TheRPGSite

Hell, I don't know if any of them will go away.

It seems to me that this big 1.1 fiasco are going to start making games that have nothing to do with D&D style rules, which are pretty much all of the OSR group of games.

I know you cannot copyright the game rules.  So, from what I can tell all you need to do is release a game with six "Attribute" scores, Might, Agility, Health, IQ, Spirit, and Attractiveness, and you play the game using a 1D20 to try and roll equal or more than the enemy Armor Category (AC).

Stuff like that is what we can expect?

Boy, am I glad I never got into D&D specifically.  I'm still a Palladium guy, and now rules lite stuff that have damn near nothing to do with Hasbro.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 08, 2023, 12:54:54 PM
Hell, I don't know if any of them will go away.

It seems to me that this big 1.1 fiasco are going to start making games that have nothing to do with D&D style rules, which are pretty much all of the OSR group of games.

I know you cannot copyright the game rules.  So, from what I can tell all you need to do is release a game with six "Attribute" scores, Might, Agility, Health, IQ, Spirit, and Attractiveness, and you play the game using a 1D20 to try and roll equal or more than the enemy Armor Category (AC).

Stuff like that is what we can expect?

Boy, am I glad I never got into D&D specifically.  I'm still a Palladium guy, and now rules lite stuff that have damn near nothing to do with Hasbro.

The problem they'll have (and why I'm rewritting stuff right now) is not the rules but the IP from D&D they might have included.

So you can count on all of the fantasy games to have to :

a) Drop all said IP and in the meantime suspend ALL sales.

b) Find the funds to fight WotC/Hasbro in court and this includes getting a court to dictate you can keep selling or suspending ALL sales until the matter is settled.

Because they ALL use D&D IP, with the exception of L&D and Arrows from Indra and maybe LotFP (Can't remember right now) and any other that has exactly ZERO D&D IP on it.

I've been thinking about a public domain game that would essentially serve to define the replacement terms so everyone can use them without fear.  While there wouldn't be a Strength = Physique type segment and even the xdy dice notation and terms like Dungeon Master and Player Character would be avoided the rules would mainly exist to describe the role of the terms in the game rather than to convince people to change the rules they're using.

To my mind the whole document should be under a dozen pages.  Here's where it's at so far:

The Path Forward
It seems the time has come for the community to break from the current popular proprietary game system due to conniving and skullduggery on the part of the corporate owners. One might note they are making all the worst errors of the second and fourth editions of the game and it seems the rule about odd numbered releases being superior will hold true. It seems that in order to allow for the continued publication by third parties a standard reworking of terminology may be in order to allow compatibility and communication between parties without shackling them to unacceptable terms.

While the terminology has been stated in terms of a rules document the core intent is not mechanical but indicative of the role the terms play in the game.

Dice Notation
In the interest of clarity and avoiding future issues dice are written as the range of results. For example a 1 - 20 indicates the roll of a twenty-sided die. To avoid confusion modifiers will always be written as a modifier. For example 2 - 20 + 2 would indicate that two ten-sided dice ar rolled and added with two points being added to that total. This seems clearer than writing 4 - 22 while avoiding the old, proprietary notation.

Mettle
A general value representing overall skill is used to modify success rolls and active resistance. The cost of this general modifier is one thousand for the first and doubles for each stage thereafter. A stage of mettle is also applied to the character's Injury Tolerance dice pool.

Characteristics
The characteristics are rated on a scale where ten is average and twenty is the absolute, once in a generation among billions maximum of human capacity. A number of options exist for resolving actions.

The whole value is used as a passive modifier.
The value minus ten plus a twenty sided die (1-20 + rating - 10) is compared to a passive resisting characteristic or to a static difficulty rating.
Active resistance is determined by rolling a twenty-sided die and adding the resisting rating minus ten.

Physique measures physical fitness and muscular development. It is used to resist slams, shoves, and wrestling.

Coordination measures coordination, balance, and reflexes. It is used to avoid blows and missiles.

Endurance measures health, grit, and stamina. It is used to resist poisons and diseases.

Knowledge measures education, experience, and genuine intelligence. It is used to discover illusions, resist manipulation. Lore magic uses Knowledge to determine the availability and power of spells.

Awareness measures sensory acuity but particularly sight and hearing. It is used to detect hidden doors, traps, and ambushes. Sacred magic uses Perception to determine the availability and power of spells.

Will measures attractiveness, confidence, and social skills it is used to resist intimidation and to attract and lead followers. Spirt magic uses Will to determine the availability and power of spells.

Type
While more evocative terms are possible within a given setting each character is assigned a type that describes their role in the game. The character type determines which skills they can apply their Mettle to as a modifier to tasks and actions.

Combatant
Combatants can apply their Mettle as a modifier to use any weapon. They can wear all armour. And receive two general skills to reflect their background. Injury Tolerance Endurance + 1-10 per point of Mettle.

Specialist
Specialists can apply their Mettle + 4 as a modifier to one specific skill. They receive two general skills to reflect their background. They can use light and medium armour but cannot use their Mettle to weild specialist weapons. Injury Tolerance Endurance + 1 - 8 per point of Mettle.

Generalist
A generalist can use light and medium armour but cannot use their Mettle to weild specialist weapons. Generalists can learn one type of magic. They receive five general skills, two of which reflect their background and three which reflect their training. Endurance + 1 - 8 per point of Mettle.

Spell Caster
Dedicated spell casters can only use the simplest weapons and no armour. As a result they learn four more spells from their chosen school and can cast two more spells each day. Injury Tolerance Endurance + 1 - 6 per point of mettle

General Skills
The following list of skills is not comprehensive. The absence of a skill does not forbid the attempt, instead, removing the Mettle bonus from the roll to succeed. The characteristic suggested in parentheses may be altered to reflect the use the skill is being put to, such as using Knowledge to know facts about Boating as opposed to simply rowing the boat.

Boating (Physique)
Carpentry (Physique)
Climbing (Coordination)
Driving (Awareness)
Engineering (Knowledge)
Foraging (Awareness)
Languages (Knowledge)
Masonry (Physique)
Sailing (Agility)
Smith (Physique)
Swimming (Endurance)
Pick Locks & Traps (Coordination)
Riding (Coordination)
Sneak (Coordination)
Tracking (Awareness)
Watch (Awareness)

Magic
Fantasy, by definition defies the physical laws of science. Wonders and wonder workers abound. There are three broad ways in which spell casters work their magic. Spirit magic draws directly on the spirit and life force of the magician. Sacred magic calls upon the gods for power while slowly feeding them on the magician's spirit and life force. Lore based magic is the broadest field drawing upon written knowledge and recorded methods which have been proven to work. A lore based spell caster's life is caught up in the research and study but some take the more direct approach, seeking out lost grimoires and scrolls. Lore based spell casters keep books of spells from which they can select a number to prepare and use in the course of their adventures.

Resistance Target = Characteristic + Mettle
Spells Known = Characteristic - 10
Spells Per Day = Characteristic - 10

Lore Based Magic
Knowledge
Sacred Magic
Perception
Spirit Magic
Will

Combat
Ambush and Surprise
If both sides are exploring or otherwise moving blindly there is chance one or both parties is surprised. Roll a twenty sided die for each side applying the worst Awareness modifier. The lowest Mettle in Sneaking or watching is applied for each group. If the total is less than 20 they are unaware of the other group. If the groups are moving in a large area such as a wilderness or maze of twisting passages and they are both unaware roll a six-sided die. If the result is three or less they never meet. If both sides are aware of each other each can choose whether to avoid or encounter the other. If both choose to encounter they can choose to parley or attack. If one side is aware of the other they can choose whether to avoid or encounter the other party. If one side wants to avoid and the other wants to avoid. A pursuit takes place with speed, encounter distance, and other such factors determining the results. A group on foot in open ground being pursued by horsemen isn't likely to escape.

Sequence
To keep combat simple and clear, the sides take alternating turns. It is possible to attack, move and attack, defend, and move.

Normal movement is 30 feet per turn full movement without an action or attack is 60 feet. Quadrupeds double these rates but other relationships might be arranged. A lumbering creature might have a basic movement rate of 30 feet and a full run of 120 feet and heaven help you if you're in its way.

Attacks are resolved by rolling a twenty-sided die and adding the attacker's Characteristic minus ten and Mettle if appropriate if the total is greater than the target's Coordination plus Armour the attack hits and causes damage.

Melee weapons require the target must be within the movement range of the attacker. If the attacker needs to move and the target has a longer weapon the target gets a free attack first. If a combatant tries to flee from the fighting their foe also gets to make a free attack.

Missile weapons require the target to be within the range of the weapon. If the target is farther than half that range the attack is made with a -4 modifier. If the shooter moves there is an additional - 4 modifier.

Damage is applied to the combatant's Injury Total. When this exceeds their Injury Tolerance they are incapacitated and out of the fighting until healed. If the Injury Total exceed their Injury Tolerance by more than their Endurance, they are dead.

Armour
Light Armour 2
Medium Armour 4
Heavy Armour 6
Shield +2

Weapons
Light Weapons 1 - 6 Damage
Medium Weapons 1 - 8 Damage
Heavy Weapons 1 - 10 Damage
Thrown 90 feet
Slings, Short Bows 180 feet
Crossbows, Long Bows 360 feet

Missile Weapons + Coordination -10
Melee Weapons + Physique -10
Specialist Weapons Flails, Lances, Longbows, Polearms

Morale
If a side loses half of its combatants they must check morale. Roll a twenty-sided die and add their leader's Will -10 and Mettle if they are skilled in Leadership. If the total is greater than 20 they stand their ground. If it is lower they flee or surrender as circumstances allow.

Creatures
The size of a creature determines its Injury Tolerance but not necessarily its Mettle. The size of the creature increases the chance to hit it but also increases its size, essentially cancelling out this factor.

Rat 1- 4
Dog 1 - 6
Human 1- 8
Horse 1 - 10
Elephant 1 - 12

Honestly, to my mind I'd drop the roll and just go with, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 to make sure huge creatures are still pretty tough and to make full figure casualty removal a thing.  But for the declared purpose of these rules equating mettle to a die type seems necessary.

Also, this is at an early stage and I'm open to suggestions.  I think if something isn't gotten out there we'll wind up with a proliferation of standards that amounts to everyone doing their own thing with no compatible core so, I'm suggesting a very tight, low level core that standardizes terminology and lets people implement their own ideas on top of it.  At present I feel the 1 - 20 + Characteristic + Mettle Stage - 10  (not the best term for it I know) necessitates an opposed role or division by two to avoid running out of the mechanical range.  But by not using indiviual calculations and thus not cluttering the character sheet authors can use whatever modifier arrangement they prefer in their own work without producing incompatible numbers in print.

The stat block is then:

Mettle Stage:
Race:
Type:

Awareness #
Coordination #
Endurance #
Knowledge #
Physique #
Will #

Skills:
Equipment

And you shouldn't need any more numbers than Mettle, Armour, Weapon Damage, and Characteristic scores.

I see your types and rise my Castes/Roles:

Skald or Minstrel = Bard
Warrior = Fighter
Mage, Magi, Magus, Sorcerer, Thaumaturge = Wizard
Knave, Scoundrel = Thief, Rogue
Templar, War Priest = Cleric

Of course the fluff is missing still.

As for characteristics:

Strength (STR): represents raw physical prowess, including the ability to lift, push and otherwise exert force.
Reflexes (REF): covers agility, coordination, dexterity, reaction speed, sense of balance, and speed.
Health (HLT): reflects overall constitution, general health, resistance to disease/poison, and fitness.
Intellect (INT): represents sharpness of mind, clarity of thought, intelligence, memory, and alertness.
Will (WIL): reflects mental strength, ego, force of conviction, resolve, focus, and concentration
Presence (PRE): represents the character's general personality, charisma, and innate persuasiveness.

Life Points (LP) = HP (Method of generation?

Character Points (CP) = XP

Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

I don't think that you guys need to change as much as you think.

This is the Character sheet for Crawfords World's without number (He does not use the OGL):

(https://preview.redd.it/cl92j5pp83i61.jpg?width=756&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b833cb1cbf67e07244d3fbad0616b036b077117)

If WotC decides to hit you with Lawfare, the fact that you changed the name of Armor Class will not save you...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 01:00:20 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 08, 2023, 12:54:54 PM
Hell, I don't know if any of them will go away.

It seems to me that this big 1.1 fiasco are going to start making games that have nothing to do with D&D style rules, which are pretty much all of the OSR group of games.

I know you cannot copyright the game rules.  So, from what I can tell all you need to do is release a game with six "Attribute" scores, Might, Agility, Health, IQ, Spirit, and Attractiveness, and you play the game using a 1D20 to try and roll equal or more than the enemy Armor Category (AC).

Stuff like that is what we can expect?

Boy, am I glad I never got into D&D specifically.  I'm still a Palladium guy, and now rules lite stuff that have damn near nothing to do with Hasbro.

The problem they'll have (and why I'm rewritting stuff right now) is not the rules but the IP from D&D they might have included.

So you can count on all of the fantasy games to have to :

a) Drop all said IP and in the meantime suspend ALL sales.

b) Find the funds to fight WotC/Hasbro in court and this includes getting a court to dictate you can keep selling or suspending ALL sales until the matter is settled.

Because they ALL use D&D IP, with the exception of L&D and Arrows from Indra and maybe LotFP (Can't remember right now) and any other that has exactly ZERO D&D IP on it.

What would constitute D&D IP, though? As far as I understand it, it's only original monsters and spell/place names, as well as the specific wording they use in their rulebooks. I thought you already couldn't use those things under the old OGL anyway.

As a general answer to the OP, I agree with the people who are theorizing that the OGL 1.1 is not really intended to go after OSR games. I'm not an IP lawyer, but outside of a few exceptions, I don't think they have a very good case against most of the bigger OSR games for copyright infringement, even absent the OGL, and the OSR isn't really that big of a market competitor for them. I think they're going after the third-party publishers that specifically design and market their products as "5e compatible". There seems to have been a big boom in that over the last few years. I haven't seen figures, but it seems like a fair few people are making a lot of money off of third-party 5e products, and I think the OGL 1.1 is designed to try and steal a piece of that pie. 

A lot of people are saying they're trying to avoid another Pathfinder fiasco, but even then, from everything I'm reading and hearing, it wouldn't be that hard for a company to make a 5e-like game while still avoiding trademark/copyright infringement.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 08, 2023, 02:25:10 PM
I don't think that you guys need to change as much as you think.

This is the Character sheet for Crawfords World's without number (He does not use the OGL):

(https://preview.redd.it/cl92j5pp83i61.jpg?width=756&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b833cb1cbf67e07244d3fbad0616b036b077117)

If WotC decides to hit you with Lawfare, the fact that you changed the name of Armor Class will not save you...

Concepts like hit points, armor class and ability stats isn't something D&D can hope to copyright.  It's in common use across all games.  It is specifics that they can go after.  A paladin character class, WotC can't do anything about.  Now adding in a holy smite that does 2d8 radiant damage + 1d8 damage for undead/fiends for a level 1 spell slot - yup you will get hit for that.  Meanwhile you could have a Paladin being a holy warrior who buffs people near them and you can have Bards that does 2d8 psychic damage + 1d8 damage for humanoid/beast for for a 1st level spell and there is nothing WotC can do.  Similar names, functionally different abilities.  Hell they could give Paladins a Cure/Harm ability where they could cure damage or inflict damage. 

This comes down to lawfare, WotC has very little to stand on when people will just adjust their content to ignore them.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

If they were to try and copyright terms like "NPC" or "Dexterity" or "Ranger" or whatever, they wouldn't just be up against other TRPGs. Those are prevalent terms in the videogaming industry as well. I can't see them wanting to risk treading on the toes of someone like Activision or Bandai Namco, especially on such flimsy grounds. Not to mention that plenty of other publishers have been using those terms for decades.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 02:25:42 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 01:00:20 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 08, 2023, 12:54:54 PM
Hell, I don't know if any of them will go away.

It seems to me that this big 1.1 fiasco are going to start making games that have nothing to do with D&D style rules, which are pretty much all of the OSR group of games.

I know you cannot copyright the game rules.  So, from what I can tell all you need to do is release a game with six "Attribute" scores, Might, Agility, Health, IQ, Spirit, and Attractiveness, and you play the game using a 1D20 to try and roll equal or more than the enemy Armor Category (AC).

Stuff like that is what we can expect?

Boy, am I glad I never got into D&D specifically.  I'm still a Palladium guy, and now rules lite stuff that have damn near nothing to do with Hasbro.

The problem they'll have (and why I'm rewritting stuff right now) is not the rules but the IP from D&D they might have included.

So you can count on all of the fantasy games to have to :

a) Drop all said IP and in the meantime suspend ALL sales.

b) Find the funds to fight WotC/Hasbro in court and this includes getting a court to dictate you can keep selling or suspending ALL sales until the matter is settled.

Because they ALL use D&D IP, with the exception of L&D and Arrows from Indra and maybe LotFP (Can't remember right now) and any other that has exactly ZERO D&D IP on it.

What would constitute D&D IP, though? As far as I understand it, it's only original monsters and spell/place names, as well as the specific wording they use in their rulebooks. I thought you already couldn't use those things under the old OGL anyway.

As a general answer to the OP, I agree with the people who are theorizing that the OGL 1.1 is not really intended to go after OSR games. I'm not an IP lawyer, but outside of a few exceptions, I don't think they have a very good case against most of the bigger OSR games for copyright infringement, even absent the OGL, and the OSR isn't really that big of a market competitor for them. I think they're going after the third-party publishers that specifically design and market their products as "5e compatible". There seems to have been a big boom in that over the last few years. I haven't seen figures, but it seems like a fair few people are making a lot of money off of third-party 5e products, and I think the OGL 1.1 is designed to try and steal a piece of that pie. 

A lot of people are saying they're trying to avoid another Pathfinder fiasco, but even then, from everything I'm reading and hearing, it wouldn't be that hard for a company to make a 5e-like game while still avoiding trademark/copyright infringement.

What's WotC's IP?

ANYTHYNG and EVERYTHING in their SRD except the names of mythological creatures.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 02:35:05 PMA paladin character class, WotC can't do anything about.

And yet it's the less generic class name, probably. I wonder if this is why it became a champion in Pathfinder 2e.

As far as fluff goes I believe it should be minimal as possible to make clear which term is being replaced by what.

Kevin Crawford, like everyone else is free to test the boundaries and pay their own legal fees.

I recognize that many terms have entered common usage and if WotC went after them, the video game companies would probably chip in for the lawyers.  Even so, I think a full break is best because it prevents potential overlaps and oversights.

Of course everyone wants their own class names and so forth and that's fine, good even, but that's just one more reason to keep the public domain core generic.  It's not existing to create a new retroclone or a new license or a new game.  Hell I've done those things myself.  It's to lay a common ground that will be useful to everyone who wants to create material that is compatible with the other game and each other without getting their ass sued.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

What I like about your types is that they are more generic, therefore easier to addpat to different settings.

Quote from: Frey on January 08, 2023, 04:14:59 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 02:35:05 PMA paladin character class, WotC can't do anything about.

And yet it's the less generic class name, probably. I wonder if this is why it became a champion in Pathfinder 2e.

Plust it allows them to remove ALL religious refferences.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 04:30:57 PM
As far as fluff goes I believe it should be minimal as possible to make clear which term is being replaced by what.

Kevin Crawford, like everyone else is free to test the boundaries and pay their own legal fees.

I recognize that many terms have entered common usage and if WotC went after them, the video game companies would probably chip in for the lawyers.  Even so, I think a full break is best because it prevents potential overlaps and oversights.

Of course everyone wants their own class names and so forth and that's fine, good even, but that's just one more reason to keep the public domain core generic.  It's not existing to create a new retroclone or a new license or a new game.  Hell I've done those things myself.  It's to lay a common ground that will be useful to everyone who wants to create material that is compatible with the other game and each other without getting their ass sued.

Oh, I agree, the fluff of a generic public domain system should minimal or zero. It's the foundation for others to build a game on top of it not a full game.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 04:30:57 PM
As far as fluff goes I believe it should be minimal as possible to make clear which term is being replaced by what.

Kevin Crawford, like everyone else is free to test the boundaries and pay their own legal fees.

I recognize that many terms have entered common usage and if WotC went after them, the video game companies would probably chip in for the lawyers.  Even so, I think a full break is best because it prevents potential overlaps and oversights.

Of course everyone wants their own class names and so forth and that's fine, good even, but that's just one more reason to keep the public domain core generic.  It's not existing to create a new retroclone or a new license or a new game.  Hell I've done those things myself.  It's to lay a common ground that will be useful to everyone who wants to create material that is compatible with the other game and each other without getting their ass sued.

Honestly, I'd argue the opposite; the more distinct your fluff is from WotC's the less likely they are to go after it. There's settled case law that you can duplicate mechanics, but what the court really decided upon in many of those was that what we call "fluff text" was not derivative of the copyright holder's material. Thus you can outright copy the mechanics of a game with the Sheriff, Deputies, Bandits and the Renegade (western fluff) and use it for a game where those same things are called The Emperor, Samurai, Ronin and the Warlord (Samurai fluff) with abandon.

If they'd duplicated it entirely or maybe just changed the Sheriff to the Marshal and Bandits to Outlaws while retaining the Western theme it wouldn't have gone nearly so well for the copycats because that would have sufficiently derivative of the original's copywrite for a western themed card game.

By contrast if the second card game were western themed but used very different mechanics, say it also included dice and poker chips and had only Lawmen and Bandits then it would also sail clear because "Western Themed Card Game" on its own that is too generic a concept to copyright.

Its the combo of similar mechanics + similar concept that's going to get you into hot water.

Basically, my advice is that the closer you want your mechanics to be to D&D, the more you should include distinctly different fluff text (and renaming of terms) in order to avoid it appearing sufficiently derivative.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 02:56:28 PM
ANYTHYNG and EVERYTHING in their SRD except the names of mythological creatures.

At the risk of massive "I Am Not a Lawyer" smackdowns, most of this stuff should be pretty easy to dodge or just outright give WotC the middle finger over.

Rules can't be copyrighted, only specific language used to express them, and even then only to the extent that it's artistic verses functional - so you can't end-run around "you can't copyright rules" by claiming that you can copyright all possible ways you could write those rules.

And like... 75% of the common D&D monsters and races have long, long since fallen into common use. If WotC tried to go after everyone who had "dark elves" or "giant floating eyeball monsters" or "big cubes of man-eating jello", they would have a long list of products and companies to go after, many of which belong to companies that have just as big of pocket books attached to them as WotC. So long as you don't use words like "drow" or "beholder", you should be pretty safe.

Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion becomes Bobert's Bountiful Bungalow.

Hell, TSR set the precedent here with "Halflings".

As far as I understand it, this really only becomes an issue if you want to claim your game actually is or is affiliated with D&D by name. As long as it's just "compatible with popular fantasy games"...

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 08, 2023, 04:53:44 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 04:30:57 PM
As far as fluff goes I believe it should be minimal as possible to make clear which term is being replaced by what.

Kevin Crawford, like everyone else is free to test the boundaries and pay their own legal fees.

I recognize that many terms have entered common usage and if WotC went after them, the video game companies would probably chip in for the lawyers.  Even so, I think a full break is best because it prevents potential overlaps and oversights.

Of course everyone wants their own class names and so forth and that's fine, good even, but that's just one more reason to keep the public domain core generic.  It's not existing to create a new retroclone or a new license or a new game.  Hell I've done those things myself.  It's to lay a common ground that will be useful to everyone who wants to create material that is compatible with the other game and each other without getting their ass sued.

Honestly, I'd argue the opposite; the more distinct your fluff is from WotC's the less likely they are to go after it. There's settled case law that you can duplicate mechanics, but what the court really decided upon in many of those was that what we call "fluff text" was not derivative of the copyright holder's material. Thus you can outright copy the mechanics of a game with the Sheriff, Deputies, Bandits and the Renegade (western fluff) and use it for a game where those same things are called The Emperor, Samurai, Ronin and the Warlord (Samurai fluff) with abandon.

If they'd duplicated it entirely or maybe just changed the Sheriff to the Marshal and Bandits to Outlaws while retaining the Western theme it wouldn't have gone nearly so well for the copycats because that would have sufficiently derivative of the original's copywrite for a western themed card game.

By contrast if the second card game were western themed but used very different mechanics, say it also included dice and poker chips and had only Lawmen and Bandits then it would also sail clear because "Western Themed Card Game" on its own that is too generic a concept to copyright.

Its the combo of similar mechanics + similar concept that's going to get you into hot water.

Basically, my advice is that the closer you want your mechanics to be to D&D, the more you should include distinctly different fluff text (and renaming of terms) in order to avoid it appearing sufficiently derivative.

Both of you are correct, let me explain:

David is talking about his proposed public domain SYSTEM, he already said it should be about 12 pages and that the fluff should be kept to a minimmum/zero.

You are talking about a game using the system (whatever the system might be), therefore you are correct that the fluff is what will differentiate your game from D&D provided you are using the same mechanics.

I honestly think that a public domain system is a net ṕossitive for the hobby, as it will be with CC By SA fluff (bestiary, spells, etc.)

So anyone can take the system, built on top of it with their own or some CC By SA fluff or a combination of both a complete game that would be legal to sell and impossible for anyone to take the author to court.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 08, 2023, 04:59:03 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 02:56:28 PM
ANYTHYNG and EVERYTHING in their SRD except the names of mythological creatures.

At the risk of massive "I Am Not a Lawyer" smackdowns, most of this stuff should be pretty easy to dodge or just outright give WotC the middle finger over.

Rules can't be copyrighted, only specific language used to express them, and even then only to the extent that it's artistic verses functional - so you can't end-run around "you can't copyright rules" by claiming that you can copyright all possible ways you could write those rules.

And like... 75% of the common D&D monsters and races have long, long since fallen into common use. If WotC tried to go after everyone who had "dark elves" or "giant floating eyeball monsters" or "big cubes of man-eating jello", they would have a long list of products and companies to go after, many of which belong to companies that have just as big of pocket books attached to them as WotC. So long as you don't use words like "drow" or "beholder", you should be pretty safe.

Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion becomes Bobert's Bountiful Bungalow.

Hell, TSR set the precedent here with "Halflings".

As far as I understand it, this really only becomes an issue if you want to claim your game actually is or is affiliated with D&D by name. As long as it's just "compatible with popular fantasy games"...

Yes and No:

Take Dragons, those are public domain, the fluff of the chromatic dragons isn't, so you need to work around the fluff which is easier if you're not trying to replicate their shit.

Even more so with stuff with the Beholder, since it was created from scrtch by them you need to makle it functionally different enough that it's not the exact same monster with a different name, for instance change the ammount and placement of appendages, the powers, etc.

In such a way that it is a floating eye monster but NOT their floating eye monster.

Unless you fell like you NEED to claim compatibility with "popular fantasy games" and think the only way to accomplish that is to have the same monsters...

Pro tip: It isn't, take Arrows of Indra AND Lion and Dragon, both ARE compatible with one another and share no monsters or magic, tghey are also compatible with other OSR games that DO have those "popular fantasy games monsters" in them.

So, the safest/easist road is to divest yourself from ALL of the WotC owned IP.

Thanks for that Geeky Bugle.

So on races, I'm pretty sure we can go with

Alfar +1 Knowledge and Dexterity, Night Vision

Dwarrows +2 Constitution, Night Vision

Gnomes -2 Strength +1 Dexterity and Awareness, Night Vision, Size Injury Tolerance 1 - 6

quite safely.  I'd like to balance the races a bit better but am undecided on how to do it.

I haven't talked about attribute generation and I think the 'system' should be at least that functional.  I'm thinking fix one die by race, one die by type, and roll 1-6 for the other characteristics.  You'd have  since there's six chararacteristics you'd have 1 - 6 to place on each attribute for race and type.  I don't know, that might be too much my own thinking and not enough the 'elemental core' of the game.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
Thanks for that Geeky Bugle.

So on races, I'm pretty sure we can go with

Alfar +1 Knowledge and Dexterity, Night Vision

Dwarrows +2 Constitution, Night Vision

Gnomes -2 Strength +1 Dexterity and Awareness, Night Vision, Size Injury Tolerance 1 - 6

quite safely.  I'd like to balance the races a bit better but am undecided on how to do it.

I haven't talked about attribute generation and I think the 'system' should be at least that functional.  I'm thinking fix one die by race, one die by type, and roll 1-6 for the other characteristics.  You'd have  since there's six chararacteristics you'd have 1 - 6 to place on each attribute for race and type.  I don't know, that might be too much my own thinking and not enough the 'elemental core' of the game.

What are those? I mean what's their S&W equivalent?

Alfar are the light elves of Norse myth.  We could do Liosalfar as light elves and dark elves as Svartalfar. 

Dwarrow is old English for Dwarf.

Gnomes are little concrete guys in gardens.

For races I feel that using Elves and Dwarves is safe as long as your fluff is different enough.

For Halflings I am using Mitjan in a game I'm writting in Spanish because "Mediano" sounds like shit.

For example make Elves to look more alien, give them black eyes without a pupil, larger than humans and almond shaped, give them the classic pointy ears and make the fluff more Brother Grimms than Tolkien (except the all being evil part).

You could go with the real folklore about the fae, so you have the sellie (good) and unsellie (evil) courts, ALL of the non human races are Fae, different types of Fae. They live in Underhill but some/many roam the world and at least some of them like to eat people.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:23:34 PM
Alfar are the light elves of Norse myth.  We could do Liosalfar as light elves and dark elves as Svartalfar. 

Dwarrow is old English for Dwarf.

Gnomes are little concrete guys in gardens.

Got it, I like it.

Thought those were dwarves but wasn't sure.

ROTFLMAO.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:26:35 PM
For races I feel that using Elves and Dwarves is safe as long as your fluff is different enough.

For Halflings I am using Mitjan in a game I'm writting in Spanish because "Mediano" sounds like shit.

For example make Elves to look more alien, give them black eyes without a pupil, larger than humans and almond shaped, give them the classic pointy ears and make the fluff more Brother Grimms than Tolkien (except the all being evil part).

You could go with the real folklore about the fae, so you have the sellie (good) and unsellie (evil) courts, ALL of the non human races are Fae, different types of Fae. They live in Underhill but some/many roam the world and at least some of them like to eat people.

Which is setting specific fluff.

I'm thinking more like

Alfar: lithe and mysterious immortals
Dwarrows: short bearded miners
Gnomes: small pastoral garden decor

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:36:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:26:35 PM
For races I feel that using Elves and Dwarves is safe as long as your fluff is different enough.

For Halflings I am using Mitjan in a game I'm writting in Spanish because "Mediano" sounds like shit.

For example make Elves to look more alien, give them black eyes without a pupil, larger than humans and almond shaped, give them the classic pointy ears and make the fluff more Brother Grimms than Tolkien (except the all being evil part).

You could go with the real folklore about the fae, so you have the sellie (good) and unsellie (evil) courts, ALL of the non human races are Fae, different types of Fae. They live in Underhill but some/many roam the world and at least some of them like to eat people.

Which is setting specific fluff.

I'm thinking more like

Alfar: lithe and mysterious immortals
Dwarrows: short bearded miners
Gnomes: small pastoral garden decor

Right, so to keep it to a minimmum of fluff, got cha.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:38:35 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:36:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:26:35 PM
For races I feel that using Elves and Dwarves is safe as long as your fluff is different enough.

For Halflings I am using Mitjan in a game I'm writting in Spanish because "Mediano" sounds like shit.

For example make Elves to look more alien, give them black eyes without a pupil, larger than humans and almond shaped, give them the classic pointy ears and make the fluff more Brother Grimms than Tolkien (except the all being evil part).

You could go with the real folklore about the fae, so you have the sellie (good) and unsellie (evil) courts, ALL of the non human races are Fae, different types of Fae. They live in Underhill but some/many roam the world and at least some of them like to eat people.

Which is setting specific fluff.

I'm thinking more like

Alfar: lithe and mysterious immortals
Dwarrows: short bearded miners
Gnomes: small pastoral garden decor

Right, so to keep it to a minimmum of fluff, got cha.

By the way, are you making a document of all of this? Need help with formatting it?

At the moment it's still very formative.  I wanted to get the idea out there fast because I suspect this is a particularly auspicious moment.  Wait or dither too long and everyone will have done their own relabelling and it all becomes a moot point.

I'm certainly open to help.  I'm not even sure if I'm the guy to do it.  My own preferences and designs are already leaking into the cracks.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 08, 2023, 12:54:54 PM
Hell, I don't know if any of them will go away.

It seems to me that this big 1.1 fiasco are going to start making games that have nothing to do with D&D style rules, which are pretty much all of the OSR group of games.

I know you cannot copyright the game rules.  So, from what I can tell all you need to do is release a game with six "Attribute" scores, Might, Agility, Health, IQ, Spirit, and Attractiveness, and you play the game using a 1D20 to try and roll equal or more than the enemy Armor Category (AC).

Stuff like that is what we can expect?

Boy, am I glad I never got into D&D specifically.  I'm still a Palladium guy, and now rules lite stuff that have damn near nothing to do with Hasbro.

Everything that WotC can get away with.

Each and every sale that isn't the current version of DnD is considered a lost sale to the suits at WotC, so they want scorched Earth. If they can scare publishers into not ending their companies by threatening legal action - they will. How's that for fascist?

The best way that I have seen it put is that this is an orbital bombardment of a planet by WotC in order to takeout the rifle wielding sniper of the OSR. This is WotC DnD becoming a Fascist State if the corporate suits at Hasbro have their way.

Don't be surprised if WotC is willing to put One Bookshelf out of business in order to ensure that DnD has no competition.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:46:58 PM
At the moment it's still very formative.  I wanted to get the idea out there fast because I suspect this is a particularly auspicious moment.  Wait or dither too long and everyone will have done their own relabelling and it all becomes a moot point.

I'm certainly open to help.  I'm not even sure if I'm the guy to do it.  My own preferences and designs are already leaking into the cracks.

Right, it's inevitable that our own biases filter on our work, more people can be a deterrent against this since others might keep us on check (unless we coincide too much).

As for the races I was thinking... Can we make them more general? Sopmething not tied to any one genre:

Human
Lithe (Elves or whatever)
Strong (Dwarfs or whatever)
Small (Gnomes, Halflings or whatever)

This removes ALL the fluff and makes it easier to convert to whatever setting your game uses.

If something is copyright protected, changing the name doesn't actually help, legally. It's still a derivative work.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:52:07 PM

Right, it's inevitable that our own biases filter on our work, more people can be a deterrent against this since others might keep us on check (unless we coincide too much).

As for the races I was thinking... Can we make them more general? Sopmething not tied to any one genre:

Human
Lithe (Elves or whatever)
Strong (Dwarfs or whatever)
Small (Gnomes, Halflings or whatever)

This removes ALL the fluff and makes it easier to convert to whatever setting your game uses.

That would be super generic though it doesn't describe things like magical ability or night vision.

Maybe a short list of racial trait options, of the pick two variety, rather than having specific races at all.

Characteristic Increase
Night Vision
Magical pick one spell
Sterotypical pick one skill
Amphibious
Aquatic

Man it's like I'm redesigning my own games...

Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 06:24:54 PM
If something is copyright protected, changing the name doesn't actually help, legally. It's still a derivative work.

Correct, you need to change MORE than just the name.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 06:32:46 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 05:52:07 PM

Right, it's inevitable that our own biases filter on our work, more people can be a deterrent against this since others might keep us on check (unless we coincide too much).

As for the races I was thinking... Can we make them more general? Sopmething not tied to any one genre:

Human
Lithe (Elves or whatever)
Strong (Dwarfs or whatever)
Small (Gnomes, Halflings or whatever)

This removes ALL the fluff and makes it easier to convert to whatever setting your game uses.

That would be super generic though it doesn't describe things like magical ability or night vision.

Maybe a short list of racial trait options, of the pick two variety, rather than having specific races at all.

Characteristic Increase
Night Vision
Magical pick one spell
Sterotypical pick one skill
Amphibious
Aquatic

Man it's like I'm redesigning my own games...

Yes, there's that, but it makes it more of a system and less of a game, maybe include the racial trait options for a few genres like Fantasy, Sci-Fi?

Or just use the Lithe WITH the racial options for Elves without calling it anything for a particular genre? And so on and so forth.

Anyhow, have some stuff to do IRL will be back latter today I hope.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 06:34:59 PM

Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 06:24:54 PM
If something is copyright protected, changing the name doesn't actually help, legally. It's still a derivative work.

Correct, you need to change MORE than just the name.

All names and descriptive text need to be rewritten, or reworded.  Nothing should be Copy / Paste from any work of WOTC or TSR.

It's not a Brown Paper Sack.  It's a Lightweight Carry Option, Fashioned from Brown Paper.

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 08, 2023, 05:49:23 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 08, 2023, 12:54:54 PM
Hell, I don't know if any of them will go away.

It seems to me that this big 1.1 fiasco are going to start making games that have nothing to do with D&D style rules, which are pretty much all of the OSR group of games.

I know you cannot copyright the game rules.  So, from what I can tell all you need to do is release a game with six "Attribute" scores, Might, Agility, Health, IQ, Spirit, and Attractiveness, and you play the game using a 1D20 to try and roll equal or more than the enemy Armor Category (AC).

Stuff like that is what we can expect?

Boy, am I glad I never got into D&D specifically.  I'm still a Palladium guy, and now rules lite stuff that have damn near nothing to do with Hasbro.

Everything that WotC can get away with.

Each and every sale that isn't the current version of DnD is considered a lost sale to the suits at WotC, so they want scorched Earth. If they can scare publishers into not ending their companies by threatening legal action - they will. How's that for fascist?

The best way that I have seen it put is that this is an orbital bombardment of a planet by WotC in order to takeout the rifle wielding sniper of the OSR. This is WotC DnD becoming a Fascist State if the corporate suits at Hasbro have their way.

Don't be surprised if WotC is willing to put One Bookshelf out of business in order to ensure that DnD has no competition.

That is exactly correct. Hasbro will absolutely go scorched earth. They totally will. People keep forgetting that Hasbro receives ESG investment capital from ultra-giant monopolistic asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard. Do we really need to start talking about the goals of the men who control these firms? ::)

In any case, this means that they are completely willing to destroy 95% of both the TTRPG hobby and TTRPG industry, if it means they control 100% of it. They will ruthlessly fuck all of you without a second thought.

This move by Hasbro is NOT about making money. It never was. This is about power and control. The men who control Blackrock and Vanguard already have access to a nearly unlimited amount of fiat currency, and they now control Hasbro. If you think they're unwilling or unable to bribe a judge, think again. If you think they won't use weaponized lawfare to bankrupt you (even if you're legally and morally in the right), think again. If you think they won't find a way to deplatform game designers from Kickstarter or DriveThruRpg, or even YouTube and Facebook....think again. And frankly, there are a number of other things they can do to fuck game designers and ttrpg content creators, but I don't want to give them ideas. >:(

Part of my point, is that people need to stop believing that giant mega-corporations receiving ESG investment capital from giant investment firms care primarily about making $money$. They don't. That is an extremely naive belief. Ask yourselves what the religious beliefs are of the men who control the giant investment firms, and then you'll start to have a slight understanding of what's really happening.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 07:18:48 PM
Ask yourselves what the religious beliefs are of the men who control the giant investment firms, and then you'll start to have a slight understanding of what's really happening.

What? Jewish? Or do you mean quasi-religious like Woke/SJW?

If you mean the former, claiming they want to destroy Open Gaming because they're Jewish seems a bit of a stretch. AFAICT Jewish opinion runs the full gamut as much as non-Jewish. Some slant towards Openness; I don't see how that equates to Microsoft style desire to shut down a 3rd Party ecology.

Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 07:52:29 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 07:18:48 PM
Ask yourselves what the religious beliefs are of the men who control the giant investment firms, and then you'll start to have a slight understanding of what's really happening.

What? Jewish? Or do you mean quasi-religious like Woke/SJW?

If you mean the former, claiming they want to destroy Open Gaming because they're Jewish seems a bit of a stretch. AFAICT Jewish opinion runs the full gamut as much as non-Jewish. Some slant towards Openness; I don't see how that equates to Microsoft style desire to shut down a 3rd Party ecology.

The people near the top of the pyramid, have their own agenda.  It is very dark, in nature.

Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 07:52:29 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 07:18:48 PM
Ask yourselves what the religious beliefs are of the men who control the giant investment firms, and then you'll start to have a slight understanding of what's really happening.

What? Jewish? Or do you mean quasi-religious like Woke/SJW?

If you mean the former, claiming they want to destroy Open Gaming because they're Jewish seems a bit of a stretch. AFAICT Jewish opinion runs the full gamut as much as non-Jewish. Some slant towards Openness; I don't see how that equates to Microsoft style desire to shut down a 3rd Party ecology.

That topic is a bit more complicated (and less reductive) than either of the things you just said, and if we discuss that....then we will not be discussing TTRPGs any more. And frankly, I have no desire to delve deeper into such things on this site.

My point is that Hasbro is NOT controlled by gaming nerds, nor is it controlled by people who wish to make $money$. When gamers fully accept that the men who control Hasbro are willing to destroy at least most of (if not all of) the TTRPG hobby and industry in order to fully control it, then gamers can make a proper decision on how to move forward.

It does seem like getting away from D&D style rules is the way forward.

New OSR games probably will be few and far between if this new WotC comes along and starts getting crazy about copycat games.

My guess is that existing games will be OK, as they were already made.  But no new revisions.  You want to make a 3rd edition of your OSR?  Well, just start over with all new rules so it doesn't look like a D&D clone.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 07:18:48 PM

That is exactly correct. Hasbro will absolutely go scorched earth. They totally will. People keep forgetting that Hasbro receives ESG investment capital from ultra-giant monopolistic asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard. Do we really need to start talking about the goals of the men who control these firms? ::)

In any case, this means that they are completely willing to destroy 95% of both the TTRPG hobby and TTRPG industry, if it means they control 100% of it. They will ruthlessly fuck all of you without a second thought.

This move by Hasbro is NOT about making money. It never was. This is about power and control. The men who control Blackrock and Vanguard already have access to a nearly unlimited amount of fiat currency, and they now control Hasbro. If you think they're unwilling or unable to bribe a judge, think again. If you think they won't use weaponized lawfare to bankrupt you (even if you're legally and morally in the right), think again. If you think they won't find a way to deplatform game designers from Kickstarter or DriveThruRpg, or even YouTube and Facebook....think again. And frankly, there are a number of other things they can do to fuck game designers and ttrpg content creators, but I don't want to give them ideas. >:(

Part of my point, is that people need to stop believing that giant mega-corporations receiving ESG investment capital from giant investment firms care primarily about making $money$. They don't. That is an extremely naive belief. Ask yourselves what the religious beliefs are of the men who control the giant investment firms, and then you'll start to have a slight understanding of what's really happening.

But how do you want that represented mechanically?

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 05:36:50 PM
Which is setting specific fluff.

I'm thinking more like

Alfar: lithe and mysterious immortals
Dwarrows: short bearded miners
Gnomes: small pastoral garden decor

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Or, as my dad would say, "shit or get off the pot".

Either write fluff to actually explain why they are "dwarrows" and not "dwarves", "alfar" and not "elves", or just call them dwarves and elves. That genie is out of the bottle, trapped the person who released it in in the bottle, became mortal, and died of old age. Years ago. So long ago the cycle has repeated itself, probably. There's a line at which trying to be cute and show off how much you're not putting your finger on WotC's side of the car that you fall out the other side of the car and die.

As well to call humans "Midgardians" or something.

I see why you would feel that way but it just seems best to go all the way than half way.

The fluff is something I feel should be setting specific.  I've even got one in mind but I'm trying to avoid pushing too many of my own ideas into this because we'll just end up with The Arcane Confabulation all over again which would suit me just fine but no-one else.

Again the key thing is the framework of terms, not the mechanics which I expect people will season to taste in many ways the core, important part to my mind is just this:

Mettle Stage (or whatever, I'm not fond of that one, I've tried floors, degrees, steps, worth and I'm not fond of any of them.  Mettle is at least somewhat Gygaxian.

Injury Tollerance die per Mettle Stage
Injury Tollerance (the mechanics as written hand out too much Injury Tolerance but I haven't decided how to handle that, probably Size base + Endurance -10 + x to y per mettle, I've long believed players get robbed of their zero level die that everyone else seems to get)

Character Types (generic and function oriented bear in mind that there are three types of generalists and spell casters due to the three types of magic)
Combatant
Specialist
Generalist
Spell Caster

Characteristics (Frankly I like every point to do something, no dead ratings)
Awareness #
Coordination #
Endurance #
Knowledge #
Physique #
Willpower #

Skills (+ mettle because again I hate dead levels, the list may need some fiddling to avoid matching existing ones)
Spells Known
Spirit, Sacred, and Lore (or something that's not Arcane)

Traits (so, rather than specifiying races I'm leaning towards a set of traits to pick from, people want to play all kinds of random stuff these days, Your Cheese Sandwich Avatar (or whatever, is that too computergamey?) gets Delicious and Nourishing but Harms the Lactose Intollerant)

I really think it should be that tight.  I'll have to think a bit about how to make the Characteristic Equivalencies more explicit.

I could see adding some form of learned techniques but I'd probably treat them like another class of spells.  Also, the more objects defined in the core, the harder it will be to keep it free from actionable duplications.

I think the most realistic way is to go the Kevin Crawford route. Use the terms, but don't use any text

The most painful thing will be rewriting new spell descriptions

So here's a hard question that challenges my assertion that this isn't really a system, just a placeholder in a framework.

Should there be balance control tools for building races and spells.  If it's just a pick two traits thing there might still need to be some kind of a tool for balancing traits and we're off to the races creating a whole new system.  On the other hand the goal is cross compatibility.

Most of my games use some variation of the following

Total to determine Circle:

Trivial Effect 0
Minor Effect 1
Major Effect 2
Legendary Effect 3

Range
Touch 0
Ranged 1
Regional 2

Duration
Instant / Permanent Effect  0 (damage)
One Combat 1
Hours 2
Days 3

Area
Individual 1
Tactical Radius 2
Battle Field 3
Region 4

So Mettle Stage = Level

I'm using Rank in the stuff I started developing yesterday.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 09:57:59 PM
So here's a hard question that challenges my assertion that this isn't really a system, just a placeholder in a framework.

Should there be balance control tools for building races and spells.  If it's just a pick two traits thing there might still need to be some kind of a tool for balancing traits and we're off to the races creating a whole new system.  On the other hand the goal is cross compatibility.

Most of my games use some variation of the following

Total to determine Circle:

Trivial Effect 0
Minor Effect 1
Major Effect 2
Legendary Effect 3

Range
Touch 0
Ranged 1
Regional 2

Duration
Instant / Permanent Effect  0 (damage)
One Combat 1
Hours 2
Days 3

Area
Individual 1
Tactical Radius 2
Battle Field 3
Region 4

Re: Races

I'm leaning more and more towards either your races or mine with some example of what they stand for.

As for the spells... Either write them up from scratch or build another system to create them, is there an example of the math used to develop them?

Quote from: JeremyR on January 08, 2023, 09:51:48 PM
I think the most realistic way is to go the Kevin Crawford route. Use the terms, but don't use any text

The most painful thing will be rewriting new spell descriptions

What does that mean? Can you provide an example?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 10:07:45 PM
So Mettle Stage = Level

I'm using Rank in the stuff I started developing yesterday.

Rank is good, probably clearer and better, mind if I use that?

Another question is how to approach the various osr publishers with the idea.  They've probably been working on stuff already right?

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 10:31:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 10:07:45 PM
So Mettle Stage = Level

I'm using Rank in the stuff I started developing yesterday.

Rank is good, probably clearer and better, mind if I use that?

Thanks, no I don't mind I was going to place my stuff under the OGL, now I'm helping you develop an CC By SA engine/system even if in a limited fashion so I can benefit from it.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
Another question is how to approach the various osr publishers with the idea.  They've probably been working on stuff already right?

If they have it can't be longer than a week since they had no reason to. So I think it's a matter of speed and quality and the market will decide.

As for approaching them... Try social media or their email if you can find it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 08, 2023, 10:50:24 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
Another question is how to approach the various osr publishers with the idea.  They've probably been working on stuff already right?

If they have it can't be longer than a week since they had no reason to. So I think it's a matter of speed and quality and the market will decide.

As for approaching them... Try social media or their email if you can find it.

It sounded like Paizo had at least wargamed out the prospect of having to do PF2e without the OGL. Many of Pundit's products never had an OGL in the first place. I spent years building a non-OGL system and setting for my intended books.

If that many types were already looking at non-OGL alternatives I imagine many other creators at least gave idle thought to the idea. As such, some might already be further along than you'd think in having a viable alternative.

The BIG question after being burned by the OGL is whether all the previous OGL-based creators can actually come together on the same shared system or whether this will return us to the pre-OGL days of each publisher having their own bespoke systems with conversion being left to the GM and player base to figure out.

The one advantage of D&D as the big dog was that they set a sort of default standard to unify mechanics around. Now without that you have a bunch of egos each with their own variants that will need to become even more variant without the OGL's protections and getting a compromise even on something as simple as attribute names and hit point scaling will likely be a far greater challenge than just building your own bespoke ruleset that does exactly what you want it to do for your setting.

Lord knows that was a big part of why I ended up breaking free of the OGL chain on my own project years ago. There was just too much accumulated cruft to certain terms and concepts which made it difficult for me to use the normal D&D-isms in the way I wanted without pushback because how I was using elements didn't conform to the cruft. Once I realized my project looked no more like D&D than Palladium Fantasy did I realized it was time to jump ship on the OGL... and I have zero interest in compromising my setting and the supporting mechanics for it just to fall in line with another group's ideas for a game engine that likely won't fit my setting as well because its not designed specifically for my setting.

By contrast, I'd be quite happy for others to use my setting and system for their own projects... but I'm certain all the other serious content creators looking at retooling their systems away from the OSR feel the exact same way... which is basically the impasse of trying to coordinate an alternative to the OGL/SRD.

Here's some common spells under the system above.  Clearly it doesn't quite line up yet, I'll need to fiddle with it.  It's more of a system issue but I'm prone to wanting Circle = Rank (which I've previously called Mettle Stage)

Benediction 2nd circle, general +1, Tactical Area, individual, Close
Subversion 3rd circle, Resisted by Will, Hours, Individual, Close
Flash Bolt 2nd circle 1 - 6 Damage, Ranged, Instant, Individual
Sombulance 3rd circle, Resisted by Endurance, Tactical Radius, Instant, Close
Inferno 3rd circle, 1 - 12 Damage, Tactical Radius, Instant, Ranged
Galvanic Discharge 4th Circle, 1 - 6 per Circle Damage Instant Ranged
Disenchantment 3rd circle, Major Effect, Instant, Close
Healing 1st circle, 1 - 6 Injuries Restored, Instant, Touch, individual
Cleanse Sickness 1st circle, Minor Effect, Instant, Touch, Individual

Chris24601 that's a big post to quote :D  My answer is simply this: I'm not suggesting a system.  Sure a system is there to describe what things do rather than directly equating them to potentially proprietary terms.  What I am suggesting is a set of public domain non-proprietary terms.  I'm really open to suggestions because every time I start writing a clone it takes on too many of my own preferences.  I'd also love to hear from any publishers even if they laugh in my face because, while my time isn't particularly valuable, it is my time and I value it so if this is a futile waste I'd like to know that before I sink too much effort into it.  Right now it's mainly a fun thought experiment.  It may be it's too late, it may always have been too late, but I'd hate to see things go forward in a splintered and scattered manner when the oportunity to grasp at a little compatability seems to be here right now.

As for skills, at least the ones on char gen can be replaced with backgrounds:

Cultural backgrounds
Savage
Barbarian
Nomad
Civilized
Decadent

Social Backgrounds (these are affected by the previous)
Ideally these should represent the social stratta the character belongs to, I haven't developed them tho.

Proffessional backgrounds (These represent what the character did before taking the life of an adventurer)
Example Shamelessly stolen from BoL

Alchemist
Assassin
Barbarian (This one should be a cultural background)
Blacksmith
Dancer
Executioner
Farmer
Galen
Gladiator
Hunter
Mercenary
Merchant
Minstrel
Noble (This one might be better on the social backgrounds list)
Pilot
Pirate
Priest/Druid
Scribe
Slave
Soldier
Thief
Wench
Wizard (or Sorcerer, Necromancer)

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 11:29:32 PM
Here's some common spells under the system above.  Clearly it doesn't quite line up yet, I'll need to fiddle with it.  It's more of a system issue but I'm prone to wanting Circle = Rank (which I've previously called Mettle Stage)

Benediction 2nd circle, general +1, Tactical Area, individual, Close
Subversion 3rd circle, Resisted by Will, Hours, Individual, Close
Flash Bolt 2nd circle 1 - 6 Damage, Ranged, Instant, Individual
Sombulance 3rd circle, Resisted by Endurance, Tactical Radius, Instant, Close
Inferno 3rd circle, 1 - 12 Damage, Tactical Radius, Instant, Ranged
Galvanic Discharge 4th Circle, 1 - 6 per Circle Damage Instant Ranged
Disenchantment 3rd circle, Major Effect, Instant, Close
Healing 1st circle, 1 - 6 Injuries Restored, Instant, Touch, individual
Cleanse Sickness 1st circle, Minor Effect, Instant, Touch, Individual

I would keep Circle but equate it to school instead of to Rank:

The Circle of Air
The Circle of Blood
The Circle of Earth
The Circle of Fire
The Circle of the Moon
The Circle of Water

Each Circle has it's own perview and special spells and rituals/ingredients:

The Circle of Air has magical music for a special spell it needs Air/wind for the rituals/ingredients (among other things) and it's perview is?

So, with the skills I see them as being specific to activities in play.  Backgrounds aren't though they can justify skills (also can we say savage anymore? :D).  Also, 5e has a very similar skill system and it probably needs some equivalent.  5th edition backgrounds are basically fluff and, once again more appropriate to settings.

When it comes to Circles of spells I'm reminded of the paragraph "On the Use of the Word Level' in Holmes basic.  I'd like to use two different terms to avoid confusion.  The use of circles you suggest is some what like the various types of spell in D&D and somewhat like colleges in Dragon Quest and GURPS but likely best suited to specific settings.

The main reason for alternate caster types is the attribute used rather than the list of available spells.

I couldn't even find a way to contact Goblinoid Games and Kobold Press is almost as closed off.  Who else would you suggest?

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 11:56:44 PM
So, with the skills I see them as being specific to activities in play.  Backgrounds aren't though they can justify skills (also can we say savage anymore? :D).  Also, 5e has a very similar skill system and it probably needs some equivalent.  5th edition backgrounds are basically fluff and, once again more appropriate to settings.

When it comes to Circles of spells I'm reminded of the paragraph "On the Use of the Word Level' in Holmes basic.  I'd like to use two different terms to avoid confusion.  The use of circles you suggest is some what like the various types of spell in D&D and somewhat like colleges in Dragon Quest and GURPS but likely best suited to specific settings.

The main reason for alternate caster types is the attribute used rather than the list of available spells.

I couldn't even find a way to contact Goblinoid Games and Kobold Press is almost as closed off.  Who else would you suggest?

BoL (Barbarians of Lemuria) uses the background list instead of skills, of course the player has to negotiate with the GM sometimes to justify stuff but it works:

Would you say that a Savage knows better the jungle than a civilized man?

A sailor knows how to navigate with the stars/sun, can he do the same on land?

A Barbarian might go into a Berserker rage, but not a civilized man since he's been tamed by civilization.

Examples for a modern/Sci-Fi setting can be provided.

But skills are concrete and backgrounds are abstract.  I have a deep and abiding hate of DM fiat.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 09, 2023, 12:03:51 AM
But skills are concrete and backgrounds are abstract.  I have a deep and abiding hate of DM fiat.

I on the other hand don't :P

on a different subject, save roll/throw changed to:

Avert/Avoid roll/throw/play/check

Or

Luck roll/throw/play/check

At least if you're using only one like White Box FMAG the last one works.

If you want more than one then:

Mind = INT + CHA /2 round up
Body = STR + DEX /2 round up
Spirit? = WIS + CHA /2 round up

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 11:35:34 PM
Chris24601 that's a big post to quote :D  My answer is simply this: I'm not suggesting a system.  Sure a system is there to describe what things do rather than directly equating them to potentially proprietary terms.  What I am suggesting is a set of public domain non-proprietary terms.  I'm really open to suggestions because every time I start writing a clone it takes on too many of my own preferences.  I'd also love to hear from any publishers even if they laugh in my face because, while my time isn't particularly valuable, it is my time and I value it so if this is a futile waste I'd like to know that before I sink too much effort into it.  Right now it's mainly a fun thought experiment.  It may be it's too late, it may always have been too late, but I'd hate to see things go forward in a splintered and scattered manner when the oportunity to grasp at a little compatability seems to be here right now.

My point though is that such generic non-proprietary terms aren't terribly useful to anyone with enough a creative vision to build a non-OGL game system.

I already know what my Elves are. I have an eight page entry covering game stats, their cultures and societies and psychology and artwork for visual inspiration. I know what my Dwarves are. They have six pages of the same (they're also much less alien than the elves relative to humans so need far less verbiage to describe them). I know if you wanna play something like a halfling then pick human and say they're one of the Pygmy peoples because I don't want such a clear D&D-ism in my default setting.

I don't want to standardize my elves with whatever you want your Alfar to be because my vision for my elves is clear. Most other creator's will be too.

I know my Kinds (I never particularly liked races once I had so many that didn't even qualify as demi-humans) are humans, beastmen, dwarves, eldritch, elves, fetches, gnomes, golems, malfeans and mutants (and optional astral servitors if you play in a cosmology where those have enough free will to qualify as a PC). My Kind section runs 84 pages (only about 12 of which are mechanics).

I know my Backgrounds are Arcanist, Aristocrat, Artisan, Barbarian, Commoner, Entertainer, Military, Outlaw, Religious and Traveler. They have 60 pages of specific mechanics (they're basically the non-combat half of a D&D style class) to back them up.

I know my Classes are Fighter, Mastermind, Mechanist, Mystic, Theurge and Wizard (and optional Diabolist and Necromancer if you're playing in a cosmology where those don't utterly destroy your free will making them NPC only). 54 more pages of mechanics and magic lore including Fighting Paths (used by Fighters and Masterminds) of Brigand, Captain, Defender, Disabler, Ravager, Sentinel and Striker and Spellcasting Paths (used by Mechanists, Mystics, Theurges and Wizards) of Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor, Manifester and Summoner.

I know my attributes are Strength, Endurance, Reflexes, Wits, Intellect and Presence. I know my abilities are Acrobatics, Arcana, Culture, Deceit, Engineering, Fitness, Insight, Intimidate, Medicine, Nature, Persuade and Stealth. I know my defense modifiers are Armor, Dodge, Fortitude and Willpower. I know my character resources consist of Edge, Focus and Reserves. I know my action economy is built around Main and Minor actions interspersed with Paces of movement.

I know my Opponents section includes about 350 entries with their own from scratch fluff text and setting lore.

I have a unique cosmology, calendar and multiple religions. I have full trap/hazard, affliction (injuries, curses and diseases), vehicle, structure, and monster building rules... along with adventure and conflict building guidelines, rules for larger battles, a host of optional rules for tweaking the game to run more like other systems, step-by-step world building tools and advice on how to set the desired tone of your campaign (serious to silly, linear vs. sandbox, heroic vs. horror... dark ages, classic fantasy, post-apocalyptic or science fantasy) for new GMs.

All of those things have specific meanings and contexts and rules mechanics for my setting. And all of these things? All the decisions I made in creating them? I'm pretty damnably certain most every other serious content creator has already made similar decisions.

Go and create what inspires you, but people only remain stunned for so long by bad news before they go to work finding a path forward. That's already well underway. I consider myself in very good shape only because I've spent years building my system to be OGL independent and just happened to be nearly finished with my project. But, I've also seen A. Macris' announcement that he's moving ahead with an ACKS2.0 that will be 100% divested of any OGL content and I doubt he'll be very far behind me and might even lap me (I'm just a lone operator so I move at the speed of one man).

My own games, The Arcane Confabulation and Galaxies In Shadow are already set up how I want them.  I'm not doing this for my own creative endeavors but because it seems there's a need.

Quite honestly I'm generally a D&D hater and I've come to despise 5th edition through running thousands of hours of it.

I honestly don't care if a single word I write is in the final document I'm proposing.  I don't want to glorify myself with it.  I wouldn't mind being credited for any work I do but even that's pretty much irrelevant to me.

But I do believe that a unified core structure and terminology would be of great benefit to the OSR and I think it is long past time the hobby divested itself of the chains held by its corporate masters.

The opportunity is too great to pass up.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 09, 2023, 12:44:36 AM
My own games, The Arcane Confabulation and Galaxies In Shadow are already set up how I want them.  I'm not doing this for my own creative endeavors but because it seems there's a need.

Quite honestly I'm generally a D&D hater and I've come to despise 5th edition through running thousands of hours of it.

I honestly don't care if a single word I write is in the final document I'm proposing.  I don't want to glorify myself with it.  I wouldn't mind being credited for any work I do but even that's pretty much irrelevant to me.

But I do believe that a unified core structure and terminology would be of great benefit to the OSR and I think it is long past time the hobby divested itself of the chains held by its corporate masters.

The opportunity is too great to pass up.

Preach it dude!

It's gonna be fine, guys.

I thought the language was a little different than this (maybe I was thinking of an earlier version), but from 1.0 OGL:

Quote9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

IANAL, but it sure looks to me like anything originally loicensed under 1.0 can continued to be used under 1.0.  The existing SRDs, etc etc, will stay the same. 

So even if the new stuff isn't 3rd-party friendly, who cares?  It'll just be a bunch of woke garbage we won't want to mess with anyway. 

Let WotC burn, keep calm, and carry on.

And if they rattle about a bunk lawsuit anyway?  Some OGL-friendly lawyer will seize the opportunity and start some kind of group action.  It'll be WotC vs a coalition of a bunch of other game writers.  WotC is big, but they aren't that big.

Quote from: Lee on January 09, 2023, 01:29:05 AM
It's gonna be fine, guys.

I thought the language was a little different than this (maybe I was thinking of an earlier version), but from 1.0 OGL:

Quote9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

IANAL, but it sure looks to me like anything originally loicensed under 1.0 can continued to be used under 1.0.  The existing SRDs, etc etc, will stay the same.

I added bold around the words "authorized version" above. The concern that many people have expressed is that Wizards could say that version 1.0a is no longer authorized, because that was exactly the language used in leaked documents, although not WotC has not officially said so.

It is possible that they will not go through with attempting to claim this, and it could even be a ploy so that people are more satisfied if they back down and make OGL 1.1 "opt in".

People trying to make their own game that is like D&D but not D&D using different terms and such is basically what they used to call at TBP, a "fantasy heartbreaker".

No one but the creator cares about them, because they'd rather play D&D.

The thing with retro-clones is while they were people's house ruled D&D, they were still D&D.  You could borrow material from one and use it in another.

Unless you've built up an audience for your game/brand over the years, no one is really going to be interested in the new, D&D less version.

Quote from: jhkim on January 09, 2023, 01:58:05 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 09, 2023, 01:29:05 AM
It's gonna be fine, guys.

I thought the language was a little different than this (maybe I was thinking of an earlier version), but from 1.0 OGL:

Quote9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

IANAL, but it sure looks to me like anything originally loicensed under 1.0 can continued to be used under 1.0.  The existing SRDs, etc etc, will stay the same.

I added bold around the words "authorized version" above. The concern that many people have expressed is that Wizards could say that version 1.0a is no longer authorized, because that was exactly the language used in leaked documents, although not WotC has not officially said so.

It is possible that they will not go through with attempting to claim this, and it could even be a ploy so that people are more satisfied if they back down and make OGL 1.1 "opt in".

Again, IANAL, although I have been peripherally involved in some licensing disputes before outside of the gaming world. A license isn't a single discrete thing. You can't just arbitrarily "deauthorize" one collectively by "deauthorizing" the... platonic form of that license, or something. It effectively comes into existence every time you distribute something under that license... before then it's just an idea. You could (and I'm sure WotC will) write terms into to a new version of the license to demand that anyone who wants to use your new one has to agree to cease using the old one, and it would... probably hold up, legally. But if you don't care about using anything released under the new one, or having a tacit business arrangement with WotC to use some of their branding, you're basically clear. WotC can't go out into the world and stamp "invalid" on the OGL pages in all the old 3.x PHBs and DMGs and stuff.

That's the "danger" with open licenses.

Hell, this argument is old. It was fought and hashed out twenty+ years ago when the OGL first came on the scene.

A few things everyone needs to understand:

1. Under US copyright law, game mechanics and systems cannot be copyrighted.
2. general terms used in game systems such as "elf", "dexterity", "hit dice", etc. that are commonly used within and outside of the game community fall under the same category as #1. They cannot be copyrighted. So please stop trying to rename things that are common terms. You look like your panicking.
3. the new OGL is intended to control those who wish to create products for the new version of D&D when it comes out, and in doing so you revoke your privileges to publish anything else under the older OGL. BUT if a publisher doesn't want to publish material under the new OGL for One D&D, the older OGL is still valid. you just can't produce material with the new version of D&D. Paizo for example can still use OGL v1.0a for Pathfinder.
4. We're still at least a year away from the latest version of D&D to come out. AFAICT, that's the same for OGL v1.1. A lot can change between now and then. If enough of the right people make a big stink about this, they may ease back on a few things.

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 07:31:16 AM
A few things everyone needs to understand:

1. Under US copyright law, game mechanics and systems cannot be copyrighted.
2. general terms used in game systems such as "elf", "dexterity", "hit dice", etc. that are commonly used within and outside of the game community fall under the same category as #1. They cannot be copyrighted. So please stop trying to rename things that are common terms. You look like your panicking.
3. the new OGL is intended to control those who wish to create products for the new version of D&D when it comes out, and in doing so you revoke your privileges to publish anything else under the older OGL. BUT if a publisher doesn't want to publish material under the new OGL for One D&D, the older OGL is still valid. you just can't produce material with the new version of D&D. Paizo for example can still use OGL v1.0a for Pathfinder.
4. We're still at least a year away from the latest version of D&D to come out. AFAICT, that's the same for OGL v1.1. A lot can change between now and then. If enough of the right people make a big stink about this, they may ease back on a few things.

  1 and 2 are correct, but WotC seems to be claiming the right to negate the older OGL either entirely or for any new product, and the original draft was going to go into effect Friday, January 13, 2023. Hence the concern.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 09, 2023, 07:38:41 AM
  1 and 2 are correct, but WotC seems to be claiming the right to negate the older OGL either entirely or for any new product, and the original draft was going to go into effect Friday, January 13, 2023. Hence the concern.

Yes. They don't seem to have any good legal basis for this claim given the structure of OGL 1.0, but they have put many many game authors & publishers into a panic. This might conceivably result in many or even most OSR games vanishing.

I'd love to comment in more detail here but I'll hold off for now so just let me say this.

The version that is being leaked isn't some mere draft, it's what WotC has envisioned as the final (or at least the current) version. This is evidenced by the fact that actual creators and companies have been sent contracts to sign functionally include it as part of the binding terms. Thus far, I'm not aware of anyone who actually ACCEPTED said contracts but that doesn't change the fact that they have already been trying to get authors and publishers to agree to the version that is being previewed, warts and all.

I feel like they're gonna take out as many folks as they can using courtroom money draining tactics. So I guess the question is roughly, who can survive that?

Quote from: jhkim on January 09, 2023, 01:58:05 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 09, 2023, 01:29:05 AM
It's gonna be fine, guys.

I thought the language was a little different than this (maybe I was thinking of an earlier version), but from 1.0 OGL:

Quote9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

IANAL, but it sure looks to me like anything originally loicensed under 1.0 can continued to be used under 1.0.  The existing SRDs, etc etc, will stay the same.

I added bold around the words "authorized version" above. The concern that many people have expressed is that Wizards could say that version 1.0a is no longer authorized, because that was exactly the language used in leaked documents, although not WotC has not officially said so.

It is possible that they will not go through with attempting to claim this, and it could even be a ploy so that people are more satisfied if they back down and make OGL 1.1 "opt in".

The 1.1 was sent out and its even crazier than anyone suspected.
The old OGL is no longer authorized and the new one takes its place and jeebus the restrictions are heavy. They are going after just about everything they can.

Full text can be found here: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/ (http://ogl.battlezoo.com/)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 09, 2023, 01:06:49 PM
Full text can be found here: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/ (http://ogl.battlezoo.com/)

A direct download link:
https://www.enworld.org/attachments/open-game-license-1-1-leak-pdf.271809/

Reading the new license it's clear that their goal is a total monopoly, like all the big corporations out there. The old OGL is out forever, and that includes the things their consider their IP (like owlbears, kobolds as they appear in D&D and so on).

If you play a game barely resembling D&D in any of its iterations, they want you to play official D&D (and pay a monthly fee for updates and a VTT). And they will destroy anyone else. The only way to be safe is to publish your own system, or write for CoC, Fate or a completely different game.

Yes, they're that evil.

Quote from: S'mon on January 09, 2023, 08:03:55 AM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 09, 2023, 07:38:41 AM
  1 and 2 are correct, but WotC seems to be claiming the right to negate the older OGL either entirely or for any new product, and the original draft was going to go into effect Friday, January 13, 2023. Hence the concern.

Yes. They don't seem to have any good legal basis for this claim given the structure of OGL 1.0, but they have put many many game authors & publishers into a panic. This might conceivably result in many or even most OSR games vanishing.

Which would be a terrible shame.

Literally, from the leaked document:

X. TERMINATION. This agreement may be modified or terminated.
A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days' notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels.

You may claim that the 1.0a is still valid, and it probably is, but do you have the money for litigation against Hasbro?

Quote from: Frey on January 09, 2023, 02:15:15 PM
Literally, from the leaked document:

X. TERMINATION. This agreement may be modified or terminated.
A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days' notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels.

You may claim that the 1.0a is still valid, and it probably is, but do you have the money for litigation against Hasbro?

*Someone* will. It only takes one. Some of the bigger companies may decide it's in their best interests to not be a subsidiary of WotC for the rest of time, no matter how "favorable" their backroom deals might sound.

Unless you completely rewrite your osr game I don't see how the game is safe. Yes you can't copyright mechanics but ..

About the only hope in regards to the OGL, and I'd say its slim at best, is that this is the full leaked document and the official one has not been released, meaning if the outrage and pushback is severe enough might cause them to blink... particularly if it looks like backlash is going to put their couple hundred million dollar investment into a D&D film (that they want to use to launch it as a lifestyle brand) into jeopardy.

And basically, that's that. If you don't have the money to fight, you'd best brace yourself to transfer your products to something non-OGL because if Hasbro actually puts this out as is then it is simply not financially safe to do otherwise (nor, given the abusive language and ability to modify at will, is the OGL1.1).

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
About the only hope in regards to the OGL, and I'd say its slim at best, is that this is the full leaked document and the official one has not been released, meaning if the outrage and pushback is severe enough might cause them to blink... particularly if it looks like backlash is going to put their couple hundred million dollar investment into a D&D film (that they want to use to launch it as a lifestyle brand) into jeopardy.

And basically, that's that. If you don't have the money to fight, you'd best brace yourself to transfer your products to something non-OGL because if Hasbro actually puts this out as is then it is simply not financially safe to do otherwise (nor, given the abusive language and ability to modify at will, is the OGL1.1).

Abandon all hope. They will not blink. EA, Activision-Blizzard, etc are still multibillion dollar companies who treat their fans like crap and monetize above all else. 

They are kicking the OSR to the curb in favor of freelance content creators willing to work in their walled garden.

What has Hasbro-WotC done recently to give anyone any hope?

Quote from: Frey on January 09, 2023, 02:15:15 PMan update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement.

They do realize that's not how contracts work, right? You can't grant someone access to something in perpetuity based on an agreement, then arbitrarily change the terms and revoke the previous agreement. You literally cannot legally do so. This is just pure horseshit and they know it. They are challenging people to dare contest this in court, and they're willing to spend whatever it takes to destroy anyone using the previous OGL.

OSE: DEAD
Swords & Wizardry: DEAD
OSRIC: DEAD
Labyrinth Lord: DEAD
Dungeon Crawl Classics: DEAD
Castles & Crusades: DEAD
Mork Borg: DEAD

UNLESS you bend you knee to WoTC, kiss their ass, and use OGL v1.1

So any SRD other than 5.1 is basically dead now. Any OSR game will have to move off the OGL if they want to continue on, unless they're a 5E OSR game and they like the OGL 1.1 for some reason(I can't imagine how). Basic Fantasy has already finished their audit of the core rules vs SRD and is working to release a new edition that will be under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. I'm guessing what we'll see is this happening with other OSRs and one of those(maybe OSE since it's so popular and light) will be the branch off point for future OSR style games.

As time goes on there will just be a further split between WoTC D&D and OSR systems since anything Wizards puts out will be radioactive.

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 09, 2023, 02:44:24 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
About the only hope in regards to the OGL, and I'd say its slim at best, is that this is the full leaked document and the official one has not been released, meaning if the outrage and pushback is severe enough might cause them to blink... particularly if it looks like backlash is going to put their couple hundred million dollar investment into a D&D film (that they want to use to launch it as a lifestyle brand) into jeopardy.

And basically, that's that. If you don't have the money to fight, you'd best brace yourself to transfer your products to something non-OGL because if Hasbro actually puts this out as is then it is simply not financially safe to do otherwise (nor, given the abusive language and ability to modify at will, is the OGL1.1).

Abandon all hope. They will not blink. EA, Activision-Blizzard, etc are still multibillion dollar companies who treat their fans like crap and monetize above all else. 

They are kicking the OSR to the curb in favor of freelance content creators willing to work in their walled garden.

What has Hasbro-WotC done recently to give anyone any hope?

I personally won't be affected other than I'll now be competing using a non-OGL project I've spent years on against other non-D&D lines who are going to have to rapidly retool to remove all their SRD content or go out of business (because accepting the OGL1.1 will lead to the same result... just bleed you out first).

... but its still a crappy thing to do to claim revocation of a license companies have been relying on for over two decades and this version really does say you can't even sell your backstock of 1.0a material after Friday and also entirely removes authorization for the 3e version of the SRD... you can ONLY use the 5.1 SRD from Friday forward.

Troll Lord Games (Castles & Crusades) and Autarch (Adventurer Conqueror King System) have already stated they're pulling the OGL content out of their games going forward, and they have distinctive enough mechanics that they can probably pull it off so long as they're willing to put in the effort with regard to redoing spells, monsters, magic items, etc.

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PM
OSE: DEAD
Swords & Wizardry: DEAD
OSRIC: DEAD
Labyrinth Lord: DEAD
Dungeon Crawl Classics: DEAD
Castles & Crusades: DEAD
Mork Borg: DEAD

UNLESS you bend you knee to WoTC, kiss their ass, and use OGL v1.1

Just remove ALL references to their crap and publish with a different licence, CC By SA for instance with a declaration of what's not under it (art, game name, brand, etc.).

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PM
OSE: DEAD
Swords & Wizardry: DEAD
OSRIC: DEAD
Labyrinth Lord: DEAD
Dungeon Crawl Classics: DEAD
Castles & Crusades: DEAD
Mork Borg: DEAD

UNLESS you bend you knee to WoTC, kiss their ass, and use OGL v1.1

Dead? How so?

Do people play these games because they are the same as D&D TM or because they are different? Smart publishers will innovate away from the OGL and it will be a good thing for the hobby as a whole. "Oh noes! I can't fight a beholder TM in DCC!"

Hasbro-WotC has burnt a ton of goodwill here and the industry will adapt, aside from Stockholm Syndrome idiots who can't or won't learn slightly different mechanics and terminology.

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PM

Mork Borg: DEAD

UNLESS you bend you knee to WoTC, kiss their ass, and use OGL v1.1

Mork Borg does not use the OGL and they use their own MorkBorg license.

As much as the ArtPunk scene annoys me, they are quite safe.

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PM
OSE: DEAD
Swords & Wizardry: DEAD
OSRIC: DEAD
Labyrinth Lord: DEAD
Dungeon Crawl Classics: DEAD
Castles & Crusades: DEAD
Mork Borg: DEAD

UNLESS you bend you knee to WoTC, kiss their ass, and use OGL v1.1

Or, just... don't use the OGL. At All. Most of those games really don't have to, to begin with.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 09, 2023, 03:47:36 PMOr, just... don't use the OGL. At All. Most of those games really don't have to, to begin with.

Do they include an owlbear? A gelatinous cube? A paladin with healing hands? Hasbro can decide they infringe their IP, and go after them.

Quote from: Frey on January 09, 2023, 03:53:44 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 09, 2023, 03:47:36 PMOr, just... don't use the OGL. At All. Most of those games really don't have to, to begin with.

Do they include an owlbear? A gelatinous cube? A paladin with healing hands? Hasbro can decide they infringe their IP, and go after them.

So they include a Fowlbear and an Acidic Slime. Okay, Fowlbear might be too close, but the point stands. There's ample precedent that "filing the serial numbers off" is legally sufficient. Hell, no computer RPGs today could exist if that wasn't true, nor like 95% of all published pen-and-paper RPGs, for that matter.

Besides, even if you strip away all the indisputably TSR/WotC derived monsters, you're still left with a good chunk of your bestiary, and creativity is endless for things to replace it. There's nothing so hard to replace that any of those products/companies should be "dead".

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PM
OSRIC: DEAD

Naw. Stuart Marshall on Facebook:

"I have no reason ever to accept the OGL 1.1. I expect to continue to use the "perpetual" OGL1.0a having relied on WOTC's representations that I could. I need never be an OGL 1.1 publisher."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LIMT4ovo-O0WJ_89HLVCc8wbB0oo4BLh/view

"But, in the unlikely circumstances where the OGL 1.1 somehow revokes or invalidates the OGL 1.0a, OSRIC can't continue. It would need to be rewritten from scratch. I don't volunteer to do this, and I won't manage or support others doing it. In that situation OSRIC stays up until I receive a correctly formatted request to take it down from WOTC legal. Then I fold."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LIMT4ovo-O0WJ_89HLVCc8wbB0oo4BLh/view

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 09, 2023, 03:59:36 PM

Quote from: Frey on January 09, 2023, 03:53:44 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 09, 2023, 03:47:36 PMOr, just... don't use the OGL. At All. Most of those games really don't have to, to begin with.

Do they include an owlbear? A gelatinous cube? A paladin with healing hands? Hasbro can decide they infringe their IP, and go after them.

So they include a Fowlbear and an Acidic Slime. Okay, Fowlbear might be too close, but the point stands. There's ample precedent that "filing the serial numbers off" is legally sufficient. Hell, no computer RPGs today could exist if that wasn't true, nor like 95% of all published pen-and-paper RPGs, for that matter.

Besides, even if you strip away all the indisputably TSR/WotC derived monsters, you're still left with a good chunk of your bestiary, and creativity is endless for things to replace it. There's nothing so hard to replace that any of those products/companies should be "dead".

A big chunk of it is going to come down to the lore and how distinct yours is from what WotC is claiming really.

As an example; I've got Malfeans who bear a few similarities with Tieflings in the broadest stokes (both have demonic ancestry) except mine were specifically bred by demons with mortal women to create overseers for the slaves of the Demon Empire (different backstory), are wide array of ancestries that echo the elements - brine, dust, ember, miasma, rime, husk, rust and vermin (instead of a generic fire/darkness devil theme) that always breeds true (instead of being diluted by generation or popping up recessively) and have a culture centered around the worship of a benevolent monotheistic deity that promises them an eventual messiah and an end to their cursed state (versus tending towards spiritual agnosticism/edgelord behavior).

I also put greater emphasis on distinct types of demonic features in the associated art (ex. rime malfeans have icicles for horns, husk Malfeans have ones that resemble dead branches... ember malfeans are ash white, vermin malfeans have iridescent skin like a bug's exoskeleton) that would make them visually distinct at a glance from WotC's default Tiefling appearance since the start of 4E.

Throw in "demonic ancestry" being an older than dirt trope and... I mean, sure, you can sue a ham sandwich for anything if you wanted to... the odds of a C&D for Malfeans somehow infringing on their Tieflings is about as low as you could make it short of just not publishing an RPG in the first place.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 09, 2023, 04:44:25 PMnot publishing an RPG in the first place.

Pretty sure that's the next step..."Copyright infringement of D&D has gone back to months after it being first published, and we demand reparations!"

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 07:31:16 AM
A few things everyone needs to understand:

1. Under US copyright law, game mechanics and systems cannot be copyrighted.
2. general terms used in game systems such as "elf", "dexterity", "hit dice", etc. that are commonly used within and outside of the game community fall under the same category as #1. They cannot be copyrighted. So please stop trying to rename things that are common terms. You look like your panicking.
3. the new OGL is intended to control those who wish to create products for the new version of D&D when it comes out, and in doing so you revoke your privileges to publish anything else under the older OGL. BUT if a publisher doesn't want to publish material under the new OGL for One D&D, the older OGL is still valid. you just can't produce material with the new version of D&D. Paizo for example can still use OGL v1.0a for Pathfinder.
4. We're still at least a year away from the latest version of D&D to come out. AFAICT, that's the same for OGL v1.1. A lot can change between now and then. If enough of the right people make a big stink about this, they may ease back on a few things.

If these points are true (and i believe they are) the most useful course would not be to crowd-source a new game from the ground up (especially the character creation part that gets extensively reworked by nearly everyone) but to concentrate on reworking the bulk stuff like spells and monsters so that (1) games can use them and more importantly (2) Adventure modules and such can use them. The best way to do so would mean writing things from scratch with minimal fluff (that gets rewritten anyway) and just stick as much as possible to mechanical things which are clear of copyright. At least that's my humble opinion.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 09, 2023, 02:20:33 PM
*Someone* will. It only takes one. Some of the bigger companies may decide it's in their best interests to not be a subsidiary of WotC for the rest of time, no matter how "favorable" their backroom deals might sound.

If all works well you will find a coalition of publishers joining together.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 09, 2023, 06:28:42 PM
If these points are true (and i believe they are) the most useful course would not be to crowd-source a new game from the ground up (especially the character creation part that gets extensively reworked by nearly everyone) but to concentrate on reworking the bulk stuff like spells and monsters so that (1) games can use them and more importantly (2) Adventure modules and such can use them. The best way to do so would mean writing things from scratch with minimal fluff (that gets rewritten anyway) and just stick as much as possible to mechanical things which are clear of copyright. At least that's my humble opinion.

Right. We don't need more goddamned fantasy heartbreakers. The RPG landscape is littered with the corpses of them. Yours is not going to be different just because you're trying to give the finger to WotC. If you aren't producing a game that is effectively the same thing as already exists, your "But it's all original!" claim isn't going to save you.

Just make flavorless rules, don't be cute, boil it down to the stuff that is absolutely iron-clad safe - rules and the expressions thereof. To the extent descriptions are needed, just be direct and to the point. "Ursine-Strigidae Hybrid", "Projected Exploding Fire Spell", etc. Leave the fluff to others, they've already done it.

Quote from: S'mon on January 09, 2023, 04:29:20 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PMOSRIC: DEAD

Naw. Stuart Marshall on Facebook:

"I have no reason ever to accept the OGL 1.1. I expect to continue to use the "perpetual" OGL1.0a having relied on WOTC's representations that I could. I need never be an OGL 1.1 publisher."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LIMT4ovo-O0WJ_89HLVCc8wbB0oo4BLh/view

"But, in the unlikely circumstances where the OGL 1.1 somehow revokes or invalidates the OGL 1.0a, OSRIC can't continue. It would need to be rewritten from scratch. I don't volunteer to do this, and I won't manage or support others doing it. In that situation OSRIC stays up until I receive a correctly formatted request to take it down from WOTC legal. Then I fold."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LIMT4ovo-O0WJ_89HLVCc8wbB0oo4BLh/view

The same applies to all retroclones, mine included. By definition they are as close as possible to the old editions they are trying to emulate. OSE, for example, is so close to B/X as to be virtually the same game. A re-write would entail changing almost all the text, and it would still not work because then it would no longer be a clone. As Stuart says, they can stay up until WotC comes knocking, at which point they'll either come down or re-appear as something else.

Other OGL games further removed have more flexibility for a re-write.

The old OGL strictly forbid those that used it from claiming compatibility with D&D.

I believe compatibility with another product is actually pretty well settled in law if you don't misrepresent yourself. So this might actually cause a shift to everyone ignoring the new OGL and claiming compatibility with D&D directly. It might create a bit of a boom in a way Wizards can't control. Too bad Ray Winniger is no longer running D&D as he was the guy in charge of Mayfair Games when TSR sued them over claims of compatibility (sued with only partial success).

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 09, 2023, 03:47:36 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PM
OSE: DEAD
Swords & Wizardry: DEAD
OSRIC: DEAD
Labyrinth Lord: DEAD
Dungeon Crawl Classics: DEAD
Castles & Crusades: DEAD
Mork Borg: DEAD

UNLESS you bend you knee to WoTC, kiss their ass, and use OGL v1.1

Or, just... don't use the OGL. At All. Most of those games really don't have to, to begin with.

I think you are right. Yesterday I broke down and started removing the OGL 1.0a and any covered content from a few projects I am working on and I was surprised about how easy it was. And I went overboard. I removed or changed anything that I thought might result in OGL kicking in. Of course the rules were not directly based on the SRDs and were not 'sword and sorcery' stuff... but I just don't think it is going to take that much effort to remove the OGL and covered content from your work.

That said, it is still not clear that this new OGL 1.1 will or is even intended to 'revoke' the prior OGLs. If the old OGLs are not going to face retroactive revocation, I am not sure there is any risk to these OSR rules.

We will see.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 09, 2023, 07:25:00 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 09, 2023, 03:47:36 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PM
OSE: DEAD
Swords & Wizardry: DEAD
OSRIC: DEAD
Labyrinth Lord: DEAD
Dungeon Crawl Classics: DEAD
Castles & Crusades: DEAD
Mork Borg: DEAD

UNLESS you bend you knee to WoTC, kiss their ass, and use OGL v1.1

Or, just... don't use the OGL. At All. Most of those games really don't have to, to begin with.

I think you are right. Yesterday I broke down and started removing the OGL 1.0a and any covered content from a few projects I am working on and I was surprised about how easy it was. And I went overboard. I removed or changed anything that I thought might result in OGL kicking in. Of course the rules were not directly based on the SRDs and were not 'sword and sorcery' stuff... but I just don't think it is going to take that much effort to remove the OGL and covered content from your work.

That said, it is still not clear that this new OGL 1.1 will or is even intended to 'revoke' the prior OGLs. If the old OGLs are not going to face retroactive revocation, I am not sure there is any risk to these OSR rules.

We will see.

The full document from the leak has been released by news outlet who received it and it absolutely intended to end to OGL1.0a and, further, forbid sales of any pre-existing OGL material after 1/13/23.

That said, even if they leave the rest unchanged, I can't see the 13th holding. We're now at T-4 days from that deadline and any sort of change as dramatic as essentially shutting down down someone's business virtually without notice would likely get state attorney generals involved due to unfair business practices.

Quote from: Frey on January 09, 2023, 03:53:44 PM
A paladin with healing hands? Hasbro can decide they infringe their IP, and go after them.

Minor point of order: that's from Arthurian legend, more specifically the Healing of Sir Urry. Hasbro can't claim ownership of that.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 09, 2023, 07:25:00 PM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 09, 2023, 03:47:36 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 09, 2023, 02:58:09 PM
OSE: DEAD
Swords & Wizardry: DEAD
OSRIC: DEAD
Labyrinth Lord: DEAD
Dungeon Crawl Classics: DEAD
Castles & Crusades: DEAD
Mork Borg: DEAD

UNLESS you bend you knee to WoTC, kiss their ass, and use OGL v1.1

Or, just... don't use the OGL. At All. Most of those games really don't have to, to begin with.

I think you are right. Yesterday I broke down and started removing the OGL 1.0a and any covered content from a few projects I am working on and I was surprised about how easy it was. And I went overboard. I removed or changed anything that I thought might result in OGL kicking in. Of course the rules were not directly based on the SRDs and were not 'sword and sorcery' stuff... but I just don't think it is going to take that much effort to remove the OGL and covered content from your work.

That said, it is still not clear that this new OGL 1.1 will or is even intended to 'revoke' the prior OGLs. If the old OGLs are not going to face retroactive revocation, I am not sure there is any risk to these OSR rules.

We will see.

The rules don't need a license, neither do the stat blocks and some other stuff like attributes. It's the really unique fluff that's in question, like their take on Tiamat, not the name but the description and really original monsters.

And for that matter, if people want to retain an OGL-like effect for interoperability between OSR products, there's nothing stopping someone from writing up their own license that does effectively the same thing, save for any explicit stuff that WotC put under the original OGL. There are more "open <whatever> licenses" and "community <whatever> licenses" out there than I have digits. There isn't any particular magic to it.

Guys, they can't legally revoke 1.0a.

Quote3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your
acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License,
the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

By a content creator using the 1.0 OGL content initially, WotC entered into a contract with the content creator.  (4) indicates that this contract does not have any expiration, and is royalty-free.  By attempting to revoke 1.0, WotC is in breach of contract.  All it will take is one lawsuit, and any even remotely reasonable court will find WotC at fault.  It's sabre-rattling, and will never hold up in court.

(IANAL disclaimer of course.  Don't take this as legal advice.)

Just keep using 1.0a.  Let them rattle their sabre, while we all engage in mass noncompliance so as to draw them out into court where they'll lose.  Eff 'em.  They know it's bunk, and are just trying to scare you into paying their extortion fee or quitting.  When you strip the 1.0 OGL content from your game,  you are giving them what they want.  Don't do that.

Anyone who signs the deal for OGL1.1, will forever be WOTC's underling; forever walking on eggshells.

Quote from: Lee on January 09, 2023, 08:55:41 PM
Guys, they can't legally revoke 1.0a.

Quote3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your
acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License,
the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

By a content creator using the 1.0 OGL content initially, WotC entered into a contract with the content creator.  (4) indicates that this contract does not have any expiration, and is royalty-free.  By attempting to revoke 1.0, WotC is in breach of contract.  All it will take is one lawsuit, and any even remotely reasonable court will find WotC at fault.  It's sabre-rattling, and will never hold up in court.

(IANAL disclaimer of course.  Don't take this as legal advice.)

Just keep using 1.0a.  Let them rattle their sabre, while we all engage in mass noncompliance so as to draw them out into court where they'll lose.  Eff 'em.  They know it's bunk, and are just trying to scare you into paying their extortion fee or quitting.  When you strip the 1.0 OGL content from your game,  you are giving them what they want.  Don't do that.

Yes of course except actual IP lawyers have commented publicly on this and WotC may very well be able to revoke the OGL. Also who wants to step up and be the one that gets sued to prove them wrong? Volunteers? Anyone?

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 09, 2023, 09:13:53 PM

Quote from: Lee on January 09, 2023, 08:55:41 PM
Guys, they can't legally revoke 1.0a.

Quote3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your
acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License,
the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

By a content creator using the 1.0 OGL content initially, WotC entered into a contract with the content creator.  (4) indicates that this contract does not have any expiration, and is royalty-free.  By attempting to revoke 1.0, WotC is in breach of contract.  All it will take is one lawsuit, and any even remotely reasonable court will find WotC at fault.  It's sabre-rattling, and will never hold up in court.

(IANAL disclaimer of course.  Don't take this as legal advice.)

Just keep using 1.0a.  Let them rattle their sabre, while we all engage in mass noncompliance so as to draw them out into court where they'll lose.  Eff 'em.  They know it's bunk, and are just trying to scare you into paying their extortion fee or quitting.  When you strip the 1.0 OGL content from your game,  you are giving them what they want.  Don't do that.

Yes of course except actual IP lawyers have commented publicly on this and WotC may very well be able to revoke the OGL. Also who wants to step up and be the one that gets sued to prove them wrong? Volunteers? Anyone?

Well, if you create a fund of several million dollars and a binding contract to keep on pouring money if/when needed I volunteer to let them sue me.

I'm just stunned how this can potentially bring down a whole cottage industry. I've been at this for over 40 years. Played all sorts of RPGs. Been to all sorts of conventions. Gamed with many different groups. The impact OGL v1.1 will have on the RPG community cannot be underestimated. WoTC is acting as if they are not just the gatekeepers of DnD, but of the ENTIRE INDUSTRY. They've made the rules and regulations for 3rd party content so strict, only a idiot would agree to them. When WoTC named the new version One D&D, they wern't kidding. They only want their ONE game out there. No derivatives. No others. JUST. ONE. GAME.

How BORING.

Imagine going to a con and the vast majority of the RPGs are D&D. Like 90%.

How fucking lame would that be?

I got into the community because it was quirky and fringe. I felt like I fit in. Then I saw there were others games besides D&D to play. It opened me up to a whole different world.

Now?

It feels sanitized. Corporate. Vanilla.

The suits have taken over.

And I fucking hate it.

So what do we do?

Tell them what they're doing is WRONG! https://www.opendnd.games/ (https://www.opendnd.games/)

Sign the petition! Make your voice heard!

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 09, 2023, 09:13:53 PM
Yes of course except actual IP lawyers have commented publicly on this and WotC may very well be able to revoke the OGL. Also who wants to step up and be the one that gets sued to prove them wrong? Volunteers? Anyone?

I think the most common view is that WoTC would probably lose in court - one lawyer type suggested an over 90% chance, given a properly funded defence - which looks right to me. But getting there would be a pain, especially in the USA. Not so bad here in England with loser pays winners costs + no win no fee. Plus the fees here would not be i the millions of $ some people have bandied about re US costs. And our courts would I think take a dim view of WoTC trying to shut down OGL 1.0 after 22 years.

Quote from: Lee on January 09, 2023, 08:55:41 PM
Guys, they can't legally revoke 1.0a.

Quote3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your
acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License,
the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

By a content creator using the 1.0 OGL content initially, WotC entered into a contract with the content creator.  (4) indicates that this contract does not have any expiration, and is royalty-free.  By attempting to revoke 1.0, WotC is in breach of contract.  All it will take is one lawsuit, and any even remotely reasonable court will find WotC at fault.  It's sabre-rattling, and will never hold up in court.

(IANAL disclaimer of course.  Don't take this as legal advice.)

Just keep using 1.0a.  Let them rattle their sabre, while we all engage in mass noncompliance so as to draw them out into court where they'll lose.  Eff 'em.  They know it's bunk, and are just trying to scare you into paying their extortion fee or quitting.  When you strip the 1.0 OGL content from your game,  you are giving them what they want.  Don't do that.

I do actually think this is the best view, although I also understand why people are worried.

Quote from: S'mon on January 10, 2023, 03:22:49 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 09, 2023, 08:55:41 PM
Guys, they can't legally revoke 1.0a.

Quote3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your
acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License,
the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

By a content creator using the 1.0 OGL content initially, WotC entered into a contract with the content creator.  (4) indicates that this contract does not have any expiration, and is royalty-free.  By attempting to revoke 1.0, WotC is in breach of contract.  All it will take is one lawsuit, and any even remotely reasonable court will find WotC at fault.  It's sabre-rattling, and will never hold up in court.

(IANAL disclaimer of course.  Don't take this as legal advice.)

Just keep using 1.0a.  Let them rattle their sabre, while we all engage in mass noncompliance so as to draw them out into court where they'll lose.  Eff 'em.  They know it's bunk, and are just trying to scare you into paying their extortion fee or quitting.  When you strip the 1.0 OGL content from your game,  you are giving them what they want.  Don't do that.

I do actually think this is the best view, although I also understand why people are worried.

IMHO the best course of action is to drop the OGL and WotC's SRD altogether and build our own stuff under an open license, some are already working on it as we speak.

Expert analysis of this situation by a renowned lawyer who is also a gamer and good friend/frequent guest of Rekieta Law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dVH-0Yf8o&t=916s&ab_channel=RollofLaw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dVH-0Yf8o&t=916s&ab_channel=RollofLaw)

I was browsing through Facebook and the internet and seeing the reactions from various 3rd party publishers in the OSR and other 3rd party publishers:

-it seems that LL 2nd ed may be on hold or may not see the light of day.

-OSRIC is holding fast to OGL 1.0a. Thus giving the WoTC Nazis the middle finger.

-OSE's publisher is as of right now reevaluating things. Kind of a "wait and see" stance. they say they may have to redo their release schedule because of this.

-With Pathfinder, there's an open discussion on their forums right now. Not sure of Paizo's official stance though.

-Goodman Games, publisher of Dungeon Crawl Classics and Mutant Crawl Classics is quiet about this for now. Forums are pretty silent there.

that's all for now...

In case no one saw it: https://www.facebook.com/trolllordgamesllc

From troll Lord Games regarding the Hasbro/Wotc OGL 1.1.
TLG has been a longtime supporter of WoTC and Dungeons and Dragons. We started playing D&D in 1976. The news about the OGL 1.0 (a), if it is true, and it is important to note that as of this moment nothing official has been released, is rather disappointing. Supporting the new OGL, in the form it appeared in the leaked commentary, is not an option for us at TLG. If it manifests in this speculated form, it is an unnecessarily harsh treatment of the entire TTRPG family, those who played, play, and who publish. It is basically an admission of distrust in the people who play their game, the very ones who bring it to ever greater heights of expression. TLG does not share that philosophy. The only thing that maintains our stance in this ttrpg family is the family itself, creators, publishers, players, game masters, their own families, and friends who cheer them on from the sidelines. TLG will not sign this leaked OGL, nor participate in it in any way. Castles & Crusades and all the Siege Engine games are powered by the Siege Engine Attribute Check Mechanic, which is owned entirely by our parent company Chenault & Gray Publishing. What little pieces of the SRD leaked its way into our game over the years, we'll quietly remove, and carry on making and publishing games for us all to play.

I'll be interested to see Matt Finch's take for a couple reasons:

1. He was planning to release a new edition of Swords & Wizardry early this year under his own Mythmere Games moniker
2. He is a lawyer who has been very careful in the past about what he includes (or doesn't) in his game

But to be honest, this will really have little impact on me or my gaming.  I already have way more gaming stuff than I need.  I have plenty of rulebooks and supplements to keep me occupied until I die.  And we're transitioning over even more to Castles & Crusades, which looks like it's going forward with no real issues.  Finally, there are tons of non-OGL games still out there.  So here's hoping WOTC shoots itself in the foot, just because, but in the end gaming will continue.

Quote from: Brad on January 10, 2023, 08:33:33 AM
In case no one saw it: https://www.facebook.com/trolllordgamesllc

From troll Lord Games regarding the Hasbro/Wotc OGL 1.1.
TLG has been a longtime supporter of WoTC and Dungeons and Dragons. We started playing D&D in 1976. The news about the OGL 1.0 (a), if it is true, and it is important to note that as of this moment nothing official has been released, is rather disappointing. Supporting the new OGL, in the form it appeared in the leaked commentary, is not an option for us at TLG. If it manifests in this speculated form, it is an unnecessarily harsh treatment of the entire TTRPG family, those who played, play, and who publish. It is basically an admission of distrust in the people who play their game, the very ones who bring it to ever greater heights of expression. TLG does not share that philosophy. The only thing that maintains our stance in this ttrpg family is the family itself, creators, publishers, players, game masters, their own families, and friends who cheer them on from the sidelines. TLG will not sign this leaked OGL, nor participate in it in any way. Castles & Crusades and all the Siege Engine games are powered by the Siege Engine Attribute Check Mechanic, which is owned entirely by our parent company Chenault & Gray Publishing. What little pieces of the SRD leaked its way into our game over the years, we'll quietly remove, and carry on making and publishing games for us all to play.

I'm going to grab this for cross-posting to the other thread, if you don't mind.

EDIT: Never mind. Just saw you already did it.  :)

https://www.enworld.org/threads/hello-i-am-lawyer-with-a-psa-almost-everyone-is-wrong-about-the-ogl-and-srd-clearing-up-confusion.694192/

I'm thinking about multiple things as this all goes on. 

1.  Making D&D copycat games was always a risk.  The owners of D&D could pull this trick anytime.   The fact it took 23 years is what is amazing about this, but not that it eventually happened.  That being said, it still has a chance of not happening, but we'll see.

2.  If you want to write your own game, it might be best to make your own rules, even though we keep citing copyright law about how you cannot stop somebody making a game with the same dice rolling rules.  I would still want my own rules just to be sure.  Thats a hard thing to do, I know. 

3.  I'm not a fan of D&D style rules in the first place.  I look forward to more innovations to avoid those rules.

4.  WotC management isn't on your side.  Clearly.  When it comes time to make more money, all the OSR crowd got cut loose.  I'll remember that.  I expected this, but I'm aware it was ok for decades.  Until now. 

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 10, 2023, 09:26:45 AM
1.  Making D&D copycat games was always a risk.  The owners of D&D could pull this trick anytime.   The fact it took 23 years is what is amazing about this, but not that it eventually happened.  That being said, it still has a chance of not happening, but we'll see.

It's still questionable if they even can "pull this trick" to begin with.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 10, 2023, 09:26:45 AM2.  If you want to write your own game, it might be best to make your own rules, even though we keep citing copyright law about how you cannot stop somebody making a game with the same dice rolling rules.  I would still want my own rules just to be sure.  Thats a hard thing to do, I know. 

No, "you can't copyright rules" is very settled law. It's not an iffy thing.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 10, 2023, 09:26:45 AM3.  I'm not a fan of D&D style rules in the first place.  I look forward to more innovations to avoid those rules.

Okay, fine, but... a lot of people are.

And please. There's been a few people in this debacle lamenting a lack of options or innovation or something. There are new RPGs, both AAA and indie, coming out all the time. Whatever the fallout of this is, the hobby will survive. Most games will survive. Most games are still not and have never been OGL.

That's the one thing I think really needs to be stressed. There's a lot of panic right now, a lot of it is understandable... I get it, this sucks. It sucks royally. But at the end of the day, we, as a hobby, as a community, will get through this. WotC is big, but they aren't the hobby. They're just a big publisher in it.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on January 10, 2023, 09:21:46 AM
https://www.enworld.org/threads/hello-i-am-lawyer-with-a-psa-almost-everyone-is-wrong-about-the-ogl-and-srd-clearing-up-confusion.694192/

Oh, look. Yet another "Hi, I'm a lawyer, you've all got it wrong" post.

Which way did this one go? Because they go both ways, and I frankly couldn't be arsed to read yet another one.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 10, 2023, 09:40:20 AM
Okay, fine, but... a lot of people are.

And please. There's been a few people in this debacle lamenting a lack of options or innovation or something. There are new RPGs, both AAA and indie, coming out all the time. Whatever the fallout of this is, the hobby will survive. Most games will survive. Most games are still not and have never been OGL.

That's the one thing I think really needs to be stressed. There's a lot of panic right now, a lot of it is understandable... I get it, this sucks. It sucks royally. But at the end of the day, we, as a hobby, as a community, will get through this. WotC is big, but they aren't the hobby. They're just a big publisher in it.

Yes.  The heart of the hobby in the "kind of like D&D if you squint at it hard" part of the Venn diagrams that make up games is still going to be there.  The same way that a lot of online games are "kind of like World of Warcraft".  There's still going to be rules with armor making you harder to hit, maybe not called "Armor Class".  There are still going to be games with escalating hit points.  There are still going to be games that are just fine with humans, elves, and dwarves being the big three.  There are especially going to be games with d20+Modifier versus Target Number, because for some games that's a good fit. 

And of course, as always, there will continue to be games scattered all over the Venn diagrams, well away from that center section.

Will we see some changes?  Sure, at the margins.  I imagine that a lot of the OSR will do less drastic versions of what I'm doing.  I was already making a game that was always willing to sacrifice compatibility with the D&D to make it work the way I want.  Being somewhat compatible was maybe my third or fourth priority.  So now I'll take out a handful of things that I only kept in the first place for that compatibility, because now it isn't a priority at all. Heck, I even kept a few things in as a homage to the original.  Those are coming out now.

Compatibility is over-rated, anyway.  Anyone with a little experience in multiple systems can convert monsters, magic, etc. from one system to another, easy.  The GM just has to get over the hangup of thinking in terms of math and mechanics and instead focus on what the monster concept represents.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 10, 2023, 09:40:20 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 10, 2023, 09:26:45 AM
1.  Making D&D copycat games was always a risk.  The owners of D&D could pull this trick anytime.   The fact it took 23 years is what is amazing about this, but not that it eventually happened.  That being said, it still has a chance of not happening, but we'll see.

It's still questionable if they even can "pull this trick" to begin with.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 10, 2023, 09:26:45 AM2.  If you want to write your own game, it might be best to make your own rules, even though we keep citing copyright law about how you cannot stop somebody making a game with the same dice rolling rules.  I would still want my own rules just to be sure.  Thats a hard thing to do, I know. 

No, "you can't copyright rules" is very settled law. It's not an iffy thing.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 10, 2023, 09:26:45 AM3.  I'm not a fan of D&D style rules in the first place.  I look forward to more innovations to avoid those rules.

Okay, fine, but... a lot of people are.

And please. There's been a few people in this debacle lamenting a lack of options or innovation or something. There are new RPGs, both AAA and indie, coming out all the time. Whatever the fallout of this is, the hobby will survive. Most games will survive. Most games are still not and have never been OGL.

That's the one thing I think really needs to be stressed. There's a lot of panic right now, a lot of it is understandable... I get it, this sucks. It sucks royally. But at the end of the day, we, as a hobby, as a community, will get through this. WotC is big, but they aren't the hobby. They're just a big publisher in it.

I would still distance myself from any existing game system.  It just causes trouble. 

That being said, there are not many systems that you could think of that haven't already been tried. 

But, D&D is still half the hobby by itself.  A lot of people won't look at your stuff if it's in another game system's format

As the attributes are currently described and named, Spirit magic ("Sorcery") should use Awareness, Clerical magic should use "Will". Will needs a name more reflective of the attribute.

Naming the Attribute Knowledge kinda makes it seem Awareness should be involved in spotting illusions.

I realize the point isn't to change d20 mechanics, and I'm not suggesting you change them, just suggesting you use different terminology, so expectations (set by the name) match the mechanics.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 01:06:32 PM
I've been thinking about a public domain game that would essentially serve to define the replacement terms so everyone can use them without fear.  While there wouldn't be a Strength = Physique type segment and even the xdy dice notation and terms like Dungeon Master and Player Character would be avoided the rules would mainly exist to describe the role of the terms in the game rather than to convince people to change the rules they're using.

To my mind the whole document should be under a dozen pages.  Here's where it's at so far:

The Path Forward
It seems the time has come for the community to break from the current popular proprietary game system due to conniving and skullduggery on the part of the corporate owners. One might note they are making all the worst errors of the second and fourth editions of the game and it seems the rule about odd numbered releases being superior will hold true. It seems that in order to allow for the continued publication by third parties a standard reworking of terminology may be in order to allow compatibility and communication between parties without shackling them to unacceptable terms.

While the terminology has been stated in terms of a rules document the core intent is not mechanical but indicative of the role the terms play in the game.

Dice Notation
In the interest of clarity and avoiding future issues dice are written as the range of results. For example a 1 - 20 indicates the roll of a twenty-sided die. To avoid confusion modifiers will always be written as a modifier. For example 2 - 20 + 2 would indicate that two ten-sided dice ar rolled and added with two points being added to that total. This seems clearer than writing 4 - 22 while avoiding the old, proprietary notation.

Mettle
A general value representing overall skill is used to modify success rolls and active resistance. The cost of this general modifier is one thousand for the first and doubles for each stage thereafter. A stage of mettle is also applied to the character's Injury Tolerance dice pool.

Characteristics
The characteristics are rated on a scale where ten is average and twenty is the absolute, once in a generation among billions maximum of human capacity. A number of options exist for resolving actions.

The whole value is used as a passive modifier.
The value minus ten plus a twenty sided die (1-20 + rating - 10) is compared to a passive resisting characteristic or to a static difficulty rating.
Active resistance is determined by rolling a twenty-sided die and adding the resisting rating minus ten.

Physique measures physical fitness and muscular development. It is used to resist slams, shoves, and wrestling.

Coordination measures coordination, balance, and reflexes. It is used to avoid blows and missiles.

Endurance measures health, grit, and stamina. It is used to resist poisons and diseases.

Knowledge measures education, experience, and genuine intelligence. It is used to discover illusions, resist manipulation. Lore magic uses Knowledge to determine the availability and power of spells.

Awareness measures sensory acuity but particularly sight and hearing. It is used to detect hidden doors, traps, and ambushes. Sacred magic uses Perception to determine the availability and power of spells.

Will measures attractiveness, confidence, and social skills it is used to resist intimidation and to attract and lead followers. Spirt magic uses Will to determine the availability and power of spells.

Type
While more evocative terms are possible within a given setting each character is assigned a type that describes their role in the game. The character type determines which skills they can apply their Mettle to as a modifier to tasks and actions.

Combatant
Combatants can apply their Mettle as a modifier to use any weapon. They can wear all armour. And receive two general skills to reflect their background. Injury Tolerance Endurance + 1-10 per point of Mettle.

Specialist
Specialists can apply their Mettle + 4 as a modifier to one specific skill. They receive two general skills to reflect their background. They can use light and medium armour but cannot use their Mettle to weild specialist weapons. Injury Tolerance Endurance + 1 - 8 per point of Mettle.

Generalist
A generalist can use light and medium armour but cannot use their Mettle to weild specialist weapons. Generalists can learn one type of magic. They receive five general skills, two of which reflect their background and three which reflect their training. Endurance + 1 - 8 per point of Mettle.

Spell Caster
Dedicated spell casters can only use the simplest weapons and no armour. As a result they learn four more spells from their chosen school and can cast two more spells each day. Injury Tolerance Endurance + 1 - 6 per point of mettle

General Skills
The following list of skills is not comprehensive. The absence of a skill does not forbid the attempt, instead, removing the Mettle bonus from the roll to succeed. The characteristic suggested in parentheses may be altered to reflect the use the skill is being put to, such as using Knowledge to know facts about Boating as opposed to simply rowing the boat.

Boating (Physique)
Carpentry (Physique)
Climbing (Coordination)
Driving (Awareness)
Engineering (Knowledge)
Foraging (Awareness)
Languages (Knowledge)
Masonry (Physique)
Sailing (Agility)
Smith (Physique)
Swimming (Endurance)
Pick Locks & Traps (Coordination)
Riding (Coordination)
Sneak (Coordination)
Tracking (Awareness)
Watch (Awareness)

Magic
Fantasy, by definition defies the physical laws of science. Wonders and wonder workers abound. There are three broad ways in which spell casters work their magic. Spirit magic draws directly on the spirit and life force of the magician. Sacred magic calls upon the gods for power while slowly feeding them on the magician's spirit and life force. Lore based magic is the broadest field drawing upon written knowledge and recorded methods which have been proven to work. A lore based spell caster's life is caught up in the research and study but some take the more direct approach, seeking out lost grimoires and scrolls. Lore based spell casters keep books of spells from which they can select a number to prepare and use in the course of their adventures.

Resistance Target = Characteristic + Mettle
Spells Known = Characteristic - 10
Spells Per Day = Characteristic - 10

Lore Based Magic
Knowledge
Sacred Magic
Perception
Spirit Magic
Will

Combat
Ambush and Surprise
If both sides are exploring or otherwise moving blindly there is chance one or both parties is surprised. Roll a twenty sided die for each side applying the worst Awareness modifier. The lowest Mettle in Sneaking or watching is applied for each group. If the total is less than 20 they are unaware of the other group. If the groups are moving in a large area such as a wilderness or maze of twisting passages and they are both unaware roll a six-sided die. If the result is three or less they never meet. If both sides are aware of each other each can choose whether to avoid or encounter the other. If both choose to encounter they can choose to parley or attack. If one side is aware of the other they can choose whether to avoid or encounter the other party. If one side wants to avoid and the other wants to avoid. A pursuit takes place with speed, encounter distance, and other such factors determining the results. A group on foot in open ground being pursued by horsemen isn't likely to escape.

Sequence
To keep combat simple and clear, the sides take alternating turns. It is possible to attack, move and attack, defend, and move.

Normal movement is 30 feet per turn full movement without an action or attack is 60 feet. Quadrupeds double these rates but other relationships might be arranged. A lumbering creature might have a basic movement rate of 30 feet and a full run of 120 feet and heaven help you if you're in its way.

Attacks are resolved by rolling a twenty-sided die and adding the attacker's Characteristic minus ten and Mettle if appropriate if the total is greater than the target's Coordination plus Armour the attack hits and causes damage.

Melee weapons require the target must be within the movement range of the attacker. If the attacker needs to move and the target has a longer weapon the target gets a free attack first. If a combatant tries to flee from the fighting their foe also gets to make a free attack.

Missile weapons require the target to be within the range of the weapon. If the target is farther than half that range the attack is made with a -4 modifier. If the shooter moves there is an additional - 4 modifier.

Damage is applied to the combatant's Injury Total. When this exceeds their Injury Tolerance they are incapacitated and out of the fighting until healed. If the Injury Total exceed their Injury Tolerance by more than their Endurance, they are dead.

Armour
Light Armour 2
Medium Armour 4
Heavy Armour 6
Shield +2

Weapons
Light Weapons 1 - 6 Damage
Medium Weapons 1 - 8 Damage
Heavy Weapons 1 - 10 Damage
Thrown 90 feet
Slings, Short Bows 180 feet
Crossbows, Long Bows 360 feet

Missile Weapons + Coordination -10
Melee Weapons + Physique -10
Specialist Weapons Flails, Lances, Longbows, Polearms

Morale
If a side loses half of its combatants they must check morale. Roll a twenty-sided die and add their leader's Will -10 and Mettle if they are skilled in Leadership. If the total is greater than 20 they stand their ground. If it is lower they flee or surrender as circumstances allow.

Creatures
The size of a creature determines its Injury Tolerance but not necessarily its Mettle. The size of the creature increases the chance to hit it but also increases its size, essentially cancelling out this factor.

Rat 1- 4
Dog 1 - 6
Human 1- 8
Horse 1 - 10
Elephant 1 - 12

Honestly, to my mind I'd drop the roll and just go with, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 to make sure huge creatures are still pretty tough and to make full figure casualty removal a thing.  But for the declared purpose of these rules equating mettle to a die type seems necessary.

Also, this is at an early stage and I'm open to suggestions.  I think if something isn't gotten out there we'll wind up with a proliferation of standards that amounts to everyone doing their own thing with no compatible core so, I'm suggesting a very tight, low level core that standardizes terminology and lets people implement their own ideas on top of it.  At present I feel the 1 - 20 + Characteristic + Mettle Stage - 10  (not the best term for it I know) necessitates an opposed role or division by two to avoid running out of the mechanical range.  But by not using indiviual calculations and thus not cluttering the character sheet authors can use whatever modifier arrangement they prefer in their own work without producing incompatible numbers in print.

The stat block is then:

Mettle Stage:
Race:
Type:

Awareness #
Coordination #
Endurance #
Knowledge #
Physique #
Will #

Skills:
Equipment

And you shouldn't need any more numbers than Mettle, Armour, Weapon Damage, and Characteristic scores.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 10, 2023, 01:36:26 PM
As the attributes are currently described and named, Spirit magic ("Sorcery") should use Awareness, Clerical magic should use "Will". Will needs a name more reflective of the attribute.

Naming the Attribute Knowledge kinda makes it seem Awareness should be involved in spotting illusions.

I realize the point isn't to change d20 mechanics, and I'm not suggesting you change them, just suggesting you use different terminology, so expectations (set by the name) match the mechanics.

In my own renaming Wisdom is the one that's giving me trouble, I haven't been able to find the right word to use yet, but I will.

My stuff will be put under CC By SA except for the name, brand, art and the like, and I will include a note that Game Mechanics CAN'T be copyright and any attempt to patent them at this point is moot given the time they have been in use by pretty much everybody.

Edited to add:

Sagacity (synonym of Wisdom understood as insight): the ability to understand inner qualities or relationships,

I don't know if this was mentioned upthread - but let's also not forget that the the Judge and the Court itself (whether that's in King County as WotC is demanding such litigation will take place) will know little or nothing about the nuances and differences between "mechanics" and "expression of mechanics" like us gaming nerds.

It will be trivially easy for WotC Lawyers to gin up whatever complexities needed to justify the position that the expression is sufficiently different from the mechanic itself. Of course I'm happy to see the OSR gearing up for war.

The damage is already done, even if its effects haven't been fully felt yet. No quarter!

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2023, 02:18:44 PM
I don't know if this was mentioned upthread - but let's also not forget that the the Judge and the Court itself (whether that's in King County as WotC is demanding such litigation will take place) will know little or nothing about the nuances and differences between "mechanics" and "expression of mechanics" like us gaming nerds.

Not to mention that any judge living in King County will likely be infected with the Seattle Virus, so Hasbro/WotC just needs to poison the well with accusations of istophobia.

QuoteIt will be trivially easy for WotC Lawyers to gin up whatever complexities needed to justify the position that the expression is sufficiently different from the mechanic itself. Of course I'm happy to see the OSR gearing up for war.

The damage is already done, even if its effects haven't been fully felt yet. No quarter!

Like I said above, don't back off too much. Just enough to make your game sufficiently different enough. We WANT to have crossover for some terms since that weakens WotC's claim over them.

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2023, 02:18:44 PM
I don't know if this was mentioned upthread - but let's also not forget that the the Judge and the Court itself (whether that's in King County as WotC is demanding such litigation will take place) will know little or nothing about the nuances and differences between "mechanics" and "expression of mechanics" like us gaming nerds.

They can't sue you under OGL 1.1's choice of jurisdiction clause if you never agreed to OGL 1.1!

No such clause in OGL 1.0.

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:48:36 PM

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, and Charisma have been used by RuneQuest and Tunnels & Trolls since the 70s without challenge.
Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence were used by Traveller since the 70s as well.

All have additional attributes as well, but the 5 seem okay.

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

I bolded this because it's important and correct. Terms like hit points, armor class, strength, dexterity, etc. are common terms used not only in TTRPGs, but in PC/Console RPGs as well. Also the roots of many of those terms are in wargames from even father back.

You can't copyright the word "strength", or say it's part of the IP of D&D.

Even game mechanics and procedures cannot be copyrighted. US courts ruled on this a long time ago.

So stop renaming everything, people. You look scared and foolish.

Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 03:04:04 PM
I bolded this because it's important and correct. Terms like hit points, armor class, strength, dexterity, etc. are common terms used not only in TTRPGs, but in PC/Console RPGs as well. Also the roots of many of those terms are in wargames from even father back.

You can't copyright the word "strength", or say it's part of the IP of D&D.

Even game mechanics and procedures cannot be copyrighted. US courts ruled on this a long time ago.

So stop renaming everything, people. You look scared and foolish.

I bolded this because it's important and correct. ;)

Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

I bolded this because it's important and correct. Terms like hit points, armor class, strength, dexterity, etc. are common terms used not only in TTRPGs, but in PC/Console RPGs as well. Also the roots of many of those terms are in wargames from even father back.

You can't copyright the word "strength", or say it's part of the IP of D&D.

Even game mechanics and procedures cannot be copyrighted. US courts ruled on this a long time ago.

So stop renaming everything, people. You look scared and foolish.

You volunteering to front the millions needed to face a lawsuit?

No? Then I will do as I want.

The OSR community also didn't do themselves any favors. All the people who so vehemently claimed over the years that "OSR is specifically DnD-adjacent" only built their own casket. Your words can now be used against you if you try to "uncouple" your game from DnD/WotC property.

You don't need to rename everything.  For those games that are very close, it would be extremely useful to rename a few key things.  Let's look at "rangers", as it has changed a lot across the versions while still revolving around an Aragorn knock off morphed into Drizzt:

Ranger, a warrior with healing and/or nature spells, archery, bonuses against giants, dual wielding, wilderness skills, favored enemies, perceptive, and so on. 

If you include all of that stuff in a game, and call it a "ranger", you are asking for some lawfare.  Yeah, it all should be clear if you don't lift text cleanly, and you'd have the argument that Tolkien's estate has first dibs on much of it.  But why risk that?  It's a hopeless mush the way they've done it.  Make a game widget that's about a skilled wilderness warrior.  In the process of trying to do a better job than WotC, you'll probably open up some areas in the concept that are more accurately called something different.  Call them what they are.  Problem solved. 

Kobold Press is working on their own RPG.

https://koboldpress.com/raising-our-flag/

Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 10, 2023, 03:40:42 PM
Kobold Press is working on their own RPG.

https://koboldpress.com/raising-our-flag/

They are working on their own totally not PF " Kobold Press is also moving forward with some clear-eyed work on keeping the 5E rule set available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it:"

Quote from: S'mon on January 10, 2023, 02:58:17 PM

Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2023, 02:18:44 PM
I don't know if this was mentioned upthread - but let's also not forget that the the Judge and the Court itself (whether that's in King County as WotC is demanding such litigation will take place) will know little or nothing about the nuances and differences between "mechanics" and "expression of mechanics" like us gaming nerds.

They can't sue you under OGL 1.1's choice of jurisdiction clause if you never agreed to OGL 1.1!

No such clause in OGL 1.0.

Indeed, I'm incorporated and operate entirely in the state of Indiana and our state AG is both already quite tough on Lefty positions and is setting up for run for Governor in 2026. If WotC comes at me for some trumped-up infringement claim my first call will to the AG's office about WotC's anti-competitive practices. Given the general conservative tendencies of Indiana the scalp of giant woke corporation going after a small Indiana business would definitely be a resume enhancer.

Gary Gygax, from AD&D:

It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order.

Thus: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 09:42:05 PM
I see why you would feel that way but it just seems best to go all the way than half way.

The fluff is something I feel should be setting specific.  I've even got one in mind but I'm trying to avoid pushing too many of my own ideas into this because we'll just end up with The Arcane Confabulation all over again which would suit me just fine but no-one else.

Again the key thing is the framework of terms, not the mechanics which I expect people will season to taste in many ways the core, important part to my mind is just this:

Mettle Stage (or whatever, I'm not fond of that one, I've tried floors, degrees, steps, worth and I'm not fond of any of them.  Mettle is at least somewhat Gygaxian.

Injury Tollerance die per Mettle Stage
Injury Tollerance (the mechanics as written hand out too much Injury Tolerance but I haven't decided how to handle that, probably Size base + Endurance -10 + x to y per mettle, I've long believed players get robbed of their zero level die that everyone else seems to get)

Character Types (generic and function oriented bear in mind that there are three types of generalists and spell casters due to the three types of magic)
Combatant
Specialist
Generalist
Spell Caster

Characteristics (Frankly I like every point to do something, no dead ratings)
Awareness #
Coordination #
Endurance #
Knowledge #
Physique #
Willpower #

Skills (+ mettle because again I hate dead levels, the list may need some fiddling to avoid matching existing ones)
Spells Known
Spirit, Sacred, and Lore (or something that's not Arcane)

Traits (so, rather than specifiying races I'm leaning towards a set of traits to pick from, people want to play all kinds of random stuff these days, Your Cheese Sandwich Avatar (or whatever, is that too computergamey?) gets Delicious and Nourishing but Harms the Lactose Intollerant)

I really think it should be that tight.  I'll have to think a bit about how to make the Characteristic Equivalencies more explicit.

I could see adding some form of learned techniques but I'd probably treat them like another class of spells.  Also, the more objects defined in the core, the harder it will be to keep it free from actionable duplications.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 08:06:29 PM
My point is that Hasbro is NOT controlled by gaming nerds, nor is it controlled by people who wish to make $money$. When gamers fully accept that the men who control Hasbro are willing to destroy at least most of (if not all of) the TTRPG hobby and industry in order to fully control it, then gamers can make a proper decision on how to move forward.

That's a little dramatic.  The worse that can happen is that we're all forced to be playing RoleMaster, GURPS, Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness, Lion & Dragon, Stars without Number, Shadows of the Demon Lord, Forbidden Lands, Tunnels & Trolls, ad infinitum.  :-)

Quote from: DocJones on January 10, 2023, 06:40:27 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 08:06:29 PM
My point is that Hasbro is NOT controlled by gaming nerds, nor is it controlled by people who wish to make $money$. When gamers fully accept that the men who control Hasbro are willing to destroy at least most of (if not all of) the TTRPG hobby and industry in order to fully control it, then gamers can make a proper decision on how to move forward.

That's a little dramatic.  The worse that can happen is that we're all forced to be playing RoleMaster, GURPS, Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness, Lion & Dragon, Stars without Number, Shadows of the Demon Lord, Forbidden Lands, Tunnels & Trolls, ad infinitum.  :-)

For those of us who don't play DnD, this is called Game Night.

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 06:43:44 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 10, 2023, 06:40:27 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on January 08, 2023, 08:06:29 PM
My point is that Hasbro is NOT controlled by gaming nerds, nor is it controlled by people who wish to make $money$. When gamers fully accept that the men who control Hasbro are willing to destroy at least most of (if not all of) the TTRPG hobby and industry in order to fully control it, then gamers can make a proper decision on how to move forward.

That's a little dramatic.  The worse that can happen is that we're all forced to be playing RoleMaster, GURPS, Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness, Lion & Dragon, Stars without Number, Shadows of the Demon Lord, Forbidden Lands, Tunnels & Trolls, ad infinitum.  :-)

For those of us who don't play DnD, this is called Game Night.

Haha. Truth! I am far from the only one who owns (or has friends that own) more rule and setting books than I can hope to play in my lifetime without ever playing brand name D&D.

I came to this hobby mainly through AD&D 2e, which apparently was a low point for TSR. Whoda thunk it? Us clueless high-school kids were completely ignorant of that, as I suspect 80% of the market today knows nothing of OSR or OGL. 

All of which is to say the hobby has survived worse and most people are gonna play what they play with very little analysis and reflection. The good games will bubble up to the surface despite all the shenanigans in the industry. 

My only concern is that strong/original/unique creators who make good games, like Free League, Raggi, Pundit, Kevin Crawford, Riotminds, North Wind, Venger, and the rest of you scoundrels here pimping your games get a boost from all this mess.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 10, 2023, 03:56:53 PM
Gary Gygax, from AD&D:

It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order.

Thus: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell.

But does that mean I should or shouldn't use those I wonder?

Quote from: David Johansen on January 10, 2023, 07:26:58 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 10, 2023, 03:56:53 PM
Gary Gygax, from AD&D:

It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order.

Thus: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell.

But does that mean I should or shouldn't use those I wonder?

They din't use them, ergo it should be fine, unless you can claim copyright over something you never used and never registered in any of your products.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 03:20:01 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

I bolded this because it's important and correct. Terms like hit points, armor class, strength, dexterity, etc. are common terms used not only in TTRPGs, but in PC/Console RPGs as well. Also the roots of many of those terms are in wargames from even father back.

You can't copyright the word "strength", or say it's part of the IP of D&D.

Even game mechanics and procedures cannot be copyrighted. US courts ruled on this a long time ago.

So stop renaming everything, people. You look scared and foolish.

You volunteering to front the millions needed to face a lawsuit?

No? Then I will do as I want.

That's fine. You can do what you want.

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 03:26:30 PM
The OSR community also didn't do themselves any favors. All the people who so vehemently claimed over the years that "OSR is specifically DnD-adjacent" only built their own casket. Your words can now be used against you if you try to "uncouple" your game from DnD/WotC property.

Any other meaning is well, meaningless. Actual old school games ranged in complexity of Tunnels & Trolls (very simple) to most the games FGU put out (needing a degree in accounting). It's often instead meant as grim dark or rules light, but again, that's not actually the case of how things were back in the day, as those were the days when munchkins ruled and Deities & Demigods was used as a monster manual.

The whole point of the OSR was to publish material that was more or less compatible with pre-WOTC D&D, including your house rules as a complete game if you so chose.

Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 08:37:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 03:20:01 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 10, 2023, 03:04:04 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 08, 2023, 02:24:07 PM
Well, I expect anyone's list is as good or better than mine if everyone will agree to stick with it.  TSR sued over Strength and lost so it's probably safe but the point is to step away completely even changing terms like Dungeon Master and Non Player Character just to be on the safe side.

As I noted I went with a hit dice system specifically because the core should still be the original game in form and function, not because I like it.

You don't want to back away too much since that reinforces WotC's claim to certain terms. If everyone changed "Strength" to Might or Physique, etc., then WotC can dig their grubby little fingers in and claim exclusive rights to "Strength." You want to have as many terms as possible slip into the Public Domain through common usage (like what happened with "elevator").

"Dungeon Master" is already a registered trademark so you can't touch it, but "player character, " PC, NPC, etc. are common parlance and should be used frequently and liberally across many different systems. Don't give WotC any more ammunition than they already have.

I bolded this because it's important and correct. Terms like hit points, armor class, strength, dexterity, etc. are common terms used not only in TTRPGs, but in PC/Console RPGs as well. Also the roots of many of those terms are in wargames from even father back.

You can't copyright the word "strength", or say it's part of the IP of D&D.

Even game mechanics and procedures cannot be copyrighted. US courts ruled on this a long time ago.

So stop renaming everything, people. You look scared and foolish.

You volunteering to front the millions needed to face a lawsuit?

No? Then I will do as I want.

That's fine. You can do what you want.

Realistically, it's entirely up to WOTC who and what they want to target someone for.

Look at the lawsuit TSR brought against GDW for Mythus (by EGG). They nit-picked everything even vaguely like D&D

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_gdw2.txt

       (7) The MYTHUS concept of character vocations in MYTHUS (pages
13 and 70-71) is derived from the character class concept in the AD&D
1st ed. PHB (pages 18-33); the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 16-21); and the
AD&D UA (pages 12-25 and 74-75).

        (8) In MYTHUS (page 67), the concept of and the method by which
the game characters' attributes are defined by randomly-generated
numbers, and the players' choices of vocations precede and alter such
attribute generation, are derived from a similar concept and method in
the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 11-12) and the AD&D UA (page 74).

        (9) The Thief game character in MYTHUS (pages 13-14, 16 and 83)
is derived from the Thief game character in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages
19, 26-28 and 107); the AD&D UA (pages 12-13 and 22-25); TSR's DRAGON
Magazine, issue #65 (page 9); TSR's DRAGON Magazine, issue #69 (pages
20-23); and the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 17 and 19-20).

        (10) The Priest game character in MYTHUS (pages 85-86 and 407)
and MYTHUS MAGICK (pages 10 and 21) is derived from the Cleric game
character in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 19-20, 40 and 43).

And it goes on and on like that. While ultimately it was settled, but still, it was something that paralyzed GDW for a while and did kill Mythus (which honestly, would have likely died on its own)

Quote from: JeremyR on January 10, 2023, 08:45:53 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 10, 2023, 03:26:30 PM
The OSR community also didn't do themselves any favors. All the people who so vehemently claimed over the years that "OSR is specifically DnD-adjacent" only built their own casket. Your words can now be used against you if you try to "uncouple" your game from DnD/WotC property.

Any other meaning is well, meaningless. Actual old school games ranged in complexity of Tunnels & Trolls (very simple) to most the games FGU put out (needing a degree in accounting). It's often instead meant as grim dark or rules light, but again, that's not actually the case of how things were back in the day, as those were the days when munchkins ruled and Deities & Demigods was used as a monster manual.

The whole point of the OSR was to publish material that was more or less compatible with pre-WOTC D&D, including your house rules as a complete game if you so chose.

Sure. I'm not saying people were wrong to make the claim. I don't think anyone really anticipated this OGL debacle would force them to distance themselves the way it's doing now. My only point is that simply changing the names of terms (but leaving mechanics intact) may be a weak defense if your game was intentionally designed to mirror older DnD. Although mechanics cannot be copyrighted, using specific mechanics in a specific pattern can be construed as an identifying mark and deemed copyright infringment.

Even if it's a weak case, how long do you think one of these smaller publishers will last in court? Like people have been saying these passed few days, WotC doesn't need to win, they just need to get you to give up.

I was presenting those options because I think you should use them and could with no risk.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 10, 2023, 07:26:58 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 10, 2023, 03:56:53 PM
Gary Gygax, from AD&D:

It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order.

Thus: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell.

But does that mean I should or shouldn't use those I wonder?

Word is that Matt Finch will do a show tomorrow night on his YT channel.

I'm very interested to hear what he has to say.

Quote from: Premier on January 09, 2023, 07:54:54 PM

Quote from: Frey on January 09, 2023, 03:53:44 PM
A paladin with healing hands? Hasbro can decide they infringe their IP, and go after them.

Minor point of order: that's from Arthurian legend, more specifically the Healing of Sir Urry. Hasbro can't claim ownership of that.

Space Marines and Droid were terms before as well and now someone thinks they own those. Also for years one guy was suing people over the use of the word Edge in games. And so many many more.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 10, 2023, 09:55:44 PM
I was presenting those options because I think you should use them and could with no risk.

Works for me.

With Kobold press announcing their Project Black Flag and Troll Lord Games talking about changing Castles and Crusades, I suspect it's already too late to try to introduce a new public domain standard.  I'll probably finish polishing up what I've got but everyone's already going their separate ways.

Quote from: David Johansen on January 10, 2023, 11:56:14 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 10, 2023, 09:55:44 PM
I was presenting those options because I think you should use them and could with no risk.

Works for me.

With Kobold press announcing their Project Black Flag and Troll Lord Games talking about changing Castles and Crusades, I suspect it's already too late to try to introduce a new public domain standard.  I'll probably finish polishing up what I've got but everyone's already going their separate ways.

Now is the perfect time to introduce new standards. Folks are wide open to ideas and throwing your hat in the ring isn't going to cause any more of a storm than anyone else doing the same.

With a few exceptions, good "standards" on  things like this don't come about due to ivory tower standards design, AKA design by committee.  Instead, a bunch of people throw things out there, and where there are obvious benefits to one or the other, a standard may emerge.  Or not.  Or more likely, some parts will converge and some will not, sometimes in surprising ways.