I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'll play Devil's Advocate here for a moment.

If you like Cypher stuff and either 1) agree with or 2) are neutral to MCG's political beliefs, why not use it?  Ya, the "naughty stuff" clause is vague, but the more vague something is, the less enforceable it is in law.  A number of us advocate for less political content in games anyway.

Quote from: Almost_Useless on October 10, 2022, 04:56:32 PM
I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'll play Devil's Advocate here for a moment.

If you like Cypher stuff and either 1) agree with or 2) are neutral to MCG's political beliefs, why not use it?  Ya, the "naughty stuff" clause is vague, but the more vague something is, the less enforceable it is in law.  A number of us advocate for less political content in games anyway.

From my view, it doesn't matter if I agree with Monte Cook's current political beliefs. Using this license means that the product would be forever tied to however his views might change. He might later change to take up some views that I disagree with, and then push to revoke the license because of material in the product. Even if it is harder to enforce under the law, if he has an excuse to take legal action as violation of contract, then that would be a huge legal headache even if I were to eventually win.

That's fair.  I hadn't considered how common it is that moving the goalposts is a problem in itself.

Quote from: Zelen on October 10, 2022, 04:18:05 PM
I thought maybe this was a bit overblown at first, perhaps taken out of context. Then I looked at the license. Yeah, I don't see why anyone would ever release a product using this license. You'd be deliberately harming your product and putting yourself at the mercy of a third party.

Without the license, at worst you just lose out on the product recognition of explicitly saying "Cypher System" -- But is that even a selling point for most gamers? I don't see that having much pull.

I know. At a glance its like. "No one is that stupid and hateful right?" But then you keep reading and it just keeps snowballing.

Sadly no. This really is Cook being Cook. Why? Who knows. But this new license thing makes Palladium look absolutely tame in comparison. All Cook needs now is a "You make it with our IP/system, we own it." clause and he's all set.

Quote from: Almost_Useless on October 10, 2022, 04:56:32 PM
I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'll play Devil's Advocate here for a moment.

If you like Cypher stuff and either 1) agree with or 2) are neutral to MCG's political beliefs, why not use it?  Ya, the "naughty stuff" clause is vague, but the more vague something is, the less enforceable it is in law.  A number of us advocate for less political content in games anyway.

The problem is that the call is totally Cooks. And you would be under the Damocles of any mood swings and change of edicts such that today your work is fine. Tomorrow you are being sued and forced to recall your product because your book cover is blue and Cook just announced Blue is Wacist and your book is repugnant and must go! Orf with iz ead!

I've seen similar happen before with even informal deals where today you are fine. And the next the company you have the agreement with is now denying you.

I'm suprused the big purple was not calling MC the latest coming of Christ.

What a shitty OGL and I hope it tanks.

I hope a group of anonymous writers and artists collaborate to make the most vile, horrifying RPG of all time that goes far out of its way to be breathtakingly racist and sexist while glorifying raping the family dog, something that makes FATAL look like the pinnacle of art.  And I hope they use the Cypher system for it, splashing the logo on every unused inch of the book before releasing it to every corner of the internet and sending copies to as many journalists as possible.

Quote from: Valatar on October 11, 2022, 12:12:28 AM
I hope a group of anonymous writers and artists collaborate to make the most vile, horrifying RPG of all time that goes far out of its way to be breathtakingly racist and sexist while glorifying raping the family dog, something that makes FATAL look like the pinnacle of art.  And I hope they use the Cypher system for it, splashing the logo on every unused inch of the book before releasing it to every corner of the internet and sending copies to as many journalists as possible.

well i know what to look out for

You know, if you wanted to get "credit" for having an open license, but you didn't want anyone to actually use it, you could do worse than this plan.  Just saying.

Quote from: Valatar on October 11, 2022, 12:12:28 AM
I hope a group of anonymous writers and artists collaborate to make the most vile, horrifying RPG of all time that goes far out of its way to be breathtakingly racist and sexist while glorifying raping the family dog, something that makes FATAL look like the pinnacle of art.  And I hope they use the Cypher system for it, splashing the logo on every unused inch of the book before releasing it to every corner of the internet and sending copies to as many journalists as possible.

Thirsty Sword Lesbians beat you to it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 11, 2022, 01:15:39 PM
You know, if you wanted to get "credit" for having an open license, but you didn't want anyone to actually use it, you could do worse than this plan.  Just saying.

It's like an OGL, but only for his close personal friends.

Quote from: jhkim on October 10, 2022, 05:16:57 PMFrom my view, it doesn't matter if I agree with Monte Cook's current political beliefs. Using this license means that the product would be forever tied to however his views might change.

To go on with the devil's advocacy, would this kind of licensing be more legally viable/culturally acceptable if it was tied to something broader and more objective?  If I were of a more evangelistic mindset, for example, I could see a different version of myself riffing on this idea to write an OGL that licensed a game system I designed only on condition that it not be used for settings based on assumptions that explicitly contradict the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism being an objective public reference and not something I could personally change, it would grant users considerably more protection from legal abuse on my end, would be a lot clearer to potential licensees what was and wasn't permissible, and would provide a common reference for any legal conflict adjudication. But the basic problem -- i.e. whose right to free speech prevails in a conflict between license-user and license-owner over licensed-product content -- still remains.

The big fail here is I cannot think of an easier system to write generic content for without a license.

Consider:

1. All difficulties are rated 1-10, the most generic range.

2. Characters are all "I am a <adjective><noun> who <verbs>." The adjectives and verbs are dead simple to write and you could literally call them "character adjectives" and "character verb" (Cypher System) calls them descriptor and focus. Classes (nouns or type) are little more complex and customizing them without using terminology would be harder, but much less necessary. Alternate names for types are even suggested in the book which could be your top-level names.

3. Cyphers, one-time abilities, are actually more easily done without the system terminology of physical cyphers (objects and the original usage in Numenara) and subtle cyphers. Just call them items and tricks.

I guess they might try to sue on using descriptors and foci from the games, but they are single works or phrases. Good luck on that lawsuit.

So, by poison-pilling the "open" license for the system that needs it least this looks like a virtue signal much more than an attempt to even do as well as FFG has done with Genesys for third-party product. It's also one of those things that like PayPal this past weekend you probably can't backpedal out of like FFG did with the previously mentioned license. Unlike that screw-up selling this as "poor wording" is damn near impossible, especially with Monte Cook Games's investment in thinks like their consent checklists and drive.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 11, 2022, 07:18:25 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 10, 2022, 05:16:57 PMFrom my view, it doesn't matter if I agree with Monte Cook's current political beliefs. Using this license means that the product would be forever tied to however his views might change.

To go on with the devil's advocacy, would this kind of licensing be more legally viable/culturally acceptable if it was tied to something broader and more objective?  If I were of a more evangelistic mindset, for example, I could see a different version of myself riffing on this idea to write an OGL that licensed a game system I designed only on condition that it not be used for settings based on assumptions that explicitly contradict the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

For me, that doesn't change much. The problem isn't the code - it's who gets to decide it. If there was someone I trusted, I'd probably just submit my material to them rather than write under an open license that they would monitor and judge.

As others have pointed out, it doesn't necessarily require an open gaming license to publish material that is compatible with a system. A number of people have done it. However, there are risks. Wizards of the Coast was sued by Palladium in the mid-1990s for The Primal Order. They eventually settled, but it was costly.

Quote from: jhkim on October 11, 2022, 10:55:06 PM
As others have pointed out, it doesn't necessarily require an open gaming license to publish material that is compatible with a system. A number of people have done it. However, there are risks. Wizards of the Coast was sued by Palladium in the mid-1990s for The Primal Order. They eventually settled, but it was costly.

Right, but Wizards openly claimed PFRPG compatibility and thus used a Palladium trademark. That is easily avoided here.