do this; I see this as an event that might very well happen, and I'm wondering how it'll play out.

So there's a 1st level spell called _blacksteel_ in _The Seven Sisters_ (_Code of the Harpers_ didn't have many spells, as it turns out.) You update it to 5e and publish it on DMGU as part of a collection called "_Spells of the Seven Sisters_", which also includes a number of spells you created. You use the OGL, and the text of all spells is compliant with the SRD & OGL. You declare all spells to be Open Game Content under the OGL. Maybe you do it because you're ignorant of the legalities, or you don't care, or whatever. You're not opening up the Simbul, or Laeral Silverhand, or any of those things that are clearly PI.

So what happens?

The easiest route that I can see is to not allow OGL material in the DMGU.


----------



## rooneg

Nellisir said:


> Either the DMGU allows OGL material or it doesn't; there's no point in only allowing OGL "that you create", because then you can't even use the SRD.
> 
> Note that I'm not looking for a way to do this; I see this as an event that might very well happen, and I'm wondering how it'll play out.
> 
> So there's a 1st level spell called _blacksteel_ in _The Seven Sisters_ (_Code of the Harpers_ didn't have many spells, as it turns out.) You update it to 5e and publish it on DMGU as part of a collection called "_Spells of the Seven Sisters_", which also includes a number of spells you created. You use the OGL, and the text of all spells is compliant with the SRD & OGL. You declare all spells to be Open Game Content under the OGL. Maybe you do it because you're ignorant of the legalities, or you don't care, or whatever. You're not opening up the Simbul, or Laeral Silverhand, or any of those things that are clearly PI.
> 
> So what happens?
> 
> The easiest route that I can see is to not allow OGL material in the DMGU.




What I'm saying is that while WotC has give you some ability to use existing Forgotten Realms stuff in things you post to DMGU, they haven't given you any right at all to license that content under the OGL. You don't get to just slap a license on something you derived from their stuff and call it a day, that's not how licenses work.


----------



## MerricB

Nellisir said:


> Either the DMGU allows OGL material or it doesn't; there's no point in only allowing OGL "that you create", because then you can't even use the SRD.
> 
> Note that I'm not looking for a way to do this; I see this as an event that might very well happen, and I'm wondering how it'll play out.
> 
> So there's a 1st level spell called _blacksteel_ in _The Seven Sisters_ (_Code of the Harpers_ didn't have many spells, as it turns out.) You update it to 5e and publish it on DMGU as part of a collection called "_Spells of the Seven Sisters_", which also includes a number of spells you created. You use the OGL, and the text of all spells is compliant with the SRD & OGL. You declare all spells to be Open Game Content under the OGL. Maybe you do it because you're ignorant of the legalities, or you don't care, or whatever. You're not opening up the Simbul, or Laeral Silverhand, or any of those things that are clearly PI.
> 
> So what happens?
> 
> The easiest route that I can see is to not allow OGL material in the DMGU.




You can't use OGL material you didn't create in the DMGU. You need to have full rights to anything you contribute to the DMGU, or it had to already be in the DMGU. Thus, any OGL material from another source (e.g. Pathfinder) is out: you don't have full rights, only a license.

You can't add DMGU stuff to the OGL because the OGL does not allow you to add additional terms to the use of the OGC, something that DMGU requires you to do.

If someone tries to add the OGL to a DMGU product, it breaches the terms of both the OGL and the DMGU.

Cheers!


----------



## Prime_Evil

prosfilaes said:


> It's been done a lot, but it makes me uncomfortable. If WotC was more litigious about this, "floating eyeballers" seems like a perfect target for a copyright suit. I think it much more honorable to just go a different way. Between the SRD MM, the three Tomes of Horrors, three Creature Collections, the 5 Pathfinder Bestiaries and any number of other D&D/PF/OSR bestiaries, there's another option. Note what Paizo did to replace the Slaad; they produced the Proteans that fulfilled the need for CN outsiders without being the least bit like the Slaad.




Actually, this is an interesting case.

 I met the science fiction author Charles Stross at a book signing a few years back and got him to sign my copy of the 1e Fiend Folio. While I was talking to him, he indicated that he never granted the UK subsiduary of TSR perpetual rights to any of the creatures that he created (slaadi, githyanki, githzerai, and death knight). So the subsequent use of them by TSR / WoTC in publications may violate his copyright  

He seemed quite amused by this fact, but wasn't really bothered by it. However, it it possible that WoTC may not actually own the copyright to *some* of the creatures that they claim as Product Identity unless they have entered into a seperate licensing agreement with the original author. I wouldn't want to be the one to test that theory in court though  

It would be interesting to know the legal status of the other third-party contributions to D&D canon from the Fiend Folio if the contracts didn't grant TSR perpetual rights to them, although this probably isn't a can of worms that anybody wants to open.


----------



## Nellisir

MerricB said:


> You can't use OGL material you didn't create in the DMGU. You need to have full rights to anything you contribute to the DMGU, or it had to already be in the DMGU. Thus, any OGL material from another source (e.g. Pathfinder) is out: you don't have full rights, only a license.
> 
> You can't add DMGU stuff to the OGL because the OGL does not allow you to add additional terms to the use of the OGC, something that DMGU requires you to do.
> 
> If someone tries to add the OGL to a DMGU product, it breaches the terms of both the OGL and the DMGU.
> 
> Cheers!




Ergo, there's absolutely no point in using the OGL in anything you publish on DMGU because legally, you can't even use the SRD. (Obv. you can use the PHB/MM/DMG). Cool.

Thanks!


----------



## Nellisir

rooneg said:


> What I'm saying is that while WotC has give you some ability to use existing Forgotten Realms stuff in things you post to DMGU, they haven't given you any right at all to license that content under the OGL. You don't get to just slap a license on something you derived from their stuff and call it a day, that's not how licenses work.




Tou can create a clone of a spell by rephrasing/rewriting the text. That's been done. Extensively. The mechanics aren't copyright-able, just their expression. What you can't do is call it "Spells of the Seven Sisters", identify it as a Forgotten Realms product, and sell it. Except that now you can.


MerricB points out the basic issue though, which is that the OGL itself isn't compatible with the DMGU, so it's either OGL or DMGU. Doesn't really negate the concept, but does take it down a few pegs.


----------



## MechaPilot

I have to admit to some confusion here based on the checklist on the SRD announcement page.

"I want to publish my original campaign world using fifth edition rules" has an X in the OGL column, but "I want to sell my product in the D&D online marketplace" has an X in the DM's Guild column.  Does that mean that you cannot make your own setting using 5e rules and offer it in the marketplace?


----------



## Yaarel

Nellisir said:


> First of all, you still hold the copyright to material you release under the OGL. The OGL is an additional license that allows you to use other people IP in exchange for sharing your own.
> 
> That said, I consider declaring the proper names of characters, places, events, and so forth Product Identity, and making everything else OGC, to be the default, baseline option. It is, in large part, exactly as complicated as you chose to make it.
> 
> For instance, you write a new spell. You could call it _Ygart's Goldenfist_, or you could call it _goldenfist_. The first is more complicated than the second. If you interweave a lot of fluff material into the mechanics of the spell ("Ygart hated dwarves, and the spell inflicts double damage on dwarves."), it's more complicated than if you put the fluff in one paragraph and the description of the spell effect in a separate paragraph. (I'd say the latter is also better writing.)
> 
> You can also use different fonts to designate PI from OGC. Atlas Games did this on some occasions. I thought it was a big hassle.
> 
> Overall, I think the more difficult you make your OGC, the less reward you're going to get out of it. There are publishers I stopped buying from because their declarations were intentionally obscure. There are products I picked up because I knew I could reuse parts of them, if I wanted to, without leaping through giant hoops.
> 
> The hard fact is that almost everyone who's inclined to self-publish thinks their stuff is better than yours, and your stuff isn't worth stealing. If they do think yours is better, then it's probably good enough to have a significant audience that will recognize a plagarized product, since your audience and the ripoff artist's audience are the same.
> 
> If you're really concerned that no one else use a really awesome monster you created, or a spell, or a feat, then you're probably better off not publishing at all, or creating your own system and not using the OGL, rather than trying to build a private palace on a public foundation.




I appreciate your various comments, Nellisir.

The point of the example of the spell wasnt so much to prevent it from becoming Open content. But concerns about plagiarizing the SRD5, by failing to ‘clearly’ attribute entangled/blended/modified derivative material, that derives from the SRD5. I know the OGL explicitly allows derivation and modification, but that word ‘clearly’ concerned me because derivative material is anything except clear. Where the source material ends and the new creative material begins is normally inherently unclear.

In these discussions, the ‘clearest’ way to attribute Open Content for any product, is to also create a separate SRD-like document that lists all of the rules that the product uses. That way, the new content that is intended for Open use is clearly spelled out for others to reuse without worries. Also, comparing the new SRD-like document with the source SRD5 document makes it clear which terms are being used and how they are being modified.

Pathfinder does something like this via their PF SRD, spelling out Open Content in the clearest way possible. I havent read it yet, but Morris says he does something similar, by continually adding Open Content to a section of this website. Comparing the PF SRD with the 3e d20 SRD makes it ‘clear’ what Pathfinder is using and how - without requiring ten million footnotes.


----------



## Xohar17

MechaPilot said:


> I have to admit to some confusion here based on the checklist on the SRD announcement page.
> 
> "I want to publish my original campaign world using fifth edition rules" has an X in the OGL column, but "I want to sell my product in the D&D online marketplace" has an X in the DM's Guild column.  Does that mean that you cannot make your own setting using 5e rules and offer it in the marketplace?




That is correct, you can only publish forgotten realms, and setting agnostic content on tje DMGuild, if you want to publish your own seting you can use the OGL


----------



## pkt77242

delericho said:


> I don't think so, for various reasons.
> 
> A lot of the early issues are in a bit of a limbo copyright-wise - some authors retained some rights while others did not, and some of the contracts are unavailable for checking. Effectively, nobody can use that material.
> 
> Anything in the modern era (at least issue 251 onwards) is copyright WotC, and _may_ be useable. *But I think they're only currently allowing FR-specific things to be added. So any FR-specific monsters should be fine, but anything else is probably still off-limits.*
> 
> In any case, it might be best to drop them a line - this does sound like the sort of thing they might be quite keen to see on DMguild, so they may well be happy for you to go ahead.
> 
> A very important note: I'm not a lawyer. If you're going to publish, you'll want to consult one.




Huh?  I believe that setting agnostic things (adventures, monsters, classes, etc) are allowed as well.


----------



## Hussar

One good thing I can see coming out of having a centralized hub for OGC is it makes it much easier for cross pollination. In the early days of the OHL, there was very little of that and we had a lot of overlapping products for very small niches. For example I own four OGL versions of 3e naval rules which all are pretty similar.

This way, if someone were to write a supplement, hopefully their first job would be to check the site and see what's already been written. Then either go in a new direction or directly build on existing OGC. 

So instead of four standalone naval books, maybe we get one with three add ons building off the first. 

That's my hope anyway.


----------



## Yaarel

Elderbrain said:


> Question: I see that certain things were left out of the OGL (some subraces, spells, subclasses, and stats for certain monsters such as the Mind Flayer, etc.) Does this mean that if I publish my own campaign world, I cannot even MENTION the existence of such things? (i.e. "The Darkforge cavern complex, once controlled by Dwarves, is now infested with Mind Flayers.") I can't state that a given forest is populated by Wood Elves, just High Elves or generic "Elves"? Can I state something along the lines of "All the classes and races in the PH exist in the World of Redilia, and are available for PCs to choose from"?




You create a non-Realms setting, using OGL. You use the ‘High Elf’ subrace from the SRD5. But it omits the ‘Wood Elf’.

Normally this means, the Wood Elf is off limits, and you cannot use it. But in this case there is a work around.

The OGL applies to both the SRD5 and also still applies to the original SRD3.

In fact, the SRD3 happens to mention various Elf subraces, so you can legally use any of these if you want:

Wood Elf, High Elf, Gray Elf, Dark Elf (Drow), Wild Elf, plus Aquatic Elf.

And because the OGL allows you to modify SRD3 content, you can tweak them or even drastically reinvent them, to however makes sense in your setting.

Because the SRD3 includes Unearthed Arcana race variants, there is an enormous amount to play with.


----------



## delericho

pkt77242 said:


> Huh?  I believe that setting agnostic things (adventures, monsters, classes, etc) are allowed as well.




They're allowing people to add setting-agnostic things, but I _think_ that at the moment they're only allowing us to reference WotC material that is either 5e-based or FR material. So if you want to add a homebrew setting-agnostic monster, they're quite happy. If you want to add a converted FR monster, they're quite happy.

But (I think) a converted setting-agnostic monster remains a no-no for the time being.

But note that I may well be wrong about that - obviously DMguild is very new and things are moving very fast, so I'm not going to claim to be an expert!


----------



## MonsterEnvy

delericho said:


> But (I think) a converted setting-agnostic monster remains a no-no for the time being.




Nah it's fine. One of the first things released was a book of extra demons that did not yet have stats for 5e. Like the Buleazu, Maw Demon and Scion of Zuggtmoy. All of which are Setting Agnostic.


----------



## delericho

MonsterEnvy said:


> Nah it's fine. One of the first things released was a book of extra demons that did not yet have stats for 5e. Like the Buleazu, Maw Demon and Scion of Zuggtmoy. All of which are Setting Agnostic.




I've checked and... yep, you're right. Good call.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Umbran said:


> Yes, and I think that's a *good* thing, not a failure.  Much as some folks may suggest, I don't think there's much evidence that drinking from the fire hose from day one is actually beneficial.  Taking a longer (and thus more *patient*) view, this seems like a good time for such a move.




I don't think it should've come out day 1 either. But making people wait for well over a year, with the only word being a single mention or two of "that hasn't stopped being a thing, but we can't say anything at all about how, or when, or what, and _especially_ not why."


----------



## Mark CMG

Xohar17 said:


> That is correct, you can only publish forgotten realms, and setting agnostic content on tje DMGuild, if you want to publish your own seting you can use the OGL





"As you journey down the Sword Coast you happen upon a portal.  Stepping through you find yourself in a land with a different amount of moons and no tieflings or dragonborn, plus no monks cause they just would seem out of place with the Medieval-esque theme.  A pair of horsemen ride up and greet you, 'Welcome to the Recalled Lands!  Beware the Nostalgiabeasts and don't stray far of Memory Lane!'"


----------



## BoldItalic

Mark CMG said:


> "As you journey down the Sword Coast you happen upon a portal.  Stepping through you find yourself in a land with a different amount of moons and no tieflings or dragonborn, plus no monks cause they just would seem out of place with the Medieval-esque theme.  A pair of horsemen ride up and greet you, 'Welcome to the Recalled Lands!  Beware the Nostalgiabeasts and don't stray far of Memory Lane!'"




The Agnostica Sagas. Book I. Where a Roman legion led by Julius Caesar invades the Sword Coast through a teleportation circle in Luskan, overthrows the government and renames all the towns, rivers, mountains and so on, and all the inhabitants are forced to take Roman names and worship Roman gods or be thrown to the lions in the circus but it's still the Forgotten Realms really, isn't it?

"You meet in the Pax Romana tavern in Numquam-Hibernia. A very short, stout person called Gimlius Pumilio introduces himself ..."


----------



## Remathilis

Mark CMG said:


> "As you journey down the Sword Coast you happen upon a portal.  Stepping through you find yourself in a land with a different amount of moons and no tieflings or dragonborn, plus no monks cause they just would seem out of place with the Medieval-esque theme.  A pair of horsemen ride up and greet you, 'Welcome to the Recalled Lands!  Beware the Nostalgiabeasts and don't stray far of Memory Lane!'"



The OGL would better suit your idea. I believe the goal of the DM Guild is to support D&D in a more generic way; producing things that can dropped in with minimum fuss or effort. A new race, a couple subclasses or spells, an adventure site, etc. I don't think they want alternate settings with radical departures from the established lore. The OGL is there for the more radical changes.


----------



## Mark CMG

Remathilis said:


> The OGL would better suit your idea. I believe the goal of the DM Guild is to support D&D in a more generic way; producing things that can dropped in with minimum fuss or effort. A new race, a couple subclasses or spells, an adventure site, etc. I don't think they want alternate settings with radical departures from the established lore. The OGL is there for the more radical changes.


----------



## Mercule

I'm A Banana said:


> I'd wager that, as WotC explores more worlds in an official capacity, they'll add more worlds to the playground for people to support. But you know, they don't want you publishing Shemmy's Guide to the Planes before they put their official stamp on it.



This is how I'm interpreting it, as well. I was all set to go on an anti-Realms diatribe, then I actually _read_ the FAQ and some of the other stuff. They explicitly call out that they intend to support other settings in the future. 

I'd guess that "shortly" after Eberron (for sake of argument) is released, it'll be added to the acceptable content on the DM Guild. That's incredibly savvy of them. WotC gets to set a stable baseline for important setting mechanics, which is really the most critical thing for 5E publication. Then, they get to tell the community to put its money where its mouth is. If folks will support Keith Baker coming back and releasing a 20 part series of Eberron adventures or drilling down into the inner workings of the Sovereign Host politics, there are literally no losers. If WotC is right that the Realms is the only setting worth giving much support, then they've lost nothing, either.

It'd be great if they made it easy to search by actual author, though -- if the hypothetical series from Keith were to materialize, I'd want to be able to find it easily. Also, we could see certain authors end up taking up the mantle for certain settings; maybe Shemmy can build a following for Planescape.

Now, WotC just needs to get cranking on those baseline Adventure's Guide products, already.


----------



## delericho

I agree with just about all of your post, but...



Mercule said:


> I'd guess that "shortly" after Eberron (for sake of argument) is released, it'll be added to the acceptable content on the DM Guild.




Actually, I'm less convinced now that Eberron will be published for 5e, at all. If we accept the numbers WotC have given before, the only settings with particularly large followings are FR and Greyhawk (at 5%), with other settings at 1-2%. So those other settings may well not be worth their while.

So I wouldn't be surprised to see an "Eberron Conversion Guide" appear on DMguild before too long, with the gates for that setting opening at the same time, but with no in-print products for the setting at all. And then the same for "Dark Sun", "Planescape", or whatever else.


----------



## darjr

Bit what constitutes support? If it isn't worth supporting with books maybe a string of web and dragon+ articles could be enough.


----------



## delericho

darjr said:


> Bit what constitutes support? If it isn't worth supporting with books maybe a string of web and dragon+ articles could be enough.




Enough for whom? Some people may well be happy with those web and D+ articles, some will be satisfied with DMguild support, while for some others nothing short of full in-print support would be enough.

Obviously, I have no idea where the majority falls - my guess is that that's probably DMguild support (now that people know that's an option), and my guess further is that in-print support is probably not worth it (beyond maybe one book), but I may of course be wrong about either or both of those.


----------



## WackyAnne

Mercule said:


> It'd be great if they made it easy to search by actual author, though -- if the hypothetical series from Keith were to materialize, I'd want to be able to find it easily. Also, we could see certain authors end up taking up the mantle for certain settings; maybe Shemmy can build a following for Planescape.




You can easily search by author in two ways. 1) by entering the author's name in the search field at the top of almost any page OR 2) by clicking on the author's name on the product page.

I do wish that they had separate publishers, though, to make it easier to search for companies with which you already have good experiences with. I guess they needed an easy way for people to identify what constituted DMsG, but I'm not satisfied that this was the best solution.


----------



## Mark CMG

darjr said:


> Bit what constitutes support? If it isn't worth supporting with books maybe a string of web and dragon+ articles could be enough.





DMGuild *is* essentially a Dragon+/Dungeon+ setup.  They've got a bunch of freelancers and outside designers writing up adventures and FR/D&D support for the digital market.  The main difference being that WotC avoids the overhead and the market determines which articles/supplements/offerings will be evergreen.


----------



## darjr

I only meant enough support for wotc to decide to include it as an option to the guild.


----------



## delericho

darjr said:


> I only meant enough support for wotc to decide to include it as an option to the guild.




Ah, I see. My suspicion, though, is that that's more or less a non-issue - that that "enough support" bar is _very_ low indeed.


----------



## darjr

I hope so. I really do. And now that you've said it I agree. Especially for the smallest settings.


----------



## Mistwell

EzekielRaiden said:


> I don't think it should've come out day 1 either. But making people wait for well over a year, with the only word being a single mention or two of "that hasn't stopped being a thing, but we can't say anything at all about how, or when, or what, and _especially_ not why."




Just to be clear, it's 13 months since the last core book was released (the DMG).  Not really "well over" a year, just a month over a year.


----------



## Mercule

delericho said:


> Actually, I'm less convinced now that Eberron will be published for 5e, at all. If we accept the numbers WotC have given before, the only settings with particularly large followings are FR and Greyhawk (at 5%), with other settings at 1-2%. So those other settings may well not be worth their while.
> 
> So I wouldn't be surprised to see an "Eberron Conversion Guide" appear on DMguild before too long, with the gates for that setting opening at the same time, but with no in-print products for the setting at all. And then the same for "Dark Sun", "Planescape", or whatever else.



I can see your point, but remain optimistic, for now. In some cases (Greyhawk, actually), a conversion guide is really all that would be necessary -- if even that much. For Greyhawk, it might still make sense to do a full AG. Since I have zero insight into the profit margin, etc. for an AG, I can't say. I think the "best" thing to do would be to release any AGs that are at least break-even, but my "best" leans towards support over profit and variety of settings explicitly at the cost of any setting monopoly.


----------



## Bugleyman

BoldItalic said:


> I can arrange for a Nigerian bank to look after the dollars for you ...




Lies.  Everyone knows Nigerian banks exist solely to distribute lost lottery winnings.


----------



## CapnZapp

delericho said:


> I agree with just about all of your post, but...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm less convinced now that Eberron will be published for 5e, at all. If we accept the numbers WotC have given before, the only settings with particularly large followings are FR and Greyhawk (at 5%), with other settings at 1-2%. So those other settings may well not be worth their while.
> 
> So I wouldn't be surprised to see an "Eberron Conversion Guide" appear on DMguild before too long, with the gates for that setting opening at the same time, but with no in-print products for the setting at all. And then the same for "Dark Sun", "Planescape", or whatever else.



Sounds about right.

No sense in actively publishing stuff only a small percentage of the customer base will buy.

Better to focus on FR and world-independent products which hopefully we'll in excess of 50% buy.

And then pointing to the OGL if somebody accuses them of preventing you from playing in your campaign world of choice. 

The point is to get everyone aboard the 5e ship without actually having to produce any loss leaders (such as supplements not specific to FR that also double as the "generic" world)


----------



## CapnZapp

delericho said:


> Enough for whom? Some people may well be happy with those web and D+ articles, some will be satisfied with DMguild support, while for some others nothing short of full in-print support would be enough.
> 
> Obviously, I have no idea where the majority falls - my guess is that that's probably DMguild support (now that people know that's an option), and my guess further is that in-print support is probably not worth it (beyond maybe one book), but I may of course be wrong about either or both of those.



I have a strong preference for official printed books from WotC, and consider everything else second tier, mostly because of the perceived difference in quality control.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Mistwell said:


> Just to be clear, it's 13 months since the last core book was released (the DMG).  Not really "well over" a year, just a month over a year.




While that's fair, that book was also delayed two months after its original intended publication date. For good reasons, but still.

And, unless my memory is failing me (the traitorous jerk it is...) they were talking about a 5e OGL before even the PHB launched. Actually, no, it looks like my memory gets to live another day; the OGL stuff was originally..."implied," since the original announcement is classic mention-the-question-but-don't-actually-answer-it business speak. So that's more than a year and a half (nineteen and a half months) since we first heard about it officially.

I also _meant_ "day 1" to refer to the PHB launch, or at very least the MM (Sep 30--call it an October launch). Which would still be "well over" a year (about three and a half months) we'd been waiting. I admit I flubbed the publication dates pretty bad in my first post (15 months ago would've been slightly before the MM launch), but still, some benefit of the doubt, eh?

And I still strongly, strongly feel that taking _slightly_ more than a year since the publication of your final, delayed core book, while saying _basically nothing_ that entire time? Not the best move. Yes, it's good to wait, even after the main books are published; I'd have said six, MAYBE eight months on the outside (which would've nicely coincided with the PHB launch, sort of a "one year later" celebration). It would have assuaged much of the "zomg, they're not writing ANYTHING AT ALL" fears.

Edit:
Particularly when, according to that announcement, the launch was _supposed_ to have occurred in "early 2015." I get that the jury duty thing messed up some schedules, but a delay of approximately a year (since it's now "early 2016") is a bit hard to swallow.


----------



## neobolts

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Large portions of Pathfinder material were released as open content under the OGL. The SRD5 creates a new and comfortable way to use most 5e terms and rules under the OGL. Therefore, there are no meaningful barriers to fans converting Pathfinder open content to 5e and selling it.


----------



## delericho

CapnZapp said:


> I have a strong preference for official printed books from WotC, and consider everything else second tier, mostly because of the perceived difference in quality control.




I certainly agree on the preference for print (as I've just mentioned on another thread). I'm not so insistent on WotC-only, as some of the top-tier third party producers have a track record of _excellent_ products. In particular, it's hard to argue that Kobold Press, Sasquatch, or Green Ronin represent a loss of quality. 

(But, yeah, there was also a lot of 3pp in the 3e era that produced poor products. I fully intend to be more picky this time out. Of course, I also said that last time...)


----------



## Reynard

I think it would be interesting if they opened up a setting they don't plan on supporting at all to the DMGuild community. Imagine if they decided Mystara belonged to the fans and while there would never be an official support for the setting, DMGuild support was open to everyone. That seems a better strategy than to created a confused "canon" with a lot of fan made and semi-pro material for a setting like FR that is not only still active but their flagship.

Personally, I want Eberron to open up. I could write all day for that pulp, almost technomagical setting.


----------



## Mark CMG

Reynard said:


> I think it would be interesting if they opened up a setting they don't plan on supporting at all to the DMGuild community.





Maybe they will but I don't see that feeding the meter.


----------



## Mark CMG

EzekielRaiden said:


> While that's fair, that book was also delayed two months after its original intended publication date. For good reasons, but still.
> 
> And, unless my memory is failing me (the traitorous jerk it is...) they were talking about a 5e OGL before even the PHB launched. Actually, no, it looks like my memory gets to live another day; the OGL stuff was originally..."implied," since the original announcement is classic mention-the-question-but-don't-actually-answer-it business speak. So that's more than a year and a half (nineteen and a half months) since we first heard about it officially.





Yeah, they missed a huge opportunity not going OGL right from the get-go and having OGC solutions to playtesting problems.  I really thought if they were going to go OGL for this D&D edition, it would have been done early and would have taking advantage of the vast amount of collective design talent they helped spark in the early part of the century.  Funny, how a decade and a half later they are just beginning to understand the lightning in the bottle they discovered and find ways to harness it themselves.  We'll see what 6E does with it but at least this is promising that the stewards of D&D are waking from their slumbers.


----------



## darjr

They did say something. In fact they said an OGL was coming. Repeatedly.


----------



## Nylanfs

darjr said:


> They did say something. In fact they said an OGL was coming. Repeatedly.



But they were obviously lying. ..


----------



## dnoonan

delericho said:


> I certainly agree on the preference for print (as I've just mentioned on another thread). I'm not so insistent on WotC-only, as some of the top-tier third party producers have a track record of _excellent_ products. In particular, it's hard to argue that Kobold Press, Sasquatch, or Green Ronin represent a loss of quality.
> 
> (But, yeah, there was also a lot of 3pp in the 3e era that produced poor products. I fully intend to be more picky this time out. Of course, I also said that last time...)




I think the theory is that the review/ratings system will let the really good content float to the top. Sometimes that works in a marketplace like this; sometimes it doesn't. It all depends on the mindset of the community that coalesces around it.

As someone with content up on DMs Guild right now (Monster Mausoleum, a book of 17 undead monsters)--and considering doing quite a lot of content for DMs Guild--the tricky thing is figuring out what people actually want. WotC has indicated to content creators that they want one-session adventures, monster conversions, and new backgrounds, but I'm not entirely sure whether that's based on actual customer demand or a more abstract "here's what we fondly wish was out there."

Do more people want deep FR connections, or would they prefer largely setting-agnostic material (maybe with "____ in the Realms" sidebars)? We just don't know. Would a mega-adventure there sell? What about a Big Book O' Feats? A "Nuke It Back to the Gray Box" FR book?

The breadth of design territory is pretty huge--huge enough that I'm not entirely certain what to tackle next. For customers, that hugeness manifests in another dilemma: how to find what's actually good. Maybe the whole thing will descend into a morass of unplaytested home-brew stuff, and the great stuff will be so obscured that you can't find it without a _true seeing_ spell. 

I suspect it'll wind up like an app store. Ratings will be key, and the vast amount of sales activity will be restricted to the lucky/good products that can claw their way onto the "hottest titles" list. That's fine as far as it goes, but it means that some great stuff will languish in obscurity.

--David Noonan.


----------



## Umbran

Mark CMG said:


> Funny, how a decade and a half later they are just beginning to understand the lightning in the bottle they discovered and find ways to harness it themselves.




I think *not* harnessing it too fast was a feature, not a bug.  Having another firehose of product from the very start was probably the *opposite* of what they desired, and if I recall correctly, they said as much.  They are not looking for lightning from this edition - lighting is strong and bright, and over very soon.


----------



## Morrus

dnoonan said:


> I think the theory is that the review/ratings system will let the really good content float to the top. Sometimes that works in a marketplace like this; sometimes it doesn't. It all depends on the mindset of the community that coalesces around it.




I assume it's just DTRPG's rating system?  I think it works OK for DTRPG, but most every publisher has the same 4-star rating. There's a similar mix of quality on DTRPG an RPGNow as I expect this new site will have.


----------



## delericho

dnoonan said:


> A "Nuke It Back to the Gray Box" FR book?




I would be _really_ interested to see what happened if someone did that. Especially if that someone had the initials E.G.

For the rest of your post: I agree, there are lots of unknowns. Interesting times. (And perhaps the most exciting time for D&D since the original launch of the OGL.)


----------



## dnoonan

Morrus said:


> I assume it's just DTRPG's rating system?  I think it works OK for DTRPG, but most every publisher has the same 4-star rating. There's a similar mix of quality on DTRPG an RPGNow as I expect this new site will have.




Mostly the same, but with one big difference: no publisher listed beyond "DMs Guild." If you want to follow someone's work, you have to track them as an author or artist. If big multi-creator compilations start showing up, that'll be less effective.

--David Noonan.


----------



## Mark CMG

Umbran said:


> I think *not* harnessing it too fast was a feature, not a bug.





I'd agree, if they had done the same with 4E.  This is just a matter of not being able to find a way of doing it in line with their business plan.  Your false analogy misses my metaphor and assumes I mean they should have set it up as they did in 3.XE days and kept the lightning burning fast and bright.  Harnessing the lightning means turning it into the steady stream of electricity they seem to have set up now, which I contend they would have done sooner if they had figured out how.  Your analogy assumes they knew all along the best way to do this but chose to wait.  You're wrong, of course, and what happened with the GSL speaks to that truth.


----------



## darjr

Speaking of 4e is it now locked away from all of this? It isn't OGL so it can't be used with either the 3rd or 5th SRD.

Another reason it should have been OGL.


----------



## lkj

It's of course impossible for me to know the inner workings of WotC and the processes they have to go through to get something like this approved. But my guess is that there are folk at WotC who have known for a long time that this was a good solution, but that working it through the legal and business channels that are required just takes a really, really long time. It's why the OGL took so long, why we still don't have an officially licensed character creator, etc. It's just the way it is. And it probably follows that old software rule: 'It always takes twice as long as you expect, even if you take that into account'. So, sure, they wanted this all to happen a few months after release. Maybe they thought they'd use the Trapdoor license to pull it off (as you may recall, their intended model wasn't all that different than this in concept even if it was in design). But, ultimately, it just couldn't come together that fast. There are likely big advantages to being under a big corporation-- e.g, being able to support a long playtest without bringing in significant income; having bigger reach in terms of product distribution, etc. But there are costs-- a cranky legal department that isn't necessarily versed in the inner workings of a relatively small market. 

All that said-- One thing I'll say about the 5e WotC team-- However long it takes, most of the time, they seem to get it about right and deliver beyond expectations. So, sure, I wish they'd opened this up 6 months after release. But., holy cow, however long it took, look at what they did! I mean, I'm fairly flabbergasted that they found a way to open up Forgotten Realms IP and let people play in the playground. It makes me very optimistic for other settings. I hope this thing rocks.

Cheers,
AD


----------



## Umbran

Mark CMG said:


> Your analogy assumes they knew all along the best way to do this but chose to wait.  You're wrong, of course, and what happened with the GSL speaks to that truth.




Actually, what happened with the GSL suggests I am right.  We are armchair executives, speaking out of pure speculation.  They tried the OGL route, saw how it worked.  They then tried the GSL route, and saw how it worked.  

They saw the impact of the open-from-early-on floodgate.  They saw the impact of the stifling GSL.  And, go figure, they find the best bet is in the middle.  I am unsurprised.

But yeah, if you want to contend you know better than the folks with sales data, it's a free country.


----------



## Mark CMG

Umbran said:


> Actually, what happened with the GSL suggests I am right.  We are armchair executives, speaking out of pure speculation.  They tried the OGL route, saw how it worked.  They then tried the GSL route, and saw how it worked.
> 
> They saw the impact of the open-from-early-on floodgate.  They saw the impact of the stifling GSL.





They are doing the OGL route now.  As I said in my original post with which you disagreed, they have learned how to harness it.  You're arguing with a small portion of what I said while ignoring the rest of it to fit your floodgate/firehose analogy and acting like they knew all along how to do so but chose to wait until now.


----------



## Umbran

Mark CMG said:


> You're arguing with a small portion of what I said...




Small part?  Two out of the four sentences, 63 out of the 114 words, were about how you thought they should have done it earlier, with which I disagree - the firehose effect of opening with the OGL was wise to avoid.  The third and fourth are about how they are slow to learn, and "waking from slumber", with which I also disagree - they have been awake the whole time, they simply just had to try things before coming to a conclusion based on evidence (a process that takes time), rather than on speculation of people who don't interact with the market on anything like the same scale they do.  

So, I argue against the whole thing.  I only quoted one bit as a springboard.


----------



## Mark CMG

Umbran said:


> (. . .) you thought they should have done it earlier, with which I disagree - the firehose effect of opening with the OGL was wise to avoid.





What they are doing now can be regulated.  There is no firehose effect like with the d20 STL.  Doing what they are doing now but earlier doesn't require the firehose.  What they are doing now is a harness on the lightning they once captured in a bottle.  I don't know how to make it any more plain.  I explain it and you quote me and then argue as if you haven't read what I posted in context.


----------



## Dausuul

This is a glorious day. I was expecting a less-restrictive GSL, maybe, someday; instead, Wizards has gone full OGL with 5E! Sure, it'd have been nice to get it sooner, but whatever; I'm not about to complain. FULL OGL, guys. Can we all please quit griping for just a week or so?


----------



## Nylanfs

Dausuul said:


> This is a glorious day. I was expecting a less-restrictive GSL, maybe, someday; instead, Wizards has gone full OGL with 5E! Sure, it'd have been nice to get it sooner, but whatever; I'm not about to complain. FULL OGL, guys. Can we all please quit griping for just a week or so?




Man, I wish this was my first day on the Internet also. ;P


----------



## mach1.9pants

I wonder if publishers, such as Kobold Press, could list Kobold Press as an author of their works so we could easily track the 3p publishers we support. Rather than having everything DMsG/DMSG/whatever acronym we end up using


----------



## Orlax

As far as acronym why don't we just call it the guild.  As in, "Hey guys I have a new product up on the Guild", or maybe even DMGuild.


----------



## MReav

Orlax said:


> As far as acronym why don't we just call it the guild.  As in, "Hey guys I have a new product up on the Guild", or maybe even DMGuild.




The website calls it the DMSGuild, so, why don't we make the acronym DMsG.


----------



## Morrus

MReav said:


> The website calls it the DMSGuild, so, why don't we make the acronym DMsG.




Acronyms which require you to change form upper to lower case halfway through are the work of the devil.


----------



## MReav

Morrus said:


> Acronyms which require you to change form upper to lower case halfway through are the work of the devil.




ODMG? Online Dungeon Master's Guild?

Edits: WDMGC (Www.DMsGuild.Com
PS: How do I get it so that I don't receive email notifications when I get quoted?
PPS: Settings->User Tagging->Settings, Disable Quote Emails.


----------



## darjr

MReav is the devil! I knew it! But I like it.


----------



## Reynard

MReav said:


> PS: How do I get it so that I don't receive email notifications when I get quoted?




I don't know.


----------



## Miladoon

Morrus said:


> Acronyms which require you to change form upper to lower case halfway through are the work of the devil.




You just made the day of every monster in the MM that starts with a D.


----------



## Curmudjinn

So, who's assembling the teams on here to make amazing 5e adventures and expansions? The monetary part is nice, but I'm mainly interested in being able to contribute to something special, with intrigue and depth.


----------



## BoldItalic

Curmudjinn said:


> So, who's assembling the teams on here to make amazing 5e adventures and expansions? The monetary part is nice, but I'm mainly interested in being able to contribute to something special, with intrigue and depth.



First, you need to contribute a solo item that gets highly rated and sells lots of copies. Then you look for people who have done the same and PM them offering to collaborate. Then you find out that not everyone who is creative is easy to work with ...


----------



## TrinityDM

Why not "DMGL" (contrasts nicely with "OGL")?

BTW, what's the skinny on releasing software products, such as a character tracker? Is this dealt with specifically anywhere?


----------



## Yaarel

Morrus said:


> I assume it's just DTRPG's rating system?  I think it works OK for DTRPG, but most every publisher has the same 4-star rating. There's a similar mix of quality on DTRPG an RPGNow as I expect this new site will have.




The cool thing is, when certain products rise in popularity, WotC has a legal right to borrow from it, and can even elevate it into official canon.

This is good for the game.


----------



## Morrus

TrinityDM said:


> Why not "DMGL" (contrasts nicely with "OGL")?
> 
> BTW, what's the skinny on releasing software products, such as a character tracker? Is this dealt with specifically anywhere?




The OGL doesn't deal specifically with the format of your product.


----------



## Nellisir

neobolts said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong:
> Large portions of Pathfinder material were released as open content under the OGL. The SRD5 creates a new and comfortable way to use most 5e terms and rules under the OGL. Therefore, there are no meaningful barriers to fans converting Pathfinder open content to 5e and selling it.




Correct.


----------



## Staffan

TrinityDM said:


> Why not "DMGL" (contrasts nicely with "OGL")?
> 
> BTW, what's the skinny on releasing software products, such as a character tracker? Is this dealt with specifically anywhere?






Morrus said:


> The OGL doesn't deal specifically with the format of your product.




True. But it does say: "8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content."

From the OGL FAQ:
_*Q: I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?*

A: Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.

One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs.

Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasn't studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used._

As I understand it, PCGen dealt with that by having the data in XML files.


----------



## AverageCitizen

It seems like a selling point here is supposed to be that your work published in the DMG (we're adults, we can understand context, guys, come on) will "be considered" for future publication by Wizards. But, it also seems that if they do publish it, they are under not obligation to pay you any more for it or even acknowledge that you wrote it.


----------



## Staffan

AverageCitizen said:


> It seems like a selling point here is supposed to be that your work published in the DMG (we're adults, we can understand context, guys, come on) will "be considered" for future publication by Wizards. But, it also seems that if they do publish it, they are under not obligation to pay you any more for it or even acknowledge that you wrote it.




As I understand it, Wizards are themselves bound by the rules of the DM's Guild. So they could release something on the Guild based on your stuff, and thereby give it over to everyone else to mess with. But if they want to publish an actual book, they would need your agreement.

Also, if Wizards used this as an opportunity to rip people off the backlash would be mighty.


----------



## MoonSong

AverageCitizen said:


> It seems like a selling point here is supposed to be that your work published in the DMG (we're adults, we can understand context, guys, come on) will "be considered" for future publication by Wizards. But, it also seems that if they do publish it, they are under not obligation to pay you any more for it or even acknowledge that you wrote it.




Well this "not obligated to publish" worries me. By submitting to DMsG you basically renounce the chance to publish it anywhere else. I'm not sure what happens if they decide your content has to be removed. Effectively you have rennounced your right to publish it anywhere else, and they are under no obligation to publish it so it is gone forever. This worries me more because I don't know if they count pictures as part of the content you give them exlcusive perpetual license to.


----------



## Sacrosanct

If you're worried about Wizards republishing your stuff and not paying you any more, or taking it down, then sounds like the OGL option is what's best for you.  They aren't forcing anyone to use the DM's Guild.

But I'm betting dollars to donuts that for 99.99% of the people who use the DM's Guild, they would end up making more money there than if they did by selling it themselves using the more restrictive OGL.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't an earlier comment state that publishing to the DMs Guild does not grant WotC permission to publish one's work outside of the Guild?

A user still owns their work, the various permissions granted for users to repurpose that work notwithstanding.


----------



## AverageCitizen

Sacrosanct said:


> If you're worried about Wizards republishing your stuff and not paying you any more, or taking it down, then sounds like the OGL option is what's best for you.  They aren't forcing anyone to use the DM's Guild.
> 
> But I'm betting dollars to donuts that for 99.99% of the people who use the DM's Guild, they would end up making more money there than if they did by selling it themselves using the more restrictive OGL.




I'll grant that. It just seems odd that they are holding out "chance for further publication" like a carrot when it may, in fact, sting a little to see your work further distributed without anything to show for it.


----------



## MoonSong

Sacrosanct said:


> If you're worried about Wizards republishing your stuff and not paying you any more, or taking it down, then sounds like the OGL option is what's best for you.  They aren't forcing anyone to use the DM's Guild.
> 
> But I'm betting dollars to donuts that for 99.99% of the people who use the DM's Guild, they would end up making more money there than if they did by selling it themselves using the more restrictive OGL.




I'm worrying because of the possible legal complications. Are they claiming the right to the work as a whole? or do they demand exclusive access to the individual components? The complications of international law add another layer to consider. It's an exclusive and perpetual license (I mean, I'm not even sure my country's laws let me sign that kind of license!) and I'm perfectly ok with letting them have a perpetual license to the whole, but losing the chance of using my own pictures -that I draw and paint myself- whoever I want, that is something to think about (and again not sure how the law interacts in this case).


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Sacrosanct said:


> If you're worried about Wizards republishing your stuff and not paying you any more, or taking it down, then sounds like the OGL option is what's best for you.  They aren't forcing anyone to use the DM's Guild.
> 
> But I'm betting dollars to donuts that for 99.99% of the people who use the DM's Guild, they would end up making more money there than if they did by selling it themselves using the more restrictive OGL.




I think that if we treat it more like a fan sight and less as a job it will work... I don't have any qulifications, except 15ish years of playing and maybe 11 of running games... I have a few prestige classes, if I fire up my word program and throw out a PDF I may make a few bucks...but it isn't going to start Tabitha Corp...


----------



## Nylanfs

Staffan said:


> True. But it does say: "8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content."
> 
> From the OGL FAQ:
> _*Q: I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?*
> 
> A: Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.
> 
> One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs.
> 
> Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasn't studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used._
> 
> As I understand it, PCGen dealt with that by having the data in XML files.



Actually our datafiles are marked up text files, not even xml


----------



## Iosue

There seems to be a discrepancy between the DMGuild FAQ and the Content Agreement.  The FAQ says:



> *Does Wizards own any unique IP that I create in my publications?*
> 
> Wizards does not own any of the unique IP that you create in your publications. Wizards does own the IP that they contribute, plus the agreement will grant Wizards and other DMs Guild authors a license to use your IP. That said, if your work merits incorporation into “canon,” Wizards will contact you about purchasing your IP outright.




The content agreement, though, says:


> (b) Exclusive License to your Work. Effective as of the date you setup your Work through the Program on OBS’s website, you grant us the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to develop, license, reproduce, print, publish, distribute, translate, display, publicly perform and transmit your Work, in whole and in part, in each country in the world, in all languages and formats, and by all means now known or later developed, and the right to prepare derivative works of your Work.
> 
> (c) Exclusive License to all User Generated Content in your Work. Effective as of the date we first make your Work available through the Program, you grant us the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to all User Generated Content included in your Work. You agree that the User Generated Content is available for unrestricted use by us without any additional compensation, notification or attribution, including that we may allow other Program authors, [WotC] and other third parties to use the User Generated Content.




Now of course, the former talks about "own" and the latter talks about "exclusive licence".  But the upshot is that while the FAQ says WotC will purchase your IP outright if they use it, by the terms of the agreement, WotC can use freely use the IP without purchasing it.

I suspect the issue is one of "policy" versus "legally CYA".  The all-encompassing exclusive license is necessary to create the open community access while covering WotC and OBS from litigation.  But as far as the people currently at WotC are concerned, they have no intention of using IP from DMGuild without purchasing it outright.

As I suggested before, I think it's an equitable quid pro quo that in exchange for the wide scope of access DMGuild provides to WotC's IP, you give other participants (including WotC) equal access to the IP you've adding to it.  But it is something of a legal paradox.  WotC doesn't own the IP, but since your Work must be exclusively sold on DMGuild, and you grant irrevocable license to WotC, OBS, and everyone else on DMGuild to use the IP, one can say that you don't really "own" it, either.

One distinction, which perhaps needs to be clearer, is that while DMGuild gets exclusive license to your Work, and gets license to use your IP, it doesn't look like they get _exclusive_ license to the _IP_.  That is, if you write an adventure that has a unique character, you cannot sell that adventure elsewhere once you put it on DMGuild, but you _can_ use that unique character in other, non-DMGuild work.  Conceivably, Matt Mercer could put his Gunslinger and Blood Knight classes in new, distinct non-DMGuild work, such as Matt Mercer's Big Book of New Character Classes for The World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game.  He just can't sell the PDFs he submitted to DMGuild at other sites.


----------



## Iosue

A new podcast is up, with Mearls and Lindsay talking about the SRD and DMGuild.


----------



## MoonSong

Iosue said:


> There seems to be a discrepancy between the DMGuild FAQ and the Content Agreement.  The FAQ says:
> 
> 
> 
> The content agreement, though, says:
> 
> 
> Now of course, the former talks about "own" and the latter talks about "exclusive licence".  But the upshot is that while the FAQ says WotC will purchase your IP outright if they use it, by the terms of the agreement, WotC can use freely use the IP without purchasing it.
> 
> I suspect the issue is one of "policy" versus "legally CYA".  The all-encompassing exclusive license is necessary to create the open community access while covering WotC and OBS from litigation.  But as far as the currently people at WotC are concerned, they have no intention of using IP from DMGuild without purchasing it outright.
> 
> As I suggested before, I think it's an equitable quid pro quo that in exchange for the wide scope of access DMGuild provides to WotC's IP, you give other participants (including WotC) equal access to the IP you've adding to it.  But it is something of a legal paradox.  WotC doesn't own the IP, but since your Work must be exclusively sold on DMGuild, and you grant irrevocable license to WotC, OBS, and everyone else on DMGuild to use the IP, one can say that you don't really "own" it, either.
> 
> One distinction, which perhaps needs to be clearer, is that while DMGuild gets exclusive license to your Work, and gets license to use your IP, it doesn't look like they get _exclusive_ license to the _IP_.  That is, if you write an adventure that has a unique character, you cannot sell that adventure elsewhere once you put it on DMGuild, but you _can_ use that unique character in other, non-DMGuild work.  Conceivably, Matt Mercer could put his Gunslinger and Blood Knight classes in new, distinct non-DMGuild work, such as Matt Mercer's Big Book of New Character Classes for The World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game.  He just can't sell the PDFs he submitted to DMGuild at other sites.




In light of this, I think my nationality basically prevents me from participating on DMsG, because by my country's laws I can only grant content rights licenses as long as they are limited in time, for an specific and determined purpose, and remunerated; this perpetual, exclusive, all-purpose, non-remunerated license is like the exact opposite...


----------



## Iosue

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> In light of this, I think my nationality basically prevents me from participating on DMsG, because by my country's laws I can only grant content rights licenses as long as they are limited in time, for an specific and determined purpose, and remunerated; this perpetual, exclusive, all-purpose, non-remunerated license is like the exact opposite...




The moon seems a stodgy place.  I recommend Earth!  The weather's nice here, too.  Give my best to Sam Bell and/or Uatu the Watcher.


----------



## Henry

Morrus said:


> That said, the store gets half of your revenue, not your profit;  if you pay even a penny for any part of the production process, you're getting less money than the store is.




Ugh, that's gross!

*rimshot*


----------



## Hussar

At a guess, I'd say that what this means is that WOTC _could_ use anything you put up in the DMGuild.  They have that right.  Which also covers their ass if they put out something that is very much like what you put out, but, they didn't know about.  However, before they take your stuff and make it part of FR canon, they will flat out buy the rights to it, so, they will own the IP after that.  

Which removes the chance of things like the Dragon Magazine Compilation CD becoming a lawsuit if they make a, say, compilation book of DM's Guild monsters for FR using something that you created.  ((Presuming, of course, they bought the IP from you))  At the point where they bought the IP, they can then do whatever they want with it, including selling it to someone else, if, for example, WOTC was ever sold to another company.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Iosue said:


> A new podcast is up, with Mearls and Lindsay talking about the SRD and DMGuild.



Thanks for this. 

Listening in, it appears the idea for the DMsG has been gestating for nearly six years. Thank you, Chris Lindsay, for keeping at it.

NOTE: At the 20 minute mark, Mearls clarifies that the Realms is not as wide open for use as people might think. The list of stuff free to use is limited to the Core rulebooks, the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide and Out of the Abyss. 

More works will be added to "the list," including past sourcebooks and possibly the novels. 

Anybody know where this list is at? I haven't seen it.


----------



## 77IM

The more I think about the DM's Guild, the more brilliant it seems. I love the way it blurs the line between fans and content-producers; a distinction that has always been murky in an industry that sprung out of the type-writers of some bored nerds in Wisconsin. Mearls has said in the past, (paraphrase) "The RPG hobby doesn't actually need the RPG industry, because fans produce everything you need to play and post it for free on the internet." So Wizards is _embracing_ that reality by taking fan-made works, official material, and online distribution, and smushing it all together into a big glorious mess of D&D. Genius.


----------



## Iosue

Hussar said:


> At a guess, I'd say that what this means is that WOTC _could_ use anything you put up in the DMGuild.  They have that right.  Which also covers their ass if they put out something that is very much like what you put out, but, they didn't know about.  However, before they take your stuff and make it part of FR canon, they will flat out buy the rights to it, so, they will own the IP after that.
> 
> Which removes the chance of things like the Dragon Magazine Compilation CD becoming a lawsuit if they make a, say, compilation book of DM's Guild monsters for FR using something that you created.  ((Presuming, of course, they bought the IP from you))  At the point where they bought the IP, they can then do whatever they want with it, including selling it to someone else, if, for example, WOTC was ever sold to another company.
> 
> Does that make sense?




That's pretty much what I'm thinking.  In intent, WotC will buy IP rights before putting it in canon.  But, given the collaborative nature of the program, with people having the ability to borrow freely from each other, they need to have that clause there so they're covered if they buy something that has someone else's IP interleavened within it, and WotC misses it.

Just to pull an example out of my rear, say someone creates an awesome town sourcebook for the Realms.  WotC wants the IP of the town for future canon.  They pay the author for the IP.  But say that one NPC in the town is borrowed from another adventure, or hails from a village that was in someone other's adventure.  Ideally, they would pay that author, too, for the IP, or else change that particular section for the canon version if the contribution was fairly minimal.  But if no one notices until after it's gone to print, the license clause prevents them from being sued.

By the same token, it protects OBS if they create some kind of adventure bundle, or opens a foreign language portal.  You still get royalties for such product, but this keeps OBS from being sued for _more_ money if do something like that.

The only thing that gives me pause is that OBS can sell work at up to 40% discount, at their discretion.  That doesn't come out of their take -- they can unilaterally make the pie smaller for everyone involved, including the author and WotC.  Supply-and-demand suggest they would only do so if they thought that would result in more money coming in, I hope that they would at least have courtesy to contact the author and get their approval.


----------



## spectacle

sanishiver said:


> Thanks for this.
> 
> Listening in, it appears the idea for the DMsG has been gestating for nearly six years. Thank you, Chris Lindsay, for keeping at it.
> 
> NOTE: At the 20 minute mark, Mearls clarifies that the Realms is not as wide open for use as people might think. The list of stuff free to use is limited to the Core rulebooks, the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide and Out of the Abyss.
> 
> More works will be added to "the list," including past sourcebooks and possibly the novels.
> 
> Anybody know where this list is at? I haven't seen it.




That's a direct contradiction of this bit from the DMGuild FAQ:


> When you create your own title for the Dungeon Masters Guild, you get access to a hoard of resources. Your work can use any of the fifth edition D&D rules published by Wizards of the Coast, *plus decades of published material for the Forgotten Realms setting*



Is the FAQ wrong, or is it another case of Mearls not knowing his own rules?


----------



## Iosue

sanishiver said:


> Thanks for this.
> 
> Listening in, it appears the idea for the DMsG has been gestating for nearly six years. Thank you, Chris Lindsay, for keeping at it.




I suspect it originated as a pitch when they first wanted to jumpstart 4e, and the GSL was proving entirely inadequate for invigorating the 3PP market.  It very much fits with their goal at the time to keep a tighter rein on 3PP content, and funnel it in-house as much as possible.  It also would have fit with DDI.  It was probably back burnered when they decided to try Essentials, and then held back until they got the new edition worked out.



> NOTE: At the 20 minute mark, Mearls clarifies that the Realms is not as wide open for use as people might think. The list of stuff free to use is limited to the Core rulebooks, the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide and Out of the Abyss.
> 
> More works will be added to "the list," including past sourcebooks and possibly the novels.
> 
> Anybody know where this list is at? I haven't seen it.




I believe it's part of the Community Content Agreement, which shows up when you click through to upload content.  It should be noted, though, that they uploaded Narrative documents (all fluff, no crunch, I believe) for the AL Expeditions for the last three seasons.  This covers a wide swath of Moonsea.

One small bomb that was dropped in the podcast is that going forward, Adventure League adventures will be available on DMGuild as soon as they are in final draft form.  No longer will you need to get the password from a WPN store and run them in a public place.  You can buy them direct from DMGuild and play them at home.  Boom.  Want short adventures that go through the WotC development process?  You got them.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Yeah it is all very well saying 'no it's just 5E FR stuff at the moment' but there is nothing in the rules that gives limits, or even guidelines, beyond FR only!


----------



## Iosue

spectacle said:


> That's a direct contradiction of this bit from the DMGuild FAQ:
> 
> Is the FAQ wrong, or is it another case of Mearls not knowing his own rules?




The FAQ is broad.  Per the podcast, eventually decades of published material will be available, but like D&D Classics, they're going to open things up slowly but steadily.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

I hope I misheard Mike, and that the Realms really is wide open. 

It'd be a real pain in the neck to deal with a "this Realms content is OK to use, that's not OK to use" scenario for the foreseeable future, and one that is always in flux.

But if not, not worries. I will just have to focus on the areas listed in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and do my best. 

I'll also have to lobby like crazy for WotC to include the map to the adventure _Lashan's Fall_ in the next map pack release (as found in the Old Grey Box, and in _Elminster's Guide to the Forgotten Realms_). 

I have an adventure of my own devising that uses repurposed content from Lashan's Fall, and that makes use of story elements from Umberto Eco's _The Name of the Rose_, that I'd like to convert to 5E


----------



## Henry

I think it's a fantastic measure of good will to the community, which probably would have never come about if 5E were not as successful as it has been; it gives exactly what's needed for publishers to fill the space left by desire for more material. Just the release of the monster stats and magic items alone gives us the breathing room for publishers to make their publications in line with what wotc's been turning out.

At least gasoline is cheaper now, so i can better afford all these micropurchases i'll be making in the future.


----------



## bmcdaniel

Is it possible to use public domain art (for example, art where copyright has lapsed) in DMs Guild products?


----------



## Mark CMG

sanishiver said:


> I hope I misheard Mike, and that the Realms really is wide open.
> 
> It'd be a real pain in the neck to deal with a "this Realms content is OK to use, that's not OK to use" scenario for the foreseeable future, and one that is always in flux.





For those working with the OGL and SRD only, it's a good idea to get out of the mindset that you're using 5E to create stuff and not refer to the books.  I'd imagine for those working with the DMGuild, it would be wise to stop thinking about FR-related ideas and start keeping an eye on the list of what is available and let that be your guide.  Folks thinking of FR ideas and THEN referring to the list of available IP are going to be one of the biggest complain generating machines of the coming year.  Make a mental note each time it comes up.


----------



## Kris

bmcdaniel said:


> Is it possible to use public domain art (for example, art where copyright has lapsed) in DMs Guild products?




The way I'm reading it is that artwork is treated exactly the same as the text (so you'll have to own the piece in question*, and you'll be sharing it exclusively with the DMsGuild).

Or as they put it:

*"You're free to choose from the library of art and maps that we'll be providing, or you can create or commission your own. Paying for art and maps that you commission is your responsibility. All such art and maps must also adhere to our content guidelines and Community Content Agreement."*

*so I'm guessing you also couldn't buy/licence some 'publisher art' from RPGNow for example, and then use it in a DMsGuild product.


----------



## Jester David

Looking through the Guild, I think my biggest problem is that publishers cannot be seen. This is a HUGE problem, as it means you cannot search by known names or follow the world of reliable publishers. Everything is just "DM Guild".


----------



## Iosue

Public domain artwork would definitely be a good way to go, because the rights are totally cleared. While your work with that artwork would be copyrighted (and exclusively licensed to DMGuild), the artwork by itself would not be. It remains in public domain.

The only possible pitfall is that it'd have to be public domain in the US. Some things are public domain in other countries but not the US, and vice versa.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Mark CMG said:


> I'd imagine for those working with the DMGuild, it would be wise to stop thinking about FR-related ideas and start keeping an eye on the list of what is available and let that be your guide.



This is good advice. 

I'm sure you can imagine the frustration, however, when the marketplace is billed as a place where all of the Realms is open to play with, only to see that it aint so.

It's not so much pulling the rug out from underneath, as pulling the whole planet out, minus one slice of one continent.



Mark CMG said:


> Folks thinking of FR ideas and THEN referring to the list of available IP are going to be one of the biggest complain generating machines of the coming year.



Complaining for the sake of complaining is always bad, in my book.

But complaining that not enough Realms material is open for use, well to me that's a good thing. I hope people raise hell, constructively. 

How? By demanding (if that's not too strong a word) that Wizards of the Coast make it as simple as possible for Guild Member to figure out what is open to use and what isn't.

Consider the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. It's open for use, per the podcast, and Baldur's Gate is certainly on the Sword Coast. The SCAG gives it about a page and a half of treatment.

Yet in that same podcast Mearls corrects (Christopher) Lindsay by saying that content from a novel set in Baldur's Gate _isn't_ open for use, right after Lindsay waxed enthusiastic about gamers deciding to share something on the Guild website that they were originally inspired to create because they read a Realms novel set in Baldur's Gate.  

What? 

Are content creators really supposed to zero in on all the lore, to differentiate between an idea they had ten years ago and one they had the other day? This doesn't jive with WotC's selling point about people being able to convert their best campaign material into salable content. And how are WotC's staff, who review the content and look for the cream of the crop, supposed to tell? Not everyone has encyclopedic Realmslore knowledge.

Presumably, _Murder in Baldur's Gate_ isn't allowed to be used, but I imagine a lot of new-to-D&D gamers only know Baldur's Gate through that adventure. But, if it inspired you to add on to the adventure or send your campaign in a new direction, tough luck.

Giving a list of allowed books isn't sufficient for content creators.

And on a different note: one side effect of the Guild program seems to be that people are purchasing the core rulebooks that might not otherwise. I don't own them, so the head of a game company I write for is sending me a set, as the SRD has some big holes in it and we want a full grasp of the rules.


----------



## 77IM

Regarding the timing of this announcement: I'm not sure they planned it this way, but this timing is very shrewd.

Wizards has released a major product every few months to keep up the buzz. But it's been a while since OotA dropped and excitement is starting to die down. Maybe the next adventure isn't ready to be announced yet?
It's after the holidays. Imagine this announcement before the holidays; suddenly a deluge of questionable-quality material is competing with official releases for people's Christmas budget, and may be confusing to non-players trying to buy gifts for their D&D friends.
They waited over a year to open the floodgates, and in that year they focussed efforts on Adventurer's League and adventure paths. They spent that year establishing a new, unified baseline for what the D&D play experience is supposed to be like. Now people submitting things to DM's Guild are going to be thinking things like, "How will my product be most useful to people playing PotA or OotA or HotDQ or whatever Wizards releases next?" If they had opened the floodgates right away when 5E launched, many OGL authors would be thinking, "How will my products be most useful to PF/4E players?" because that's what everybody was back then.


----------



## kenmarable

spectacle said:


> That's a direct contradiction of this bit from the DMGuild FAQ:
> 
> Is the FAQ wrong, or is it another case of Mearls not knowing his own rules?




It also contradicts what they are most interested in people contributing later in that same FAQ answer: "Also in demand are fifth edition conversions of monsters absent from the fifth edition Monster Manual..."

Not sure how that is really possible if previous edition material is not available. At the very least, it does seem like there is disagreement within WotC itself over what is available to DMSGuild publishers and what the intent is.

I hope there is a clarification and agreement in the AMA today. It's a big factor in weighing the pros and cons of DMSGuild vs OGL (and I will admit that, selfishly, my own plans depend on that clarification).


----------



## Iosue

Iosue said:


> The FAQ is broad.  Per the podcast, eventually decades of published material will be available, but like D&D Classics, they're going to open things up slowly but steadily.




Looks like I was wrong, and things changed since the podcast.  Per the AMA, the Realms are wide open, including Al-Qadim and Kara-Tur.


----------



## Nylanfs

Damn


----------



## Reynard

According to Mearls on the reddit AMA they are working on a solution for the artwork problem. That's good. It would be a shame if one had to buy the art  and then give up the rights completely. If art rights stay with the owner then we can make use of the many royalty free sources already on DTRPG and RpGNow.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Iosue said:


> Looks like I was wrong, and things changed since the podcast.  Per the AMA, the Realms are wide open, including Al-Qadim and Kara-Tur.




Including Al... 

Well, now, _that_ is a fascinating little tidbit. Thank you for posting this!


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Glad to see the Realms is wide open!


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Mouseferatu said:


> Including Al...
> 
> Well, now, _that_ is a fascinating little tidbit. Thank you for posting this!




please let us know when your stuff goes live...


----------



## defendi

I want to see if the rest of you agree with my interpretation of the DMSGuild community agreement. You aren't allowed to sell or distribute anything there anywhere else, except as marketing text. So:

1) I have a critical hit system for 4e that would convert easily to 5e. I want to put it on DMSGuild as much as a public service as anything. The text will be at least 90-95% unchanged. By my interpretation, I must pull the 4e version from RPGNow if I want to post it.

2) I have several rule sets I'd like to put on DMSGuild alone for other people to use. Monsters I like and a magic item system that grows with the PC, allowing the character to have a signature weapon his entire career. These will exist in my OGL campaign setting and some adventures. My interpretation is that I can't put them on DMSGuild because I would be selling them elsewhere, even though they are a small part of those works.

Do you all agree with my reading of the rules?


----------



## Mistwell

77IM said:


> Regarding the timing of this announcement: I'm not sure they planned it this way, but this timing is very shrewd.
> 
> Wizards has released a major product every few months to keep up the buzz. But it's been a while since OotA dropped and excitement is starting to die down. Maybe the next adventure isn't ready to be announced yet?






Monday.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Reynard said:


> According to Mearls on the reddit AMA they are working on a solution for the artwork problem. That's good. It would be a shame if one had to buy the art  and then give up the rights completely. If art rights stay with the owner then we can make use of the many royalty free sources already on DTRPG and RpGNow.




Since the Guild is already open, that really should be somewhere on that site. Is it, cos I can't find it?


----------



## defendi

Not yet. They just announced today that there was a solution in the works.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Ah so they've opened the Guild but not really thought about and/or briefed their staff as to what the basics of it are!


----------



## defendi

Well the complaints didn't flood them until after it was open.


----------



## Dracones

Anyone else notice this quote from the Reddit ama: "Within the Guild, you can use any Forgotten Realms RPG product and *non-setting specific RPG material. As long as it was content published and owned by WotC*, you should be good. "


There's a lot of old module, Dragon/Dungeon content and etc content out there that was pretty setting non-specific. It sounds like pretty much just certain settings(Dragonlance, Eberonn, etc) are hands off(probably due to licensing issues), but WoTC specific stuff is a go.

If that's true, it's a massive amount of material.


----------



## defendi

From reading the AMA, I was pretty sure they meant any D&D 5e material and any book with a Forgotten Realms logo on it. I got the imperssion that you couldn't convert random old modules or splat books.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Wow there are a lot of totally awesome old school modules that are setting neutral, big news if confirmed on the site.


----------



## Dracones

defendi said:


> From reading the AMA, I was pretty sure they meant any D&D 5e material and any book with a Forgotten Realms logo on it. I got the imperssion that you couldn't convert random old modules or splat books.




Except one of the examples they give in the AMA is a 1982 module:

Can I post conversions of old adventures? (i.e. B4: The Lost City)

That would have to be through the DM’s Guild, since we haven’t released the old modules as open content. The best fit for the Guild would be to augment your conversion notes with guidelines for using the adventure in the Forgotten Realms. Remember, wholesale copying without adding original work is not the intent of the program.


----------



## defendi

I remember that now. I stand corrected.


----------



## Kris

The 'artwork issue' seems to have been addressed (emphasis mine):

_(c) "User Generated Content" shall be defined as the copyrightable elements included in your Work, such as original characters, scenes, locations and events. *User Generated content shall not include the illustrations and cartographic artwork included in your work*. Per the terms of this Agreement, you expressly agree that your User Generated Content, once submitted to the Program will become Program IP and useable by other members of the Program as well as the Owner as described in this Agreement._

And there's a bit more info at the bottom of THIS page.


----------



## Reynard

Kris said:


> The 'artwork issue' seems to have been addressed (emphasis mine):
> 
> _(c) "User Generated Content" shall be defined as the copyrightable elements included in your Work, such as original characters, scenes, locations and events. *User Generated content shall not include the illustrations and cartographic artwork included in your work*. Per the terms of this Agreement, you expressly agree that your User Generated Content, once submitted to the Program will become Program IP and useable by other members of the Program as well as the Owner as described in this Agreement._
> 
> And there's a bit more info at the bottom of THIS page.




Excellent. That they addressed it so quickly makes me believe WotC is really behind this initiative as a way to develop solid, professional content from the community.

EDIT: For anyone interested here is the relevent FAQ answer:



> What kinds of artwork and maps can I use in my DMs Guild titles?
> 
> We updated the Community Content Agreement sections 2c and 8c to clarify the use of artwork. The artwork (illustrations and maps) that you include in your title do not become part of the DMs Guild content which other DMs Guild contributor can freely use. So generally speaking for these types of artwork:
> Art and Maps provided by Wizards of the Coast: The art you find in the Resources for DMs Guild Creators category are owned by Wizards and can be freely used in your DMs Guild titles.
> Public Domain Art: Art that you are certain is in the public domain can be used.
> Stock Art: Usage of stock art depends on the license associated with that stock art. Most of the stock art sold under the Publisher Resources category on DriveThruRPG includes a license that would allow it to be used in your DMs Guild titles.
> Commissioned Art: Usage of art that you commission from artist depends upon your terms with the artist. You must have the rights or license to use the art in your title. The artwork does not become owned by OneBookShelf or Wizards; you simply must have rights to use it in your commercial work.
> Creative Commons: This depends on the type of creative commons license. Some allow commerical use, others do not.


----------



## TGryph

So,  I have been working on a generic (but very detailed) homebrew world, which I have almost completely converted over to 5th Edition. I was just going to have several copies printed on Lulu, then maybe open up the PDF if anyone wanted it. It has several "D&D'isms" (Yuan-Ti, Thr-Kreen), including some from older products (Wemic, Dakon, etc). 

What are my options now for publishing it, if any? I know I can still have copies printed for my personal use at Lulu or other printing place, but do I have an option to perhaps put it out there for public download, whether I make any cash on it or not?

TGryph


----------



## Dracones

On your homebrew world, just stay away from any trademarked material. Any monster, spell, race, etc that's in the SRD is fine for you to use. If you want to use trademarked material you'd need to use the DM Guild, but you probably don't want to do that. The DM Guild is more for Forgotten Realms material and there's sort of sharing that goes along with publishing content there.

And yes you can publish it. PDF, print, for money or for free.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

So I tested the water out and put out a $1 pdf... it's just some stuff we played around with last year in my home games... some prestige classes based on unearthed arcana, and a few new maneuvers for the fighter sub class... I wonder how this will go over. If anyone wants to take a look let me know... 

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/171070/Martial-Options?term=Martial+optio&filters=45469_0_0_0_0_0


----------



## darjr

I would love to know how it goes, please let us know.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

*Forgotten Realms self-publishing suggested back in 2014*

Back in 2014, much of the ENWorld Community was hard-headedly incredulous that I would even suggest the idea that WotC open its _setting IP_ for self-publishing. My threads were usually shut down.

I can't find the original threads, but here are the OPs:

https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/blog
https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/free-d-d-community-use-license

***

Anyway...kudos to Mearls and his team for pulling this off in the Hasbro milieu.

From day one, I have refused to buy into 5E because it was not open to community-development. Now it is...both the rules and the setting.

Good work Mister Mike.


----------



## hbarsquared

Just returned from Morrus' "What's the OGL" thread, and thought this was worth mentioning...

The SRD5 is much more in tune (because of the modular nature of 5e, as well as the SRD content) than even the original SRD.

The purpose is to encourage new and innovative products, kot clones.  The SRD5 _forces_ authors/publishers to create new content.  If you want a wizard subclass beside Evoker, you need to add to the Open Gaming Content - you cannot rely on solely the SRD.

I like it.


----------



## TroyBentonGames

Well done everyone at WoTC that pushed this through. I am amazed at the box of toys we have all been given to play with.


----------



## GHammy26

Do you literally just have to stick to what is in the OGL or can you reference the monster manual?

e.g. "There are 17 Wolves (Cr ¼,  MM pg341) "

If no to referencing, then I'll just have to stick the stats block from the OGL in the back and refer to that page instead, right?

Also what exactly do you have to write to reference  the OGL in your work and where do you put?

A lot of questions, I know, but I want to do this right.

G


----------



## Remathilis

GHammy26 said:


> Do you literally just have to stick to what is in the OGL or can you reference the monster manual?
> 
> e.g. "There are 17 Wolves (Cr ¼,  MM pg341) "
> 
> If no to referencing, then I'll just have to stick the stats block from the OGL in the back and refer to that page instead, right?
> 
> Also what exactly do you have to write to reference  the OGL in your work and where do you put?
> 
> A lot of questions, I know, but I want to do this right.
> 
> G



Depends.

OGL: no references except to OGL critters. 
DMGuild: reference anything in the 5e rules.


----------



## Reynard

GHammy26 said:


> Also what exactly do you have to write to reference  the OGL in your work and where do you put?
> 
> A lot of questions, I know, but I want to do this right.
> 
> G




Read this.


----------



## Mallus

I wonder if I can talk my co-conspirators, I mean "co-authors", into finally doing a formal write-up of our "Port on the Aster Sea/On the Shore of an Infinite Ocean" setting. It would take work, and we're either busy (my friends w/small children) or lazy (me). 

I, at least, could use a vanity project. But I would need help! Or failing that, whiskey.

And if not The Port, we could try re-writing our older homebrew, CITY. That one has a pedigree - it was rejected during the WotC 3e Setting Search!


----------



## Reynard

A quick question: any idea how the exclusivity of DMGuild interacts with blog material? If I want to take something I published on my blog, clean it up and package it as a PDF for sale on DMGuild, can I do that? Do I need to delete the blog entry (or redirect people to the DMGuild store)?


----------



## Remathilis

Reynard said:


> A quick question: any idea how the exclusivity of DMGuild interacts with blog material? If I want to take something I published on my blog, clean it up and package it as a PDF for sale on DMGuild, can I do that? Do I need to delete the blog entry (or redirect people to the DMGuild store)?



I would think so. Ianal


----------



## TwoSix

Mallus said:


> I wonder if I can talk my co-conspirators, I mean "co-authors", into finally doing a formal write-up of our "Port on the Aster Sea/On the Shore of an Infinite Ocean" setting. It would take work, and we're either busy (my friends w/small children) or lazy (me).



I'd love to see a formal write-up of Aster Sea.  You could title it "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius".  I'm pretty sure that's not taken.


----------



## Shades of Eternity

ha magic item creation rules aren't srd. .


----------



## Nellisir

Shades of Eternity said:


> ha magic item creation rules aren't srd. .




Do you mean rules for PCs or DMs to create magic items? And...so what? Not sure why this is notable or funny.


----------



## Remathilis

Shades of Eternity said:


> ha magic item creation rules aren't srd. .



They're barely in the DMG. What's your point?


----------



## Shades of Eternity

Nellisir said:


> Do you mean rules for PCs or DMs to create magic items? And...so what? Not sure why this is notable or funny.






Remathilis said:


> They're barely in the DMG. What's your point?




I find it hilarious that the very rules to make magic items cannot be referred to 3rd party project.

Come to think of it, I find it also hilarious how the optional rules to change your game play and what little modern weapons rules they're are are outside the srd.

I'll be making my own for both I guess (TIER system for everybody!)


----------



## Reynard

Shades of Eternity said:


> I find it hilarious that the very rules to make magic items cannot be referred to 3rd party project.
> 
> Come to think of it, I find it also hilarious how the optional rules to change your game play and what little modern weapons rules they're are are outside the srd.
> 
> I'll be making my own for both I guess (TIER system for everybody!)




Why would optional rules be in the SRD? The SRD is there to facilitate publishers creating their own 5E resources. Surely optional rules are exactly the kind of derivative content publishers should be creating. Not only that, but remember that literally EVERYTHING released under the OGL is available for use, from Pathfinder rules to FATE. If the idea is to create support for 5E by 3rd parties, rather than enable 3rd parties to compete with 5E, it makes infinitely more sense to include the things to create adventures and new player resources.


----------



## Nellisir

Shades of Eternity said:


> I find it hilarious that the very rules to make magic items cannot be referred to 3rd party project.



I find it hilarious that you quoted me, but didn't actually answer the question. 



> Come to think of it, I find it also hilarious how the optional rules to change your game play and what little modern weapons rules they're are are outside the srd.
> I'll be making my own for both I guess (TIER system for everybody!)



So...you're going to do exactly what WotC wants you to do, while complaining that WotC is making you do it, and that they shouldn't make you do what they want you to do. But you're going to do it.


----------



## Shades of Eternity

Nellisir said:


> I find it hilarious that you quoted me, but didn't actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> So...you're going to do exactly what WotC wants you to do, while complaining that WotC is making you do it, and that they shouldn't make you do what they want you to do. But you're going to do it.




it's called absurdity.

I get the nervousness of not wanting to make another pathfinder and it's not exactly going to stay my hand for doing it myself, but I'm finding it hilarious that the magic rules themselves are off limits for quoting purposes (at least as far as I can tell, I'd be glad to be proven wrong in this case).


----------



## jmucchiello

They aren't there because it isn't necessary for them to be OGL in order for someone to creating NEW magic items. Or adventures that include new magic items. It's the same reason all of the class kits aren't there. They aren't necessary for the purpose the SRD5 is made to perform.


----------



## weldon

Shades of Eternity said:


> …but I'm finding it hilarious that the magic rules themselves are off limits for quoting purposes (at least as far as I can tell, I'd be glad to be proven wrong in this case).




I don't understand your reaction either.

Do you think this limits your ability to create new magic items to include in the open game content you create? You should be fine to use the DMG rules and just provide the result as open game content.

Do you want to write your own magic item rules? You should be able to do that. Just write it out in your own words. That should be fine under the OGL.

Do you want to quote the magic item creation rules in your adventure or setting? I can't figure out why you would.


----------



## Nellisir

Shades of Eternity said:


> I'm finding it hilarious that the magic rules themselves are off limits for quoting purposes.




Obviously, no one else in this thread gets what the big deal is either. Just rewrite them. I don't even know what the magic item creation rules are in 5e, but I'll bet they're a lot less formulaic than they are in 3e.

I kinda want to start a thread asking what people think the SRD should be, as opposed to what it is. There's obviously a certain percentage that isn't happy that the SRD doesn't include X instead of Y, or X as well as Y, or something, and I can only assume that they want the SRD to be something other than what it is - a set of examples.


----------



## Reynard

Nellisir said:


> I kinda want to start a thread asking what people think the SRD should be, as opposed to what it is. There's obviously a certain percentage that isn't happy that the SRD doesn't include X instead of Y, or X as well as Y, or something, and I can only assume that they want the SRD to be something other than what it is - a set of examples.




I think there is a not insignificant portion of folks that were looking for "the rules for free" a la 3.x/PF as opposed to "tools for publishers to create support" that was the original intent of the OGL and SRD even back in 2000. I mean, I love that all of the PF rules end up Open and available very shortly after they are published, but Paizo's business model is markedly different than WotC's. Paizo relies heavily on subscribers, and most of those for their Adventure Paths -- which you will note are NOT open content (aside from monsters and whatever). WotC relies more heavily upon core book sales. It is not surprising, then, that WotC does not want the 5E core book content to be entirely free.


----------



## CapnZapp

What I want is the incredibly usefulness of a fast hyperlinked rules reference. 

I have bought the core books, so this isn't about the rules being free.

I want D&D to catch up with the times. I want WotC to offer sturdy fully-featured stand-alone (things that keep working long after some Web server is shut down) generators for the following:

For players, complete character builder.

For DMs, a quick NPC with class and levels generator. (the same fully featured program, only with an UI geared towards automatic selection rather than manual confirmation for every step)

Treasure generator.

Encounter generator, with complete flexibility between hand-chosen foes and automatic generation.

Spellcaster generator, with several styles predefined: blaster, illusionist, Oracle, Trickster etc. These can be simply spell lists for a complete level 20 caster; then the program picks the relevant parts for a caster of a certain level. Randomization an essential input value: so a non-denominational foe will get the predetermined list, while a 50% random foe will get half the list on average.

All these parts are to be seamlessly integrated: if I equip a PC or monster with a piece of treasure, all relevant statistics is automatically recalculated.

All spells and monster abilities link directly into the rules reference.

All databases are stored in plaintext format (xml is fine), for maximum interoperability and customization friendliness.


----------



## Nellisir

CapnZapp said:


> What I want is the incredibly usefulness of a fast hyperlinked rules reference.
> For players, complete character builder....
> For DMs, a quick NPC with class and levels generator....
> Treasure generator....
> Encounter generator....
> Spellcaster generator....
> All spells and monster abilities link directly into the rules reference.



That'd be cool.

OK, so so far we've got:

* A reference/example document aimed at publishers (what it is)

* All the rules for free (a la Paizo)

* A fast hyperlinked rules reference with generators.

I'm just curious, so no judgement.


----------



## Roadie

I've been doing some light experimenting with an SRD site, including provisions for third-party content. What do you think of it?


----------

