# Stop telling me to boycott WotC. If you support open gaming, tell who to support. (+ thread)



## MNblockhead

Note: I think this is my first plus thread. Please only post TTRPG companies publishing content under licenses at least as open as WotC's OGLs and which are not using any of the WotC OGLs. Completely separate systems under their own licenses that will not be affected by anything WotC does with its OGLs. 

Wow, I've have spent a lot of time reading the threads on the OGL drama.  Mostly I'm interested in the legal discussions. What I'm starting to tire of is all the posts about how horrible WotC is and why I should never buy from them again. 

It is difficult for me to get worked up about about a license change that affects companies making toy/hobby products. I don't think I'm the uninformed/uncaring consumer. There are many companies I avoid for a variety of reasons. And I know most people don't think about the issues that bother me, and even when aware of them, won't bother to change their purchasing decisions. So I am sceptical about how much damage any of this will do to WotC if they decide to stick to their guns.

But I do support open source and open gaming. I like the idea. I like the community that builds around it. It isn't either-or for me. I use Windows, Mac, and Linux every day. I use a lot of free, open source software. I also use software with very hefty license fees. 

So I would appreciate it if someone would stop repeating why I shouldn't support WotC and tell me which companies offer truly open gaming content, hopefully with licenses that avoid the ambiguity in the WotC licenses.  Who is publishing under creative commons, and open gaming license similar to the original WotC OGL, or something similar? 

If you simply recommend that I buy from a smaller publisher that doesn't offer anything at least as open as WotC's OGLs, don't bother posting.  I already by content from various companies, but I've not taken the time to research which have open gaming licenses and how open they really are. Given how strongly many on EN World feel about this topic, I'm hoping some of you are better informed and can make some recommendations.


----------



## darjr

Level Up 5e!

Find 3pp that have OGL stuff that is printed and sitting in storage or warehouses.

Go run other games at your FLGS, especially anything else they have on their shelves that isn't D&D? Especially current OGL 1.0 stuff.

I dunno.


----------



## mamba

Fate, OGL or CC, your choice









						Licensing Fate
					

Licensing: Licensing of Fate Core and Fate Accelerated is now possible with the July 2013 release of our system reference documents (SRDs). On September 2013, we made Fate System Toolkit available …



					www.faterpg.com


----------



## mamba

Savage Worlds









						Licensing
					

LICENSING If you'd like to use the Savage Worlds game system for your own materials, there are currently four ways to do so:   	the unapproved Fan license,   	the Savage Worlds Adventurer’s Guild on OneBookShelf.com (including DriveThruRPG.com and other platforms),  	the Media Network Content...



					peginc.com


----------



## mamba




----------



## MNblockhead

darjr said:


> Level Up 5e!
> 
> Find 3pp that have OGL stuff that is printed and sitting in storage or warehouses.
> 
> Go run other games at your FLGS, especially anything else they have on their shelves that isn't D&D? Especially current OGL 1.0 stuff.
> 
> I dunno.



Isn't Level Up still using / subject to WotC's license?


----------



## MNblockhead

@mamba Thanks, I've keep seeing FATE and Savage Worlds discussed and have been meaning to check them out for years. Maybe a good time to give it a look. The OGL or CC NC I'll avoid for now as CC NC isn't really open if limited to noncommercial use and OGL just means its caught in the current license mess.


----------



## Nilbog

I'm probably misunderstanding, but if you want to show your displeasure at WoTC I would have thought the best thing to do is support the companies who use the OGL and potentially would be impacted by this change?


----------



## Thanlis

PbtA is not generically under any version of Creative Commons. Vincent and Meg, creators of Apocalypse World (the first PbtA game), have encouraged people to make games inspired by theirs because they know mechanics can’t be copyrighted. Their formal statement is here.

Several PbtA games do carry a CC-BY license; Dungeon World and Thirsty Sword Lesbians are two that I know of. I think it’s important to be specific here so that people don’t assume that (say) the Avatar PbtA game is under an open license.

The same note applies to all of the CC-BY licensed games — derivatives may not be open licensed. 

GUMSHOE is dual licensed under both the OGL and CC-BY. So is FATE.

Rowan, Rook, and Decard released their Resistance Toolbox under CC-BY. It’s the system that powers Heart and Spire.

Trophy has a CC-BY SRD. 2400 (minimalist flexible system) has a CC-BY SRD. 

Fari Games is not exhaustive but it’s pretty good.


----------



## Jd Smith1

I have yet to see any valid reason to boycott any game company. But I don't play D&D, and have avoided d20 systems.


----------



## D1Tremere

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Savage Worlds Ace license (the one that would cover the same content use that the new OGL 1.1 seems to) seems identical in most ways to the new OGL 1.1 already. You have to be approved, it only applies to companies trying to make a large profit, it must carry the SW logo, and you agree to pay royalties.


----------



## Thanlis

D1Tremere said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but the Savage Worlds Ace license (the one that would cover the same content use that the new OGL 1.1 seems to) seems identical in most ways to the new OGL 1.1 already. You have to be approved, it only applies to companies trying to make a large profit, it must carry the SW logo, and you agree to pay royalties.



I hadn’t heard that the prospective OGL 1.1 requires approval, but otherwise yes. None of the Savage Worlds licenses are open by the generally accepted definitions.


----------



## mcmillan

A few of the open systems I'm aware of
Blades in the Dark - creative commons by attribution
Mork Borg - uses own license that is basically saying you're free to use it as you want other than using actual art assets or making it seem like it's officially endorsed, as well as banning NFTs based on content
Eclipse Phase - creative commons for non-commercial use
Lancer - uses it's own third party license that allows free use, including setting elements as long as marked with third-party logo.


----------



## J.Quondam

There's a thread from yesterday with a few more recommendations:








						WotC - non-OGL alternative to D&D
					

Let's say that I'm not too happy about the supposed new OGL thing and, in a fit of teenage-like rebellion, I wanted to move away from the OGL.  I thought the list would be pretty long, but it seems even non-D&D-adjacent games have been released under the OGL.   So, people of Enworld, would you...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Related to this, and maybe should be it's own thread, I am wondering what, if any, games are out there that;


Are open license or CC license
Are similar in themes and play experience to dnd (4e and 5e especially, I am not really into old school dnd)
Focus on distinct action resolution where failure is always a possibility, not rolling for feelings or for what the consequences of your action that just happens are
Allow for the building of a semi-complex OC with mechanical representation of your choices regarding how the character operates, making any two characters actually play differently

Are as general as 5e dnd within a single game (not within a broader gaming ecosystem), allowing you to go on a quest to save the princess in one session, a heist in another, engage in court intrigue in yet another, enter into and perform in a gladiatorial tournament after that, and then go delve into the ruins of The Necromancer's Keep after that, all with the same character sheets in the same mechanical system.

I know there are games that do some or even most of the above, but i don't know any non-OGL games that do all of the above.


----------



## MNblockhead

Nilbog said:


> I'm probably misunderstanding, but if you want to show your displeasure at WoTC I would have thought the best thing to do is support the companies who use the OGL and potentially would be impacted by this change?



If the OGL is, indeed, revocable, I'm interested in open licenses that are irrevocable, that are truly open source, that address the issues with the WotC OGL by using modern licenses. 

It seems to me that is is best to support companies completely unentangled in the WotC OGL. 

Besides, as I've stated, I'm not really looking to boycott WotC. But I would like to support some companies offering truly open licenses. And rather than just buying another D&D clone, retro D&D, OSR, whatever, I would rather buy a different system for more variety in my collection and play.


----------



## MNblockhead

Thanlis said:


> PbtA is not generically under any version of Creative Commons. Vincent and Meg, creators of Apocalypse World (the first PbtA game), have encouraged people to make games inspired by theirs because they know mechanics can’t be copyrighted. Their formal statement is here.
> 
> Several PbtA games do carry a CC-BY license; Dungeon World and Thirsty Sword Lesbians are two that I know of. I think it’s important to be specific here so that people don’t assume that (say) the Avatar PbtA game is under an open license.
> 
> The same note applies to all of the CC-BY licensed games — derivatives may not be open licensed.
> 
> GUMSHOE is dual licensed under both the OGL and CC-BY. So is FATE.
> 
> Rowan, Rook, and Decard released their Resistance Toolbox under CC-BY. It’s the system that powers Heart and Spire.
> 
> Trophy has a CC-BY SRD. 2400 (minimalist flexible system) has a CC-BY SRD.
> 
> Fari Games is not exhaustive but it’s pretty good.



GUMESHOE is a game I've been meaning to check out, could to know it offers CC-BY.


----------



## MNblockhead

Jd Smith1 said:


> I have yet to see any valid reason to boycott any game company. But I don't play D&D, and have avoided d20 systems.



Exactly. That's why I wanted a thread that focused on providing a list of companies offering truly open licenses that are not entangled in the WotC OGL. 

I'm doubt that whatever WotC does regarding its licenses, it will have little influence on my purchasing decisions. But I'm am genuinely interested in open source products and communities. 

For example, if I find a system that I really like that has a CC-BY license and an active community. It would be nice to collaborate on world building, sharing prepped VTT assets, etc. and be quite secure in the legality of it all.


----------



## Enrahim2

MNblockhead said:


> Exactly. That's why I wanted a thread that focused on providing a list of companies offering truly open licenses that are not entangled in the WotC OGL.
> 
> I'm doubt that whatever WotC does regarding its licenses, it will have little influence on my purchasing decisions. But I'm am genuinely interested in open source products and communities.
> 
> For example, if I find a system that I really like that has a CC-BY license and an active community. It would be nice to collaborate on world building, sharing prepped VTT assets, etc. and be quite secure in the legality of it all.



The big problem with this question is that it actually highlights how cruel what WotC is doing is from an open lisence perspective:
The real strength of an open license is that it defines a boundary where everyone can contribute to it growing, and feel assured that it is not misused by someone using your work in ways you really didn't intend it to be used.

The way this is done however creates open source lakes, where things from one license cannot be used with others. For instance you cannot use anything GPL in a CC-BY work. Hence for a open license community to be strong, you want to put as much as possible into one license. Fragmenting the open license space generally require very heavy reasons for anyone to even start using it. It is just better for everyone involved to grow the existing lake.

In roleplaying games OGL1.0a was that lake. This is why there are so many non-D&D related games using OGL - They didn't do it for wizards sake, they did it as that was the open source community that would give their work most exposure, and allow content creators for their system the largest potential source of content to draw from.

Hence there are no other healthy open content pool in tabletop RPG. So when now wizards seemingly effectively try to freeze the lake, and ensure that only themselves and their effectively sub-contractors can access the content the entire open gaming community has contributed over the last 20 years - that is a big move!

I have seen several arguments regarding how CC is too inconvinient compared to OGL for what game publishers need to build a thriving infrastructure. Hence if wizards is not repenting before publishing OGL 1.1, or someone with real economic muscles (think open content stakeholders in software or entertainment) come in and teach wizards a lesson in court; the only option for any hope of a new viable open content lake in D&D would be to start a completely new content lake. DMdave has already started such an initiative: https://www.patreon.com/posts/creator-original-76891481

Unfortunately unless wizards in a fit of madness lisences their 3.5 and 5ed srds under this new scheme, most owners of existing OGL licensed content cannot help out with quickly growing this new open license repository by just relisencing their work, as they need to make sure that they do not contain any material that can be argued to have been licensed from wizards via OGL. It would help greatly if this new open content lisence is seeded with a system that in "shape" is similar enough to the 3.5 and/or 5ed srds, so that translating is relatively easy. If I am reading DMDaves post this might actually be what he might have already also in place.

In other words - if wizards manage to close down the existing lake, where you want to go is where those previously used that lake go. That place do probably currently not exist, but unless any of the other big players also have done the same as DMDave (and decide to present it due to lack of coordination) - my current bet is that that might be the place.


----------



## Jd Smith1

After reading this thread I feel like I should support WoTC.


----------



## Voadam

MNblockhead said:


> Exactly. That's why I wanted a thread that focused on providing a list of companies offering truly open licenses that are not entangled in the WotC OGL.



I think your thread title is working counter to that goal.

Based on the title I came on here to point out the Favorite 5e OGL thread thinking it would be on topic for recommendations on who to support.

Flagging in the thread title that you are specifically looking for irrevocable open license games might give you better results.


----------



## MNblockhead

Voadam said:


> I think your thread title is working counter to that goal.
> 
> Based on the title I came on here to point out the Favorite 5e OGL thread thinking it would be on topic for recommendations on who to support.
> 
> Flagging in the thread title that you are specifically looking for irrevocable open license games might give you better results.



Fair criticism. Don't think I can change it now. But as poorly worded as it is, at least was made aware of several games released with CC BY, which is cool.


----------



## aramis erak

Enrahim2 said:


> Unfortunately unless wizards in a fit of madness lisences their 3.5 and 5ed srds under this new scheme, most owners of existing OGL licensed content cannot help out with quickly growing this new open license repository by just relisencing their work, as they need to make sure that they do not contain any material that can be argued to have been licensed from wizards via OGL.



The OGL 1.0a is, itself, a licensed document under the OGL 1.0a, albeit a different section.


----------



## Jerik

A few other open games I haven't seen mentioned (though maybe they were and I missed them):

Dominion Rules - AFAIK the first RPG to be released under an open license, predating the OGL; now available for free online (though you can buy a print copy on Lulu if you want to support the creators)
EABA - Sort of similar to the HERO/Champions system; includes a custom Open Supplement License
FantasyCraft - Not currently in print, but available in PDF form from DriveThruRPG.  (The company is still around, but currently focusing on other things, though there's talk of a new edition eventually.)  Licensed by the OGL 1.0, though, so might be in trouble.
Open Legend - An "open source RPG".  I haven't really looked into this one, so I can't say much about it except that it exists.
What's OLD is NEW - A bit surprised not to see this one mentioned here, since it's actually published by EN Publishing.  Again, though, it's released under the OGL 1.0—but AFAIK it doesn't use any WotC SRD content, so that can presumably be changed.
The Wanton Role-Playing System - The system behind the Over the Edge RPG has now been released as open content—though, again, under the OGL 1.0, but again it doesn't have any WotC SRD content.
Myriad RPG System - Advertises itself a toolbox rather than a self-contained RPG, but explicitly says "you can incorporate Myriad into your own books and products free of charge, even for commercial ventures".
This isn't exhaustive; there are, for instance, a lot of small indie RPGs on itch.io that explicitly grant the right for anyone to make supplements based on them.


----------



## Umbran

MNblockhead said:


> So I would appreciate it if someone would stop repeating why I shouldn't support WotC and tell me which companies offer truly open gaming content, hopefully with licenses that avoid the ambiguity in the WotC licenses.




While small companies will always welcome sales, buying a couple of products right now will not strike a notable blow for open gaming.

If the OGL v1.1 turns out to be as bad as some fear, there will be lawsuits.  There will be crowdfunding by small companies to fund their legal actions/defenses.  That would have greater impact than buying a rulebook before the license is finalized. 

Which is to say, yes, support open content, but we are near a point where the best way to do that may be more direct.


----------



## aramis erak

FUDGE was released under an open license in the 90's... ISTR GNU-FDL... later under some other non-OGL.

That said, Seconding Umbran's advice: wait for the lawsuits and contribute to defense of the 1.0a.


Jd Smith1 said:


> After reading this thread I feel like I should support WoTC.



If they''re able to force the 1.1 on the industry, every OGL product will support WotC.
They're making the smart business move from the corporate view, but at the expense of reputation, and quite likely, a large part of the fanbase.


----------



## Jd Smith1

aramis erak said:


> That said, Seconding Umbran's advice: wait for the lawsuits and contribute to defense of the 1.0a.



Sorry, I've chosen my side. 


aramis erak said:


> If they''re able to force the 1.1 on the industry, every OGL product will support WotC.
> They're making the smart business move from the corporate view, but at the expense of reputation, and quite likely, a large part of the fanbase.



I think it would be a good thing if WotC prevails. I think it would push writers to seek out innovative avenues, rather than coming up with ever more bolt-on addendum to 5e or stale D&D clones.


----------

