TheRPGSite

Some very surprising new developments are making me change some of my opinions about the potential of the #ORCLicense
Especially one big revelation...
#onednd #openDnD #dnd5e #OGL2.0 #openrpg
#dnd       #ttrpg   #osr 

With the exeption of Macris I don't trust any of them as far as I can throw them.

Now I'm willing to wait for the text of the license to drop before deciding between CC By SA and ORC.

Good video and follow-up. I am both happy and surprised to hear Macris is in, especially considering all of the mud he has been dragged through for no reason.

I do not believe an OGL is necessary for the hobby. If I want to play a game with Magic Missile, I have OD&D (with supplement), AD&D, 2e, Basic, or any of the old retro clones I can play. I believe the market for "D&D" is saturated.

If I created material, I certainly wouldn't want to have WotC or Paizo's name anywhere in my book.

Good video.

I pretty much called it in the last video thread... Paizo, Green Ronin, etc. would ultimately have to release an actual open license simply because its in their own best financial interests.

I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system." That's the particular boat I'm in and I think a lot of the people behind the close kin to D&D systems are kidding themselves about how quickly they'll be able to actually strip the things WotC could claim as legitimately copyrighted elements (i.e. not mechanics, but protectable concepts and ideas)

For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
Good video.

I pretty much called it in the last video thread... Paizo, Green Ronin, etc. would ultimately have to release an actual open license simply because its in their own best financial interests.

I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system." That's the particular boat I'm in and I think a lot of the people behind the close kin to D&D systems are kidding themselves about how quickly they'll be able to actually strip the things WotC could claim as legitimately copyrighted elements (i.e. not mechanics, but protectable concepts and ideas)

For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

Not to rain on your parade or anything but Basic Fantasy is done with the first review of their book stripping all WotC content from it, the second pass is underway, there'll be a third and fourth passes and then it will be out, probably in 2-3 weeks, that's what? A little over a month since the fiasco started?

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
Good video.

I pretty much called it in the last video thread... Paizo, Green Ronin, etc. would ultimately have to release an actual open license simply because its in their own best financial interests.

I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system." That's the particular boat I'm in and I think a lot of the people behind the close kin to D&D systems are kidding themselves about how quickly they'll be able to actually strip the things WotC could claim as legitimately copyrighted elements (i.e. not mechanics, but protectable concepts and ideas)

For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

Most of that is either rules, has plenty of precedent at this point outside of D&D (Seriously, even Warcraft has the Chromatic Dragons), or so innane nobody cares about - the shape of elven eyes, or how long they live? Even D&D isn't consistent about that from one product line, setting, edition, or even just author to another. It is not the herculean task you make it out to be.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 05:58:51 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
Good video.

I pretty much called it in the last video thread... Paizo, Green Ronin, etc. would ultimately have to release an actual open license simply because its in their own best financial interests.

I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system." That's the particular boat I'm in and I think a lot of the people behind the close kin to D&D systems are kidding themselves about how quickly they'll be able to actually strip the things WotC could claim as legitimately copyrighted elements (i.e. not mechanics, but protectable concepts and ideas)

For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

Not to rain on your parade or anything but Basic Fantasy is done with the first review of their book stripping all WotC content from it, the second pass is underway, there'll be a third and fourth passes and then it will be out, probably in 2-3 weeks, that's what? A little over a month since the fiasco started?

And Basic Fantasy is the most affordable RPG I can think of.  They have garnered nothing but good will, since its very inception.  A true low cost alternative, to scratch the D&D itch.

Quote from: Jam The MF on January 17, 2023, 06:24:07 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 05:58:51 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
Good video.

I pretty much called it in the last video thread... Paizo, Green Ronin, etc. would ultimately have to release an actual open license simply because its in their own best financial interests.

I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system." That's the particular boat I'm in and I think a lot of the people behind the close kin to D&D systems are kidding themselves about how quickly they'll be able to actually strip the things WotC could claim as legitimately copyrighted elements (i.e. not mechanics, but protectable concepts and ideas)

For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

Not to rain on your parade or anything but Basic Fantasy is done with the first review of their book stripping all WotC content from it, the second pass is underway, there'll be a third and fourth passes and then it will be out, probably in 2-3 weeks, that's what? A little over a month since the fiasco started?

And Basic Fantasy is the most affordable RPG I can think of.  They have garnered nothing but good will, since its very inception.  A true low cost alternative, to scratch the D&D itch.

Plus it will be released under the CC By SA, so, as long as you're willing to adhere to the license you can take anything from their game.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
- the arcane/divine casting divide

This is not a divide restricted to D&D, and never was. In fact, it began in the real world: witchcraft, sorceries, and divinations have been forbidden to worshippers of Christianity since the beginning.

More, it's appeared in other games going back to 1991 at least, such as TORG: not only are Miracles and Magic two different rules subsystems, they're governed by two different axioms!

Use this with impunity.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 17, 2023, 08:38:43 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
- the arcane/divine casting divide

This is not a divide restricted to D&D, and never has been. In fact, it began in the real world: witchcraft, sorceries, and divinations have been forbidden to worshippers of Christianity since the beginning.

More, it's appeared in other games going back to 1991 at least, such as TORG: not only are Miracles and Magic two different rules subsystems, they're governed by two different axioms!

Use this with impunity.

It goes way back than Christianity, Jews had the same restrictions, after all the Old Testament is nothing but a part of their holy book. So it's at least 2023+ years old.

Even the Maya who allegedly did not make the distinction had the priests who "performed miracles", the white witches and the black witches (who often could be the same person depending on how they were using their "powers".

You find the same division almost in every culture you find going back to the Summerians. gods on one side, demons on the other with sometimes a grey area where witchcraft wasn't forbidden as long as it wasn't black witchcraft.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 05:58:51 PM
Not to rain on your parade or anything but Basic Fantasy is done with the first review of their book stripping all WotC content from it, the second pass is underway, there'll be a third and fourth passes and then it will be out, probably in 2-3 weeks, that's what? A little over a month since the fiasco started?

Why would that rain on my parade? I'm just bringing up logistics and potential places where the SRD (and in Basic Fantasy's case the old B/X material which is also copyright WotC) has likely been taken for granted and should be looked at... because I'm sure WotC won't be vindictive towards the third parties who wouldn't step into their trap at all. <sarcasm>

Basic Fantasy's method of crowdsourcing a dozen plus volunteers to go over a 170 page book is honestly a good strategy. I'm glad they'll have something out sooner rather than later. The fact they've also always released as free content also helps insulate them from potential problems with a vindictive WotC (no money to be had) so it's a good move for them.

* * * *

As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

WotC's arcane/divine divide makes no such moral judgments and the good/evil divide is entirely on the divine side with its pantheon of good and evil gods while arcane is more akin to a poorly understood science that has almost no moral component to it at all.

I brought it up because that is a specific expression of a magic system that could be a problem depending again on how ugly WotC wants to be because those third parties they wanted to rope in for content for their walled garden exploitationfest escaped their clutches.

Particularly when that divide is included alongside Vancian slot-based spell prep, eight schools of magic and nine levels of spells and a selection of spells at each level that matches very closely the standard setup of D&D.

I think a lot of people are really glossing over matters that fall under the category of protected expression and how it could bite various parties if they don't account for it. One aspect of that expression is a particular collection of elements into a larger whole.

Mechanics are protected, but mechanics presented in the exact same way are not. The example from a while back about the western and samurai themed card games with identical mechanics is apt. The notes in that case indicated that the entire decision was founded on the difference in presentation of western vs. samurai... but that if it had been another western-themes card game with the same mechanics, even with minor name changes (ex. calling the deputies, the posse), it would have been infringement.

Basic Fantasy's swap from chromatic to environmental dragons is an example of such a necessary swap; even when the body text of the new material does indicate colors very much like the classic D&D depictions it isn't making it nearly so prominent and is expressed in their own words not copied and pasted from the SRD and non-profit protects them more than it would Paizo, but the fact it's still a very D&D like setting with the dragons filling the same niches and just reading their descriptions indicating which color they're actually supposed to be could still be a weak point that an unreasonable litigant could go after.

Life is risk so I'm not saying don't go there. I'm just saying to be aware of what wildlife and potential pitfalls are in the forest as you go traveling through it and the more you relied on the SRD directly the more you've got your work cut out for you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 08:48:33 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 17, 2023, 08:38:43 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
- the arcane/divine casting divide

This is not a divide restricted to D&D, and never has been. In fact, it began in the real world: witchcraft, sorceries, and divinations have been forbidden to worshippers of Christianity since the beginning.

More, it's appeared in other games going back to 1991 at least, such as TORG: not only are Miracles and Magic two different rules subsystems, they're governed by two different axioms!

Use this with impunity.

It goes way back than Christianity, Jews had the same restrictions, after all the Old Testament is nothing but a part of their holy book. So it's at least 2023+ years old.

Even the Maya who allegedly did not make the distinction had the priests who "performed miracles", the white witches and the black witches (who often could be the same person depending on how they were using their "powers".

You find the same division almost in every culture you find going back to the Summerians. gods on one side, demons on the other with sometimes a grey area where witchcraft wasn't forbidden as long as it wasn't black witchcraft.

Social/Religious prohibitions are not the same as fundamentally different systems of magic. Black vs White magic is more akin to "Magic Schools" than completely different ways of using magic. Within real life mystical traditions anyone could use either type, it's just that "Black Magic" is frowned upon and has negative spiritual consequences. But you could still try it if you dare, and most of what we take for "wizard" magic today originates from Hermetic traditions that call upon angelic beings and were mixed up with Abrahamic religions, even if the mainstream forms of those religions are against magic or consider it heretical.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2023, 09:32:16 AM
Social/Religious prohibitions are not the same as fundamentally different systems of magic. Black vs White magic is more akin to "Magic Schools" than completely different ways of using magic. Within real life mystical traditions anyone could use either type, it's just that "Black Magic" is frowned upon and has negative spiritual consequences. But you could still try it if you dare, and most of what we take for "wizard" magic today originates from Hermetic traditions that call upon angelic beings and were mixed up with Abrahamic religions, even if the mainstream forms of those religions are against magic or consider it heretical.

D&D magic and D&D psionics are fundamentally different systems. Arcane and Divine magic are not "fundamentally different systems of magic". They're the exact same system of magic. The spells function the same way, casting functions the same way, you roll the same things, etc. Just different spell lists. They're no more fundamentally different than Evocation and Necromancy.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 17, 2023, 04:52:42 PM
Some very surprising new developments are making me change some of my opinions about the potential of the #ORCLicense
Especially one big revelation...
#onednd #openDnD #dn

Once burnt twice shy. I made a mistake in using the OGL when I really didn't need to. Caused myself a lot of unnecessary agita. I don't see myself using this thing even if the current people in charge walk on water.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide...

If you have priests using miracles and wizards casting spells, that is a divide recognized for millennia.

It in no way infringes on WOTC's intellectual property.

Like using leprechauns, will-o-the-wisps, bears, toads, and frogs: these are all common things and the Coast brigade has no rights over them.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system."

How does the OGL allows others to make content for your system in a way different from Creative Commons or other licenses? I would think it was a bit more restrictive because the OGL says those others can't write on the cover "Compatible with Chris24601's Brilliant Game System" and can't use your logo or other things (which are legally allowed if carefully controlled in how) while other licenses would allow that.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 18, 2023, 09:49:23 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2023, 09:32:16 AM
Social/Religious prohibitions are not the same as fundamentally different systems of magic. Black vs White magic is more akin to "Magic Schools" than completely different ways of using magic. Within real life mystical traditions anyone could use either type, it's just that "Black Magic" is frowned upon and has negative spiritual consequences. But you could still try it if you dare, and most of what we take for "wizard" magic today originates from Hermetic traditions that call upon angelic beings and were mixed up with Abrahamic religions, even if the mainstream forms of those religions are against magic or consider it heretical.

D&D magic and D&D psionics are fundamentally different systems. Arcane and Divine magic are not "fundamentally different systems of magic". They're the exact same system of magic. The spells function the same way, casting functions the same way, you roll the same things, etc. Just different spell lists. They're no more fundamentally different than Evocation and Necromancy.

Nitpicking/Pet Peeve of mine, but...

Even the idea of "Psionics/Psychic" abilities originated as a pseudoscientific distinction made in the study of purported magical abilities within parapsychology. Terms like Psionics and Miracles are artificial distinctions used to refer to what's essentially "Magic" by another name, even within the real life context they originate from. They're ALL "Magic"! People just have an emotional investment on them.

And from a game mechanic PoV, dragging these distinctions only brings unnecessary complications to the game system and extra stuff to keep track of, like bookkeeping all the tiny variations of what are essentially magic attacks, buffer effects, status effects, etc., as separate "spells", "miracles" or "psionic powers". It would be much more efficient to just treat all magical powers as the same thing, divided by core effects, then sprinkle flavor or tiny modifiers on top by using trappings, like "This Magic Attack is specifically Fire damage (or Holy damage or whatever)", or "I use magic by praying" vs "I use magic by reciting incantations", etc. And maybe give special bonuses if your power's trappings match your mystical tradition or whatever (Holymen get +X to healing and buffing powers; Unholymen get +X to energy drain and debuffs).

BUT

All of this is immaterial to the discussion anyways, since the idea of distinct Arcane/Divine/Psionic/Whatever magic has become so ubiquitous in modern fantasy outside of D&D I don't think WotC even realizes that the Arcane/Divine divide originated within D&D. And I don't think that they'd have a leg to stand on legally.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2023, 09:32:16 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 08:48:33 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 17, 2023, 08:38:43 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
- the arcane/divine casting divide

This is not a divide restricted to D&D, and never has been. In fact, it began in the real world: witchcraft, sorceries, and divinations have been forbidden to worshippers of Christianity since the beginning.

More, it's appeared in other games going back to 1991 at least, such as TORG: not only are Miracles and Magic two different rules subsystems, they're governed by two different axioms!

Use this with impunity.

It goes way back than Christianity, Jews had the same restrictions, after all the Old Testament is nothing but a part of their holy book. So it's at least 2023+ years old.

Even the Maya who allegedly did not make the distinction had the priests who "performed miracles", the white witches and the black witches (who often could be the same person depending on how they were using their "powers".

You find the same division almost in every culture you find going back to the Summerians. gods on one side, demons on the other with sometimes a grey area where witchcraft wasn't forbidden as long as it wasn't black witchcraft.

Social/Religious prohibitions are not the same as fundamentally different systems of magic. Black vs White magic is more akin to "Magic Schools" than completely different ways of using magic. Within real life mystical traditions anyone could use either type, it's just that "Black Magic" is frowned upon and has negative spiritual consequences. But you could still try it if you dare, and most of what we take for "wizard" magic today originates from Hermetic traditions that call upon angelic beings and were mixed up with Abrahamic religions, even if the mainstream forms of those religions are against magic or consider it heretical.

Oh, but they ARE different systems of "magic"! Praying to God for a miracle is very different from working with demons (even if they have fooled you into thinking they are angels):

Deuteronomy 18: 9-12
Exodus 220:18
Leviticus 20:27
Job 1:12
2 Corinthians 4:4
Revelation 20:2
Exodus 8:7
Genesis 3:5

Now, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just providing EVIDENCE that under Abrahamic Law Witchcraft isn't the same as praying for a miracle, because the first comes from the devil and the second comes from God.

You can disbelieve as hard as you want, what you can't do is come and re-interpret thousands of years of Theology to make the religion say something it doesn't say.

Jews believed Witchcraft to be of the devil, either through revelation as religious people think or through osmosis taking it from their neighborgs and enslavers.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 18, 2023, 10:10:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide...

If you have priests using miracles and wizards casting spells, that is a divide recognized for millennia.

It in no way infringes on WOTC's intellectual property.

Like using leprechauns, will-o-the-wisps, bears, toads, and frogs: these are all common things and the Coast brigade has no rights over them.

Again, it's not just the divide its the divide representing fundamentally different sources of power (some natural aspect of reality vs. power from gods) connected to eight specific schools of magic, Vancian preparation, nine levels of spells, VSM components, slot-based casting, wizard armor restrictions, cleric weapon restrictions, fireball being a level 3 evocation while invisibility is a level 2 illusion, etc.

All of those combined add up to a specific expression of a concept of a spellcaster that can actually be copyrighted.

There's a reason Palladium wizards and priests don't use magic the same way as their D&D counterparts do, why Tunnels & Trolls doesn't even have priests and their wizards use spell points, why pretty much every non-OGL system has its own unique expressions for their magic systems. It's because a particular combination of aggregate elements IS something you can copyright.

To quote https://guides.library.unt.edu/SCCopyright/basics#s-lg-box-14997580 ;

Notably, copyright protects the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. This should be intuitive: Copyright is designed to protect art not the ideas art is based on. So, just because copyright protects the Harry Potter stories does not prevent another person from writing a completely unique story about a boy wizard using magic to fight evil. The law protect's J.K. Rowling's specific telling of that story, but not all of the ideas that are contained within the story.

You can't copyright a wizard or any of the individual components that comprise a D&D wizard and their magic; but the specific collection of components is something that falls under copyright and Hasbro/WotC holds that copyright (and not just to the SRD versions, but the version from every D&D edition).

Do what you will. I'm just sharing a potential point of weakness that a vindictive WotC could attack a work with that a lot of people are just writing off because 20+ years of the OGL has made the concepts so common within the OGL community that no one thinks of them as unique copyrighted elements when almost everything that actually does include those elements is another OGL/SRD D&D derivative where Hasbro/WotC just has to say "we're pursuing legal action against them too" and your "but everyone's doing it so it's not unique" argument is largely defused.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 10:43:26 AM
How does the OGL allows others to make content for your system in a way different from Creative Commons or other licenses? I would think it was a bit more restrictive because the OGL says those others can't write on the cover "Compatible with Chris24601's Brilliant Game System" and can't use your logo or other things (which are legally allowed if carefully controlled in how) while other licenses would allow that.

OGL in this case is just shorthand for any license that grants a license to use your content because who wants to write "the Open Game License, Open RPG Creative License, Creative Commons licenses and various other system licenses open or otherwise" again and again when you can type three capital letters and convey 90% of the same sentiment.

Also, not all restrictions are bad by default. Not letting eight year olds vote in state or national elections is a restriction that I don't think anyone would regard as a bad thing.

So too, on Freedom of Association grounds I actually don't have a problem with "if you want to indicate compatibility just contact the licensor first" as a license condition. Really, I struggle to think of reasons why it would be so terribly important for you to use someone else's trademarked name without their permission other than because you think they'd object to your product for some reason.

If you don't wish to deal with that condition (I assure you my conditions for use would not be monetary, but rather center around "don't shit on my setting") then I'm sure there are other systems with other licenses you can make content for.

That's the beauty of Freedom of Association; you only have to associate with people you want to.

I don't want to associate with people who lack the common courtesy to reach out to someone whose content they're using word for word and take two minutes to describe what they're doing and ask permission to use my trademarks on their product.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 11:19:06 AM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 18, 2023, 10:10:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide...

If you have priests using miracles and wizards casting spells, that is a divide recognized for millennia.

It in no way infringes on WOTC's intellectual property.

Like using leprechauns, will-o-the-wisps, bears, toads, and frogs: these are all common things and the Coast brigade has no rights over them.

Again, it's not just the divide its the divide representing fundamentally different sources of power (some natural aspect of reality vs. power from gods) connected to eight specific schools of magic, Vancian preparation, nine levels of spells, VSM components, slot-based casting, wizard armor restrictions, cleric weapon restrictions, fireball being a level 3 evocation while invisibility is a level 2 illusion, etc.

All of those combined add up to a specific expression of a concept of a spellcaster that can actually be copyrighted.

There's a reason Palladium wizards and priests don't use magic the same way as their D&D counterparts do, why Tunnels & Trolls doesn't even have priests and their wizards use spell points, why pretty much every non-OGL system has its own unique expressions for their magic systems. It's because a particular combination of aggregate elements IS something you can copyright.

To quote https://guides.library.unt.edu/SCCopyright/basics#s-lg-box-14997580 ;

Notably, copyright protects the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. This should be intuitive: Copyright is designed to protect art not the ideas art is based on. So, just because copyright protects the Harry Potter stories does not prevent another person from writing a completely unique story about a boy wizard using magic to fight evil. The law protect's J.K. Rowling's specific telling of that story, but not all of the ideas that are contained within the story.

You can't copyright a wizard or any of the individual components that comprise a D&D wizard and their magic; but the specific collection of components is something that falls under copyright and Hasbro/WotC holds that copyright (and not just to the SRD versions, but the version from every D&D edition).

Do what you will. I'm just sharing a potential point of weakness that a vindictive WotC could attack a work with that a lot of people are just writing off because 20+ years of the OGL has made the concepts so common within the OGL community that no one thinks of them as unique copyrighted elements when almost everything that actually does include those elements is another OGL/SRD D&D derivative where Hasbro/WotC just has to say "we're pursuing legal action against them too" and your "but everyone's doing it so it's not unique" argument is largely defused.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 10:43:26 AM
How does the OGL allows others to make content for your system in a way different from Creative Commons or other licenses? I would think it was a bit more restrictive because the OGL says those others can't write on the cover "Compatible with Chris24601's Brilliant Game System" and can't use your logo or other things (which are legally allowed if carefully controlled in how) while other licenses would allow that.

OGL in this case is just shorthand for any license that grants a license to use your content because who wants to write "the Open Game License, Open RPG Creative License, Creative Commons licenses and various other system licenses open or otherwise" again and again when you can type three capital letters and convey 90% of the same sentiment.

Also, not all restrictions are bad by default. Not letting eight year olds vote in state or national elections is a restriction that I don't think anyone would regard as a bad thing.

So too, on Freedom of Association grounds I actually don't have a problem with "if you want to indicate compatibility just contact the licensor first" as a license condition. Really, I struggle to think of reasons why it would be so terribly important for you to use someone else's trademarked name without their permission other than because you think they'd object to your product for some reason.

If you don't wish to deal with that condition (I assure you my conditions for use would not be monetary, but rather center around "don't shit on my setting") then I'm sure there are other systems with other licenses you can make content for.

That's the beauty of Freedom of Association; you only have to associate with people you want to.

I don't want to associate with people who lack the common courtesy to reach out to someone whose content they're using word for word and take two minutes to describe what they're doing and ask permission to use my trademarks on their product.

So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2023, 11:16:27 AM
Even the idea of "Psionics/Psychic" abilities originated as a pseudoscientific distinction made in the study of purported magical abilities within parapsychology. Terms like Psionics and Miracles are artificial distinctions used to refer to what's essentially "Magic" by another name, even within the real life context they originate from. They're ALL "Magic"! People just have an emotional investment on them.

I meant that mechanically they were distinct systems, while the arcane/divine divide is purely just spell lists and fluff.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:26:39 AM
So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.

So, you're agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though... a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other... Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to "Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir" (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words... it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the "concept stack" are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

Yeah. You're not gonna stop Hasbro from trying to sue you anyway and they still waste your money on frivolous lawsuits. So it's probably better to sanitize your work of anything that clearly originates from D&D.

For example, rename the genie tribes to names from Tunisian folklore like ifrit (fire genies), baharia (genies of the sea), leriah (genies of the airs), and siadna (genies of the land).

The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

Scaly kobolds will need to be renamed. Do you like "dragonewt"? Scaly goblins?

Assuming that works. The concept stack thing is still a problem. You'll need to find public domain replacements for absolutely everything WotC could claim, and then you'd have to scrub it further to avoid concept stack.

Another great reason why copyright law needs to be reformed.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 12:10:22 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:26:39 AM
So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.

So, you're agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though... a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other... Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to "Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir" (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words... it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the "concept stack" are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, sorry if I came out like that.

So, your entire point is that you need to change MORE than the fluff on some pleces?

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that, but I might be wrong.

Yes, you do need to come up with a different magic system that doesn't work like "vancian" magic, just to be on the safe side, since the mechanics can't be copyrighted this might be useless but better safe than sorry (plus bolting back vancian into the game at my table is a chore of about 5 seconds.

More importantly tho is the schools of magic IMHO and the spell list, those need to be reworked thoroughly.

As for the magic division, this is now on the public domain (If it wasn't already):

Miracles instead of divine magic
Hermetic instead of Arcane, powered by ley lines, crystals, the moon, stars, etc.
Demonic for the evil guys.

And for all that's fun and good about this hobby, make the spells REALLY different among the types?

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

Rolemaster has always divided magic that way arcane/divine or essence/channeling.
Also their dragons are different colors.  Red green, white, orange, black, metallic, etc.

Those two things are concepts/ideas not expression, thus not protected.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 12:15:01 PM
Yeah. You're not gonna stop Hasbro from trying to sue you anyway and they still waste your money on frivolous lawsuits. So it's probably better to sanitize your work of anything that clearly originates from D&D.

For example, rename the genie tribes to names from Tunisian folklore like ifrit (fire genies), baharia (genies of the sea), leriah (genies of the airs), and siadna (genies of the land).

The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

Scaly kobolds will need to be renamed. Do you like "dragonewt"? Scaly goblins?

Assuming that works. The concept stack thing is still a problem. You'll need to find public domain replacements for absolutely everything WotC could claim, and then you'd have to scrub it further to avoid concept stack.

Another great reason why copyright law needs to be reformed.

Exactly, because I don't have the kind of money needed to fight them, the safest thing to do is to scrub EVERY single D&Dism from your work.

Concept Stack? First time reading that and Google isn't helping, care to expand for the rest of the class?

The devil is still in the details of the wrapper licenses. I worried about how open this would be when I learned Chaosium was involved for reasons divorced from politics.

This is in their "open" licenses for BRP and OpenQuest (source: https://www.chaosium.com/brp-system-reference-document/):

QuoteProhibited Content is material you can't use with this SRD. It is defined as:

All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress from any of the following: any releases from the product lines of Call of Cthulhu, Dragon Lords of Melniboné, ElfQuest, Elric!, Hawkmoon, HeroQuest, Hero Wars, King Arthur Pendragon, Magic World, Nephilim, Prince Valiant, Ringworld, RuneQuest, 7th Sea, Stormbringer, Superworld, Thieves' World, Worlds of Wonder, and any related sublines; the world and mythology of Glorantha; all works related to the Cthulhu Mythos, including those that are otherwise public domain; and all works related to Le Morte d'Arthur.

So the goal is nothing that parallels one of their game lines even if the material is not owned by them or anyone in the last case. I suspect they'll claim anything Arthur derives from Le Morte d'Arthur.

Also, for BRP, they limit what new mechanics you can make:

QuoteIn addition, game mechanics that are substantially similar to the following unique or characteristic features of other Chaosium games are Prohibited Content:

Augments: The use of one ability — whether skill or characteristic — to augment another ability of the same or a different type, in a manner substantially similar to those of the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules.
Glory: If substantially similar to the King Arthur Pendragon rules.
Passions: If substantially similar to the King Arthur Pendragon and/or the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules.
Personality Traits: If substantially similar to the King Arthur Pendragon rules.
Pushing: If substantially similar to the Call of Cthulhu rules.
Reputation: If substantially similar to the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules.
Rune Magic: If substantially similar to the Rune or divine magic mechanics presented in any version of the RuneQuest rules. Original magic systems not derived from RuneQuest may be called "rune magic" if they do not include any components of the Gloranthan Runes.
Runes: If substantially similar to the Runes contained in the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rules.
Sanity: If substantially similar to the Sanity mechanics in the Call of Cthulhu rules, including Bouts of Madness, Temporary, Indefinite, and Permanent Insanity.
Sorcery: If substantially similar to the sorcery mechanics presented in any version of the RuneQuest rules. Original magic systems not derived from RuneQuest may be called "sorcery."
Spirit Magic: If substantially similar to the spirit or battle magic mechanics presented in any version of the RuneQuest rules. Original magic systems not derived from RuneQuest may be called "spirit magic."

That's enough to render pretty much any BRP based fantasy or horror game in violation.

I'm sure the Chaosium version of ORC will be similar which makes me wonder how open ORC will be in practice.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 12:15:01 PM
The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

While I'm not up to fighting Hasbro lawyers, neither originates with D&D. Both are older terms from core D&D sources used in D&D in a specific way. Lich for an animated corpse with intelligence is from Clark Ashton Smith and phylatctery is a religious item in Judaism and Christianity as well as a name used for some amulets from animist traditions.

More importantly, trying to claim things like those invites scrutiny that Hasbro lawyers might not like on what they are claiming copyright or trademark on.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:26:39 AM
THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Can they?

Serious question?

D&D didn't introduce schools until 2nd edition, but C&S had schools, most with the same names, a decade earlier in the 70s.

Again, Hasbro lawyers could snow yours, but would they? At some point, trying to claim things with clear prior art could be a pyrrhic victory. You might bankrupt the person you're suing but establish the prior art enough that you can't win in the future.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:22:02 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 12:10:22 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:26:39 AM
So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.

So, you're agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though... a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other... Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to "Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir" (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words... it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the "concept stack" are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, sorry if I came out like that.

So, your entire point is that you need to change MORE than the fluff on some pleces?

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that, but I might be wrong.

Yes, you do need to come up with a different magic system that doesn't work like "vancian" magic, just to be on the safe side, since the mechanics can't be copyrighted this might be useless but better safe than sorry (plus bolting back vancian into the game at my table is a chore of about 5 seconds.

More importantly tho is the schools of magic IMHO and the spell list, those need to be reworked thoroughly.

As for the magic division, this is now on the public domain (If it wasn't already):

Miracles instead of divine magic
Hermetic instead of Arcane, powered by ley lines, crystals, the moon, stars, etc.
Demonic for the evil guys.

And for all that's fun and good about this hobby, make the spells REALLY different among the types?

D&D's magic class distinctions are pretty anal-retentive anyway. I vastly prefer Spheres of Power.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 12:15:01 PM
Yeah. You're not gonna stop Hasbro from trying to sue you anyway and they still waste your money on frivolous lawsuits. So it's probably better to sanitize your work of anything that clearly originates from D&D.

For example, rename the genie tribes to names from Tunisian folklore like ifrit (fire genies), baharia (genies of the sea), leriah (genies of the airs), and siadna (genies of the land).

The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

Scaly kobolds will need to be renamed. Do you like "dragonewt"? Scaly goblins?

Assuming that works. The concept stack thing is still a problem. You'll need to find public domain replacements for absolutely everything WotC could claim, and then you'd have to scrub it further to avoid concept stack.

Another great reason why copyright law needs to be reformed.

Exactly, because I don't have the kind of money needed to fight them, the safest thing to do is to scrub EVERY single D&Dism from your work.

Concept Stack? First time reading that and Google isn't helping, care to expand for the rest of the class?

I was referring to another post here:

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 12:10:22 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:26:39 AM
So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.

So, you're agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though... a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other... Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to "Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir" (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words... it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the "concept stack" are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

Quote from: PulpHerb on January 18, 2023, 12:35:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 12:15:01 PM
The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

While I'm not up to fighting Hasbro lawyers, neither originates with D&D. Both are older terms from core D&D sources used in D&D in a specific way. Lich for an animated corpse with intelligence is from Clark Ashton Smith and phylatctery is a religious item in Judaism and Christianity as well as a name used for some amulets from animist traditions.

More importantly, trying to claim things like those invites scrutiny that Hasbro lawyers might not like on what they are claiming copyright or trademark on.

I'm not risking it. And besides, I don't consider the D&D terms sacred anyway. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 12:10:22 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:26:39 AM
So you say that magic comes from demons or from nature (as the "Native Americans" and others seemed to believe), while miracles come from the gods.

It's not something WotC can claim, just their fluff.

THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Vancian magic, that's correct, create your own system. Create your own spell list with new names where needed, different fluff and mechanics.

Others have done it and WotC has done shit, BECAUSE they know they can't do shit. I'm speaking of games not under the OGL like WWN/SWN, what has wizards done? NOTHING.

So, you're agreeing with me in the most belligerent way possible? Alright. You do you.

You just agreed to my entire point though... a lot of the OGL products do have all those things stacked atop each other... Paizo especially despite some mechanical changes has races (sorry, ancestries) and classes and spells in specific schools at specific levels that basically amount to "Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir" (including a magical scar on his ankle that aches whenever Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near) when taken a combined whole.

Stripping that out to a degree that is actually free and clear is going to take more than just rewriting some fluff text in your own words... it means for more specific concepts deciding which particular elements of the "concept stack" are most important to retain and which you will need to change to avoid too similar a stack and what you want to change those elements to.

Care to explain this? First time I read about it and Google ins't helping, is this from some law or legal precedent?

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 12:26:55 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

Rolemaster has always divided magic that way arcane/divine or essence/channeling.
Also their dragons are different colors.  Red green, white, orange, black, metallic, etc.

Those two things are concepts/ideas not expression, thus not protected.

BEFORE D&D used them? Or they didn't bother to sue them?

Quote from: PulpHerb on January 18, 2023, 12:38:13 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:26:39 AM
THEIR specific schools of magic, that is correct, create your own.

Can they?

Serious question?

D&D didn't introduce schools until 2nd edition, but C&S had schools, most with the same names, a decade earlier in the 70s.

Again, Hasbro lawyers could snow yours, but would they? At some point, trying to claim things with clear prior art could be a pyrrhic victory. You might bankrupt the person you're suing but establish the prior art enough that you can't win in the future.

Yeah, but in the end I'm still broke, unless someone is willing to sign a binding contract and create a fund to pay for any such legal case with a clause included they'll keep paying until the case is resolved in my favor (meaning going to the supreme court if needed) and pay for my lost sales until I can manage to get Hasbro to do so I'm not risking it.

Quote from: PulpHerb on January 18, 2023, 12:35:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 12:15:01 PM
The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

While I'm not up to fighting Hasbro lawyers, neither originates with D&D. Both are older terms from core D&D sources used in D&D in a specific way. Lich for an animated corpse with intelligence is from Clark Ashton Smith and phylatctery is a religious item in Judaism and Christianity as well as a name used for some amulets from animist traditions.

More importantly, trying to claim things like those invites scrutiny that Hasbro lawyers might not like on what they are claiming copyright or trademark on.

The names are safe to use, their combination and the changing the phylactery to something else isn't.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:27:54 PM
Exactly, because I don't have the kind of money needed to fight them, the safest thing to do is to scrub EVERY single D&Dism from your work.

Not exactly.  Because the whole problem is that they will claim something as a D&Dism that isn't.  So, sure, all the obvious D&Disms, the ones that really are, those need to be avoided entirely.  Keeping those in is just asking for trouble.

At the other extreme, there are things like having "gambeson" or "brigandine" as an armor type.  Far as I know, D&D has never had those embedded in the rules, and with the possible exception of historical source books, may not have ever used the terms.  But it doesn't matter, as those can't be restricted anymore than "claymore" or "human" could be.

For the vast stuff in the middle, it's more about the individual author's comfort with risk.  The closer you get to the first category, the more risk you run.  Me, I'm renaming "Fighter" and keeping "Wizard".   Because my "wizard" bears only a vague resemblance to theirs as an academically-minded spell caster, but I don't have similar spell mechanics or leveling scheme, my wizards fight differently than theirs, my wizards aren't tied to "arcane" magic or even a stand-in for it, yada, yada, yada.  My very martially-oriented class is much more capable than a D&D fighter, is built using very different mechanics, etc., but that label just screams D&D to me in a way I don't care to tempt--and it's kind of bad terms anyway.

Moreover, I was in the process of doing a revision to my rules anyway, as another round of playtest feedback gets resolved.  There were bits and pieces left as a nod to D&D, as a homage to a game that has given me so many years of enjoyment.  Between the normal revision, removing the nods, and continuing to try to streamline and name things what they are, a few terms are getting swapped.  It's making my game better.  Changing "wizard" to something else wouldn't make it better. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:47:50 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 12:26:55 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

Rolemaster has always divided magic that way arcane/divine or essence/channeling.
Also their dragons are different colors.  Red green, white, orange, black, metallic, etc.

Those two things are concepts/ideas not expression, thus not protected.

BEFORE D&D used them? Or they didn't bother to sue them?

It doesn't matter before or after.   
You can't copyright words or short phrases. 
You can't copyright concepts or ideas.

You can trademark names. 
For example Beholder, Gauth, Carrion Crawler,  Displacer Beast, Githyanki, Githzerai, Mind Flayer (Illithid), Umber Hulk, Slaad, Yuan-Ti are trademarks.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:53:10 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on January 18, 2023, 12:35:32 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 12:15:01 PM
The lich and phylactery were invented by D&D, so you'll need to rename that too. J.K. Rowling helpfully coined "horcrux," and the monster could be renamed to "koschie," "greater dead adept," "Kostagian mage," or whatever. Maybe "dwimmerlich" if you really need to retain that particular syllable, and you can argue that this is a play on Tolkien's dwimmerlaik.

While I'm not up to fighting Hasbro lawyers, neither originates with D&D. Both are older terms from core D&D sources used in D&D in a specific way. Lich for an animated corpse with intelligence is from Clark Ashton Smith and phylatctery is a religious item in Judaism and Christianity as well as a name used for some amulets from animist traditions.

More importantly, trying to claim things like those invites scrutiny that Hasbro lawyers might not like on what they are claiming copyright or trademark on.

The names are safe to use, their combination and the changing the phylactery to something else isn't.

Exactly. Using them in their original dictionary contexts is safe because those are public domain, but using lich only for an undead wizard king and phylactery for his horcrux is the sort of thing that Hasbro might try to sue you for. Numerous fantasy books influenced by D&D have used it and I wouldn't put it past Hasbro to sue them for it no matter how frivolous. If you want to be safe, then you'd have to use lich for any corpse whether animated or not and something like soul jar or horcrux for the soul jar.

J.K. Rowling hasn't sued anyone for using the word "horcrux" for soul jars in their works. I've seen it used in Supernatural and NOS4A2. And quite frankly Rowling isn't the sort of person to engage in a frivolous lawsuit like that anyway.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 18, 2023, 12:57:26 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:27:54 PM
Exactly, because I don't have the kind of money needed to fight them, the safest thing to do is to scrub EVERY single D&Dism from your work.

Not exactly.  Because the whole problem is that they will claim something as a D&Dism that isn't.  So, sure, all the obvious D&Disms, the ones that really are, those need to be avoided entirely.  Keeping those in is just asking for trouble.

At the other extreme, there are things like having "gambeson" or "brigandine" as an armor type.  Far as I know, D&D has never had those embedded in the rules, and with the possible exception of historical source books, may not have ever used the terms.  But it doesn't matter, as those can't be restricted anymore than "claymore" or "human" could be.

For the vast stuff in the middle, it's more about the individual author's comfort with risk.  The closer you get to the first category, the more risk you run.  Me, I'm renaming "Fighter" and keeping "Wizard".   Because my "wizard" bears only a vague resemblance to theirs as an academically-minded spell caster, but I don't have similar spell mechanics or leveling scheme, my wizard's fight differently than theirs, my wizard's aren't tied to "arcane" magic or even a stand-in for it, yada, yada, yada.  My very martially-oriented class is much more capable than a D&D fighter, is built using very different mechanics, etc., but that label just screams D&D.

Moreover, I was in the process of doing a revision to my rules anyway, as another round of playtest feedback gets resolved.  There were bits and pieces left as a nod to D&D, as a homage to a game that has given me so many years of enjoyment.  Between the normal revision, removing the nods, and continuing to try to streamline and name things what they are, a few terms are getting swapped.  It's making my game better.  Changing "wizard" to something else wouldn't make it better.

Your examples are obvious stuff that no judge would ever agree (except maybe in the third world if you bought him) are copyrighted.

We're talking more about the magic system, spell lists and stuff like that.

Agreed, I changed the Fighter to Warrior, Wizard is still a wizard, Cleric is a Templar (and fuck whoever claims it's "offensive"), BECAUSE I wanted to do so way before all this happened, but my first game out has nothing to do with any of that, zero magic and my "Psionics" aren't called that nor do they work like in D&D, there's also no Miracles.

For me this is more of an academic discusion and for future games/products.

But I guess we'll see what Hasbro does when the Black Flag project comes out, about PF and other bigger fish who could at least try and fight them, because if they do nothing we can safely use whatever terms that are there since they have renounced the right to deffend it.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 12:58:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:47:50 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 12:26:55 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM
As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

Rolemaster has always divided magic that way arcane/divine or essence/channeling.
Also their dragons are different colors.  Red green, white, orange, black, metallic, etc.

Those two things are concepts/ideas not expression, thus not protected.

BEFORE D&D used them? Or they didn't bother to sue them?

It doesn't matter before or after.   
You can't copyright words or short phrases. 
You can't copyright concepts or ideas.

You can trademark names. 
For example Beholder, Gauth, Carrion Crawler,  Displacer Beast, Githyanki, Githzerai, Mind Flayer (Illithid), Umber Hulk, Slaad, Yuan-Ti are trademarks.

Since we agree that hasbro can use lawfare. It does matter in two different ways:

Before, means it didn't originate with them.
After means TSR recognised it wasn't something they could copyright.

So it is a possible deffense.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 01:09:11 PM
Since we agree that hasbro can use lawfare. It does matter in two different ways:

Before, means it didn't originate with them.
After means TSR recognised it wasn't something they could copyright.

So it is a possible deffense.

Anyone can file a motion to dismiss and then motion to sanction and fine those attorneys stupid enough to file such a frivolous law suit over things which simply cannot be copyrighted.
Or of course you could release nothing or cower like a pussy without clearing everything with the scary cartel known as Hasbro.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 01:45:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 01:09:11 PM
Since we agree that hasbro can use lawfare. It does matter in two different ways:

Before, means it didn't originate with them.
After means TSR recognised it wasn't something they could copyright.

So it is a possible deffense.

Anyone can file a motion to dismiss and then motion to sanction and fine those attorneys stupid enough to file such a frivolous law suit over things which simply cannot be copyrighted.
Or of course you could release nothing or cower like a pussy without clearing everything with the scary cartel known as Hasbro.

Yeah, fuck you too.

Somebody seriously tried to argue that D&D never invented anything original that spread into the wider fantasy genre. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:51:18 PM
Yeah, but in the end I'm still broke, unless someone is willing to sign a binding contract and create a fund to pay for any such legal case with a clause included they'll keep paying until the case is resolved in my favor (meaning going to the supreme court if needed) and pay for my lost sales until I can manage to get Hasbro to do so I'm not risking it.

This is why we need a fund and backers (I think you suggest OSF or EFF in a different thread).

Hasbro is relying on "you can't afford to defend so we can't lose these lawsuits that have no merit". A standing fund means they have two choices:

1. Go for and risk losing a lot more than most people are willing to defer on before OGL 2.0
2. Stand off in an RPG version of MAD.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 01:56:07 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 01:45:11 PM
Anyone can file a motion to dismiss and then motion to sanction and fine those attorneys stupid enough to file such a frivolous law suit over things which simply cannot be copyrighted.
Or of course you could release nothing or cower like a pussy without clearing everything with the scary cartel known as Hasbro.

Yeah, fuck you too.

Come on and man up.  Don't fear the wotzi.  :-)
Start using words like arcane, kobold, lich, abjuration, illusion, conjuration, enchantment, red dragon, black dragon, ad infinitum in all your works.
Steal all the concepts and ideas from D&D for yourself.
I find it both sad and hilarious that some here use the word "fluff" to refer to what is actually protected creative expression and are hand wringing over what is not protected.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:22:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 01:56:07 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 01:45:11 PM
Anyone can file a motion to dismiss and then motion to sanction and fine those attorneys stupid enough to file such a frivolous law suit over things which simply cannot be copyrighted.
Or of course you could release nothing or cower like a pussy without clearing everything with the scary cartel known as Hasbro.

Yeah, fuck you too.

Come on and man up.  Don't fear the wotzi.  :-)
Start using words like arcane, kobold, lich, abjuration, illusion, conjuration, enchantment, red dragon, black dragon, ad infinitum in all your works.
Steal all the concepts and ideas from D&D for yourself.
I find it both sad and hilarious that some here use the word "fluff" to refer to what is actually protected creative expression and are hand wringing over what is not protected.

Stop being a fucking retard.

It's real easy to talk big on a message board. How fucking tough will you be when some Hasbro process server drops a big steaming lawsuit on your doorstep? You'll need a lawyer -- which costs. And the point Geeky is making here is that Hasbro knows they won't be able to prove ownership easily (if at all). So they'll drag it out, as long as possible, to drain your funds and maybe force bankruptcy.

While it's not quite the same, I strongly recommend you review 'SLAPP' lawsuits, and why some states actually passed laws against that bullshit.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:22:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 01:56:07 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 01:45:11 PM
Anyone can file a motion to dismiss and then motion to sanction and fine those attorneys stupid enough to file such a frivolous law suit over things which simply cannot be copyrighted.
Or of course you could release nothing or cower like a pussy without clearing everything with the scary cartel known as Hasbro.

Yeah, fuck you too.

Come on and man up.  Don't fear the wotzi.  :-)
Start using words like arcane, kobold, lich, abjuration, illusion, conjuration, enchantment, red dragon, black dragon, ad infinitum in all your works.
Steal all the concepts and ideas from D&D for yourself.
I find it both sad and hilarious that some here use the word "fluff" to refer to what is actually protected creative expression and are hand wringing over what is not protected.

Why don't YOU put your money where your mouth is keyboard warrior?

Quote from: PulpHerb on January 18, 2023, 02:22:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:51:18 PM
Yeah, but in the end I'm still broke, unless someone is willing to sign a binding contract and create a fund to pay for any such legal case with a clause included they'll keep paying until the case is resolved in my favor (meaning going to the supreme court if needed) and pay for my lost sales until I can manage to get Hasbro to do so I'm not risking it.

This is why we need a fund and backers (I think you suggest OSF or EFF in a different thread).

Hasbro is relying on "you can't afford to defend so we can't lose these lawsuits that have no merit". A standing fund means they have two choices:

1. Go for and risk losing a lot more than most people are willing to defer on before OGL 2.0
2. Stand off in an RPG version of MAD.

I said that the EFF MIGHT be convinced to help fight Hasbro yes, but I don't think they'll be willing to pay for everything.

So, all the big fish need to create such a common fund against frivolous lawsuits, come from wherever they might. IF the small fish can afford to do so they should also contribute to it.

Maybe find some lawyers willing to work fully or partially pro-bono would be a good thing too. Pay them a retainer fee or something.

Yes, with the money aspect covered (but it needs to cover enough the publisher can survive even with zero sales), then Hasbro stops being a  real threat. Unless they are REALLY stupid they would back down and if they don't then fuck around and find out.

But we need to remember that not ALL of this has been decided in court, so there's no legal precedence for some of the stuff, ergo there's a real risk a judge might go against us, therefore the fund needs a binding pledge from ALL the big fish to contribute to it until it's settled in the supreme court and to cover ALL expenses even fines or damages or whatever.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 18, 2023, 02:26:35 PM
Stop being a fucking retard.

It's real easy to talk big on a message board. How fucking tough will you be when some Hasbro process server drops a big steaming lawsuit on your doorstep? You'll need a lawyer -- which costs. And the point Geeky is making here is that Hasbro knows they won't be able to prove ownership easily (if at all). So they'll drag it out, as long as possible, to drain your funds and maybe force bankruptcy.

While it's not quite the same, I strongly recommend you review 'SLAPP' lawsuits, and why some states actually passed laws against that bullshit.

Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 18, 2023, 02:26:35 PM
Stop being a fucking retard.

It's real easy to talk big on a message board. How fucking tough will you be when some Hasbro process server drops a big steaming lawsuit on your doorstep? You'll need a lawyer -- which costs. And the point Geeky is making here is that Hasbro knows they won't be able to prove ownership easily (if at all). So they'll drag it out, as long as possible, to drain your funds and maybe force bankruptcy.

While it's not quite the same, I strongly recommend you review 'SLAPP' lawsuits, and why some states actually passed laws against that bullshit.

Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

What difference does it make? What is your point?

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

When talking about the Woke and morons (but I repeat myself), and "past behavior indicates future behavior" calculations, there's only one thing you can safely count on:  If it's something so utterly outlandish that we state today, they'd never do that, you can bet that one of them is considering it.  Almost everyone in the French Revolution that ended up under the guillotine didn't see it coming until late, with a few still surprised when their heads separated from their bodies.  So it's prudent to prepare for the worst in these kind of cases, even if the likelihood of any specific thing is low.

There's courage and then there's reckless.  My point is just do your game (not depending on them), name things appropriately, and in the course of doing that, the game will probably be sufficiently diverged from D&D to avoid all the obvious pitfalls, and most of the non-obvious ones.  It will also, conveniently, be a better game than if it were aping others.  Then selectively apply some tweaks on the margins, where it really matters to make your game the way it should be.  Then things will probably be fine.  But keep in mind that they might not be if some Wankers of the Coast bully decides to take you on, and don't leave yourself wide open.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 12:22:02 PM
I'm not trying to be belligerent, sorry if I came out like that.

So, your entire point is that you need to change MORE than the fluff on some pleces?

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that, but I might be wrong.

I think a lot of people are dancing around it and pretending it's not nearly as big an issue as it is.

First among them being Paizo's and it's "we only included the OGL in PF2 as a formality."

I dismiss that they are too incompetent to know how concept stacks = copyright. Which means they are lying through their teeth.

This is probably because they want all their customers and potential new customers to think what they're going to have to release after Hasbro drops its OGL2.0 bomb will look exactly like the off-brand D&D everyone's grown accustomed to over the last two decades and not some mutant hybrid where some concept or another critical to each person's favorite race or class is going to have to change in some way so it's not as clear a carbon copy of WotC's copyrighted concept stack.

Either that or they're banking on someone (perhaps even themselves) stepping up to defend the OGL1.0a that allows access to the 3.5eSRD or that Hasbro won't come after all the third parties they hoped to capture in their 1.1 net who refused to step into their "oh so clever" trap (its not clever, but I'm sure they think it was and they're butthurt in a way that dwarfs even Wile E. Coyote after the Roadrunner sticks out his tongue and zips away... ego is a helluva drug).

Regardless. I think a lot of people (not necessarily here) are indeed downplaying all the mechanical and artistic changes that are going to end following on from needing to match things up with different concept stacks.

I think to an extent it's understandable too. The Hasbro/WotC OGL1.1/2.0 is a bit like a sudden cancer diagnosis for a non-trivial part of the industry. It means even if you survive nothing will be the same again and cycling through the stages of grief/loss (one of which is denial) is pretty natural and even healthy part of dealing with it.

But the acceptance stage is everyone's favorite offbrand D&D system is going to be changed in some way if no one defends the OGL1.0a and it's NOT going to be exactly the system it was before if they want to keep releasing new products... and each content creator who carries on will be prioritizing which parts of their concept stacks are critical to keep and which they can afford to throw away in going forward.

And I do think looking at a bunch of the "never OGL" systems is a good idea. Less for the "they have X so we can use it outside the OGL" and more at "they have X, but here's Y and Z that are different in their expression of it" because that's where the important lesson of landing outside what an ego-bruised Hasbro/WotC exec can reasonably go after lies.

Lord knows, with WotC likely to be extra litigious in the near future and while I'm finishing up my art, my parameters have shifted towards more wizard magic = sufficiently advanced technology" and anachronistic post-apocalyptic attire (ex. visible zippers, golems that are clearly robotic rather than animated armor) just because that's one step further away from the D&D concept stack.

By contrast, before this all exploded I was much more cagey about the nature of my setting's pre-Cataclysm world and that wizard magic "could" be sufficiently advanced technology or more traditional depending on an individual GMs desires. Now a GM is still certainly able to mix it up however they desire, but the default presented will now be a more deliberately Thundarr-like environment with clearly hypermodern ruins and stylings for clothing, weapons and armor.

Yes, some D&D settings have had their wacky sci-fi ruins... but most of those haven't been central to D&D's published settings in quite some time (rather it has been more crystals and togas style with magic aping modern conveniences) and post apocalypse filled with magic and superscience is generic enough an expression that my concept stack is neither Thundarr nor any of the old D&D settings which had a few such elements in them.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 18, 2023, 02:26:35 PM
Stop being a fucking retard.

It's real easy to talk big on a message board. How fucking tough will you be when some Hasbro process server drops a big steaming lawsuit on your doorstep? You'll need a lawyer -- which costs. And the point Geeky is making here is that Hasbro knows they won't be able to prove ownership easily (if at all). So they'll drag it out, as long as possible, to drain your funds and maybe force bankruptcy.

While it's not quite the same, I strongly recommend you review 'SLAPP' lawsuits, and why some states actually passed laws against that bullshit.

Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

Maaaaan, I'm one of the more vocal "It's not that big a deal, guys" folks here, and even I'm not naive enough to not realize we're in a different era now after the 1.1 leak. WotC has very clearly announced a shift in goals and priorities, including demonstrating a desire to shut down the old status quo. It would be ridiculous to just assume that because they've never sued before over this stuff means they never will going forward now. They may not, true, but there's nothing like a guarantee they won't.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:18:50 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2023, 09:32:16 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 08:48:33 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 17, 2023, 08:38:43 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
- the arcane/divine casting divide

This is not a divide restricted to D&D, and never has been. In fact, it began in the real world: witchcraft, sorceries, and divinations have been forbidden to worshippers of Christianity since the beginning.

More, it's appeared in other games going back to 1991 at least, such as TORG: not only are Miracles and Magic two different rules subsystems, they're governed by two different axioms!

Use this with impunity.

It goes way back than Christianity, Jews had the same restrictions, after all the Old Testament is nothing but a part of their holy book. So it's at least 2023+ years old.

Even the Maya who allegedly did not make the distinction had the priests who "performed miracles", the white witches and the black witches (who often could be the same person depending on how they were using their "powers".

You find the same division almost in every culture you find going back to the Summerians. gods on one side, demons on the other with sometimes a grey area where witchcraft wasn't forbidden as long as it wasn't black witchcraft.

Social/Religious prohibitions are not the same as fundamentally different systems of magic. Black vs White magic is more akin to "Magic Schools" than completely different ways of using magic. Within real life mystical traditions anyone could use either type, it's just that "Black Magic" is frowned upon and has negative spiritual consequences. But you could still try it if you dare, and most of what we take for "wizard" magic today originates from Hermetic traditions that call upon angelic beings and were mixed up with Abrahamic religions, even if the mainstream forms of those religions are against magic or consider it heretical.

Oh, but they ARE different systems of "magic"! Praying to God for a miracle is very different from working with demons (even if they have fooled you into thinking they are angels):

Deuteronomy 18: 9-12
Exodus 220:18
Leviticus 20:27
Job 1:12
2 Corinthians 4:4
Revelation 20:2
Exodus 8:7
Genesis 3:5

Now, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just providing EVIDENCE that under Abrahamic Law Witchcraft isn't the same as praying for a miracle, because the first comes from the devil and the second comes from God.

You can disbelieve as hard as you want, what you can't do is come and re-interpret thousands of years of Theology to make the religion say something it doesn't say.

Jews believed Witchcraft to be of the devil, either through revelation as religious people think or through osmosis taking it from their neighborgs and enslavers.

OR...

Run of the mill Christians were fooled by the Church into believing that 1) magic is evil, and 2) miracles ain't magic. But ALL of it is magic! And Christian mystics that knew better had to keep shut, cuz they'd be burned as heretics if they didn't. Even Jews had the Kabbalah and Muslims had Sufism.

A rose by any other name is still a stinky red colored flower. And a spell recited under the cover of prayer, and sanctioned by the religious institution that would otherwise execute you as heathen or heretic, is still attempting to invoke powers that anyone else would recognize as MAGIC.  :P

D&D basically invented a number of fantasy tropes that are widely used even outside of ttrpgs. Video games, novels, animes... Now Hasbro is trying to copyright claim all of that, frivolously or not, and it's going to have consequences.

Does Hasbro have grounds to sue anyone who uses drow, gnolls, daos, liches, mohrgs, and whatever else can be pretty clearly traced back to D&D without meaningful precedent in prior folklore or literature? How much do you have to change to avoid litigation? Well, we're about to find out.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 18, 2023, 03:06:47 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

What difference does it make? What is your point?

My point is that it's WotC's job to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt rather than the posters.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 18, 2023, 02:26:35 PM
Stop being a fucking retard.

It's real easy to talk big on a message board. How fucking tough will you be when some Hasbro process server drops a big steaming lawsuit on your doorstep? You'll need a lawyer -- which costs. And the point Geeky is making here is that Hasbro knows they won't be able to prove ownership easily (if at all). So they'll drag it out, as long as possible, to drain your funds and maybe force bankruptcy.

While it's not quite the same, I strongly recommend you review 'SLAPP' lawsuits, and why some states actually passed laws against that bullshit.

Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

Because WotC today is the exact same WotC of a year ago nothing has changed on their attitude towards the rest of the industry, competitors and 3PP alike.

You're not only a keyboard warrior telling others to jump into a fight you yourself are too much of a coward to jump into, you're also retarded.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2023, 04:07:33 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:18:50 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 18, 2023, 09:32:16 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 08:48:33 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 17, 2023, 08:38:43 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
- the arcane/divine casting divide

This is not a divide restricted to D&D, and never has been. In fact, it began in the real world: witchcraft, sorceries, and divinations have been forbidden to worshippers of Christianity since the beginning.

More, it's appeared in other games going back to 1991 at least, such as TORG: not only are Miracles and Magic two different rules subsystems, they're governed by two different axioms!

Use this with impunity.

It goes way back than Christianity, Jews had the same restrictions, after all the Old Testament is nothing but a part of their holy book. So it's at least 2023+ years old.

Even the Maya who allegedly did not make the distinction had the priests who "performed miracles", the white witches and the black witches (who often could be the same person depending on how they were using their "powers".

You find the same division almost in every culture you find going back to the Summerians. gods on one side, demons on the other with sometimes a grey area where witchcraft wasn't forbidden as long as it wasn't black witchcraft.

Social/Religious prohibitions are not the same as fundamentally different systems of magic. Black vs White magic is more akin to "Magic Schools" than completely different ways of using magic. Within real life mystical traditions anyone could use either type, it's just that "Black Magic" is frowned upon and has negative spiritual consequences. But you could still try it if you dare, and most of what we take for "wizard" magic today originates from Hermetic traditions that call upon angelic beings and were mixed up with Abrahamic religions, even if the mainstream forms of those religions are against magic or consider it heretical.

Oh, but they ARE different systems of "magic"! Praying to God for a miracle is very different from working with demons (even if they have fooled you into thinking they are angels):

Deuteronomy 18: 9-12
Exodus 220:18
Leviticus 20:27
Job 1:12
2 Corinthians 4:4
Revelation 20:2
Exodus 8:7
Genesis 3:5

Now, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just providing EVIDENCE that under Abrahamic Law Witchcraft isn't the same as praying for a miracle, because the first comes from the devil and the second comes from God.

You can disbelieve as hard as you want, what you can't do is come and re-interpret thousands of years of Theology to make the religion say something it doesn't say.

Jews believed Witchcraft to be of the devil, either through revelation as religious people think or through osmosis taking it from their neighborgs and enslavers.

OR...

Run of the mill Christians were fooled by the Church into believing that 1) magic is evil, and 2) miracles ain't magic. But ALL of it is magic! And Christian mystics that knew better had to keep shut, cuz they'd be burned as heretics if they didn't. Even Jews had the Kabbalah and Muslims had Sufism.

A rose by any other name is still a stinky red colored flower. And a spell recited under the cover of prayer, and sanctioned by the religious institution that would otherwise execute you as heathen or heretic, is still attempting to invoke powers that anyone else would recognize as MAGIC.  :P

Again, the argument ISN'T about if Jews, Christians, Etc are correct or not, it's about 2000+ years of such divide being on the public consciousness.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/magic-supernatural-phenomenon/History-of-magic-in-Western-worldviews (https://www.britannica.com/topic/magic-supernatural-phenomenon/History-of-magic-in-Western-worldviews)

IDGAFF if you believe one way, the other or neither; I'm arguing from the point of view of if it was a TSR invention. It's not.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 02:43:39 PM
I said that the EFF MIGHT be convinced to help fight Hasbro yes, but I don't think they'll be willing to pay for everything.

So, all the big fish need to create such a common fund against frivolous lawsuits, come from wherever they might. IF the small fish can afford to do so they should also contribute to it.

Maybe find some lawyers willing to work fully or partially pro-bono would be a good thing too. Pay them a retainer fee or something.

Yes, with the money aspect covered (but it needs to cover enough the publisher can survive even with zero sales), then Hasbro stops being a  real threat. Unless they are REALLY stupid they would back down and if they don't then fuck around and find out.

But we need to remember that not ALL of this has been decided in court, so there's no legal precedence for some of the stuff, ergo there's a real risk a judge might go against us, therefore the fund needs a binding pledge from ALL the big fish to contribute to it until it's settled in the supreme court and to cover ALL expenses even fines or damages or whatever.

If memory serves Kenzer of Kenzer & Co is not just a lawyer, but an IP specialist at that. It was part of how the HM 4 license was negotiated because Wizards did a no-no and he called them on it.

I'd like to hear his opinion on this and what to do.

So will Hasbro/WotC have to purchase every single product released in the OSR vein, to check for any legal gotchas?  Maybe the OSR should do print only so they have to purchase every book, module supplement, etc. and have someone physically read it.  Takes time to scan a book.  Maybe they're replacing Crawford or Perkins with a bunch of quick readers to save on costs.

Will it be like taxes?  Going after the smaller individual publisher might be easier as they will likely get their naughty money with a legal threat and save on court costs.

I wonder how much they would ask for damages?  Maybe just a cut of the sales to date, or some sum they pull out of their legal ass.

Feels like the MPA for RPG's.

Quote from: PulpHerb on January 18, 2023, 04:33:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 02:43:39 PM
I said that the EFF MIGHT be convinced to help fight Hasbro yes, but I don't think they'll be willing to pay for everything.

So, all the big fish need to create such a common fund against frivolous lawsuits, come from wherever they might. IF the small fish can afford to do so they should also contribute to it.

Maybe find some lawyers willing to work fully or partially pro-bono would be a good thing too. Pay them a retainer fee or something.

Yes, with the money aspect covered (but it needs to cover enough the publisher can survive even with zero sales), then Hasbro stops being a  real threat. Unless they are REALLY stupid they would back down and if they don't then fuck around and find out.

But we need to remember that not ALL of this has been decided in court, so there's no legal precedence for some of the stuff, ergo there's a real risk a judge might go against us, therefore the fund needs a binding pledge from ALL the big fish to contribute to it until it's settled in the supreme court and to cover ALL expenses even fines or damages or whatever.

If memory serves Kenzer of Kenzer & Co is not just a lawyer, but an IP specialist at that. It was part of how the HM 4 license was negotiated because Wizards did a no-no and he called them on it.

I'd like to hear his opinion on this and what to do.

That would be great but:

You'd need to pay him
He probably would need to do a lot of reading of the games
His informed opinion would probably be along the lines of "You'll probaly win but this, this and this hasn't been settled in court so it's a risk"


Remember they can drag it until you quit thus winning by default and you are broke.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

The question is not how litigious WotC is... it's a subsidiary. Hasbro on the other hand?

I also don't think trademark suits are irrelevant as they show a general intent by Hasbro to protect what it believes are its IP rights.

Here's just a few results from a search on "Hasbro Lawsuits"

https://www.shacknews.com/article/5096/hasbro-lawsuits (https://www.shacknews.com/article/5096/hasbro-lawsuits)
https://nypost.com/2019/01/29/hasbro-wins-game-of-life-lawsuit/ (https://nypost.com/2019/01/29/hasbro-wins-game-of-life-lawsuit/)
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/06/02/hasbros-lawsuits-are-no-game.aspx (https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/06/02/hasbros-lawsuits-are-no-game.aspx)
https://www.cbr.com/hasbro-dc-comics-bumblebee-trademark-lawsuit/ (https://www.cbr.com/hasbro-dc-comics-bumblebee-trademark-lawsuit/)
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/hasbro-sues-stop-warner-bros-522262/ (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/hasbro-sues-stop-warner-bros-522262/)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hasbro-wins-lawsuit-over-play-doh-trademark/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hasbro-wins-lawsuit-over-play-doh-trademark/)

Those are just some of the first results and is enough to say, yes, they sue regularly to protect their their IP. And when the profits of the division currently responsible for 70% of their value is on the line... I would not be the one wanting to poke that bear unless I had no other choice.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 18, 2023, 02:26:35 PM
Stop being a fucking retard.

It's real easy to talk big on a message board. How fucking tough will you be when some Hasbro process server drops a big steaming lawsuit on your doorstep? You'll need a lawyer -- which costs. And the point Geeky is making here is that Hasbro knows they won't be able to prove ownership easily (if at all). So they'll drag it out, as long as possible, to drain your funds and maybe force bankruptcy.

While it's not quite the same, I strongly recommend you review 'SLAPP' lawsuits, and why some states actually passed laws against that bullshit.

Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

Considering Chris's point, I'd say they're litigious enough.

If you wanna gamble with that, that's your business. But you got a lot of nerve telling Geeky he's a pussy for not wanting to pick that fight.

Imagine trying to goad someone to get into lawfare with a megacorp. Are you fucking larping Shadowrun or something?

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 05:06:42 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

The question is not how litigious WotC is... it's a subsidiary. Hasbro on the other hand?

I also don't think trademark suits are irrelevant as they show a general intent by Hasbro to protect what it believes are its IP rights.

I disagree. It is not relevant because nobody here is supporting using WotC's trademarks.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 05:06:42 PM
Here's just a few results from a search on "Hasbro Lawsuits"
...
Those are just some of the first results and is enough to say, yes, they sue regularly to protect their their IP. And when the profits of the division currently responsible for 70% of their value is on the line... I would not be the one wanting to poke that bear unless I had no other choice.

The only copyright case of those you listed was that of the movie script called "ChainMail" and WotC/Hasbro's copyright claims were dismissed.
Then they settled with Warner Bros. on the contract claims.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 04:09:40 PM
D&D basically invented a number of fantasy tropes that are widely used even outside of ttrpgs. Video games, novels, animes... Now Hasbro is trying to copyright claim all of that, frivolously or not, and it's going to have consequences.

Does Hasbro have grounds to sue anyone who uses drow, gnolls, daos, liches, mohrgs, and whatever else can be pretty clearly traced back to D&D without meaningful precedent in prior folklore or literature? How much do you have to change to avoid litigation? Well, we're about to find out.

I do recall that a successful defense against copyright claims used in the past was "it's already been used by others without interference thus it is no longer copyrighted."  I'm not an expert in that aspect of IP, though, so there may be more to it.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 06:08:37 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 05:06:42 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

The question is not how litigious WotC is... it's a subsidiary. Hasbro on the other hand?

I also don't think trademark suits are irrelevant as they show a general intent by Hasbro to protect what it believes are its IP rights.

I disagree. It is not relevant because nobody here is supporting using WotC's trademarks.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 05:06:42 PM
Here's just a few results from a search on "Hasbro Lawsuits"
...
Those are just some of the first results and is enough to say, yes, they sue regularly to protect their their IP. And when the profits of the division currently responsible for 70% of their value is on the line... I would not be the one wanting to poke that bear unless I had no other choice.

The only copyright case of those you listed was that of the movie script called "ChainMail" and WotC/Hasbro's copyright claims were dismissed.
Then they settled with Warner Bros. on the contract claims.

So, put on your big boy pants, develop a game following YOUR own advice and publish it, we'll be right here cheering you on.

What? You're not going to do it? Why is that big mouth?

Quote from: Mishihari on January 18, 2023, 06:09:10 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 04:09:40 PM
D&D basically invented a number of fantasy tropes that are widely used even outside of ttrpgs. Video games, novels, animes... Now Hasbro is trying to copyright claim all of that, frivolously or not, and it's going to have consequences.

Does Hasbro have grounds to sue anyone who uses drow, gnolls, daos, liches, mohrgs, and whatever else can be pretty clearly traced back to D&D without meaningful precedent in prior folklore or literature? How much do you have to change to avoid litigation? Well, we're about to find out.

I do recall that a successful defense against copyright claims used in the past was "it's already been used by others without interference thus it is no longer copyrighted."  I'm not an expert in that aspect of IP, though, so there may be more to it.

The question isn't if you have a successful defense, the question is: Can you survive (without selling your game) until the case reaches a court several years from the moment the law suit is initiated? Paying lawyer fees?

It's called lawfare.

Wizards would have to go after Piazo first wouldn't they?

Quote from: Mishihari on January 18, 2023, 06:09:10 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 04:09:40 PM
D&D basically invented a number of fantasy tropes that are widely used even outside of ttrpgs. Video games, novels, animes... Now Hasbro is trying to copyright claim all of that, frivolously or not, and it's going to have consequences.

Does Hasbro have grounds to sue anyone who uses drow, gnolls, daos, liches, mohrgs, and whatever else can be pretty clearly traced back to D&D without meaningful precedent in prior folklore or literature? How much do you have to change to avoid litigation? Well, we're about to find out.

I do recall that a successful defense against copyright claims used in the past was "it's already been used by others without interference thus it is no longer copyrighted."  I'm not an expert in that aspect of IP, though, so there may be more to it.

That's patent law, not copyright law.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 06:25:53 PM
Wizards would have to go after Piazo first wouldn't they?

Nope, they can go after whoever they wish IIRC.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 05:58:51 PM
Not to rain on your parade or anything but Basic Fantasy is done with the first review of their book stripping all WotC content from it, the second pass is underway, there'll be a third and fourth passes and then it will be out, probably in 2-3 weeks, that's what? A little over a month since the fiasco started?

Why would that rain on my parade? I'm just bringing up logistics and potential places where the SRD (and in Basic Fantasy's case the old B/X material which is also copyright WotC) has likely been taken for granted and should be looked at... because I'm sure WotC won't be vindictive towards the third parties who wouldn't step into their trap at all. <sarcasm>

Basic Fantasy's method of crowdsourcing a dozen plus volunteers to go over a 170 page book is honestly a good strategy. I'm glad they'll have something out sooner rather than later. The fact they've also always released as free content also helps insulate them from potential problems with a vindictive WotC (no money to be had) so it's a good move for them.

* * * *

As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

WotC's arcane/divine divide makes no such moral judgments and the good/evil divide is entirely on the divine side with its pantheon of good and evil gods while arcane is more akin to a poorly understood science that has almost no moral component to it at all.

I brought it up because that is a specific expression of a magic system that could be a problem depending again on how ugly WotC wants to be because those third parties they wanted to rope in for content for their walled garden exploitationfest escaped their clutches.

Particularly when that divide is included alongside Vancian slot-based spell prep, eight schools of magic and nine levels of spells and a selection of spells at each level that matches very closely the standard setup of D&D.

I think a lot of people are really glossing over matters that fall under the category of protected expression and how it could bite various parties if they don't account for it. One aspect of that expression is a particular collection of elements into a larger whole.

Mechanics are protected, but mechanics presented in the exact same way are not. The example from a while back about the western and samurai themed card games with identical mechanics is apt. The notes in that case indicated that the entire decision was founded on the difference in presentation of western vs. samurai... but that if it had been another western-themes card game with the same mechanics, even with minor name changes (ex. calling the deputies, the posse), it would have been infringement.

Basic Fantasy's swap from chromatic to environmental dragons is an example of such a necessary swap; even when the body text of the new material does indicate colors very much like the classic D&D depictions it isn't making it nearly so prominent and is expressed in their own words not copied and pasted from the SRD and non-profit protects them more than it would Paizo, but the fact it's still a very D&D like setting with the dragons filling the same niches and just reading their descriptions indicating which color they're actually supposed to be could still be a weak point that an unreasonable litigant could go after.

Life is risk so I'm not saying don't go there. I'm just saying to be aware of what wildlife and potential pitfalls are in the forest as you go traveling through it and the more you relied on the SRD directly the more you've got your work cut out for you.

I think you are right that most people are not thinking deeply enough about what they have to strip out. For the arcane/divine distinction, if challenged, I will point out that the arcane/divine distinction is found in Christianity, which differentiates sorcery from prophecies, tongues, healing, and other gifts of God or the Holy Spirit; in the Arthurian mythos, which differentiates Merlin's powers from Lancelot's and Galahad's saintly miracles; in A Wizard of Earthsea and a Tomb of Atuan, where the powers of the wizards are contrasted with those of the priests and priestesses of the Old Powers; and the Aspect Emperor series, where the power of sorcery is contrasted with the power of the gods. And I specifically cite those two novel seriess as the inspiration for ACKS magic in Heroic Fantasy Handbook and elsewhere. If Hasbro comes for me, I will lose because I don't have the money to sue them, anyway.

Glad to hear you are already so far along in your de-SRDification. It's been a painful slog for me. Yesterday I released a 391-page draft of ACKS II to my King-tier patreon backers that has been de-OSRed in seven of eight chapters. You and I are each an army of 170 BFRP volunteers!

Quote from: amacris on January 18, 2023, 08:09:32 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 05:58:51 PM
Not to rain on your parade or anything but Basic Fantasy is done with the first review of their book stripping all WotC content from it, the second pass is underway, there'll be a third and fourth passes and then it will be out, probably in 2-3 weeks, that's what? A little over a month since the fiasco started?

Why would that rain on my parade? I'm just bringing up logistics and potential places where the SRD (and in Basic Fantasy's case the old B/X material which is also copyright WotC) has likely been taken for granted and should be looked at... because I'm sure WotC won't be vindictive towards the third parties who wouldn't step into their trap at all. <sarcasm>

Basic Fantasy's method of crowdsourcing a dozen plus volunteers to go over a 170 page book is honestly a good strategy. I'm glad they'll have something out sooner rather than later. The fact they've also always released as free content also helps insulate them from potential problems with a vindictive WotC (no money to be had) so it's a good move for them.

* * * *

As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

WotC's arcane/divine divide makes no such moral judgments and the good/evil divide is entirely on the divine side with its pantheon of good and evil gods while arcane is more akin to a poorly understood science that has almost no moral component to it at all.

I brought it up because that is a specific expression of a magic system that could be a problem depending again on how ugly WotC wants to be because those third parties they wanted to rope in for content for their walled garden exploitationfest escaped their clutches.

Particularly when that divide is included alongside Vancian slot-based spell prep, eight schools of magic and nine levels of spells and a selection of spells at each level that matches very closely the standard setup of D&D.

I think a lot of people are really glossing over matters that fall under the category of protected expression and how it could bite various parties if they don't account for it. One aspect of that expression is a particular collection of elements into a larger whole.

Mechanics are protected, but mechanics presented in the exact same way are not. The example from a while back about the western and samurai themed card games with identical mechanics is apt. The notes in that case indicated that the entire decision was founded on the difference in presentation of western vs. samurai... but that if it had been another western-themes card game with the same mechanics, even with minor name changes (ex. calling the deputies, the posse), it would have been infringement.

Basic Fantasy's swap from chromatic to environmental dragons is an example of such a necessary swap; even when the body text of the new material does indicate colors very much like the classic D&D depictions it isn't making it nearly so prominent and is expressed in their own words not copied and pasted from the SRD and non-profit protects them more than it would Paizo, but the fact it's still a very D&D like setting with the dragons filling the same niches and just reading their descriptions indicating which color they're actually supposed to be could still be a weak point that an unreasonable litigant could go after.

Life is risk so I'm not saying don't go there. I'm just saying to be aware of what wildlife and potential pitfalls are in the forest as you go traveling through it and the more you relied on the SRD directly the more you've got your work cut out for you.

I think you are right that most people are not thinking deeply enough about what they have to strip out. For the arcane/divine distinction, if challenged, I will point out that the arcane/divine distinction is found in Christianity, which differentiates sorcery from prophecies, tongues, healing, and other gifts of God or the Holy Spirit; in the Arthurian mythos, which differentiates Merlin's powers from Lancelot's and Galahad's saintly miracles; in A Wizard of Earthsea and a Tomb of Atuan, where the powers of the wizards are contrasted with those of the priests and priestesses of the Old Powers; and the Aspect Emperor series, where the power of sorcery is contrasted with the power of the gods. And I specifically cite those two novel seriess as the inspiration for ACKS magic in Heroic Fantasy Handbook and elsewhere. If Hasbro comes for me, I will lose because I don't have the money to sue them, anyway.

Glad to hear you are already so far along in your de-SRDification. It's been a painful slog for me. Yesterday I released a 391-page draft of ACKS II to my King-tier patreon backers that has been de-OSRed in seven of eight chapters. You and I are each an army of 170 BFRP volunteers!

Exactly, they didn't invent it, they can't copyright words or mechanics, and still you would lose because you lack the deep pockets to fight them.

We were talking in this or another related thread that besides a truly open license we need a legal fund to fight the Wankers on the Beach.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 02:12:28 PM
Somebody seriously tried to argue that D&D never invented anything original that spread into the wider fantasy genre. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

All of Western fantasy is D&D, in so many ways. Has been since Magician: Apprentice.

Even Eastern Fantasy like LitRPG came from D&D, albeit indirectly.

Quote from: amacris on January 18, 2023, 08:09:32 PM
Glad to hear you are already so far along in your de-SRDification. It's been a painful slog for me. Yesterday I released a 391-page draft of ACKS II to my King-tier patreon backers that has been de-OSRed in seven of eight chapters. You and I are each an army of 170 BFRP volunteers!

To be fair, I can't claim any speed to my effort.

Rather, I'd started the process long before this dropped when I realized my system and setting was as distinct from D&D as Palladium Fantasy is and decided that operating on the good graces of WotC offered me no benefit. I just happened to be lucky that my writing is done and art is well in process as this situation is developing (and to be fair, I'm not convinced it was actually luck either given the direction my setting and game focus has shifted since dropping the OGL).

Glad to hear your efforts are going well. One thing I'm expecting out of this is that, without the OGL as a central anchor, many systems will become more clearly focused on their strengths and less so on the need to include various D&D-isms.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

You seem really hung up on issues that are clearly very minor or impossible to realistically enforce.

No one really cares if you have Tiamat & Bahamut as dragon gods or not. DragonLance has a similar-ish but obviously distinct mythology and it only takes the smallest bit of creativity to invent some new deity and write up a few unique myths or characteristics, even if the general outline is similar. Same with kobolds. Do you need kobolds, if you can have goblins, lizardmen, or any number of other creatures old or new?

Basic races like Elves and Dwarves are basically going to be impossible to nail anyone for unless you word-for-word copy them. There's thousands of sources to draw from and unless you're terminally uncreative, it's probably harder to not come up with your own twist than it is to do something exactly-the-same-but-worded-differently.

Obviously direct copy & paste of any content, whether that's creature & spell descriptions or something else, would be infringement. However unique expressions are almost inevitably going to have different nuances to them that make them unique, particularly in aggregate. Of course none of this is a guarantee against lawfare, but a good faith effort at creating something shouldn't fear that.

There's no reason to think a small publisher will auto-lose with lawfare vs. WotC.

WotC is playing with fire with the OGL pissing contest because a US ruling on an open license could have major implications FAR beyond our little pond of tabletop RPGs.

Because of that, if WotC sues a small publisher, it's quite possible WotC will find itself up against a pro-bono law firm backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation or other highly supported orgs who could rally $$$ donations to support a major fight, especially if the law firm demonstrates that a ruling in WotC's favor could harm entire industries beyond gaming.

That's not to say that OSR publishers shouldn't cleanse their products of WotC's taint, that's just good for long term creativity and uniqueness of the OSR product.

But don't think WotC or Hasbro is invulnerable and omnipotent. Their heavy-handed noise about the OGL 1.0 might not impress an actual judge.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 19, 2023, 12:41:01 AM
There's no reason to think a small publisher will auto-lose with lawfare vs. WotC.

WotC is playing with fire with the OGL pissing contest because a US ruling on an open license could have major implications FAR beyond our little pond of tabletop RPGs.

Because of that, if WotC sues a small publisher, it's quite possible WotC will find itself up against a pro-bono law firm backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation or other highly supported orgs who could rally $$$ donations to support a major fight, especially if the law firm demonstrates that a ruling in WotC's favor could harm entire industries beyond gaming.

That's not to say that OSR publishers shouldn't cleanse their products of WotC's taint, that's just good for long term creativity and uniqueness of the OSR product.

But don't think WotC or Hasbro is invulnerable and omnipotent. Their heavy-handed noise about the OGL 1.0 might not impress an actual judge.

Yeah, I'm still not interested on drawing the attention of the Eye of Sauron upon me.

Let's not forget the Gen X kids who grew up playing D&D are in their 40s and 50s. Some of them became lawyers, and we're already starting to see a few of them throwing their hats into the ring.

Hell, if you are a small enough publisher (under $7500 in TN, USA), you can take WotC to Small Claims Court over this and name Cynthia Williams as the Defendant - she would have to show up personally to defend her actions.

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 19, 2023, 05:53:01 AM
Hell, if you are a small enough publisher (under $7500 in TN, USA), you can take WotC to Small Claims Court over this and name Cynthia Williams as the Defendant - she would have to show up personally to defend her actions.

This, times a thousand... death of a thousand cuts. Brilliant.

Well after Pundits vid... I'll probably check out ORC because of the ACKS guy's involvement now. I never thought I'd be saying that considering Paizo's involvement.

The fuck I want a bunch of nambi-pambi safety tools or attempts to censor content.

Quote from: Zelen on January 18, 2023, 11:10:10 PM
You seem really hung up on issues that are clearly very minor or impossible to realistically enforce.

No one really cares if you have Tiamat & Bahamut as dragon gods or not. DragonLance has a similar-ish but obviously distinct mythology and it only takes the smallest bit of creativity to invent some new deity and write up a few unique myths or characteristics, even if the general outline is similar. Same with kobolds. Do you need kobolds, if you can have goblins, lizardmen, or any number of other creatures old or new?

Basic races like Elves and Dwarves are basically going to be impossible to nail anyone for unless you word-for-word copy them. There's thousands of sources to draw from and unless you're terminally uncreative, it's probably harder to not come up with your own twist than it is to do something exactly-the-same-but-worded-differently.

Obviously direct copy & paste of any content, whether that's creature & spell descriptions or something else, would be infringement. However unique expressions are almost inevitably going to have different nuances to them that make them unique, particularly in aggregate. Of course none of this is a guarantee against lawfare, but a good faith effort at creating something shouldn't fear that.

You are missing the point.  Let's use kobolds as an illustration.  They are, in fact, quite easy to use in a game without running any risk.  Just go back to the roots, which are small fey creatures in a mine--basically a Bavarian flavor of the more general goblin.  Sometimes, they morph into household fey, similar to brownies.  I mixed them with redcaps, to give them a more sinister modus operandi, then made their society distinct.  Like I said, easy.

But Chris didn't say "kobolds".  He said "reptilian kobolds".  As soon as you do that, let alone tie them to dragons, then that's asking for it.  Because even though that should be something that isn't a problem, it's a strong D&Dism, and a late D&Dism at that, given that early D&D kobolds were not reptilian at all.  Now, in a completely different game system, such as GURPS, sure you could have similar late D&D kobolds and probably be fine, as you said, as long as you rewrote them in your own words.

Besides, WotC kobolds suck.  Why would anyone want them in their game? :D

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 19, 2023, 07:37:40 AM
Besides, WotC kobolds suck.  Why would anyone want them in their game? :D

Yeah, I have never seen the charm of them, outside of the character Deekin, from the Neverwinter Nights game. And that's a very setting/story specific character, who's "charming" in an annoying kinda way.

But I've never used Kobolds in my games, except for very early on when I started DMing. And that was decades ago, when Kobolds were still tiny dog people. Then they changed them to tiny lizard people on me, and I was like "WTF? Didn't they use to be dog people? You know what? Screw it! I don't even use Kobolds, I use Goblins all the time!"

The Kobold picture in the AD&D Monster Manual looks pretty reptilian to me

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 19, 2023, 08:02:10 AM

Yeah, I have never seen the charm of them, outside of the character Deekin, from the Neverwinter Nights game. And that's a very setting/story specific character, who's "charming" in an annoying kinda way.

But I've never used Kobolds in my games, except for very early on when I started DMing. And that was decades ago, when Kobolds were still tiny dog people. Then they changed them to tiny lizard people on me, and I was like "WTF? Didn't they use to be dog people? You know what? Screw it! I don't even use Kobolds, I use Goblins all the time!"

I never use both goblins and kobolds straight in the same game.  And if I want just one, I'll probably use goblins.  However, sometimes I want to split both of them off from the "early cannon fodder, bottom of the monster society" role and into something more extreme, which could go like this:

- goblins - almost feral sociopaths that only understand bullying and power, and will stab you in the back the moment they can see it, like a rabid badger hopped up on LSD--on a good day.
- kobolds - small fey with peculiar customs--sometimes not understandable by playable races, can be dealt with carefully, with some risk, similar to amoral elves in myths, but are friendly enough when there is mutual reason to trade goods, favors, information, etc.

I don't like goblins in the second role, usually, because it's another notch in the chain of turning them into just another race.  For some reason, kobolds have more resistance to that effect.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 19, 2023, 12:41:01 AM
There's no reason to think a small publisher will auto-lose with lawfare vs. WotC.

WotC is playing with fire with the OGL pissing contest because a US ruling on an open license could have major implications FAR beyond our little pond of tabletop RPGs.

Because of that, if WotC sues a small publisher, it's quite possible WotC will find itself up against a pro-bono law firm backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation or other highly supported orgs who could rally $$$ donations to support a major fight, especially if the law firm demonstrates that a ruling in WotC's favor could harm entire industries beyond gaming.

That's not to say that OSR publishers shouldn't cleanse their products of WotC's taint, that's just good for long term creativity and uniqueness of the OSR product.

But don't think WotC or Hasbro is invulnerable and omnipotent. Their heavy-handed noise about the OGL 1.0 might not impress an actual judge.

As you pointed out, a small publisher could succeed with the support and help of fans and others. In my case I don't see that happening. Yes, if you win you get attorney's fees. But that presumes you can find an attorney who will take the case with the hope of winning and getting those fees. I could not afford to pay the money it would take to get there. So if I could not find a cooperative attorney, fans willing to make contributions, some not-for-profit lookign to take on my case, or lottery winnings... I would be out of luck.

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 19, 2023, 05:53:01 AM
Hell, if you are a small enough publisher (under $7500 in TN, USA), you can take WotC to Small Claims Court over this and name Cynthia Williams as the Defendant - she would have to show up personally to defend her actions.

And if you were not very careful you would end up getting the case dismissed with prejudice, and attorney's fees assessed against you. That is assuming they don't counter sue and move the case up into a higher court because of the massive claims they might make against you.

A very dangerous strategy.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 19, 2023, 09:34:27 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 19, 2023, 05:53:01 AM
Hell, if you are a small enough publisher (under $7500 in TN, USA), you can take WotC to Small Claims Court over this and name Cynthia Williams as the Defendant - she would have to show up personally to defend her actions.

And if you were not very careful you would end up getting the case dismissed with prejudice, and attorney's fees assessed against you. That is assuming they don't counter sue and move the case up into a higher court because of the massive claims they might make against you.

A very dangerous strategy.

Check out what the rules are for where you live. There are some interesting stipulations on both what can go to Small Claims Court and how they can be prosecuted. It gives the little guy a chance.

Let us all remember when Hulk Hogan sued Gawker
and Peter Theil provided millions in backing for the Hulkmeister because he had issues with them himself. Those Gen X gamers mentioned earlier don't have to be actual lawyers.

Draft of the OGL1.2 just dropped on DnDBeyond. I leave it to others to dig into it.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf (https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf)

That said, the The absolute deal breaker is right on page 2...

NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This
means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective
date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license.
Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you
published that content.

Also, in section 6

6(f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

With the following in Section 7

We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f). 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 19, 2023, 08:36:56 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 19, 2023, 08:02:10 AM

Yeah, I have never seen the charm of them, outside of the character Deekin, from the Neverwinter Nights game. And that's a very setting/story specific character, who's "charming" in an annoying kinda way.

But I've never used Kobolds in my games, except for very early on when I started DMing. And that was decades ago, when Kobolds were still tiny dog people. Then they changed them to tiny lizard people on me, and I was like "WTF? Didn't they use to be dog people? You know what? Screw it! I don't even use Kobolds, I use Goblins all the time!"

I never use both goblins and kobolds straight in the same game.  And if I want just one, I'll probably use goblins.  However, sometimes I want to split both of them off from the "early cannon fodder, bottom of the monster society" role and into something more extreme, which could go like this:

- goblins - almost feral sociopaths that only understand bullying and power, and will stab you in the back the moment they can see it, like a rabid badger hopped up on LSD--on a good day.
- kobolds - small fey with peculiar customs--sometimes not understandable by playable races, can be dealt with carefully, with some risk, similar to amoral elves in myths, but are friendly enough when there is mutual reason to trade goods, favors, information, etc.

I don't like goblins in the second role, usually, because it's another notch in the chain of turning them into just another race.  For some reason, kobolds have more resistance to that effect.

In my games goblins are never just bottom tier cannon fodder, cuz I basically treat them like a PC race, and give them classes and stuff, even if they're usually low level. Fighter/Rogues are the default--what I consider the race's go-to classes. But they always have wizards as well, usually on leadership positions.

I've toyed with the idea treating them as dark fey, since that's what they're supposed to be in folklore, but for traditional D&D stuff, I've always had them as one notch above primitive savages--smarter and more cunning, and opportunistic (but physically weaker) than the other "goblinoid" races, like orcs, gnolls and ogres (other than ogre magi), and capable of actually producing wizards. While others tend to be more brutish and savage.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 19, 2023, 03:57:53 PM
Draft of the OGL1.2 just dropped on DnDBeyond. I leave it to others to dig into it.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf (https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf)

That said, the The absolute deal breaker is right on page 2...

NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This
means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective
date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license.
Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you
published that content.

I foresee a great future for the TTRPG hobby, breaking away from the stranglehold of WotC and the specter of D&D, cuz this shit ain't gonna fly, and WotC are dead set on doing this.

Of note regarding "Previously Published Works"; it's not what common language would suggest it is.

from 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions;

"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

So, by strict reading...  "It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content" ... Does NOT include new publishings/printings of content. It just means you don't have to burn your existing inventories as they implement their new license.

How generous.

"We want to punch you in the face"
"No"
"Well that was a learning experience for us. How about we apply inertia to our fists and move it in the direction of your cranium?"
"No"
"Bummer. Well...How about we take a swing at your ear?"

Destroying the OGL is non-negotiable for management.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 19, 2023, 04:35:54 PM
"We want to punch you in the face"
"No"
"Well that was a learning experience for us. How about we apply inertia to our fists and move it in the direction of your cranium?"
"No"
"Bummer. Well...How about we take a swing at your ear?"

Destroying the OGL is non-negotiable for management.

Yup. Even the irrevocable clause in the license becomes meaningless if connected to their claim that they can deauthorize licenses at will and doing so only leaves "previously published works" (i.e. stuff you've already printed, but not new printings of the material).

So 30 or 60 or 180 days from now the OGL1.3 is released and 1.2 is deauthorized. The irrevocable license applies only to material you've already got distributed or in your warehouse. You need the new OGL1.3 license and it's terms (oh, lookk... royalties are back along with our irrevocable license to your material forever) to continue to print new copies.

Oh, and if we decide you're a bigot you lose the license entirely.

Yeah, this is DOA.

If the people of Roll20, Owlbear Rodeo, etc sign this shit they are stupid. From their VTT policy:

"What isn't permitted are features that don't replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your
imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT
integrates our content into an NFT, that's not the tabletop experience. That's more like a video game."

Also:

"May I make my VTT Owlbear token look like the one from the Monster Manual?
No. We've never licensed visual depictions of our content under the OGL, just the text of the SRD. That hasn't
changed. You can create a creature called an Owlbear with the stat block from the SRD. You cannot copy any of our
Owlbear depictions. But if you've drawn your own unique Owlbear, or someone else did, you can use it."

So, how thew fuck is the VTT going to prevent people from doing so?

The only way is to ban ALL foreign tokens so you can only use the ones provided by the VTT.

Wakners on the Beach is intent on destroying ALL other VTTs so there's only one to rule them all.

Quote from: rkhigdon on January 19, 2023, 04:19:46 PM
Also, in section 6

6(f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

With the following in Section 7

We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f).

I'd like to see how this applies to bait games like Thirsty Sword Lesbians......

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 19, 2023, 05:06:19 PM

Quote from: rkhigdon on January 19, 2023, 04:19:46 PM
Also, in section 6

6(f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

With the following in Section 7

We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f).

I'd like to see how this applies to bait games like Thirsty Sword Lesbians......

I would guess not at all. After all, it's not harassment if they deserve it and all those istaphobes absolutely deserve it. If they had no double standards they'd have no standards.

Absolutely hilarious on other forums how many are pro morality clause.

And are willing to argue that you must be a bigot if you have a problem with one.

Comedy gold.

I'm against a morality clause because it's no different than an obscenity clause. What qualifies is arbitrary and depends on the whims of the owner at the time. We've seen time and time again where that goes.

AbsolutelyHUGE list of companies just announced behind ORC:

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7y?The-ORC-Alliance-Grows (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7y?The-ORC-Alliance-Grows)

Alchemy RPG
Arcane Minis
Atlas Games
Autarch
Azora Law
Black Book Editions
Bombshell Miniatures
BRW Games
Chaosium
Cze & Peku
Demiplane
DMDave
The DM Lair
Elderbrain
EN Publishing
Epic Miniatures
Evil Genius Games
Expeditious Retreat Press
Fantasy Grounds
Fat Dragon Games
Forgotten Adventures
Foundry VTT
Free RPG Day
Frog God Games
Gale Force 9
Game On Tabletop
Giochi Uniti
Goodman Games
Green Ronin
The Griffon's Saddlebag
Iron GM Games
Know Direction
Kobold Press
Lazy Wolf Studios
Legendary Games
Lone Wolf Development
Loot Tavern
Louis Porter Jr. Designs
Mad Cartographer
Minotaur Games
Mongoose Publishing
MonkeyDM
Monte Cook Games
MT Black
Necromancer Games
Nord Games
Open Gaming, Inc.
Paizo Inc.
Paradigm Concepts
Pelgrane Press
Pinnacle Entertainment Group
Raging Swan Press
Rogue Games
Rogue Genius Games
Roll 20
Roll for Combat
Sly Flourish
Tom Cartos
Troll Lord Games
Ulisses Spiele

Quote from: Zachary The First on January 19, 2023, 07:56:02 PM
AbsolutelyHUGE list of companies just announced behind ORC:

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7y?The-ORC-Alliance-Grows (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7y?The-ORC-Alliance-Grows)

SNIP

So it's everybody and their mom against Wankers on the Beach...

This is gonna be fecking GLORIOUS!

Haha fuck the new OGL just as hard as the last "draft". Anyone who thinks it is any better is delusional. Also note this irrevocable license can in fact still be revoked if any provision is successfully challenged in court.

And seriously, fuck Orc too. Half of those companies have discriminated, virtue signaled, or think black people are orcs. They just want to control content with their license instead of WotC. And this is just more virtue signaling by companies that have released their own VERY restrictive license or none at all. They are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They are capitalizing on WotCs poison pill.

Going forward I will not support any product that uses either license. This hobby doesn't need any more magic missiles or fireballs. I'd rather buy 1e or Basic from eBay.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 19, 2023, 09:05:03 PM
Haha fuck the new OGL just as hard as the last "draft". Anyone who thinks it is any better is delusional. Also note this irrevocable license can in fact still be revoked if any provision is successfully challenged in court.

And seriously, fuck Orc too. Half of those companies have discriminated, virtue signaled, or think black people are orcs. They just want to control content with their license instead of WotC. And this is just more virtue signaling by companies that have released their own VERY restrictive license or none at all. They are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They are capitalizing on WotCs poison pill.

Going forward I will not support any product that uses either license. This hobby doesn't need any more magic missiles or fireballs. I'd rather buy 1e or Basic from eBay.

That's a genetic fallacy, yes, those companies have done those things, doesn't mean a license we haven't read yet is bad just because they rallied behind it, it could be just as bad as the NoOGL, worst or be really open, we won't know until it drops.

As for companies capitalizing on the mistakes of their competition... Well duh! That's what a smart company does! It doesn't make the yet to be released license bad.

This last part if anything gives me hope they MIGHT be seeing the light and coming back to a free market instead of virtue signaling, but we'll see; either way the license will stand or fail on it's merits.

Quote from: rkhigdon on January 19, 2023, 04:19:46 PM
Also, in section 6

6(f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

With the following in Section 7

We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f).

This is even much worse than the leaked 1.1 version.  Not only can they terminate based on your content, but also your conduct!
Post something they don't like on twitter or a forum and they pull your license.

Worth a watch and he's dressed, at least from the waist up! :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDXR5MQQA-g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDXR5MQQA-g)

If they have a morality clause I hope the usual suspects complain about racist orcs and antisemitism dwarves and anti-trans Elves and make their lives interesting.

This part is interesting.  I don't know how useful this content is.

Quote from: OGL 1.2The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System
Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any
limitations at all on how you use that content.

Quote from: DocJones on January 19, 2023, 11:01:03 PM
This part is interesting.  I don't know how useful this content is.

Quote from: OGL 1.2The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System
Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any
limitations at all on how you use that content.

LOL, the mechanics are not the issue, but since they placed it under CC By 4.0 once they puyblish the final license and the srd I'm gonna go take them because fuck them, they can't do shit about it.

I think by placing them under a CC license they are trying to make it an issue, claiming they own the mechanics and not just the textual expression of said mechanics.

Quote from: JeremyR on January 19, 2023, 11:50:22 PM
I think by placing them under a CC license they are trying to make it an issue, claiming they own the mechanics and not just the textual expression of said mechanics.

Exactly, but it would be the funniest thing if someone were to take them at their word and using ONLY the mechanics published "Nazi Vixens from the Moon the ttrpg" and since they are using the mechanics listed: "Mechanics CC By Wizards of the Coast".

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 19, 2023, 07:37:40 AM
You are missing the point.  Let's use kobolds as an illustration.  They are, in fact, quite easy to use in a game without running any risk.  Just go back to the roots, which are small fey creatures in a mine--basically a Bavarian flavor of the more general goblin.  Sometimes, they morph into household fey, similar to brownies.  I mixed them with redcaps, to give them a more sinister modus operandi, then made their society distinct.  Like I said, easy.

Nah. I understand the point just fine. The reality is that in order to infringe on WOTC's specific interpretation of many of these things, you have to actually go out of your way to look up and reference specific things that WOTC has rights to.

For example, lets take the Kobold. Here's Warcraft's take on Kobolds: https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Kobold

TL;DR Kobolds in Warcraft are kind of rat-like critters. I don't think I've ever heard anyone griping that Warcraft's take on Kobolds is inferior to Wizards' take on Kobolds. If they were missing and replaced with something else, would anyone notice? Probably not.

As you point out, it's very easy to come up with alternative takes. It's Chris24601 that's particularly fixated on spreading FUD about creators being unable to use common tropes from fantasy & mythology in games, just because someone else started using the same word in a similar product 50 years ago.

Even if we insist on using the name "Kobold" then we could easily make monkey-like Kobolds, or bird-like Kobolds, or dog-like Kobolds, etc. Even *reptilian* Kobolds don't violate any reasonable claim unless you explicitly reference WOTC material.

Lets say in my game Kobolds are reptilian creatures derived from common lizards that have been mutated by wild magical energies in places of extreme natural or unnatural power. Just starting from a single sentence here we've immediately distinguished these creatures from whatever WOTC is selling. If we take this seed idea and use it to inform development in art/description/mechanics/characters from there, I doubt any judge would deny that this is a unique & distinct creation, even if it shares at the grossest level some similarity to WOTC's.

Coming up with this brief idea was a lot quicker for me than trying to pore through old D&D content and copying that lore directly. Plus it's way more interesting to try and come up with a fresh idea and then daydream about ways to express that in the game. Maybe my Kobolds have innate magical connection gives them some kind of resistance to magic, or some other twist. Being creative is fun. And as a hobbyist & player I _want_ creativity in material, not just a rehash of the same old, same old.

Even a lot of things that supposedly are WOTC product-identity are actually not. WOTC pretends Owlbear is a protected concept but it's actually in a ton of games, like (again): https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Wildkin.

Good luck arguing that it's impossible for someone to come up with the concept of a chimaera creature. The FUD spreading is just really tedious, especially when it comes to stuff that could easily be created independently by a child (Bear + Owl!).

Zelen,

I agree with you as far as it goes, on both the what and the why.  However, you are talking about technical infringement handled in a fair system by a judge with a clue.  Chris is talking about avoiding things that will get you in trouble in an unfair system where deep pockets will never get your case heard, and even if you are backed and it is heard, all it takes is one judge not paying attention, and you are hosed.

My opinion and plan is to do the better thing:  Make things that fit the game, with my slant on them.  That's a good plan even if we weren't worried about legal (fair or unfair).  That the good plan also protects you from some unfair legal issues is a bonus. 

In any case, I've found that nearly every time I run into an edge case where I'm unsure whether I should change a thing or not because it might be unfairly construed to fall under WotC's right, if I experiment with some possible changes, the outcome is something better than what I started with.  It usually looks worse or contrived or both before it looks better.  Then I pull back and really think about how the thing is supposed to work in the system, and I'm happier with where it ends up.  Though maybe that's just me.

The exception to that are the edge cases involving clarity of mechanics.  Which would be completely safe under the law read properly, barring direct language copyright infringement.  Not so much in reality.  So I think judicious (hah) use of a few separate terms mixed with some existing ones is maybe an example of doing something solely because of (over) caution about this issue.

That's not what Chris is arguing, tho. He's referring to specific points of similarity. The more points of similarity there are without prior art, the more you open yourself to litigation.

You can't copyright an idea, but what's the cutoff point? How detailed does something have to be before it is copyrightable?

I and many others aren't willing to risk it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 20, 2023, 01:14:56 PM
That's not what Chris is arguing, tho. He's referring to specific points of similarity. The more points of similarity there are without prior art, the more you open yourself to litigation.

You can't copyright an idea, but what's the cutoff point? How detailed does something have to be before it is copyrightable?

I and many others aren't willing to risk it.

Exactly!

I think my Cleric example is particular apt;

A) a wandering priest
B) in a fantasy setting
C) that casts spells
D) using level based slots
E) that are prepared daily
F) from a list that contains spells of the same types that D&D has at the same levels D&D has them.
G) and is also able turn/destroy undead as a separate ability
H) and wears heavy armor
I) and has limited weapon selection (double points if the selection is limited to non-edged weapons)

Each individual element can't be copyrighted on its own... but the specific combination of A-I as a class in a game system becomes a copyrightable element.

You can have wandering priests who cast spells in a fantasy setting with a limited weapon selection (A-C+I) with a no problem. You could even give them the option to select heavy armor from a different source (say using a skill or talent subsystem) and include the ability turn/destroy undead as a spell choice.

But the more items you add from that list the more it looks like you're just copying their specific expression than you are using similar uncopyrightable concepts for your own creative work and THAT is what gets you into trouble in the same way that someone trying to sell "Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir" about a teen sorcerer with a scar on his ankle that warns him of danger when Lord Mortis who killed his parents is near who is suddenly thrust into a hidden magical world where they attend a school of magic.

At a certain point the stack of individually uncopyrightable concepts (or Concept Stack) adds up to something that is copyrightable or copyright means nothing. Where that line falls depends a lot on how litigious the copyright holder is and how deep their pockets are relative to yours, but its not imaginary, nor stoking FUD to point out that the line exists and non-OGL publishers need to be aware that there's a line out there in darkness you want to be aware of lest you stumble across it.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 19, 2023, 07:07:19 PM
Absolutely hilarious on other forums how many are pro morality clause.

And are willing to argue that you must be a bigot if you have a problem with one.

Comedy gold.

The posters who are "pro-morality clause" are either retards or paid shills. Such a clause can be weaponized against anyone for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 19, 2023, 07:07:19 PM
Absolutely hilarious on other forums how many are pro morality clause.

And are willing to argue that you must be a bigot if you have a problem with one.

Comedy gold.

What hive of scum and villainy are you seeing this at? At TPB the response to the morality clause seems to be a fear that WOTC will somehow get bought out by NuTSR like folks and come after the gays. I didn't think there was a worse place for Wokeness than TBP, and even they are getting some willies about that clause.

I'm more worried that the homophobia will come from the woke side.

Quote from: wmarshal on January 20, 2023, 05:42:51 PM
What hive of scum and villainy are you seeing this at? At TPB the response to the morality clause seems to be a fear that WOTC will somehow get bought out by NuTSR like folks and come after the gays. I didn't think there was a worse place for Wokeness than TBP, and even they are getting some willies about that clause.

   I've caught some passing glimpses of the attitude on Twitter.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 20, 2023, 06:13:46 PM

Quote from: wmarshal on January 20, 2023, 05:42:51 PM
What hive of scum and villainy are you seeing this at? At TPB the response to the morality clause seems to be a fear that WOTC will somehow get bought out by NuTSR like folks and come after the gays. I didn't think there was a worse place for Wokeness than TBP, and even they are getting some willies about that clause.

   I've caught some passing glimpses of the attitude on Twitter.

Yep, on the twatter there's about a 10% (I think) of people that are all for the morality clause and will call you a bigot for opossing it, even AFTER you explain to them how it can be used against their side in the future.

Even on Youtube, a few of the critics of WotC regarding the OGL say the clause is fine.

Hell even Tenkar said in a recent video that IF it was precise and concise and not vague it would be "somewhat palatable".

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 06:23:37 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 20, 2023, 06:13:46 PM

Quote from: wmarshal on January 20, 2023, 05:42:51 PM
What hive of scum and villainy are you seeing this at? At TPB the response to the morality clause seems to be a fear that WOTC will somehow get bought out by NuTSR like folks and come after the gays. I didn't think there was a worse place for Wokeness than TBP, and even they are getting some willies about that clause.

   I've caught some passing glimpses of the attitude on Twitter.

Yep, on the twatter there's about a 10% (I think) of people that are all for the morality clause and will call you a bigot for opossing it, even AFTER you explain to them how it can be used against their side in the future.

Even on Youtube, a few of the critics of WotC regarding the OGL say the clause is fine.

Hell even Tenkar said in a recent video that IF it was precise and concise and not vague it would be "somewhat palatable".

I'm stunned that anyone could be so naive, but especially Tenkar since he had a good view how the pitchforks came out for Frog God Games.

Given the duplicity shown by Hasbro it wouldn't surprise me if they try to hire out an astroturf crowd from a PR firm on something like Twitter. What's a $100k to hire some fake fans/bots when Hasbro thinks they have billion$ at stake with killing OGL 1.0a?

Quote from: wmarshal on January 20, 2023, 07:32:32 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 06:23:37 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 20, 2023, 06:13:46 PM

Quote from: wmarshal on January 20, 2023, 05:42:51 PM
What hive of scum and villainy are you seeing this at? At TPB the response to the morality clause seems to be a fear that WOTC will somehow get bought out by NuTSR like folks and come after the gays. I didn't think there was a worse place for Wokeness than TBP, and even they are getting some willies about that clause.

   I've caught some passing glimpses of the attitude on Twitter.

Yep, on the twatter there's about a 10% (I think) of people that are all for the morality clause and will call you a bigot for opossing it, even AFTER you explain to them how it can be used against their side in the future.

Even on Youtube, a few of the critics of WotC regarding the OGL say the clause is fine.

Hell even Tenkar said in a recent video that IF it was precise and concise and not vague it would be "somewhat palatable".

I'm stunned that anyone could be so naive, but especially Tenkar since he had a good view how the pitchforks came out for Frog God Games.

Given the duplicity shown by Hasbro it wouldn't surprise me if they try to hire out an astroturf crowd from a PR firm on something like Twitter. What's a $100k to hire some fake fans/bots when Hasbro thinks they have billion$ at stake with killing OGL 1.0a?

Tenkar is pro censorship when it's stuff he doesn't like, he got banned something on DTTRPG because it had ACAB stuff on it.

Now, I despise the ACAB people, but I will deffend their right to make an ass of themselves in public.

never mind

Quote from: Zachary The First on January 19, 2023, 07:56:02 PMAbsolutelyHUGE list of companies just announced behind ORC:

Just wait until you see the list of brand new subsidiaries from these companies who sign whatever OGL that WotC demands to get access to the 5e/6e/7e customer base.

It will also be yuge.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 20, 2023, 01:13:52 PM
I agree with you as far as it goes, on both the what and the why.  However, you are talking about technical infringement handled in a fair system by a judge with a clue.  Chris is talking about avoiding things that will get you in trouble in an unfair system where deep pockets will never get your case heard, and even if you are backed and it is heard, all it takes is one judge not paying attention, and you are hosed.

Sure, I've explicitly stated that as well. However, it doesn't make sense as a creator to let your creative output be harmed by "bad stuff that might potentially happen, after a long string of other unlikely bad events."

As I stated in the previous post, I'm all for creating unique new and original stuff. But if you're dead-set on those reptilian Kobolds, then why not? A creator making genuinely new things in good faith shouldn't have to worry. Spreading FUD is counterproductive. Creators should not stop creating just because there's someone out there with bigger pockets.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 19, 2023, 05:02:15 PMSo, how thew fuck is the VTT going to prevent people from doing so?

The only way is to ban ALL foreign tokens so you can only use the ones provided by the VTT.

WotC could license out their own Official D&D VTT tokens that those VTTs can use or sell them to GMs as VTT token packs.

The individual VTTs could create their own VTT token packs - especially in the age of free AI art, and then limit VTT play to their "official" tokens.

Of course, they could also just declare themselves a Token-Neutral platform where individual GMs sign a contract saying they are 1000% responsible for any tokens they create, use or share.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 02:37:05 PM
A) a wandering priest
B) in a fantasy setting
C) that casts spells
D) using level based slots
E) that are prepared daily
F) from a list that contains spells of the same types that D&D has at the same levels D&D has them.
G) and is also able turn/destroy undead as a separate ability
H) and wears heavy armor
I) and has limited weapon selection (double points if the selection is limited to non-edged weapons)

You seem very intent on catastrophizing. There's numerous examples of games that match pretty much all of these points (besides perhaps F) and aren't getting sued. In fact, most of these are extremely common and any person who has played videogames in the past ~30 years could easily invent a new idea with all of these tropes without ever having played D&D or any TTRPG at all.

The only thing that would be at all an issue is if (F) meant literally lifting the Divine spell list, mechanics & text, from a WOTC product.

Quote from: Zelen on January 20, 2023, 08:52:22 PMYou seem very intent on catastrophizing.

Yeah its like as if Wizards did something catastrophic or something. The examples are listed are pretty common....Except their not really. At least not all the elements at once. Id say paladins are more widespread then clerics are in videogames and pop culture as a whole. Bringing up even larger megacorporations as counterpoints is generally a loosing formula. Blizzard Activision ripped off GW, but GW wouldn't dare go after them.
Bring up a videogame from 2010+ that matches A,B,C,G,H,I.

JRPGs have white mages and other rpgs may have a Priest class, but none of them really share ALL the baggage. Which is exactly what the point is about. The more you have to change from established lore/mechanics in your own variant, the more challenge its gonna be.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 20, 2023, 09:02:41 PM

Quote from: Zelen on January 20, 2023, 08:52:22 PMYou seem very intent on catastrophizing.

Yeah its like as if Wizards did something catastrophic or something. The examples are listed are pretty common....Except their not really. At least not all the elements at once. Id say paladins are more widespread then clerics are in videogames and pop culture as a whole. Bringing up even larger megacorporations as counterpoints is generally a loosing formula. Blizzard Activision ripped off GW, but GW wouldn't dare go after them.
Bring up a videogame from 2010+ that matches A,B,C,G,H,I.

JRPGs have white mages and other rpgs may have a Priest class, but none of them really share ALL the baggage. Which is exactly what the point is about. The more you have to change from established lore/mechanics in your own variant, the more challenge its gonna be.

You aren't wrong. The issue is there is more out there than that list. And if one lacks the creativity to make a new and interesting cleric then I question their talent.

Hasbro is a shit company for deauthorizing the OGL after people spent decades believing it was solid, building their livelihoods off of it. That is the only unforgivable sin. Outside of that, Hasbro doesn't owe anybody a thing.

Any creator that must latch themselves to the OGL is a B tier creator at best.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 20, 2023, 09:02:41 PM

Quote from: Zelen on January 20, 2023, 08:52:22 PMYou seem very intent on catastrophizing.

Yeah its like as if Wizards did something catastrophic or something. The examples are listed are pretty common....Except their not really. At least not all the elements at once. Id say paladins are more widespread then clerics are in videogames and pop culture as a whole. Bringing up even larger megacorporations as counterpoints is generally a loosing formula. Blizzard Activision ripped off GW, but GW wouldn't dare go after them.
Bring up a videogame from 2010+ that matches A,B,C,G,H,I.

JRPGs have white mages and other rpgs may have a Priest class, but none of them really share ALL the baggage. Which is exactly what the point is about. The more you have to change from established lore/mechanics in your own variant, the more challenge its gonna be.

Exactly, it's not the same to try to intimidate a megacorporation than a small fish, especially since said megacorporation (videogames) probably has more money then you and it's not derect competition, plus copyright doesn't expire if you don't deffend it so they can give each other the benefit of the law while trying to destroy the small fish.

Zelen thinks we live in an ideal world, we don't.

If the USA justice system worked like the UK one where looser pays everything, you might see more people standing up to the likes of Hasbro.

But then again, that's an ideal world not the real one.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 20, 2023, 09:56:00 PMAny creator that must latch themselves to the OGL is a B tier creator at best.

Yup. I see it as a win for me, but most people are mediocre, and I don't think they deserve to suffer for it. Am I happy I get more creative attempts at settings? Yes. Did I want a whole bunch of innocent people bankrupt by a megacorporation? No.

I prefer magic to either be all 'divine' in nature, or all 'arcane'. White mages are examples of settings where no magic is divine.

Wakfu/Dofus is the opposite. All beings are humans but by devoting themselves to a god they actually transform into species to match them and gain powers.

Quote from: Zelen on January 20, 2023, 08:52:22 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 02:37:05 PM
A) a wandering priest
B) in a fantasy setting
C) that casts spells
D) using level based slots
E) that are prepared daily
F) from a list that contains spells of the same types that D&D has at the same levels D&D has them.
G) and is also able turn/destroy undead as a separate ability
H) and wears heavy armor
I) and has limited weapon selection (double points if the selection is limited to non-edged weapons)

You seem very intent on catastrophizing. There's numerous examples of games that match pretty much all of these points (besides perhaps F) and aren't getting sued. In fact, most of these are extremely common and any person who has played videogames in the past ~30 years could easily invent a new idea with all of these tropes without ever having played D&D or any TTRPG at all.

The only thing that would be at all an issue is if (F) meant literally lifting the Divine spell list, mechanics & text, from a WOTC product.

I don't want small time publishers to run afoul of obvious copyright issues because some people with no actual skin in the game are still in denial over just what losing the OGL1.0a and associated actually means.

Tell me, what non-OGL project do you have in the pipeline? How much of WotC's Concept Stacks you planning on cutting and pasting into them with a hearty cry of "come at me bro!"?

Or are you just a voice with no skin in the game demanding others take the risk of bringing a vindictive Hasbro legal team down on them so you can pretend the ttrpg world hasn't been struck by a metaphorical nuke a little longer?

As to all these games using basically the entire WotC cleric Concept Stack; which games are these?

Dragon Age? The cleric role is filled by Mages who use cloth armor and staves. The magic system is entirely different.

WoW? Priests are limited to cloth armor, use staves, wands, daggers and maces and use completely different game/spell mechanics.

ESO? Closest equivalent is the Templar and their system allows any class to use any weapon or armor they devote effort to and their spell system is similarly quite different.

Final Fantasy? White Mages using cloth armor and staves.

Palladium Fantasy? Priest abilities are very different from D&D Clerics, are limited to light armor and have no weapon restrictions.

Tunnels & Trolls? No priest class... its Warrior or Wizard.

Savage Worlds, GURPS, HERO? No classes.

I think you greatly overestimate the number of properties (outside of expressly D&D-derived ones like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter or Pathfinder games) that have concept stacks anywhere close to the specific expression of the D&D cleric. The particular stack is basically non-existent outside of OGL-based systems.

I get it... the bomb has been dropped and people are moving through the stages of grief and every stage until acceptance is "how do I get back to how things were before?" You want someone to step up and risk their livelihood to give you that. Similarly others are holding out hope that that the ORC license will magically fix all things and let people go back to buying supplements for systems unchanged from what they were before WotC destroyed the OGL.

It's completely understandable. Its just NOT all that realistic.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 10:18:43 PM
Zelen thinks we live in an ideal world, we don't.

I've been quite explicit in pointing out otherwise. The point is simply to acknowledge that,

(A) It's pretty easy to meaningfully distinguish your own unique ideas & creations from D&D, and oftentimes this is easier & better than not doing it
(B) Spreading fear that Hasbrodeus is going to sue small creators isn't productive, especially when making overly broad claims about what's reasonably actionable and what isn't.

None of that implies we live in a perfect world. Merely by existing, there's a non-zero chance that merely existing could get you sued by one or more megacorporations, so you may as well end it all now.

Quote from: Zelen on January 20, 2023, 10:39:05 PMSpreading fear that Hasbrodeus is going to sue small creators isn't productive.

Some large video game companies shut down fan works pretty regularly, and I'm pretty sure that's not even legal. And it's not productive to what?

Quote from: Zelen on January 20, 2023, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 10:18:43 PM
Zelen thinks we live in an ideal world, we don't.

I've been quite explicit in pointing out otherwise. The point is simply to acknowledge that,

(A) It's pretty easy to meaningfully distinguish your own unique ideas & creations from D&D, and oftentimes this is easier & better than not doing it
(B) Spreading fear that Hasbrodeus is going to sue small creators isn't productive, especially when making overly broad claims about what's reasonably actionable and what isn't.

And how did you come by this perfect legal knowledge of what is and isn't "reasonably actionable?"

Law degree? Writer in a field where copyright is often a factor? Watched a bunch of YouTube videos whose arguments supported your beliefs while skipping or dismissing those that didn't?

And how much of what you've determined is "not reasonably actionable" just happens to coincide with "what I want third-parties to keep making for me"?

For someone with no skin in this game you seem to have a lot of strong opinions about what risks small creators should ignore to deliver what you want.

Quote from: Zelen on January 20, 2023, 10:39:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 10:18:43 PM
Zelen thinks we live in an ideal world, we don't.

I've been quite explicit in pointing out otherwise. The point is simply to acknowledge that,

(A) It's pretty easy to meaningfully distinguish your own unique ideas & creations from D&D, and oftentimes this is easier & better than not doing it
(B) Spreading fear that Hasbrodeus is going to sue small creators isn't productive, especially when making overly broad claims about what's reasonably actionable and what isn't.

None of that implies we live in a perfect world. Merely by existing, there's a non-zero chance that merely existing could get you sued by one or more megacorporations, so you may as well end it all now.

You're going to die anyway so why not commit seppuko right now?

Yeah, thanks but I'll pass.

Hackmaster 5e is a non-OGL rpg, and it has clerics. I don't remember the specifics of how they work, but they have them. ???

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 19, 2023, 04:33:23 PM
Of note regarding "Previously Published Works"; it's not what common language would suggest it is.

from 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions;

"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

So, by strict reading...  "It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content" ... Does NOT include new publishings/printings of content. It just means you don't have to burn your existing inventories as they implement their new license.

How generous.

I can tell you're not a lawyer.  ;D You need to distinguish 'publication' from 'published'. In my jurisdiction (England & Wales) at least, 'published' means 'has been made available to the public'.  Once there has been publication, a work is published. And stays published. AFAIK (& I'm pretty certain) it's the exact same in the USA.
So no, I don't think they are (currently) trying to stop future printings of published material.

(I had to explain this to an author friend of mine recently. For authors, she said that being a 'published author' means having an ISBN number on the book).

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 21, 2023, 01:53:00 AM
Hackmaster 5e is a non-OGL rpg, and it has clerics. I don't remember the specifics of how they work, but they have them. ???

They have them, but their available weapons, armor and entire spell list is deity dependent (and include RP elements like the armor of a Court of Justice cleric wears must be painted a gold comor or inlaid with gold). Their spell lists are also entirely different from a D&D cleric and spell level access is equal to the character level (i.e. a 5th level cleric can cast spells from level 1-5. In addition, elements like the weapon and armor, shield and skill proficiences are separate from the class and bought with "build points"... the choice of religion is a "maximum allowed by the faith" rather than a default and clerics always pay the highest BP cost for a weapon even it normally requires minimal skill and the only weapons allowed are those for their religion.

In other words... no, the D&D cleric "concept stack" is not at all duplicated in its entirety (though it probably shares more than most) and includes quite a number of differences that make it distinct from WotC's potential copyright.

The same goes for their races and other classes; same names, different expressions. Monsterwise a "Swackiron Dragon" is definitely not going to be confused for its D&D cousins.

Quote from: S'mon on January 21, 2023, 05:25:06 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 19, 2023, 04:33:23 PM
Of note regarding "Previously Published Works"; it's not what common language would suggest it is.

from 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions;

"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

So, by strict reading...  "It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content" ... Does NOT include new publishings/printings of content. It just means you don't have to burn your existing inventories as they implement their new license.

How generous.

I can tell you're not a lawyer.  ;D You need to distinguish 'publication' from 'published'. In my jurisdiction (England & Wales) at least, 'published' means 'has been made available to the public'.  Once there has been publication, a work is published. And stays published. AFAIK (& I'm pretty certain) it's the exact same in the USA.
So no, I don't think they are (currently) trying to stop future printings of published material.

(I had to explain this to an author friend of mine recently. For authors, she said that being a 'published author' means having an ISBN number on the book).

That's good if true. I think I can be forgiven not trusting Hasbro any further than I could throw a 400lb. boulder (which is to say, not at all).

That said, it's something I'd really want clarification on from WotC in a "define your legal terms" sense just so lay persons don't run afoul of "perpetual" =/= "irrevocable" legalese. "Any product with an ISBN number" is far more clear than "previously published."

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 20, 2023, 09:02:41 PM

Quote from: Zelen on January 20, 2023, 08:52:22 PMYou seem very intent on catastrophizing.

Yeah its like as if Wizards did something catastrophic or something. The examples are listed are pretty common....Except their not really. At least not all the elements at once. Id say paladins are more widespread then clerics are in videogames and pop culture as a whole. Bringing up even larger megacorporations as counterpoints is generally a loosing formula. Blizzard Activision ripped off GW, but GW wouldn't dare go after them.
Bring up a videogame from 2010+ that matches A,B,C,G,H,I.

JRPGs have white mages and other rpgs may have a Priest class, but none of them really share ALL the baggage. Which is exactly what the point is about. The more you have to change from established lore/mechanics in your own variant, the more challenge its gonna be.

GW did go after Blizz. That's why they had to remove or rename certain things in their games. Things that GW didn't even own, like SST-inspired brain bugs or dwarf gyrocoptors. This is still legally binding today, even tho it was full of shit then and full of shit now.

Atlas Games is looking into some kind of Open Ars Magica via ORC.

https://atlas-games.com/news/post?s=2023-01-13-atlas-games-orc-license-for-the-horde

Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:33:01 PM
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

I'm going with Dante's Inferno: Lets see WotC try and copyright that.

I think the multitude of outer planes, along with alignment in general, are pretty silly. It's not not enough to have one heaven and one hell, D&D has to have at least three versions of each and the distinctions between them are arbitrary, random, and/or anal-retentive.

I think it would make more sense to use a more Moorcockian-inspired cosmology. This would exist on a continuum between law and chaos, without good or evil being distinct cosmic forces. Law (in combination with neutrality/cosmic balance) is represented by archons/angels, chaos is represented by demons. Devils are creations of law intended to combat the demons in their own realms and represent an extremely hostile form of order, with their inspiration being stuff like the Hellraiser comics. You don't need anything more than that, and prior concepts like modrons/psychopomps and slaad/proteans can be folded into angels and demons, respectively. (I know 4e did something similar and got blasted for it, but I think in this case they actually had the right idea.) Good and evil are no longer distinct cosmic forces but effects: good is the result of harmonious balance, whereas evil is the result of imbalance in either direction.

As for the inner planes... fey and elementals shouldn't be distinct creature types imo, especially since the idea of elementals was originally codified by Paracelsus and meant to classify fairies (and quite frankly you could apply an elemental association to any magical monster). I think fairies can exist as their own thing distinct from angels and demons, personifying the natural worlds that arose as the result of the conflict between order and chaos, altho obviously the specifics can vary by setting. The inner planes I'd reimagine as Fairyland, roughly divided into the Summerlands for the Seelie Court and Winterlands for the Unseelie Court. The actual environments could replicate any of the absurd locations from the original elemental planes, such as volcanic wastelands inhabited by fire nymphs, undersea kingdoms peopled by merfolk, cloud cities full of winged folk, underland peopled by anthropomorphic playing cards, primeval forests ruled by beast lords and plant lords, dark shadowlands haunted by shadow fey and specters, etc.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 01:22:50 PM
As for the inner planes... fey and elementals shouldn't be distinct creature types imo, especially since the idea of elementals was originally codified by Paracelsus and meant to classify fairies (and quite frankly you could apply an elemental association to any magical monster). I think fairies can exist as their own thing distinct from angels and demons, personifying the natural worlds that arose as the result of the conflict between order and chaos, altho obviously the specifics can vary by setting. The inner planes I'd reimagine as Fairyland, roughly divided into the Summerlands for the Seelie Court and Winterlands for the Unseelie Court. The actual environments could replicate any of the absurd locations from the original elemental planes, such as volcanic wastelands inhabited by fire nymphs, undersea kingdoms peopled by merfolk, cloud cities full of winged folk, underland peopled by anthropomorphic playing cards, primeval forests ruled by beast lords and plant lords, dark shadowlands haunted by shadow fey and specters, etc.

I mean, that's the NeverNever from The Dresden Files pretty much to a T.

Still, as much as I've grown to hate the sort of soulless high-fantasy comic book/anime gonzo mishmash that has become D&D in the last couple decades, which might end up the subject of a post of it's own, I don't wanna go back to some sort of primordial pre-Fantasy fantasy. Along the same lines as the discussion about the arcane/divine magic divide... and I say this as a person who adores settings like Harn and such that try to be more grounded/low fantasy settings... I think a certain amount of the charm and staying power of D&D is some of the weirdness like elementals and a multitude of planes. You don't have to copy how D&D does it precisely, or even all that close if you don't want to, but... I don't think we need to, or even should try to, purge them entirely. Unless its for your own specific setting, sure, then do whatever, but if we're talking about some sort of platonic OSR-y form of the game, I think those things kind of have a place, even if they are hallowed bovines.

Bruwulf, our local box of crayon's pet peeve is when people use mythology in ways he doesn't approve of or doesn't find authentic according to his own weird slant on it.  Don't try to reason a person out of a position they were never reasoned into.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:33:01 PM
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

It's hard to say how far that can go, even the D&D planes are highly derivative of middle age texts like Dante's Inferno, Kaballah, Greek and Norse myth and the like. Certainly there are parts of it that could be protected, but I'm reasonably certain that you could rip a great deal of it if done intelligently and they'd have no basis for a claim.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 21, 2023, 03:19:38 PM
I mean, that's the NeverNever from The Dresden Files pretty much to a T.

Still, as much as I've grown to hate the sort of soulless high-fantasy comic book/anime gonzo mishmash that has become D&D in the last couple decades, which might end up the subject of a post of it's own, I don't wanna go back to some sort of primordial pre-Fantasy fantasy. Along the same lines as the discussion about the arcane/divine magic divide... and I say this as a person who adores settings like Harn and such that try to be more grounded/low fantasy settings... I think a certain amount of the charm and staying power of D&D is some of the weirdness like elementals and a multitude of planes. You don't have to copy how D&D does it precisely, or even all that close if you don't want to, but... I don't think we need to, or even should try to, purge them entirely. Unless its for your own specific setting, sure, then do whatever, but if we're talking about some sort of platonic OSR-y form of the game, I think those things kind of have a place, even if they are hallowed bovines.

Honestly, I question the need for Otherworlds at all. The use of Otherworlds in fiction is typically to bring someone from the mundane world into a place where magic and fantasy things exist.

That's called the "prime material plane" in just about every campaign I've ever run. Wizards, dragons, fairies, giants, volcanoes spewing endless rivers of lava, vast underground realms, islands floating in the sky.

In Greek mythology Olympus wasn't on another plane; it sat upon that particular mountain over yonder.

So that's pretty much what I did. There's a planar cosmology (called the Heliocentric Planar Model by Arcanists and Eggheads), but it's entirely theoretical in the way every real religion's positioning of Heavens and Hells is because... here's where it gets good... only spirits (divine, damned or dead) can go there.

All those conflicting religions in the setting? What happens after you die? You have to take all of those things on faith, just like real people do. Which means people have to behave more like how we understand people to behave (where all those questions are open and depend on faith) versus how they would when the answers to life, the universe and everything are just a plane shift spell away. Even agnostics and atheists are plausibly possible.

Instead all the wilder elements you go to the other planes for are found in the Mortal World... which is itself the Otherworld for our imaginations.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 20, 2023, 10:30:35 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 20, 2023, 09:56:00 PMAny creator that must latch themselves to the OGL is a B tier creator at best.

Yup. I see it as a win for me, but most people are mediocre, and I don't think they deserve to suffer for it. Am I happy I get more creative attempts at settings? Yes. Did I want a whole bunch of innocent people bankrupt by a megacorporation? No.

I prefer magic to either be all 'divine' in nature, or all 'arcane'. White mages are examples of settings where no magic is divine.

Wakfu/Dofus is the opposite. All beings are humans but by devoting themselves to a god they actually transform into species to match them and gain powers.

And the day you publish, please let me know. Gladly support this, and anyone who breaks from the OGL. Send me a PM and you have a sale.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 04:38:20 PM
Instead all the wilder elements you go to the other planes for are found in the Mortal World... which is itself the Otherworld for our imaginations.

Again, that's fine and great if you want to do a setting like that - there have been plenty of fantasy settings published without "planes".

But if the OSR is trying to replicate the classic D&D experience in some meaningful way, well, planes have been an element of D&D for a long time. I don't think you can just let them go that easily.

Quote from: shoplifter on January 21, 2023, 03:50:30 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:33:01 PM
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

It's hard to say how far that can go, even the D&D planes are highly derivative of middle age texts like Dante's Inferno, Kaballah, Greek and Norse myth and the like. Certainly there are parts of it that could be protected, but I'm reasonably certain that you could rip a great deal of it if done intelligently and they'd have no basis for a claim.

Yeah, D&D certainly took a lot of influence from mythology but it's not the same thing as that mythology. D&D put enough of a spin on it that it falls into the "exty points of similarity" trap.

9 alignments split along 2 axes of law/chaos and good/evil
At least 1 afterlife plane for each alignment
Each plane has at least 1 race of specific anthropomorphic personifications
Each plane has petitioners who are the transformed souls of individuals with that alignment who have forgotten their mortal lives
Worshippers of gods get to live on that god's estate, even if it's a different alignment
Angels form their own race native to all upper planes
3+ upper planes inhabited by 3+ races of "celestials" (not!angels)
3+ lower planes inhabited by 3+ races of "fiends" (not!demons)
A plane of order inhabited by robot people
A plane of chaos inhabited by amphibian/reptile people
A plane of neutrality inhabited by... those neutral people from Futurama
Etc

I'm pretty sure that crosses into copyright infringement without the OGL. In fact, I don't think the original SRD even included any outer planes

Altho WotC never tried suing Paizo even when they invented their own great wheel without SRD basis so it's unclear if they really have an enforceable claim

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 21, 2023, 03:19:38 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 01:22:50 PM
As for the inner planes... fey and elementals shouldn't be distinct creature types imo, especially since the idea of elementals was originally codified by Paracelsus and meant to classify fairies (and quite frankly you could apply an elemental association to any magical monster). I think fairies can exist as their own thing distinct from angels and demons, personifying the natural worlds that arose as the result of the conflict between order and chaos, altho obviously the specifics can vary by setting. The inner planes I'd reimagine as Fairyland, roughly divided into the Summerlands for the Seelie Court and Winterlands for the Unseelie Court. The actual environments could replicate any of the absurd locations from the original elemental planes, such as volcanic wastelands inhabited by fire nymphs, undersea kingdoms peopled by merfolk, cloud cities full of winged folk, underland peopled by anthropomorphic playing cards, primeval forests ruled by beast lords and plant lords, dark shadowlands haunted by shadow fey and specters, etc.

I mean, that's the NeverNever from The Dresden Files pretty much to a T.

Still, as much as I've grown to hate the sort of soulless high-fantasy comic book/anime gonzo mishmash that has become D&D in the last couple decades, which might end up the subject of a post of it's own, I don't wanna go back to some sort of primordial pre-Fantasy fantasy. Along the same lines as the discussion about the arcane/divine magic divide... and I say this as a person who adores settings like Harn and such that try to be more grounded/low fantasy settings... I think a certain amount of the charm and staying power of D&D is some of the weirdness like elementals and a multitude of planes. You don't have to copy how D&D does it precisely, or even all that close if you don't want to, but... I don't think we need to, or even should try to, purge them entirely. Unless its for your own specific setting, sure, then do whatever, but if we're talking about some sort of platonic OSR-y form of the game, I think those things kind of have a place, even if they are hallowed bovines.

I'm suggesting it more as a way to avoid potential copyright claims based on D&Disms

If you prefer all that idiosyncratic OCD nerd stuff, then don't let me stop you

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 04:38:20 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 21, 2023, 03:19:38 PM
I mean, that's the NeverNever from The Dresden Files pretty much to a T.

Still, as much as I've grown to hate the sort of soulless high-fantasy comic book/anime gonzo mishmash that has become D&D in the last couple decades, which might end up the subject of a post of it's own, I don't wanna go back to some sort of primordial pre-Fantasy fantasy. Along the same lines as the discussion about the arcane/divine magic divide... and I say this as a person who adores settings like Harn and such that try to be more grounded/low fantasy settings... I think a certain amount of the charm and staying power of D&D is some of the weirdness like elementals and a multitude of planes. You don't have to copy how D&D does it precisely, or even all that close if you don't want to, but... I don't think we need to, or even should try to, purge them entirely. Unless its for your own specific setting, sure, then do whatever, but if we're talking about some sort of platonic OSR-y form of the game, I think those things kind of have a place, even if they are hallowed bovines.

Honestly, I question the need for Otherworlds at all. The use of Otherworlds in fiction is typically to bring someone from the mundane world into a place where magic and fantasy things exist.

That's called the "prime material plane" in just about every campaign I've ever run. Wizards, dragons, fairies, giants, volcanoes spewing endless rivers of lava, vast underground realms, islands floating in the sky.

In Greek mythology Olympus wasn't on another plane; it sat upon that particular mountain over yonder.

So that's pretty much what I did. There's a planar cosmology (called the Heliocentric Planar Model by Arcanists and Eggheads), but it's entirely theoretical in the way every real religion's positioning of Heavens and Hells is because... here's where it gets good... only spirits (divine, damned or dead) can go there.

All those conflicting religions in the setting? What happens after you die? You have to take all of those things on faith, just like real people do. Which means people have to behave more like how we understand people to behave (where all those questions are open and depend on faith) versus how they would when the answers to life, the universe and everything are just a plane shift spell away. Even agnostics and atheists are plausibly possible.

Instead all the wilder elements you go to the other planes for are found in the Mortal World... which is itself the Otherworld for our imaginations.

Oh, totally. If you've been consuming it for years then it seems normal, but D&D is quite frankly bizarre when compared to its historical, religious, folkloric and literary inspirations. It's become its own self-iterating genre divorced from what came before it.

I'm not a fan of sacred cows. It's long ago crossed the appeal to tradition fallacy. Fans maintain this stuff because that's how its always been, rather than because it has any practical reason to be maintained. They just take it on faith without thinking about it.

That's fine. But what really irks me is when nerds refuse to acknowledge that they are using the appeal to tradition fallacy. It's an excuse to uncritically consume approved media and hate on anything that doesn't toe the party line for petty trivial reasons (i.e. the worst parts of edition wars). It's a religion that strangles creativity and I despise it.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 21, 2023, 05:49:46 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 04:38:20 PM
Instead all the wilder elements you go to the other planes for are found in the Mortal World... which is itself the Otherworld for our imaginations.

Again, that's fine and great if you want to do a setting like that - there have been plenty of fantasy settings published without "planes".

But if the OSR is trying to replicate the classic D&D experience in some meaningful way, well, planes have been an element of D&D for a long time. I don't think you can just let them go that easily.

What has the OSR done with planes? I seem to recall that PF is the only game that actually has the full gamut of points of similarity. Every other OSR game either ignores the planes or simplifies them even further.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 05:55:29 PMIf you prefer all that idiosyncratic OCD nerd stuff, then don't let me stop you

We're roleplayers. Every single person here is concerned about "idiosyncratic OCD nerd stuff".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 05:55:29 PM
Oh, totally. If you've been consuming it for years then it seems normal, but D&D is quite frankly bizarre when compared to its historical, religious, folkloric and literary inspirations. It's become its own self-iterating genre divorced from what came before it.

I missed where "historical, religious, folkloric and literary inspirations" weren't, you know, inspirations and not a step-by-step set of instructions. Our elves, dwarves, and dragons don't have much in common with most of those things either, at least until Tolkien basically created the modern conception of such things.

It's as normal as "warp drive" in science fiction settings, or strangely unlocatable secret bases in major population centers are in superhero settings.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 05:55:29 PMI'm not a fan of sacred cows. It's long ago crossed the appeal to tradition fallacy. Fans maintain this stuff because that's how its always been, rather than because it has any practical reason to be maintained. They just take it on faith without thinking about it.

That's fine. But what really irks me is when nerds refuse to acknowledge that they are using the appeal to tradition fallacy. It's an excuse to uncritically consume approved media and hate on anything that doesn't toe the party line for petty trivial reasons (i.e. the worst parts of edition wars). It's a religion that strangles creativity and I despise it.

Or people like what they like. I don't play these games to give random people writing books an outlet for their creativity. If they get it, that's great, but I'm not going to play a game that doesn't interest me jut because it's "creative" or "different" or "innovative" or something.

Forgive me if I'm coming across like an ass, and I know I'm some low-post-count nobody around here, but I have very little patience for "you're having fun wrong" rhetoric. I'm here - by which I mean in the hobby - to have fun.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 05:55:29 PM
What has the OSR done with planes? I seem to recall that PF is the only game that actually has the full gamut of points of similarity. Every other OSR game either ignores the planes or simplifies them even further.

I'm not saying you can't simplify them. And I'm certainly not arguing you have to have the full billion-and-one-planar-themepark cosmology that Forgotten Realm and such use. Hell, I've *never* used the "great wheel" cosmology, at least not actively... I've ran games in published settings that theoretically had it, I guess, but it's never come up, and the cosmology of my normal homebrew setting is a bit different.

Again, I've never said what you should do with your own original IP. But you also don't have to completely chuck the concept - and some of the rules associated with it - if you're trying to great some sort of nu-OGR-SRD-y thing, which has been what a lot of the talk recently has seem to suggest people are thinking about.

Sorry if I come across as an elitist not-like-other-nerds a*hole. That is not my intent.

I just feel like D&D and derived fantasy has accumulated a lot unnecessary cruft that is only kept for the sake of tradition rather than because it adds much to the experience. And by rpg standards D&D is very lenient about this, as it provides a plethora of options for campaign settings across the editions. It has genuinely become its own genre, while most other genre-defining rpgs from the 80s and 90s remain firmly stuck in single setting ruts.

And I'm not saying that new is good while old is bad. I think pretty much every class after the original mage fighter thief trio is basically a variation on or combination of those three.

I'm less interested in innovation than I am in cleanup and streamlining of what already exists. Like, I love Spheres of Power. Not because it is innovative, but because it's a toolkit that makes it easier for you to customize magic to your campaign setting and fixes genuine problems like the martial-caster utility disparity. I love 13th Age because it solves a number of mechanical problems with the D&D rules, not because it's "innovative" or "creative". Altho I do think it is more efficient at making use of D&Disms. I love Fantasy Craft because it solves a lot of mechanical problems.

But the fluff? The fluff can be whatever you want it to be. I just don't like fluff from a particular implied campaign setting to become the default for every setting. The SRD has a fair amount of fluff baked into the rules, which leads to a lot of awkward reverse-engineered worldbuilding in 3pp campaign settings. Even PF has this with stuff like the idiosyncratic positive/negative energy rules that 5e has already discarded, or oddities like centaurs being classified as "beasts" and not "humanoids" (monster taxonomies are one of the few mechanics that I absolutely despise with a passion, because they're always applied arbitrarily and inconsistently).

It's a lot harder to change baked-in D&Disms yourself than to use rules that don't have them baked-in by default.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 07:49:55 PM
And I'm not saying that new is good while old is bad. I think pretty much every class after the original mage fighter thief trio is basically a variation on or combination of those three.

The original classes were fighting-men, magic-users and clerics.
And of course the race as class thing.

Quote from: DocJones on January 21, 2023, 09:40:03 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 07:49:55 PM
And I'm not saying that new is good while old is bad. I think pretty much every class after the original mage fighter thief trio is basically a variation on or combination of those three.

The original classes were fighting-men, magic-users and clerics.
And of course the race as class thing.

Sorry, my memory is imperfect. The original quartet of fighter, mage, cleric and thief (however they were named) set the standard and everything since is either a variation or a combination thereof. 4e even introduced four explicit roles based on that original quartet. There has been so much class and subclass bloat.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
Good video.

I pretty much called it in the last video thread... Paizo, Green Ronin, etc. would ultimately have to release an actual open license simply because its in their own best financial interests.

I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system." That's the particular boat I'm in and I think a lot of the people behind the close kin to D&D systems are kidding themselves about how quickly they'll be able to actually strip the things WotC could claim as legitimately copyrighted elements (i.e. not mechanics, but protectable concepts and ideas)

For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

OK, first off, your specific points are mostly CORRECT in terms of things WotC could claim is specific expression. I would point out that the description of demihumans would need to be EXTREMELY specifically like D&D in certain very particular respects for that one to count. Arcane/divine casting divide would have to again be very specific in the sense of using the D&D spell system to start with, and that the division not be significantly different from standard D&D. Aside from those two you're totally spot on.

My games don't check a single point on your list. Neither do a lot of OSR games that aren't Clone products. The spells are the trickiest bits for most OSR designers.

But not for me!

The issue of the Arcane/Divine divide is that what makes D&D so notable it not that there is the division, but that other than the division of what spells each class gets, the magic system is itself the same. That's the weird part.

Because in the historical authentic context the arcande/divine divide was not "what type of stuff can you do". Saints could heal the sick, magicians could heal the sick. Saints could cause an earthquake, magicians could cause an earthquake. The difference was HOW it was done. One had to do it by prayer and intense devotion, the other by a structured ritual format.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 22, 2023, 12:17:06 PM
The issue of the Arcane/Divine divide is that what makes D&D so notable it not that there is the division, but that other than the division of what spells each class gets, the magic system is itself the same. That's the weird part.

Offhand, Shadowrun is basically the same. You have "mages" and "shaman", but there is little (and I think in current editions no) difference between them mechanically, at least when it comes to spellcasting rules.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 22, 2023, 12:10:26 PM
OK, first off, your specific points are mostly CORRECT in terms of things WotC could claim is specific expression. I would point out that the description of demihumans would need to be EXTREMELY specifically like D&D in certain very particular respects for that one to count. Arcane/divine casting divide would have to again be very specific in the sense of using the D&D spell system to start with, and that the division not be significantly different from standard D&D. Aside from those two you're totally spot on.

My games don't check a single point on your list. Neither do a lot of OSR games that aren't Clone products. The spells are the trickiest bits for most OSR designers.

But not for me!

Regarding demihuman expressions, I had just prior come from reading Paizo's PF2 SRD because I had been curious just how much their "we included the OGL in PF2 only as a formality" was truth and how much was bluster.

It was ALL bluster (or they literally didn't understand what copyright means) because their version of elves and dwarves and halflings was practically word from word aligned with WotC's version down to trivialities like a races lifespan (ex. 600 years for elves instead of saying 500 years or 1000 years or immortal... it was exactly the same as D&D along with every other part of the description of elves... almond shaped eyes, trance instead of sleep, immune to paralysis, etc.).

Even with the update to PF2, the wizard was still the same specialist schools and restrictions, the same level-based slots and prep system with basically the same spells at the same levels in their cantrips + nine spell levels list.

That is NOT "the OGL was a formality" territory and without the OGL that is something they'd have to address. The trick is, much of PF's appeal is it being offbrand D&D, and without the OGL it's going to have to make changes such that they won't be expressly offbrand D&D anymore.

So for these close copies it's going to be a balancing act of determining what is critical to keep to appease their fans and what they have to change to evade copyright infringement.

As a purely design/sociological experiment seeing what answers they'll each come up with is the part that I find fascinating.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:33:01 PM
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

People are welcome to use my planes from World of the Last Sun:

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 22, 2023, 01:15:24 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:33:01 PM
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

People are welcome to use my planes from World of the Last Sun:

Wisconsin? And it's not Earth? Now I HAVE to buy the book just find out why, and also to thank you for the planes, I assume there's rules to travel between yes?

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 22, 2023, 12:58:37 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 22, 2023, 12:10:26 PM
OK, first off, your specific points are mostly CORRECT in terms of things WotC could claim is specific expression. I would point out that the description of demihumans would need to be EXTREMELY specifically like D&D in certain very particular respects for that one to count. Arcane/divine casting divide would have to again be very specific in the sense of using the D&D spell system to start with, and that the division not be significantly different from standard D&D. Aside from those two you're totally spot on.

My games don't check a single point on your list. Neither do a lot of OSR games that aren't Clone products. The spells are the trickiest bits for most OSR designers.

But not for me!

Regarding demihuman expressions, I had just prior come from reading Paizo's PF2 SRD because I had been curious just how much their "we included the OGL in PF2 only as a formality" was truth and how much was bluster.

It was ALL bluster (or they literally didn't understand what copyright means) because their version of elves and dwarves and halflings was practically word from word aligned with WotC's version down to trivialities like a races lifespan (ex. 600 years for elves instead of saying 500 years or 1000 years or immortal... it was exactly the same as D&D along with every other part of the description of elves... almond shaped eyes, trance instead of sleep, immune to paralysis, etc.).

Even with the update to PF2, the wizard was still the same specialist schools and restrictions, the same level-based slots and prep system with basically the same spells at the same levels in their cantrips + nine spell levels list.

That is NOT "the OGL was a formality" territory and without the OGL that is something they'd have to address. The trick is, much of PF's appeal is it being offbrand D&D, and without the OGL it's going to have to make changes such that they won't be expressly offbrand D&D anymore.

So for these close copies it's going to be a balancing act of determining what is critical to keep to appease their fans and what they have to change to evade copyright infringement.

As a purely design/sociological experiment seeing what answers they'll each come up with is the part that I find fascinating.

I suspected as much. Hopefully Paizo will stick with the (still entirely valid) OGL 1.0, as defending a "We don't need no stinking OGL!" position potentially opens them up to a world of hurt.

While I think having an OGL is completely extraneous legally, I think it wound up being a wonderful sniff test. And there's no getting around how it's death here sounded major public alarm bells on WotC being a bad actor.

I am going to wait and see what the ORC provisions are before I make up my mind on if I'm going to use it. If it's great, I don't see why not. If it isn't, I'm going to release an SRD under creative commons. It's that simple.

The provisions for product identity can be useful if you want to distinguish between genericized content and content specific to your campaign setting. With CC you can't do that because it covers the entirety of the text and the entirety of any derivative text. You give up your right to make a profit and have to rely on the charity of customers or patreon. The OGL has been used much more widely than CC ever has before on products intended to make profit, so trying to replace OGL with CC will open publishers to all sorts of unforeseen issues.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 22, 2023, 06:43:56 PM
The provisions for product identity can be useful if you want to distinguish between genericized content and content specific to your campaign setting. With CC you can't do that because it covers the entirety of the text and the entirety of any derivative text. You give up your right to make a profit and have to rely on the charity of customers or patreon. The OGL has been used much more widely than CC ever has before on products intended to make profit, so trying to replace OGL with CC will open publishers to all sorts of unforeseen issues.

You're WRONG! CC does allow for parts of a work to not be placed under it, you just need to specify WHAT isn't covered by the license. I have provided elsewhere both a lawyer's explanation and the Creative Commons OWN wiki where this is explained.

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-does-some-rights-reserved-mean (https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-does-some-rights-reserved-mean)

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#may-i-apply-a-cc-license-to-my-work-if-it-incorporates-material-used-under-fair-use-or-another-exception-or-limitation-to-copyright (https://creativecommons.org/faq/#may-i-apply-a-cc-license-to-my-work-if-it-incorporates-material-used-under-fair-use-or-another-exception-or-limitation-to-copyright)

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Specify_precisely_what_it_is_you_are_licensing. (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Specify_precisely_what_it_is_you_are_licensing.)

Let's say I am WotC, I have an SRD, I don't want to place the WHOLE of it under CC By, how do I do it?

By specifying which parts are and aren't under the CC By license, just like they did. And it's a single work with no images etc.

You can also notify that the art (in whole or in part) isn't under the license and that it's copyright by whoever used with permission.

Edited to add:

In a derivative work I can specify that ONLY the mechanics from WotC's SRD ARE under the license.

I guess I stand corrected then.

Anyway, stuff like classes, magic systems and planes are gonna require more effort to scrub the WotC IP and avoid litigation. This is also an excellent opportunity for introspection: why do things work the way they do? Should it be changed and, if so, how much? What is the goal?

With something like magic systems, I don't think we need to retain the arcane/divine/psionic split in its original mechanistic form. I think it would be useful to adopt a Spheres of Power style toolkit where you can replicate the functionality of the old classes while allowing for easy modifications to suit different settings. After seeing its effects for decades, I don't think the one-size-fits-all approach is a good approach.

With stuff like the planes, I think you need to ask yourself: what practical purpose do the planes serve? If you're just adding them as an explanation for where wizards draw evocations from and don't actually intend for them to be adventuring locations, then maybe you should rethink why you're including them.

As I've said before, I don't think I need more than a handful of core planes. The mortal plane, the heavens, the underworld (and maybe a further hell below that), and the primordial chaos surrounding it. You can add more if you want to, but I think most ideas you could come up with would equally work as sub-planes of those ones.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 23, 2023, 10:46:59 AM
I guess I stand corrected then.

Anyway, stuff like classes, magic systems and planes are gonna require more effort to scrub the WotC IP and avoid litigation. This is also an excellent opportunity for introspection: why do things work the way they do? Should it be changed and, if so, how much? What is the goal?

With something like magic systems, I don't think we need to retain the arcane/divine/psionic split in its original mechanistic form. I think it would be useful to adopt a Spheres of Power style toolkit where you can replicate the functionality of the old classes while allowing for easy modifications to suit different settings. After seeing its effects for decades, I don't think the one-size-fits-all approach is a good approach.

With stuff like the planes, I think you need to ask yourself: what practical purpose do the planes serve? If you're just adding them as an explanation for where wizards draw evocations from and don't actually intend for them to be adventuring locations, then maybe you should rethink why you're including them.

As I've said before, I don't think I need more than a handful of core planes. The mortal plane, the heavens, the underworld (and maybe a further hell below that), and the primordial chaos surrounding it. You can add more if you want to, but I think most ideas you could come up with would equally work as sub-planes of those ones.

Well yes, you don't HAVE to change the name by force of everything (except the trademarked shit that needs a lot more changed than that anyway), but you need to make changes so it's a different thing with the same name that works slighthly different but not different enough that people can't grok it quickly. Otherwise you're better off starting from scratch.

Not the first time you mention the spheres of power, it's from the stuff you shared in the Guilded server?

Agreed, don't include shit just to include it, it has to have purpose for the game.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 23, 2023, 11:10:19 AM
Not the first time you mention the spheres of power, it's from the stuff you shared in the Guilded server?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/SpheresOfPower

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 23, 2023, 12:01:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 23, 2023, 11:10:19 AM
Not the first time you mention the spheres of power, it's from the stuff you shared in the Guilded server?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/SpheresOfPower

Thanks!

According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to...given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PM
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to...given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

One can support a movement for an alternative to WotC's garbage license in the name of maintaining a healthy RPG industry without actually needing to use the resulting license.

As a more real world example; I don't need a kid in school to support an effort to add a classical arts program to the school. Getting kids more exposure to real art is a net plus for society even if I personally will not benefit from the program.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PM
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here)

Surely a respectable University academic wouldn't have anything to do with this hive of scum & villainy?!  :o

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 23, 2023, 05:09:57 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PM
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to...given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

One can support a movement for an alternative to WotC's garbage license in the name of maintaining a healthy RPG industry without actually needing to use the resulting license.

As a more real world example; I don't need a kid in school to support an effort to add a classical arts program to the school. Getting kids more exposure to real art is a net plus for society even if I personally will not benefit from the program.

I guess that is where you and I see it different. You believe the path to a healthy RPG industry involves the ORC license. I believe the path is no license at all.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PMAccording to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC.

Does ORC even exist yet? 1500 might have expressed interest, but until the ORC gets published publicly and debated publicly, I can't imagine anyone using it.

Also, for the ORC to be able to support 1500 publishers, it would need a RPG attached that drew a huge chunk of 5e fans away to play the new ORC RPG.

Because if the ORC just produces a Not-5e that 1500 publishers can use to sell 5e/6e compatible products around the WotC OGL, then I'm betting on WotC going on the legal offense.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PMI guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

An OGL is an easy(ish) to read security blanket, whereas Fair Use laws are more complex and require more bravery to use because litigious companies love to exploit a judges' lack of understanding of where copyright ends and Fair Use begins.

My prediction still stands. When 6e launches, we'll see hundreds of subsidiaries who will reskin their stale 3e/4e/5e era OGL products for 6e, perhaps with a fresh coat of paint.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 23, 2023, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PMAccording to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC.

Does ORC even exist yet? 1500 might have expressed interest, but until the ORC gets published publicly and debated publicly, I can't imagine anyone using it.

Also, for the ORC to be able to support 1500 publishers, it would need a RPG attached that drew a huge chunk of 5e fans away to play the new ORC RPG.

Because if the ORC just produces a Not-5e that 1500 publishers can use to sell 5e/6e compatible products around the WotC OGL, then I'm betting on WotC going on the legal offense.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PMI guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

An OGL is an easy(ish) to read security blanket, whereas Fair Use laws are more complex and require more bravery to use because litigious companies love to exploit a judges' lack of understanding of where copyright ends and Fair Use begins.

My prediction still stands. When 6e launches, we'll see hundreds of subsidiaries who will reskin their stale 3e/4e/5e era OGL products for 6e, perhaps with a fresh coat of paint.

You've been all over this and I even agree with your thread that put so many panties in a bind.

I don't believe it requires bravery. I believe it requires creativity. If Hasbro were to go to court and lose because a mom and pop publisher released a RPG, that dared to use Strength and Constitution, it would all come crashing down. I don't think a company that spent over one hundred million on D&DBeyond and 4 billion on eOne will risk that over small-time publisher Stan who creates a unique RPG.

I do agree that several will bend the knee. Those who are predicting the end of WotC are mistaken. Unfortunately.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 08:08:32 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 23, 2023, 05:09:57 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PM
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to...given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

One can support a movement for an alternative to WotC's garbage license in the name of maintaining a healthy RPG industry without actually needing to use the resulting license.

As a more real world example; I don't need a kid in school to support an effort to add a classical arts program to the school. Getting kids more exposure to real art is a net plus for society even if I personally will not benefit from the program.

I guess that is where you and I see it different. You believe the path to a healthy RPG industry involves the ORC license. I believe the path is no license at all.

Question: Are you looking at the OGL as a content user or a content creator?

I'm looking at it from the creator side and specifically a creator who wants others to feel safe using my system to make their own commercial products (adventures, new monsters, region guides, etc.).

The original OGL was a pretty easy to grok document that laid out what could and couldn't get you sued and not just for copyright, but potential trademark violations and helping people steer clear of things like CC's "No Endorsements" clause in slightly less legalese than a typical license.

My actual use of the ORC will depend on its specific provisions, but if it doesn't do what I want I'll need a lawyer to make something that does because I think having something clear for non-lawyers will be a benefit in getting others who want to make and sell supplements to adopt my system and make additional content for it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 02:43:39 PM
I said that the EFF MIGHT be convinced to help fight Hasbro yes, but I don't think they'll be willing to pay for everything.

They will if it threatens the credibility of open source licenses.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 12:58:34 PM
You can trademark names. 
For example Beholder, Gauth, Carrion Crawler,  Displacer Beast, Githyanki, Githzerai, Mind Flayer (Illithid), Umber Hulk, Slaad, Yuan-Ti are trademarks.

Fun fact: None of these are registered Trademarks of #WotC.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

Hard to tell as many cases are settled out of court with NDAs. What I do know is #WotC sued a dude for making Rust Monster plushies, despite declaring the monster OGC and stealing borrowing its design from Japanese toys.

Quote from: wmarshal on January 20, 2023, 05:42:51 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on January 19, 2023, 07:07:19 PM
Absolutely hilarious on other forums how many are pro morality clause.

And are willing to argue that you must be a bigot if you have a problem with one.

Comedy gold.

What hive of scum and villainy are you seeing this at? At TPB the response to the morality clause seems to be a fear that WOTC will somehow get bought out by NuTSR like folks and come after the gays. I didn't think there was a worse place for Wokeness than TBP, and even they are getting some willies about that clause.

Yeah I'm not seeing anyone pro-morality clause anywhere, much to my surprise. Perhaps the usual suspects have finally cotten on to the fact that this sort of thing can (and will) be used against them too. However I suspect they'd be all in favor of it if they were in charge of determining violations.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 23, 2023, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 08:08:32 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 23, 2023, 05:09:57 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PM
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to...given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

One can support a movement for an alternative to WotC's garbage license in the name of maintaining a healthy RPG industry without actually needing to use the resulting license.

As a more real world example; I don't need a kid in school to support an effort to add a classical arts program to the school. Getting kids more exposure to real art is a net plus for society even if I personally will not benefit from the program.

I guess that is where you and I see it different. You believe the path to a healthy RPG industry involves the ORC license. I believe the path is no license at all.

Question: Are you looking at the OGL as a content user or a content creator?

I'm looking at it from the creator side and specifically a creator who wants others to feel safe using my system to make their own commercial products (adventures, new monsters, region guides, etc.).

The original OGL was a pretty easy to grok document that laid out what could and couldn't get you sued and not just for copyright, but potential trademark violations and helping people steer clear of things like CC's "No Endorsements" clause in slightly less legalese than a typical license.

My actual use of the ORC will depend on its specific provisions, but if it doesn't do what I want I'll need a lawyer to make something that does because I think having something clear for non-lawyers will be a benefit in getting others who want to make and sell supplements to adopt my system and make additional content for it.

That is a really good question. I had to think about it for a moment. I think I am looking at it a little from both sides, but mainly from the perspective of creators. If the goal is to allow others to creat content and feel safe, then I just don't see the ORC as needed.

See here as an example: http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/3rd-party-support

If the thought (not yours but in general) is ORC will become hugely popular, and people will not be creating for WotC and that is good because fuck WotC, then meh.

I think most of the ORC hoopla is virtue signalling. For example, Monte Cook Games has virtue signaled their support of ORC. Meanwhile, their own 'open' license, not even a year old yet, is anything but open, complete with morality clause.

Good luck with your game, btw. Make sure you let us know when it drops. I'll certainly pick up a copy.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 24, 2023, 07:51:39 PM
That is a really good question. I had to think about it for a moment. I think I am looking at it a little from both sides, but mainly from the perspective of creators. If the goal is to allow others to creat content and feel safe, then I just don't see the ORC as needed.

See here as an example: http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/3rd-party-support

If the thought (not yours but in general) is ORC will become hugely popular, and people will not be creating for WotC and that is good because fuck WotC, then meh.

I think most of the ORC hoopla is virtue signalling. For example, Monte Cook Games has virtue signaled their support of ORC. Meanwhile, their own 'open' license, not even a year old yet, is anything but open, complete with morality clause.

Good luck with your game, btw. Make sure you let us know when it drops. I'll certainly pick up a copy.

And I would say in reply, that's actually a really good license framework for what I want to do. About the only thing I would add that I think has value to the layman user would be a more concrete expression of what is and isn't considered "fair use"... not that someone couldn't in theory use anything and claim fair use, but rather "these are absolutely things I won't come after you for and its spelled out clearly in the simple license specifically so you don't have to have any doubts."

For example, depending on the company you're making a compatible adventure someone might only feel safe listing the monsters in an encounter as "Five Orcs (HP 7, 5, 6, 6, 8 ), see DMG p. XXX" or that an NPC is a "CG Fighter 10" because that way you're using basically none of their content in expressing the encounter and it minimizes the risk of someone as lawsuit happy as They Sue Regularly.

By contrast, I'd want to clarify for those wanting to make compatible adventures; "all monster stat blocks found in the Player's and GM's Guides may be reproduced in full in your works" and "You may include the full statistics of any NPCs and pre-generated PCs created using the rules for Ruins & Realms in your work."

In the same vein... "If you create a new subspecies for a species that specifically allows you to build a wide array of subspecies (ex. Beastmen, Eldritch or Mutants) or create a new trap, hazard, affliction, vehicle, structure or magic item using the rules systems in Ruins & Realms, you may include the full text of the selected traits in your description of the subspecies or other item in your work." (to clarify... Beastmen is a catchall for a wide variety of beast/human hybrids created by biomancers in a prior age. The creation rules involve picking two or more traits from a list of options with several example species and which of the traits they have also being listed, but is far from exhaustive. If your work required a different type of beastman and wanted it to be available for players, I consider it fair use to write out the full text of each selected trait instead of just listing the traits, because the former is going to be more useful to potential players due to less need to cross-reference).

Similarly, I'd probably include something to the effect of "You may reference any of the racial and setting lore from the Player's and GM's Guides in your works provided you do not duplicate it in full nor make any changes to the depictions of existing named characters (ex. killing off a particular named NPC as part of your adventure or turning a character depicted heroically into a villain) or locations within the setting (ex. destroying a settlement in the default setting area). You may set your work elsewhere in the default setting that has not been depicted (its a huge world and the default setting only a small part of it) and what you do with your original characters and locations is for you to decide. If you decide your work requires major changes to the default setting's cosmology (ex. a benevolent demon, playable necromancers), please note in your product that your work does not take place in the default setting, but its own world."

It's not so much "these are the only things you can employ under fair use" as it is "the copyright holder unquestionably considers these elements to be fair use and thinks using things like full monster stat blocks will make your product look better (and thereby draw more positive attention to the system as a whole)."

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 22, 2023, 01:31:16 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 22, 2023, 01:15:24 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:33:01 PM
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

People are welcome to use my planes from World of the Last Sun:

Wisconsin? And it's not Earth? Now I HAVE to buy the book just find out why, and also to thank you for the planes, I assume there's rules to travel between yes?

Well, there's means to travel through the planes. If you're running DCC, the Planar Step spell, for example. Also powerful artifacts. And the Grey Realm people use their UFOs to travel through the lower planes.

And no, the Wisconsin of the world of the Last Sun is not Earth. But the Last Sun setting is supposedly set in a Dyson Sphere around the last star of our universe, after our universe ceased to exist.  And there are things from Earth that survived in the World of the Last Sun. Keith Richards, for example, is the King of the lost city of Tijuana.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 23, 2023, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PMAccording to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC.

Does ORC even exist yet? 1500 might have expressed interest, but until the ORC gets published publicly and debated publicly, I can't imagine anyone using it.

Also, for the ORC to be able to support 1500 publishers, it would need a RPG attached that drew a huge chunk of 5e fans away to play the new ORC RPG.

Because if the ORC just produces a Not-5e that 1500 publishers can use to sell 5e/6e compatible products around the WotC OGL, then I'm betting on WotC going on the legal offense.

The ORC's first draft is supposed to come out in February.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:51:48 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 23, 2023, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PMAccording to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC.

Does ORC even exist yet? 1500 might have expressed interest, but until the ORC gets published publicly and debated publicly, I can't imagine anyone using it.

Also, for the ORC to be able to support 1500 publishers, it would need a RPG attached that drew a huge chunk of 5e fans away to play the new ORC RPG.

Because if the ORC just produces a Not-5e that 1500 publishers can use to sell 5e/6e compatible products around the WotC OGL, then I'm betting on WotC going on the legal offense.

The ORC's first draft is supposed to come out in February.

Interesting, but I won't be using it. There is not reason to use any license unless you just have to produce games using the word-for-word content of the original. I don't see anyone breaking my door down in the future demanding that of me.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 08:30:57 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:51:48 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 23, 2023, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PMAccording to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw...I'm 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC.

Does ORC even exist yet? 1500 might have expressed interest, but until the ORC gets published publicly and debated publicly, I can't imagine anyone using it.

Also, for the ORC to be able to support 1500 publishers, it would need a RPG attached that drew a huge chunk of 5e fans away to play the new ORC RPG.

Because if the ORC just produces a Not-5e that 1500 publishers can use to sell 5e/6e compatible products around the WotC OGL, then I'm betting on WotC going on the legal offense.

The ORC's first draft is supposed to come out in February.

Interesting, but I won't be using it. There is not reason to use any license unless you just have to produce games using the word-for-word content of the original. I don't see anyone breaking my door down in the future demanding that of me.

I was thinking about using ORC if it's terms were good, but after FingerRod showed me the Lamentations of the Flame Princess use license (aka the "don't be a jerk" license) I think something very much like that that with some actual clarification for non-lawyers of what is and isn't fair use (ie. "yes, you can reproduce monster stat blocks in full" and "yes, you can reference the setting lore, in your work," but "no, you can't just cut and paste the whole thing into your work.") will actually be about perfect for my desires to allow third parties to use my material.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 10:09:14 AM

Interesting, but I won't be using it. There is no reason to use any license unless you just have to produce games using the word-for-word content of the original. I don't see anyone breaking my door down in the future demanding that of me.

I was thinking about using ORC if it's terms were good, but after FingerRod showed me the Lamentations of the Flame Princess use license (aka the "don't be a jerk" license) I think something very much like that that with some actual clarification for non-lawyers of what is and isn't fair use (ie. "yes, you can reproduce monster stat blocks in full" and "yes, you can reference the setting lore, in your work," but "no, you can't just cut and paste the whole thing into your work.") will actually be about perfect for my desires to allow third parties to use my material.

Yeah, I just have one question: Why????? Why are people so eager to use some license? Why do they think they NEED to use some license? How does using a license (when you are not just copying and pasting word-for-word) help in any way? I just don't get it. Oh well. To each his own.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 10:43:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 10:09:14 AM

Interesting, but I won't be using it. There is no reason to use any license unless you just have to produce games using the word-for-word content of the original. I don't see anyone breaking my door down in the future demanding that of me.

I was thinking about using ORC if it's terms were good, but after FingerRod showed me the Lamentations of the Flame Princess use license (aka the "don't be a jerk" license) I think something very much like that that with some actual clarification for non-lawyers of what is and isn't fair use (ie. "yes, you can reproduce monster stat blocks in full" and "yes, you can reference the setting lore, in your work," but "no, you can't just cut and paste the whole thing into your work.") will actually be about perfect for my desires to allow third parties to use my material.

Yeah, I just have one question: Why????? Why are people so eager to use some license? Why do they think they NEED to use some license? How does using a license (when you are not just copying and pasting word-for-word) help in any way? I just don't get it. Oh well. To each his own.

To clarify and make it safe for people using your stuff they won't get into trouble:

My first game out will be Sci-Fi, I'm making the bestiary from scratch. IF I want people to be able to easily create stuff for the setting, letting them copy/paste monster descriptions is a good idea.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 10:43:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 10:09:14 AM

Interesting, but I won't be using it. There is no reason to use any license unless you just have to produce games using the word-for-word content of the original. I don't see anyone breaking my door down in the future demanding that of me.

I was thinking about using ORC if it's terms were good, but after FingerRod showed me the Lamentations of the Flame Princess use license (aka the "don't be a jerk" license) I think something very much like that that with some actual clarification for non-lawyers of what is and isn't fair use (ie. "yes, you can reproduce monster stat blocks in full" and "yes, you can reference the setting lore, in your work," but "no, you can't just cut and paste the whole thing into your work.") will actually be about perfect for my desires to allow third parties to use my material.

Yeah, I just have one question: Why????? Why are people so eager to use some license? Why do they think they NEED to use some license? How does using a license (when you are not just copying and pasting word-for-word) help in any way? I just don't get it. Oh well. To each his own.

I'm guessing you've never had to take anything to court (plaintiff or defendant).

People are naturally risk averse. Uncertainty keeps a lot of people who'd otherwise act from choosing to do all sorts of things. Particularly when the idea of being sued and all the associated costs in US courts is basically a nightmare scenario for most ordinary people.

Sure, anyone can take any part of a game, make a work using parts of it and claim fair use. But unless you're already well experienced and familiar with copyright law you're basically just guessing where the line is. So in the face of uncertainty of where that line is a lot of people who have a cool idea just won't even try.

A clear license that tells a third party creator where the safe lines are is a huge benefit to all those people who have a cool idea, but don't want to risk getting sued. Having clear lines means all they have to worry about is polishing their cool idea to make it as awesome as possible. They don't have to wonder if this part or that part might get them a C&D notice or other legal actions they don't have the time or money to deal with dropped in their lap.

Again, I am approaching this not from the PoV of USING a license. I'm approaching it from the perspective of OFFERING a license. I want content creators with cool ideas (that don't want to build their own system) to feel safe using my system to present their ideas because we both win from that.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 11:26:49 AM

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 10:43:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 10:09:14 AM

Interesting, but I won't be using it. There is no reason to use any license unless you just have to produce games using the word-for-word content of the original. I don't see anyone breaking my door down in the future demanding that of me.

I was thinking about using ORC if it's terms were good, but after FingerRod showed me the Lamentations of the Flame Princess use license (aka the "don't be a jerk" license) I think something very much like that that with some actual clarification for non-lawyers of what is and isn't fair use (ie. "yes, you can reproduce monster stat blocks in full" and "yes, you can reference the setting lore, in your work," but "no, you can't just cut and paste the whole thing into your work.") will actually be about perfect for my desires to allow third parties to use my material.

Yeah, I just have one question: Why????? Why are people so eager to use some license? Why do they think they NEED to use some license? How does using a license (when you are not just copying and pasting word-for-word) help in any way? I just don't get it. Oh well. To each his own.

I'm guessing you've never had to take anything to court (plaintiff or defendant).

People are naturally risk averse. Uncertainty keeps a lot of people who'd otherwise act from choosing to do all sorts of things. Particularly when the idea of being sued and all the associated costs in US courts is basically a nightmare scenario for most ordinary people.

Sure, anyone can take any part of a game, make a work using parts of it and claim fair use. But unless you're already well experienced and familiar with copyright law you're basically just guessing where the line is. So in the face of uncertainty of where that line is a lot of people who have a cool idea just won't even try.

A clear license that tells a third party creator where the safe lines are is a huge benefit to all those people who have a cool idea, but don't want to risk getting sued. Having clear lines means all they have to worry about is polishing their cool idea to make it as awesome as possible. They don't have to wonder if this part or that part might get them a C&D notice or other legal actions they don't have the time or money to deal with dropped in their lap.

Again, I am approaching this not from the PoV of USING a license. I'm approaching it from the perspective of OFFERING a license. I want content creators with cool ideas (that don't want to build their own system) to feel safe using my system to present their ideas because we both win from that.

I am a retired trial lawyer! hahahahahahahaha!

I will never use a license to avoid having to come up with my own original content (again... yeah I fell for the OGL and perhaps that is why I am so bitter at my own stupidity -- I should have known better!). However, I do use the CC in order to make it easier for other people to use my content, at least for some items. And it is quite satisfactory at that.

I was actually talking to someone about this issue this morning... how ignorant the game community is about the laws that affect them. If I talk to a real estate agent, most of them know more about real estate law than I do. The same for almost every other area of human endeavor. It makes sense. They have to deal with this stuff every damned day and their livelihood depends upon them making the right decisions. But when you talk to gamers and game designers you get a bunch of people who know nothing while holding themselves out as world renowned experts. Very odd.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 02:03:49 PM

I was actually talking to someone about this issue this morning... how ignorant the game community is about the laws that affect them. If I talk to a real estate agent, most of them know more about real estate law than I do. The same for almost every other area of human endeavor. It makes sense. They have to deal with this stuff every damned day and their livelihood depends upon them making the right decisions. But when you talk to gamers and game designers you get a bunch of people who know nothing while holding themselves out as world renowned experts. Very odd.

There's nothing odd about that at all.  You get the same effect with many musicians, actors, artists, etc.  Anytime you mix Ego, lack of thought, and the Dunning-Kruger effect, it's a potent brew.  That's more likely to happen in some professions than others.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 02:03:49 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 11:26:49 AM

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 10:43:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 10:09:14 AM

Interesting, but I won't be using it. There is no reason to use any license unless you just have to produce games using the word-for-word content of the original. I don't see anyone breaking my door down in the future demanding that of me.

I was thinking about using ORC if it's terms were good, but after FingerRod showed me the Lamentations of the Flame Princess use license (aka the "don't be a jerk" license) I think something very much like that that with some actual clarification for non-lawyers of what is and isn't fair use (ie. "yes, you can reproduce monster stat blocks in full" and "yes, you can reference the setting lore, in your work," but "no, you can't just cut and paste the whole thing into your work.") will actually be about perfect for my desires to allow third parties to use my material.

Yeah, I just have one question: Why????? Why are people so eager to use some license? Why do they think they NEED to use some license? How does using a license (when you are not just copying and pasting word-for-word) help in any way? I just don't get it. Oh well. To each his own.

I'm guessing you've never had to take anything to court (plaintiff or defendant).

People are naturally risk averse. Uncertainty keeps a lot of people who'd otherwise act from choosing to do all sorts of things. Particularly when the idea of being sued and all the associated costs in US courts is basically a nightmare scenario for most ordinary people.

Sure, anyone can take any part of a game, make a work using parts of it and claim fair use. But unless you're already well experienced and familiar with copyright law you're basically just guessing where the line is. So in the face of uncertainty of where that line is a lot of people who have a cool idea just won't even try.

A clear license that tells a third party creator where the safe lines are is a huge benefit to all those people who have a cool idea, but don't want to risk getting sued. Having clear lines means all they have to worry about is polishing their cool idea to make it as awesome as possible. They don't have to wonder if this part or that part might get them a C&D notice or other legal actions they don't have the time or money to deal with dropped in their lap.

Again, I am approaching this not from the PoV of USING a license. I'm approaching it from the perspective of OFFERING a license. I want content creators with cool ideas (that don't want to build their own system) to feel safe using my system to present their ideas because we both win from that.

I am a retired trial lawyer! hahahahahahahaha!

I will never use a license to avoid having to come up with my own original content (again... yeah I fell for the OGL and perhaps that is why I am so bitter at my own stupidity -- I should have known better!). However, I do use the CC in order to make it easier for other people to use my content, at least for some items. And it is quite satisfactory at that.

I was actually talking to someone about this issue this morning... how ignorant the game community is about the laws that affect them. If I talk to a real estate agent, most of them know more about real estate law than I do. The same for almost every other area of human endeavor. It makes sense. They have to deal with this stuff every damned day and their livelihood depends upon them making the right decisions. But when you talk to gamers and game designers you get a bunch of people who know nothing while holding themselves out as world renowned experts. Very odd.

I'd suggest then that your familiarity with the law might be why you're not nearly as risk averse to ending up in the middle of a dispute over it. You don't see the importance of a license to the layman because you're the proverbial fish in the ocean who doesn't understand why an airbreather would want a SCUBA tank to go exploring underwater because you can breathe just fine. What is easily navigable to you is quite dangerous to those without the right equipment and training.

I also suspect that the reasons most gamers and writers aren't up on the whole copyright thing is, in general, they aren't dealing with it every damned day nor does their livelihood depend on interacting with it daily. What they are dealing with every day is rather creative expression and how to effectively communicate the ideas in their head into various mediums. The legal elements are ancillary and often obstacles in that process you only interact with at selected points and only bother to learn to the bare extent needed to to not have to deal with them at all.

Again, this is the advantage of a clear license agreement for laymen. A clear license means the creators don't have to split their focus between learning the law and learning the tools of the trade for producing creative works. Follow clear rule X, Y, Z and you don't have to worry about being dragged into the legal arena you really want no part of at all.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 02:03:49 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 11:26:49 AM

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 10:43:16 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 10:09:14 AM

Interesting, but I won't be using it. There is no reason to use any license unless you just have to produce games using the word-for-word content of the original. I don't see anyone breaking my door down in the future demanding that of me.

I was thinking about using ORC if it's terms were good, but after FingerRod showed me the Lamentations of the Flame Princess use license (aka the "don't be a jerk" license) I think something very much like that that with some actual clarification for non-lawyers of what is and isn't fair use (ie. "yes, you can reproduce monster stat blocks in full" and "yes, you can reference the setting lore, in your work," but "no, you can't just cut and paste the whole thing into your work.") will actually be about perfect for my desires to allow third parties to use my material.

Yeah, I just have one question: Why????? Why are people so eager to use some license? Why do they think they NEED to use some license? How does using a license (when you are not just copying and pasting word-for-word) help in any way? I just don't get it. Oh well. To each his own.

I'm guessing you've never had to take anything to court (plaintiff or defendant).

People are naturally risk averse. Uncertainty keeps a lot of people who'd otherwise act from choosing to do all sorts of things. Particularly when the idea of being sued and all the associated costs in US courts is basically a nightmare scenario for most ordinary people.

Sure, anyone can take any part of a game, make a work using parts of it and claim fair use. But unless you're already well experienced and familiar with copyright law you're basically just guessing where the line is. So in the face of uncertainty of where that line is a lot of people who have a cool idea just won't even try.

A clear license that tells a third party creator where the safe lines are is a huge benefit to all those people who have a cool idea, but don't want to risk getting sued. Having clear lines means all they have to worry about is polishing their cool idea to make it as awesome as possible. They don't have to wonder if this part or that part might get them a C&D notice or other legal actions they don't have the time or money to deal with dropped in their lap.

Again, I am approaching this not from the PoV of USING a license. I'm approaching it from the perspective of OFFERING a license. I want content creators with cool ideas (that don't want to build their own system) to feel safe using my system to present their ideas because we both win from that.

I am a retired trial lawyer! hahahahahahahaha!

I will never use a license to avoid having to come up with my own original content (again... yeah I fell for the OGL and perhaps that is why I am so bitter at my own stupidity -- I should have known better!). However, I do use the CC in order to make it easier for other people to use my content, at least for some items. And it is quite satisfactory at that.

I was actually talking to someone about this issue this morning... how ignorant the game community is about the laws that affect them. If I talk to a real estate agent, most of them know more about real estate law than I do. The same for almost every other area of human endeavor. It makes sense. They have to deal with this stuff every damned day and their livelihood depends upon them making the right decisions. But when you talk to gamers and game designers you get a bunch of people who know nothing while holding themselves out as world renowned experts. Very odd.

Trial lawyer =/= Copyright Lawyer

Or people want to create content for a game they enjoy, but you go ahead and characterize them as lazy.

I prefer relying on Fair Use than dealing with any OGL

UNLESS

I was selling a product that I wanted to be 100% compatible with another company's game.

Very few D&D players went off the TSR plantation because unless it said "Approved for AD&D", there was a level of conversion effort with any of the unlicensed 3PP products of the era.

When the D20 license hit, D&D players had the safety blanket of (mis)believing the D20 products were just as accurate to 3e's rules as any official WotC release. And that faith continued onto many OGL products.

That's the value of the OGL. It gives faith to purchasers that your product can be used without any extra effort out of the box with their current edition D&D.

Yes, we know lots of people on this forum are the kind to tinker and convert anything to anything. Heck, I've turned Traveller deckplans into OD&D dungeons for fun. But converters are a minority among gamers.

I saw plenty of posts of Dragonsfoot back in the early 00s about people who won't use AD&D 1e products in their 2e campaigns, let alone something from B/X and whenever anything OSR is mentioned, they want to know which TSR edition it's compatible with. And by compatible, they want McIntosh to McIntosh, not just apples to apples.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 26, 2023, 05:01:24 PM
I prefer relying on Fair Use than dealing with any OGL

UNLESS

I was selling a product that I wanted to be 100% compatible with another company's game.

I generally agree and, now that I know it exists, I absolutely adore the simplicity of this as a basis;

LotFP Compatibility License Terms 1.4
This license allows non-affiliated "third party" publishers to release free or commercial publications for use with, and declaring compatibility with, LotFP Weird Fantasy Role-Playing. You do not have to pay a licensing fee nor submit your product for review prior to publication.

1) Your product must comply with all applicable trademark and copyright laws. LotFP is not responsible for any infringement claims against your product.

2) The title of the work may not contain "Lamentations of the Flame Princess," "LotFP," nor have a three word product name beginning with "Death" and ending with "Doom."

3) The compatibility statement/logo must be smaller than your product's title and your company's logo.

4) Your product must not in any other way give the impression that it is an official LotFP release.

5) In your legal text, and on the website you promote the work, you must include the following: "This product is an independent production by [Your Company Name] and is not affiliated with Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a registered trademark owned by James Edward Raggi IV."

6) You must submit one copy of your product, in every format it is published, to LotFP after publication.

That's IT. Less than 200 words.

I'd want to tweak it slightly for my own use... my own company ID, I don't care about the supplement's title, I want to give some clear examples of fair use for those who haven't recently had a course on "art, trademark & copyright law" (It was a required course while I was in art school, but it's been twenty years and I wouldn't trust what I remember), etc... but it's basically just "fair use and don't be a dick."

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 05:43:18 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 26, 2023, 05:01:24 PM
I prefer relying on Fair Use than dealing with any OGL

UNLESS

I was selling a product that I wanted to be 100% compatible with another company's game.

I generally agree and, now that I know it exists, I absolutely adore the simplicity of this as a basis;

LotFP Compatibility License Terms 1.4
This license allows non-affiliated "third party" publishers to release free or commercial publications for use with, and declaring compatibility with, LotFP Weird Fantasy Role-Playing. You do not have to pay a licensing fee nor submit your product for review prior to publication.

1) Your product must comply with all applicable trademark and copyright laws. LotFP is not responsible for any infringement claims against your product.

2) The title of the work may not contain "Lamentations of the Flame Princess," "LotFP," nor have a three word product name beginning with "Death" and ending with "Doom."

3) The compatibility statement/logo must be smaller than your product's title and your company's logo.

4) Your product must not in any other way give the impression that it is an official LotFP release.

5) In your legal text, and on the website you promote the work, you must include the following: "This product is an independent production by [Your Company Name] and is not affiliated with Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a registered trademark owned by James Edward Raggi IV."

6) You must submit one copy of your product, in every format it is published, to LotFP after publication.

That's IT. Less than 200 words.

I'd want to tweak it slightly for my own use... my own company ID, I don't care about the supplement's title, I want to give some clear examples of fair use for those who haven't recently had a course on "art, trademark & copyright law" (It was a required course while I was in art school, but it's been twenty years and I wouldn't trust what I remember), etc... but it's basically just "fair use and don't be a dick."

I might be wrong but IMHO, points 1 thru 5 are the actual USA law just stated in layman's terms

And point 6 means that in exchange for Raggi allowing you to do what the law allows you to do you have to give him one copy of your work on every format published.

Unless I missed the part about using his IP without worries?

In short, the "don't be a dick" license, shows Raggi to be one.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 26, 2023, 06:37:26 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 05:43:18 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 26, 2023, 05:01:24 PM
I prefer relying on Fair Use than dealing with any OGL

UNLESS

I was selling a product that I wanted to be 100% compatible with another company's game.

I generally agree and, now that I know it exists, I absolutely adore the simplicity of this as a basis;

LotFP Compatibility License Terms 1.4
This license allows non-affiliated "third party" publishers to release free or commercial publications for use with, and declaring compatibility with, LotFP Weird Fantasy Role-Playing. You do not have to pay a licensing fee nor submit your product for review prior to publication.

1) Your product must comply with all applicable trademark and copyright laws. LotFP is not responsible for any infringement claims against your product.

2) The title of the work may not contain "Lamentations of the Flame Princess," "LotFP," nor have a three word product name beginning with "Death" and ending with "Doom."

3) The compatibility statement/logo must be smaller than your product's title and your company's logo.

4) Your product must not in any other way give the impression that it is an official LotFP release.

5) In your legal text, and on the website you promote the work, you must include the following: "This product is an independent production by [Your Company Name] and is not affiliated with Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a registered trademark owned by James Edward Raggi IV."

6) You must submit one copy of your product, in every format it is published, to LotFP after publication.

That's IT. Less than 200 words.

I'd want to tweak it slightly for my own use... my own company ID, I don't care about the supplement's title, I want to give some clear examples of fair use for those who haven't recently had a course on "art, trademark & copyright law" (It was a required course while I was in art school, but it's been twenty years and I wouldn't trust what I remember), etc... but it's basically just "fair use and don't be a dick."

I might be wrong but IMHO, points 1 thru 5 are the actual USA law just stated in layman's terms

And point 6 means that in exchange for Raggi allowing you to do what the law allows you to do you have to give him one copy of your work on every format published.

Unless I missed the part about using his IP without worries?

In short, the "don't be a dick" license, shows Raggi to be one.

Sometimes stating things in layman's terms is important for getting a layman to make use of an opportunity that otherwise only lawyers would feel confident enough to do (or even realize IS an option). Just because you happen to be familiar with IP law enough to realize you can make "compatible with" products doesn't mean everyone is. I'd wager the vast majority of players and GM's have no idea they could actually write up and sell their adventures for money without infringing on the game system they're using's copyrights.

THAT is where a "layman's license" is quite useful. Personally, I'd just ask for a PDF of the material for reference (so I know what other content creators are doing. I don't demand perpetual irrevocable royalty-free licenses to others works so I want to know what others are doing so I don't infringe on THEIR copyright either... but again, I'd want someone helping me navigate IP matters without needing to shell out hundreds of dollars to a lawyer to have a copy of what I'd done with their material anyway.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 08:26:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 26, 2023, 06:37:26 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 26, 2023, 05:43:18 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 26, 2023, 05:01:24 PM
I prefer relying on Fair Use than dealing with any OGL

UNLESS

I was selling a product that I wanted to be 100% compatible with another company's game.

I generally agree and, now that I know it exists, I absolutely adore the simplicity of this as a basis;

LotFP Compatibility License Terms 1.4
This license allows non-affiliated "third party" publishers to release free or commercial publications for use with, and declaring compatibility with, LotFP Weird Fantasy Role-Playing. You do not have to pay a licensing fee nor submit your product for review prior to publication.

1) Your product must comply with all applicable trademark and copyright laws. LotFP is not responsible for any infringement claims against your product.

2) The title of the work may not contain "Lamentations of the Flame Princess," "LotFP," nor have a three word product name beginning with "Death" and ending with "Doom."

3) The compatibility statement/logo must be smaller than your product's title and your company's logo.

4) Your product must not in any other way give the impression that it is an official LotFP release.

5) In your legal text, and on the website you promote the work, you must include the following: "This product is an independent production by [Your Company Name] and is not affiliated with Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a registered trademark owned by James Edward Raggi IV."

6) You must submit one copy of your product, in every format it is published, to LotFP after publication.

That's IT. Less than 200 words.

I'd want to tweak it slightly for my own use... my own company ID, I don't care about the supplement's title, I want to give some clear examples of fair use for those who haven't recently had a course on "art, trademark & copyright law" (It was a required course while I was in art school, but it's been twenty years and I wouldn't trust what I remember), etc... but it's basically just "fair use and don't be a dick."

I might be wrong but IMHO, points 1 thru 5 are the actual USA law just stated in layman's terms

And point 6 means that in exchange for Raggi allowing you to do what the law allows you to do you have to give him one copy of your work on every format published.

Unless I missed the part about using his IP without worries?

In short, the "don't be a dick" license, shows Raggi to be one.

Sometimes stating things in layman's terms is important for getting a layman to make use of an opportunity that otherwise only lawyers would feel confident enough to do (or even realize IS an option). Just because you happen to be familiar with IP law enough to realize you can make "compatible with" products doesn't mean everyone is. I'd wager the vast majority of players and GM's have no idea they could actually write up and sell their adventures for money without infringing on the game system they're using's copyrights.

THAT is where a "layman's license" is quite useful. Personally, I'd just ask for a PDF of the material for reference (so I know what other content creators are doing. I don't demand perpetual irrevocable royalty-free licenses to others works so I want to know what others are doing so I don't infringe on THEIR copyright either... but again, I'd want someone helping me navigate IP matters without needing to shell out hundreds of dollars to a lawyer to have a copy of what I'd done with their material anyway.

Nowhere in that "license" does it say ANYTHING about their IP, it talks about their trademark, which by law you can already use if you follow the advice of the "license".

And in exchange for writting that "license" up you have to send them 1 of every format your compatible product is published in, for free, I assume you even have to pay the postage.

So the "Don't be a Dick" ""License"" only serves to prove that Raggi is a massive douchecanoe.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 26, 2023, 08:51:35 PM

Nowhere in that "license" does it say ANYTHING about their IP, it talks about their trademark, which by law you can already use if you follow the advice of the "license".

And in exchange for writting that "license" up you have to send them 1 of every format your compatible product is published in, for free, I assume you even have to pay the postage.

So the "Don't be a Dick" ""License"" only serves to prove that Raggi is a massive douchecanoe.

Another problem with all these 'license' issues is that they convert a copyright law issue into a contract law issue. If you violate a copyright there are a lot of defenses. If you violate the terms of the contract those defenses are solely within the contract. You are agreeing to all those terms by using them. It is generally much easier to go against someone under contract than under copyright.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 26, 2023, 09:08:28 PM
Another problem with all these 'license' issues is that they convert a copyright law issue into a contract law issue. If you violate a copyright there are a lot of defenses. If you violate the terms of the contract those defenses are solely within the contract. You are agreeing to all those terms by using them. It is generally much easier to go against someone under contract than under copyright.

This is generally true, and is what caught out Mayfair Games in their spat with TSR. However a sufficiently generous licence can be better than relying on the limits of copyright (I teach both in England). I was initially sceptical of the OGL 1.0 when it came out in 2000, but I was persuaded that it did work as an effective safe harbour. This certainly does not apply to WoTC's new 'draft' licences of course.

The uncertainty of copyright law and the relative certainty of contract law can work both ways. Suing for non-literal copyright infringement is hard, but so is defending the claim. With a contract it's usually pretty clear.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:22:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 01:56:07 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 01:45:11 PM
Anyone can file a motion to dismiss and then motion to sanction and fine those attorneys stupid enough to file such a frivolous law suit over things which simply cannot be copyrighted.
Or of course you could release nothing or cower like a pussy without clearing everything with the scary cartel known as Hasbro.

Yeah, fuck you too.

Come on and man up.  Don't fear the wotzi.  :-)
Start using words like arcane, kobold, lich, abjuration, illusion, conjuration, enchantment, red dragon, black dragon, ad infinitum in all your works.
Steal all the concepts and ideas from D&D for yourself.
I find it both sad and hilarious that some here use the word "fluff" to refer to what is actually protected creative expression and are hand wringing over what is not protected.

Why don't YOU put your money where your mouth is keyboard warrior?

When did Shadowrun get involved in this?  8)

Quote from: Omega on January 27, 2023, 02:03:17 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:22:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 01:56:07 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 01:45:11 PM
Anyone can file a motion to dismiss and then motion to sanction and fine those attorneys stupid enough to file such a frivolous law suit over things which simply cannot be copyrighted.
Or of course you could release nothing or cower like a pussy without clearing everything with the scary cartel known as Hasbro.

Yeah, fuck you too.

Come on and man up.  Don't fear the wotzi.  :-)
Start using words like arcane, kobold, lich, abjuration, illusion, conjuration, enchantment, red dragon, black dragon, ad infinitum in all your works.
Steal all the concepts and ideas from D&D for yourself.
I find it both sad and hilarious that some here use the word "fluff" to refer to what is actually protected creative expression and are hand wringing over what is not protected.

Why don't YOU put your money where your mouth is keyboard warrior?

When did Shadowrun get involved in this?  8)

Working on my Men & Magic tome.  Art is being done by a 6 year old. 

Quote6(f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

I know it's bit moot point now - but do American Law truly allowed as legal licences and other deals, that takes them away from judgement of courts?

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 28, 2023, 06:39:08 PMI know it's bit moot point now - but do American Law truly allowed as legal licences and other deals, that takes them away from judgement of courts?

Both sides in any contract can agree to specific rules of arbitration and surrender their rights to normal legal actions. It's quite common, and specifically used to fuck the little guys.

God's Mercy is truly infinite if he allows America to still exist despite such abominations.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 28, 2023, 06:49:15 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 28, 2023, 06:39:08 PMI know it's bit moot point now - but do American Law truly allowed as legal licences and other deals, that takes them away from judgement of courts?

Both sides in any contract can agree to specific rules of arbitration and surrender their rights to normal legal actions. It's quite common, and specifically used to fuck the little guys.

How enforceable it is, is also open question. I had a dispute with a fellow business and member of the Better Business Bureau. Part of their membership requirements were an agreement to binding arbitration. I won that, but the other business ignored that arbitration, took me to court and all the BBB did was write a stern letter to the court, which was promptly ignored by the magistrate and I learned my lesson about never hiring a nice lawyer (always hire the biggest asshole you can afford for anything adversarial). The BBB didn't even note the refusal to abide by their binding arbitration for the opposing company and yet was dumbfounded when I dropped my membership and tell everyone possible that the BBB is a scam and their ratings less than worthless.

Well that's some relief.
Fellow lawyer told me that's strictly banished practice in all EU, and you can be prosecuted for even proposing such shit in whatever contract you're offer others to sign.