Quote from: S'mon on January 21, 2023, 05:58:05 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 05:16:01 AM
Folks, clearly Hasbro wants what it wants... the utter destruction or submission of the third party OGL industry. Its never going to change its license enough for any other outcome; it's going to just keep trying new ways of presenting their crap deal in the hopes enough of the masses will accept it... and if that's impossible they'll ultimately go "zero percent approval dictator" and impose it anyway because all of us in the ttrpg hobby are just obstacles in the way of "their money."

I think that's right, yup. I think attempts to get them to 'see reason' are futile.

Except perhaps to foster more ill will towards them. If the community that tried to engage with them feels betrayed by the whole process, they're more likely to abandon D&D for something else (or just leave the hobby entirely).

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)"

For those not paying attention at home that EXCLUDES all races, all classes, all spells, all backgrounds (the one provided is stated to be an example), all feats (the one presented is also said to be an example), all magic items, all monsters, all the deities, all the planes...

Basically, it excludes everything except the elements you can't really copyright anyway (i.e. it's the material where there there is no "Concept Stack" protection and rewriting it own words is all it would take to be free and clear of any "specific expression" clause.

It's LITERALLY nothing. Just another hollow PR spin item to make it look like they're not the bad guys they actually are.

ETA: oh, and it excludes the text of the OGL1.0a (because if that's open sourced under CC by 4.0 their ability to revoke it is gone).

ETA2: and yes, folks... that means WotC is absolutely claiming the Cleric class (and their take on barbarians, bards, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards) as copywrighted stacks of concepts.

Looks like we'll have to invent substitutes for all of those things. Depending on the concept, this may be more or less hard.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 20, 2023, 11:37:03 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on January 20, 2023, 08:20:22 PM

I'd continue printing, right up until WOTC's stop publishing date.  Then I'd continue to sell what I had printed prior to that date, which WOTC had identified.  While that stock was being sold off, I'd use that money to fund my next Non-WOTC product.   Just be sure that the publishing date inside the cover, is prior to WOTC's bullshit date.

WotC will go after Lulu and Drivethru.

I wasn't talking about the print on demand, format.  I was talking about printing hard copies right now, well before a cease and desist date; and then selling those copies off, from warehouse stock.  Print on demand, is a different challenge.

And a lot of those are orphaned works where the author has forgot about them. Or even died. If hit with a C&D, I don't think most of them will go to the effort of updating the product to preserve it for posterity.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:52:47 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)"

For those not paying attention at home that EXCLUDES all races, all classes, all spells, all backgrounds (the one provided is stated to be an example), all feats (the one presented is also said to be an example), all magic items, all monsters, all the deities, all the planes...

Basically, it excludes everything except the elements you can't really copyright anyway (i.e. it's the material where there there is no "Concept Stack" protection and rewriting it own words is all it would take to be free and clear of any "specific expression" clause.

It's LITERALLY nothing. Just another hollow PR spin item to make it look like they're not the bad guys they actually are.

ETA: oh, and it excludes the text of the OGL1.0a (because if that's open sourced under CC by 4.0 their ability to revoke it is gone).

ETA2: and yes, folks... that means WotC is absolutely claiming the Cleric class (and their take on barbarians, bards, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards) as copywrighted stacks of concepts.

Looks like we'll have to invent substitutes for all of those things. Depending on the concept, this may be more or less hard.

Yeah. There can definitely be points of comparison, but an exact duplicate isn't going to be great if Hasbro is "protect the IP at all costs" mode.

The easy one for alternate clerics is just go with priest/priestess... strip off the heavy armor for cloth and cut the weapons down to things typical of various priestly castes throughout the world; rods/staves, ritual knives, unarmed combat and so forth. Drop "turn undead" and either make it a spell choice or replace it with something that generally repels whatever a particular faith regards as evil (typically demons/devils... and a lot of undead would naturally fall into that category anyway if not for the two being separate being a rather pervasive D&D-ism. If your magic system isn't based on daily slot preparations you're well clear of any associations with the D&D Cleric.

By far the easiest is going to be the fighter because "guy who fights stuff" is basically every real world soldier, police officer, mercenary, boxer, MMA contestant, gang member, knight, archer, etc. in history. The concept of guy trained in fighting with weapons and armor is too broad to copyright and way too many more specific examples are actual historical things (ex. knights, gladiators, samurai) or expies of them that you can't copyright either. Fighter also benefits in the non-OGL's favor with having the fewest defined class features of any of the classes in many editions... so its basically a clean slate to work with in defining your own. Depending on breadth of concept, I think even Fighter is probably okay to retain... I struggle to think of a better singular term for something that could cover everything from a street tough to a tribal hunter to a bounty hunter to an infantryman to an archer to a mounted knight to a warlord under a single heading.

Rogues/Thieves are a close second... the move towards defining the class as a skill-monkey with many of its former class features being redefined as skills also makes it easy to adapt. Turn its sneak attack, evasion and such into skill or combat-style based (say something fighters could also choose... with fighters getting more combat-style options and "rogues" getting more skill options... or merge the two into a single non-spellcasting skill-based class where combat styles are some of the skill options available).

The wizard has been defined by so many third parties that so long as your magic system for them isn't Vancian you can pretty much use the D&D standard of robes/cloth armor, wands, staves, daggers and whatever else you want without issue.

Yeah, they can't be exactly like D&D's versions, but they could remain mostly recognizable.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 02:11:33 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:52:47 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)"

For those not paying attention at home that EXCLUDES all races, all classes, all spells, all backgrounds (the one provided is stated to be an example), all feats (the one presented is also said to be an example), all magic items, all monsters, all the deities, all the planes...

Basically, it excludes everything except the elements you can't really copyright anyway (i.e. it's the material where there there is no "Concept Stack" protection and rewriting it own words is all it would take to be free and clear of any "specific expression" clause.

It's LITERALLY nothing. Just another hollow PR spin item to make it look like they're not the bad guys they actually are.

ETA: oh, and it excludes the text of the OGL1.0a (because if that's open sourced under CC by 4.0 their ability to revoke it is gone).

ETA2: and yes, folks... that means WotC is absolutely claiming the Cleric class (and their take on barbarians, bards, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards) as copywrighted stacks of concepts.

Looks like we'll have to invent substitutes for all of those things. Depending on the concept, this may be more or less hard.

Yeah. There can definitely be points of comparison, but an exact duplicate isn't going to be great if Hasbro is "protect the IP at all costs" mode.

The easy one for alternate clerics is just go with priest/priestess... strip off the heavy armor for cloth and cut the weapons down to things typical of various priestly castes throughout the world; rods/staves, ritual knives, unarmed combat and so forth. Drop "turn undead" and either make it a spell choice or replace it with something that generally repels whatever a particular faith regards as evil (typically demons/devils... and a lot of undead would naturally fall into that category anyway if not for the two being separate being a rather pervasive D&D-ism. If your magic system isn't based on daily slot preparations you're well clear of any associations with the D&D Cleric.

By far the easiest is going to be the fighter because "guy who fights stuff" is basically every real world soldier, police officer, mercenary, boxer, MMA contestant, gang member, knight, archer, etc. in history. The concept of guy trained in fighting with weapons and armor is too broad to copyright and way too many more specific examples are actual historical things (ex. knights, gladiators, samurai) or expies of them that you can't copyright either. Fighter also benefits in the non-OGL's favor with having the fewest defined class features of any of the classes in many editions... so its basically a clean slate to work with in defining your own. Depending on breadth of concept, I think even Fighter is probably okay to retain... I struggle to think of a better singular term for something that could cover everything from a street tough to a tribal hunter to a bounty hunter to an infantryman to an archer to a mounted knight to a warlord under a single heading.

Rogues/Thieves are a close second... the move towards defining the class as a skill-monkey with many of its former class features being redefined as skills also makes it easy to adapt. Turn its sneak attack, evasion and such into skill or combat-style based (say something fighters could also choose... with fighters getting more combat-style options and "rogues" getting more skill options... or merge the two into a single non-spellcasting skill-based class where combat styles are some of the skill options available).

The wizard has been defined by so many third parties that so long as your magic system for them isn't Vancian you can pretty much use the D&D standard of robes/cloth armor, wands, staves, daggers and whatever else you want without issue.

Yeah, they can't be exactly like D&D's versions, but they could remain mostly recognizable.

Or go with a more broad type of classes:

The Muscle
The Brain
The Spirit
(Something for the Thief?)
The Personality

Where you define them broadly in terms of what they get and the player builds them from the skill, armor, etc lists.

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 21, 2023, 06:50:35 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM
Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)".....................

OK yeah that's absolutely terrible. They may as well not put anything into CC...

It's another trap, IMO.
They release a barely copyrightable ruleset into CC, as if they are some magnanimous benefactor, in order to see how many will take the bait and actually use the material under the license. Then they can point to that as a precedent as to why people cannot use the material under a claim it's public domain or Fair Use. "No, you can't use the six-attribute configuration without the CC license. See how everyone else is obeying? Why won't YOU fall in line?"

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 02:38:02 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 02:11:33 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 12:52:47 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)"

For those not paying attention at home that EXCLUDES all races, all classes, all spells, all backgrounds (the one provided is stated to be an example), all feats (the one presented is also said to be an example), all magic items, all monsters, all the deities, all the planes...

Basically, it excludes everything except the elements you can't really copyright anyway (i.e. it's the material where there there is no "Concept Stack" protection and rewriting it own words is all it would take to be free and clear of any "specific expression" clause.

It's LITERALLY nothing. Just another hollow PR spin item to make it look like they're not the bad guys they actually are.

ETA: oh, and it excludes the text of the OGL1.0a (because if that's open sourced under CC by 4.0 their ability to revoke it is gone).

ETA2: and yes, folks... that means WotC is absolutely claiming the Cleric class (and their take on barbarians, bards, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards) as copywrighted stacks of concepts.

Looks like we'll have to invent substitutes for all of those things. Depending on the concept, this may be more or less hard.

Yeah. There can definitely be points of comparison, but an exact duplicate isn't going to be great if Hasbro is "protect the IP at all costs" mode.

The easy one for alternate clerics is just go with priest/priestess... strip off the heavy armor for cloth and cut the weapons down to things typical of various priestly castes throughout the world; rods/staves, ritual knives, unarmed combat and so forth. Drop "turn undead" and either make it a spell choice or replace it with something that generally repels whatever a particular faith regards as evil (typically demons/devils... and a lot of undead would naturally fall into that category anyway if not for the two being separate being a rather pervasive D&D-ism. If your magic system isn't based on daily slot preparations you're well clear of any associations with the D&D Cleric.

By far the easiest is going to be the fighter because "guy who fights stuff" is basically every real world soldier, police officer, mercenary, boxer, MMA contestant, gang member, knight, archer, etc. in history. The concept of guy trained in fighting with weapons and armor is too broad to copyright and way too many more specific examples are actual historical things (ex. knights, gladiators, samurai) or expies of them that you can't copyright either. Fighter also benefits in the non-OGL's favor with having the fewest defined class features of any of the classes in many editions... so its basically a clean slate to work with in defining your own. Depending on breadth of concept, I think even Fighter is probably okay to retain... I struggle to think of a better singular term for something that could cover everything from a street tough to a tribal hunter to a bounty hunter to an infantryman to an archer to a mounted knight to a warlord under a single heading.

Rogues/Thieves are a close second... the move towards defining the class as a skill-monkey with many of its former class features being redefined as skills also makes it easy to adapt. Turn its sneak attack, evasion and such into skill or combat-style based (say something fighters could also choose... with fighters getting more combat-style options and "rogues" getting more skill options... or merge the two into a single non-spellcasting skill-based class where combat styles are some of the skill options available).

The wizard has been defined by so many third parties that so long as your magic system for them isn't Vancian you can pretty much use the D&D standard of robes/cloth armor, wands, staves, daggers and whatever else you want without issue.

Yeah, they can't be exactly like D&D's versions, but they could remain mostly recognizable.

Or go with a more broad type of classes:

The Muscle
The Brain
The Spirit
(Something for the Thief?)
The Personality

Where you define them broadly in terms of what they get and the player builds them from the skill, armor, etc lists.

How about: the Swift, the Clever, and the Strong?

Quote from: Effete on January 21, 2023, 02:44:11 PM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 21, 2023, 06:50:35 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM
Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)".....................

OK yeah that's absolutely terrible. They may as well not put anything into CC...

It's another trap, IMO.
They release a barely copyrightable ruleset into CC, as if they are some magnanimous benefactor, in order to see how many will take the bait and actually use the material under the license. Then they can point to that as a precedent as to why people cannot use the material under a claim it's public domain or Fair Use. "No, you can't use the six-attribute configuration without the CC license. See how everyone else is obeying? Why won't YOU fall in line?"

ONLY if you use their wording
I don't think they know what shithole they're going down if they choose that route.

"Nazi Vixens from the Moon the TTRPG, Mechanics CC By WotC"

When I was fooling around with re-labelling things I went with Combatant, Specialist, Generalist, and Spell Caster

concept stack
concept stack concept stack concept stack concept stack concept stack concept stack
lol

hold my beer
wizards here I come

"Fighter" and "Magic User" are the only two terms that I can see definitely edging into danger, since as proper nouns those are D&Dism.  Not saying that they should be, but they could be. 

Warrior works just fine for any very flexible Fighter analog, and is probably even a better term.  Though arguably part of the point of the early Fighter, MU, Cleric troika is that those are words that people in the setting wouldn't have used, leaving the more common terms for inside the setting.  This usage didn't last very long, though.  So it depends on what you want.  if the class is more specific, then one of the other terms will probably work better.

My problem is that I usually end up with something about halfway between a Warrior and something more specific.  That prompts the decision of whether to go general in a way that is misleading when some of the archetypes aren't covered or go specific and imply a more narrow focus than is there in reality.  Lately, I've been leaning towards narrow with a description of the class broadening things back out, because it seems to prompt questions from new players instead of assumptions. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 03:12:05 PM
"Nazi Vixens from the Moon the TTRPG, Mechanics CC By WotC"

I seriously doubt anyone will do that. The safest creators will be those who make games without using anyone else's OGL.

For example, Kevin Crawford uses the traditional six ability scores. If Hasbro were to take Kevin to court and lose, it would be game over. While Hasbro has nearly unlimited resources, the also have more to risk. Kevin is untouchable. The more who recognize this, the better.

And bro, if you somehow see this as an attack it is all in your head. This is just a conversation and I'm interested to hear your thoughts. If I didn't value you're position I would bother quoting you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 02:38:02 PM
Or go with a more broad type of classes:

The Muscle
The Brain
The Spirit
(Something for the Thief?)
The Personality

Where you define them broadly in terms of what they get and the player builds them from the skill, armor, etc lists.

My solution was actually to split what D&D calls a class into two parts; Background (all the non-combat traits) and Class (all the combat traits) and you pick one of each.

The Backgrounds are; Arcanist, Aristocrat, Artisan, Barbarian, Commoner, Entertainer, Military, Outlaw, Religious, and Traveler.

The Classes are; Fighter, Mastermind, Mechanist, Mystic, Theurge, and Wizard.

Each of the classes has sub-elements to further define them;

Fighters have Fighting Style, Fighting Focus and Combat Path;
- Styles: Strong, Swift or Berserker
- Focus: Daring, Steady, Tactical or Wary
- Path: Brigand, Captain, Defender, Disabler, Ravager, Sentinel or Striker

Masterminds have Fighting Focus and Combat Path;
- Focus: Daring, Tactical or Wary
- Path: Captain, Disabler or Striker

Mechanists have Mechanist Focus and Spellcasting Path;
- Focus: Big Lug, Monkeywrencher, Mad Genius, Tireless Inventor or Troubleshooter
- Path: Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor, Manifester or Summoner

Mystics have Inner Spirit and Spellcasting Path;
- Spirit: Clever, Enduring, Logical, Potent or Swift
- Path: Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor, Manifester or Summoner

Theurges have Astral Focus and Spellcasting Path;
- Focus: Faithful, Martyr, Militant or Zealous
- Path: Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor, Manifester or Summoner

Wizards have Wizard's Focus and Spellcasting Path;
- Focus: Lore Wizard, Social Wizard or War Wizard
- Path: Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor, Manifester or Summoner

By mixing and matching background, class and their subfeatures you can pretty much build any of the D&D classes you wanted, but because each separate element is it's own thing instead of pre-assembled, it's not falling under WotC's concept stack (you can also build a bunch more concepts quite easily).

So depending on edition;
Bard (non-spellcasting): Entertainer Mastermind (daring captain)
Bard (Spellcasting): Entertainer Wizard (social benedictor)
Barbarian (non-ragey): Barbarian Fighter (strong wary striker)
Barbarian (rage): Barbarian Fighter (steady berserker ravager)
Cleric: Religious Theurge (militant, any path but traditionally benedictor)
Druid: Religious Mystic (any spirit, any path, but traditionally summoner)
Fighter: Military Fighter (strong, tactical, any path, but traditionally striker or defender)
Monk (traditional): Religious Fighter (swift wary disabler or striker)
Monk (wuxia): Religious Mystic (swift empowered or manifester)
Paladin (traditional): Religious Fighter (strong daring defender)
Paladin (smity modern): Military Theurge (militant abjurer)
Ranger: Barbarian or Traveler Fighter (strong or swift disabler or striker)
Rogue: Outlaw Fighter (swift daring or wary brigand)
Sorcerer: Arcanist Mystic (clever Interdictor or Maledictor)
Warlock: Arcanist Theurge (any focus maledictor)
Wizard: Arcanist Wizard (lore or war, any path, but default Interdictor).

Quote from: Effete on January 21, 2023, 02:44:11 PM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 21, 2023, 06:50:35 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 12:56:47 AM
Actually, CC by 4.0 license would apply ONLY to "pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages)".....................

OK yeah that's absolutely terrible. They may as well not put anything into CC...

It's another trap, IMO.
They release a barely copyrightable ruleset into CC, as if they are some magnanimous benefactor, in order to see how many will take the bait and actually use the material under the license. Then they can point to that as a precedent as to why people cannot use the material under a claim it's public domain or Fair Use. "No, you can't use the six-attribute configuration without the CC license. See how everyone else is obeying? Why won't YOU fall in line?"

I don't which judge they'll manage to bribe with that. If I'm remembering correctly, Worlds Without Number and Hackmaster 5e are both non-OGL games, and they both have all six ability scores.