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

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".