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.