The Indie RPG Awards

For the purpose of these awards, there needs to be a consistent definition of what licenses are considered compatible with the definition of being considered independent. In ordinary discussion, the definition of "indie" can be left vague. However, for the awards there needs to be a concrete, consistent, and applicable rule which can be fairly applied. The goal is to promote design by recognizing the efforts of independent creators. The key points about the definition of an independent RPG product are:

• A work where the creator is the person who has written at least 50% of the actual game content.
• A work where the creator has full control of content and publishing.
• A work where the creator is the publisher: They alone are responsible for paying all the costs of printing, art, advertising, etc. They also have full executive receipt and full control over the disbursement of profits.

A quick few questions for licenses not mentioned below:

1. Does your license require that your game be pre-reviewed, checked, or similarly tested by the license owner for quality? If so, that's an excellent idea and decision by that company. However, you don't have full control of content at that point, so your game is not applicable.
2. You publish under a license: Say that you want to suddenly publish 1,000 more copies; can you send your game to the printers any time you want without getting approval (money notwithstanding)? If no, then your game isn't applicable.
3. Your distributor (RPGNow, Alliance, Tundra, Joe's RPG PDFs) cuts you a check for your sales through them. Do you then cash the check and do what you want with it (including back-paying people who worked on the game), or do you have to give it to someone else, who takes care of cashing it and paying people? If the latter, then your game isn't applicable.

Under these conditions, I believe that Wizards of the Coast Open Gaming License does not violate a game being indie. While some people could make an objection that the license restricts the freedom of what you can put in, and thus nullifies the full and complete control. For example, publishing under the OGL may prevents putting in derivative material that would otherwise be within the bounds of Fair Use, if it is trademarked or designated as product identity. The founder of the awards, Andy Kitkowsky, made a judgement call that this does not constitute editorial control -- and I agree with him.

With that in mind, here are some licenses and eligibility for these awards:

d20	Eligible. Unfortunately, because of resources we're not including them this year. Sorry.
OGL ("smells like d20")	Eligible. Unfortunately, because of resources we're not including them this year. Sorry.
OGL (Action! System, games that aren't at all like d20, etc	Eligible.
Guardians of Order's Magnum Opus	Ineligible due to their condition of pre-publishing quality review.
West End Games' d6 License	Eligible.
Fudge/FATE	Old License: Eligible, as they aren't reviewed for quality, just legal infringement. New License (WotC OGL): "Even MORE Eligible"
Pinnacle's Savaged License	Ineligible since games must be approved by Pinnacle. Hoewever, kudos to Pinnacle for this idea. Lots of great stuff is being made under the Savaged License, please check them out! http://www.peginc.com/Licensors/index.htm

 

If you have any questions, please contact me through the Contact Page.