TheRPGSite

I think the draft OGL v1.2 should probably get its own thread, to distinguish from previous rumors. For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the announcement:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

And here's the direct link to the draft document:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

The key thing for me is that it still de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, even though they say that all previously published OGL v1.0a stuff is still valid. I consider that still to be an unethical breach of promise, since they had previously said the OGL v1.0a would be permanent in their own FAQ. It screws over all the other companies who have used the OGL for unrelated system sharing.

That for me is the core.

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2023, 02:47:49 AM
The key thing for me is that it still de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, even though they say that all previously published OGL v1.0a stuff is still valid. I consider that still to be an unethical breach of promise, since they had previously said the OGL v1.0a would be permanent in their own FAQ. It screws over all the other companies who have used the OGL for unrelated system sharing.

That for me is the core.

Yes, I agree.
1. They cannot legally retract OGL 1.0 and the material they released under it.
2. They have demonstrated they are bad actors, untrustworthy, and incapable of stepping back.

Hopefully they sue Paizo for use of the OGL 1.0 in future material and are crushed in court, freeing everyone up to continue using it. I expect they are not that stupid though, and will stick with the Fear Uncertainty Doubt strategy to intimidate 3PPs.

I will note that their statement https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest with the strong emphasis on the vital need to stop the bad people via the morality clause was cleverly done, and has won over much of the Woke end of the commenting public. This attempt to turn the D&D 'community' against itself seems to have been the plan from the beginning, from that PBS article attacking the OSR, but up until now had been remarkably unsuccessful.

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2023, 02:47:49 AM
I think the draft OGL v1.2 should probably get its own thread, to distinguish from previous rumors. For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the announcement:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

And here's the direct link to the draft document:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

The key thing for me is that it still de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, even though they say that all previously published OGL v1.0a stuff is still valid. I consider that still to be an unethical breach of promise, since they had previously said the OGL v1.0a would be permanent in their own FAQ. It screws over all the other companies who have used the OGL for unrelated system sharing.

That for me is the core.

By now, Wily E. Coyote is smarter than WotC. I wouldn't be surprised if they bet the farm on de-authorizing the OGL 1.0a by signing some other contract elsewhere or such, and now they are trapped by this situation.

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2023, 02:47:49 AM
I think the draft OGL v1.2 should probably get its own thread, to distinguish from previous rumors. For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the announcement:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

And here's the direct link to the draft document:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

The key thing for me is that it still de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, even though they say that all previously published OGL v1.0a stuff is still valid. I consider that still to be an unethical breach of promise, since they had previously said the OGL v1.0a would be permanent in their own FAQ. It screws over all the other companies who have used the OGL for unrelated system sharing.

That for me is the core.

Also, it allows them to release OGL 1.3 de-authorizing OGL 1.2, so once they have that precedent in place, they can do whatever they want.

Quote from: migo on January 20, 2023, 04:49:37 AM
Also, it allows them to release OGL 1.3 de-authorizing OGL 1.2, so once they have that precedent in place, they can do whatever they want.

Exactly right. Further, this deauthorization sets the precedent and pattern for how future deauthorizations will be handled.

Of particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

So "previously published" in the deauthorization notice is NOT "you can keep selling as many copies of your already created OGL1.0a book as you'd like."

Rather, it's "you don't have to burn already printed copies and can sell them until your stock runs out, but anything printed or distributed after the effective date of our new license must use that new license or be in violation."

Note too that the 30 day notice of change requirement for WotC is gone. Because that window will instead be the difference between when you receive the latest deauthorization notice and the effective date of the new license.

And all your "previously published/printed/distributed" are still valid under the irrevocable license, but any additional copies have to be modified to match the NEW license anyway.

Basically they went from straight forward Intimatation check to a Deception check; relying on the differences in definition between common use and legal terms to make their efforts seem slightly less sinister.

They also announced how they were going to generously give the community the core mechanics under a creative commons license.

Newsflash - the stuff that they are making "open" doesn't require a license and never did.  All this does is lock down the SRD. If you accept OGL 1.2, you're stuck praying they don't alter the deal further when OGL 1.3 "deauthorizes" OGL 1.2.

Fuck them. I said it at the beginning of this debacle. I'll say it again. Burn it all down. Let "D&D" sit mouldering on a shelf.

I will never trust Hasbro again. They are bad faith actors. I no longer trust any of their promises or their threats, as they can change anything on a dime. They are now on my boycott list, and I will be boycotting all 3PP products using Hasbro's new closed license. People online said that they would initially go "scorched earth", and then dial some of it back.....as a deceptive "negotiation" tactic, to get what they want. And that's exactly what they did.

I'm done with them. >:(

Quote from: migo on January 20, 2023, 04:49:37 AM
Also, it allows them to release OGL 1.3 de-authorizing OGL 1.2, so once they have that precedent in place, they can do whatever they want.

I'd need to read further, but I think they have addressed this. From the OGL v1.2,

Quote2. LICENSE. In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.

Quote7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION
(a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.

So they are agreeing not to use that trap any more.

However, there are traps elsewhere in the document - like the hateful content clause (6.f), and termination if they are sued (7.b.i).

Utter Non-Starter:

Quote
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful,
discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,
obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you
covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

WOTC can yank your license just because they can. They determine what is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing.   That includes people who say opposite opinions on Social Media.   This is the same model that Patreon does where WOTC can terminate your license because you said Wrong Bad Things on the internet.

Any gaming license with a Morality Clause is shit and should be kicked to the curb.

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2023, 10:28:09 AM

Quote from: migo on January 20, 2023, 04:49:37 AM
Also, it allows them to release OGL 1.3 de-authorizing OGL 1.2, so once they have that precedent in place, they can do whatever they want.

I'd need to read further, but I think they have addressed this. From the OGL v1.2,

Quote2. LICENSE. In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.

Quote7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION
(a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.

So they are agreeing not to use that trap any more.

However, there are traps elsewhere in the document - like the hateful content clause (6.f), and termination if they are sued (7.b.i).

"We can only modify THIS license in xyz ways" is worthless when they can simply declare it no longer "authorized" except for previously published/printed/distributed material and the precedent has already been set by accepting the de-authorization of 1.0a.

The license can be absolutely irrevocable, but once it's deauthorized that irrevocability applies only to the printed copies you have sitting in a warehouse. If you're PoD or distributing digitally those all have to cease on the effective date that OGL1.3 goes into effect.

The irrevocable clause and limitations on modification only matter if the ability to deauthorize the license is fought and defeated.

Similarly, irrevocable is worthless it only applies while the license is in effect for you and when WotC can terminate it for what amounts to "someone somewhere has said they were offended by something you said at sometime somewhere."

I would hope that at least one of the "big" 3pp respond to this with nothing more than "go fuck yourselves."

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 20, 2023, 11:40:04 AM
I would hope that at least one of the "big" 3pp respond to this with nothing more than "go fuck yourselves."

I think just absolutely ignoring it while continuing the course of de-SRDing their material has a similar effect... as in "your efforts aren't even worth a further thought."

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 11:45:40 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 20, 2023, 11:40:04 AM
I would hope that at least one of the "big" 3pp respond to this with nothing more than "go fuck yourselves."

I think just absolutely ignoring it while continuing the course of de-SRDing their material has a similar effect... as in "your efforts aren't even worth a further thought."

Concur. *How* WotC is told to get bent is less important than that they *are* told.

Quote from: S'mon on January 20, 2023, 03:39:44 AM
Yes, I agree.
1. They cannot legally retract OGL 1.0 and the material they released under it.

Here is what bugs me even more. OK let's pretend they can retract 1.0 for material THEY released under it (I don't think they can either but go with me on this).

They're claiming, I think, they can retract 1.0 for OTHER COMPANIES and things those other companies released under it.

So if a 3rd party used the OGL, and didn't use any WOTC open Product Identity from the SRD but released some of their own content as open Product Identity under their contribution to the SRD from a product, WOTC is claiming (I think) they can cancel that.

And that is even more upsetting to me. That company relied on WOTC saying it was irrevocable to conduct business in a manner where they were releasing their own unique IP into a shared reference document for other 3rd parties to use it and grow that first 3rd party's system, and WOTC thinks they can stop that by revoking their authorization.

That seems an absurd position to me. What do the think is the source of their legal right to end someone else's sub-license?

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 12:23:16 PM

Quote from: S'mon on January 20, 2023, 03:39:44 AM
Yes, I agree.
1. They cannot legally retract OGL 1.0 and the material they released under it.

Here is what bugs me even more. OK let's pretend they can retract 1.0 for material THEY released under it (I don't think they can either but go with me on this).

They're claiming, I think, they can retract 1.0 for OTHER COMPANIES and things those other companies released under it.

So if a 3rd party used the OGL, and didn't use any WOTC open Product Identity from the SRD but released some of their own content as open Product Identity under their contribution to the SRD from a product, WOTC is claiming (I think) they can cancel that.

And that is even more upsetting to me. That company relied on WOTC saying it was irrevocable to conduct business in a manner where they were releasing their own unique IP into a shared reference document for other 3rd parties to use it and grow that first 3rd party's system, and WOTC thinks they can stop that by revoking their authorization.

That seems an absurd position to me. What do the think is the source of their legal right to end someone else's sub-license?

It does seem absurd, especially if those others didn't use any material from the d20 SRD. They used the OGL verbatim because they thought it was more efficient than inventing their own license that did the same thing. They thought it was basically a CC-esque license that lasted for as long as the copyright, bolstered by the official FAQ from the time that confirmed so.

WotC created an unnecessary legal and bureaucratic headache for people who never used their IP in the first place, like Chaosium. Chaosium at least had the good sense to define their product identity in advance, even if I feel like they're overreaching and shooting themselves in the foot by saying "no, 3pp cannot reference sanity mechanics or any of these other mechanics that we haven't used for decades even though pure game mechanics aren't protected by copyright anyway."

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 12:23:16 PM

That seems an absurd position to me. What do the think is the source of their legal right to end someone else's sub-license?

Because They Can(tm) and Fuck You That Is Why(R)

Is there a link to this survey so I can tell them to pound sand?

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 12:23:16 PM

Quote from: S'mon on January 20, 2023, 03:39:44 AM
Yes, I agree.
1. They cannot legally retract OGL 1.0 and the material they released under it.

Here is what bugs me even more. OK let's pretend they can retract 1.0 for material THEY released under it (I don't think they can either but go with me on this).

They're claiming, I think, they can retract 1.0 for OTHER COMPANIES and things those other companies released under it.

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 12:23:16 PM
That seems an absurd position to me. What do the think is the source of their legal right to end someone else's sub-license?

Because of the legal language of v1.0a, I think that's the only way that they can revoke it is by "de-authorizing" for everyone. The only lever they have over the SRD is that the license itself is written and copyrighted by them. There is only one clause that could remotely be read as revoking the license, and that is via the specific language of changing license versions - section 9, "You may use any authorized version of this License".

I don't think that it holds water, because the nature of authorization isn't described in the OGL, and they clearly stated in their own FAQ that the OGL is permanent. But that is their excuse.

Hasbro wants all of the third party publishers to stop making D&D content. It actually doesn't matter whether or not they can de-authorize the OGL. If everyone gives them the finger and stops producing D&D content, Hasbro still gets what they want.

Given their dogged insistence on deauthorizing the OGL, I think Clownfish TV is right. Hasbro is trying to either sell D&D or license it out for a shitty mobile gacha video game, but they can't get anyone to pay them for the rights unless they kill the OGL.

Quote from: migo on January 20, 2023, 04:49:37 AMAlso, it allows them to release OGL 1.3 de-authorizing OGL 1.2, so once they have that precedent in place, they can do whatever they want.

Excellent point.

Anything released under 1.2 onward is on a timer on WotC's hidden clock.

While now inevitable (unless a judge rules on the OGL 1.0), it is just another risk to the 5e/6e publishers must consider as they produce "unofficial but authorized" content.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:27:20 AMOf particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

How does that legal definition work in the age of print on demand?

Quote from: Corolinth on January 20, 2023, 07:02:46 PM
Hasbro wants all of the third party publishers to stop making D&D content. It actually doesn't matter whether or not they can de-authorize the OGL. If everyone gives them the finger and stops producing D&D content, Hasbro still gets what they want.

Given their dogged insistence on deauthorizing the OGL, I think Clownfish TV is right. Hasbro is trying to either sell D&D or license it out for a shitty mobile gacha video game, but they can't get anyone to pay them for the rights unless they kill the OGL.

IF the reports are correct WotC makes most of the profits for Hasbro, of course this probably means MtG and not D&D, I can see Hasbro selling the rights for a video game but not the IP perse, unless it's doing so bad it has to be unloaded to someone, and I doubt it, but hey, it's possible, not probable but possible.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 20, 2023, 08:11:34 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:27:20 AMOf particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

How does that legal definition work in the age of print on demand?

Each print would effectively be its own publication meaning you can print it on demand right up until the new OGL goes into effect. Then you either have to update to the OGL1.2 or cease offering it.

Welcome to Hasbro continuing to try and get what it wants, just with less obvious wording.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:14:40 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 20, 2023, 08:11:34 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:27:20 AMOf particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

How does that legal definition work in the age of print on demand?

Each print would effectively be its own publication meaning you can print it on demand right up until the new OGL goes into effect. Then you either have to update to the OGL1.2 or cease offering it.

Welcome to Hasbro continuing to try and get what it wants, just with less obvious wording.

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.

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...

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...

Nope, the core MECHANICS, something they can't copyright, ergo they can't put under CC By, unless they're talking about THEIR expression of the mechanics.

To put ANYTHING under ANY CC license you first need to have the legal right, which means having the copyright, and you can't copyright mechanics.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:21:11 PM
Nope, the core MECHANICS, something they can't copyright, ergo they can't put under CC By, unless they're talking about THEIR expression of the mechanics.

Well, they're certainly trying to

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:23:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:21:11 PM
Nope, the core MECHANICS, something they can't copyright, ergo they can't put under CC By, unless they're talking about THEIR expression of the mechanics.

Well, they're certainly trying to

Lets assume they're talking about their expression, lets also assume they do go through. What does it mean?

Nothing, they're "giving" you something you already have.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:29:39 PM

Lets assume they're talking about their expression, lets also assume they do go through. What does it mean?

Nothing, they're "giving" you something you already have.

I don't know enough about USA copyright or whatever to dispute what you're saying.

I think what they're getting at is anything in DnD that isn't content specific, such as "Melf's minute meteors", "Beholders", "Forgotten realms" and so on is what they've opened up.
I don't know if they can own that core content or not, but they seemed to have bowed under pressure and officially given it up anyway, whether it was theirs to give or not.
In the end, we end up at the same place.  So whether they originally owned it or not, it's irrelevant at this stage.

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.

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:36:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:29:39 PM

Lets assume they're talking about their expression, lets also assume they do go through. What does it mean?

Nothing, they're "giving" you something you already have.

I don't know enough about USA copyright or whatever to dispute what you're saying.

I think what they're getting at is anything in DnD that isn't content specific, such as "Melf's minute meteors", "Beholders", "Forgotten realms" and so on is what they've opened up.
I don't know if they can own that core content or not, but they seemed to have bowed under pressure and officially given it up anyway, whether it was theirs to give or not.
In the end, we end up at the same place.  So whether they originally owned it or not, it's irrelevant at this stage.

ONLY IF they go through, remember this is a draft.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:38:22 PM
ONLY IF they go through, remember this is a draft.

Well that's true. I think they're trying to sweeten the deal of the poisoned chalice that is the OGL 1.2 .

I expect how this will end will be there's the ORC from Paizo that a lot of people are flocking to, which is a big middle finger to whatever WotC will eventually publish as a new OGL. Will it go to court?  who knows.   

WotC will not budge much on their VTT content locking down (to try and keep/increase DnD beyong subscriptions) and their specific protected content.
But it won't matter that much as it seems many won't use or recognise it anyway.
If the Creative content thing is still there when it goes live, then all the better, whether it's legally meaningful or not.

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:57:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:38:22 PM
ONLY IF they go through, remember this is a draft.

Well that's true. I think they're trying to sweeten the deal of the poisoned chalice that is the OGL 1.2 .

I expect how this will end will be there's the ORC from Paizo that a lot of people are flocking to, which is a big middle finger to whatever WotC will eventually publish as a new OGL. Will it go to court?  who knows.   

WotC will not budge much on their VTT content locking down (to try and keep/increase DnD beyong subscriptions) and their specific protected content.
But it won't matter that much as it seems many won't use or recognise it anyway.
If the Creative content thing is still there when it goes live, then all the better, whether it's legally meaningful or not.

Oh, IF they go through it would be a real shame if someone were to make "Nazi Vixens from the Moon" using their expression of the mechanics and in the credits page they put:

"Mechanics CC By Wizards of the Coast"  ;D

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 12:05:57 AM
Oh, IF they go through it would be a real shame if someone were to make "Nazi Vixens from the Moon" using their expression of the mechanics and in the credits page they put:

"Mechanics CC By Wizards of the Coast"  ;D

Lol, I was chatting to someone along those lines.
More a what if there were setting based on the "Iron sky" movie using the CC license (probably what you're referring to)? It has Nazis in it, but it's not Pro Nazi, They're defo painted in a bad light, but more a comedy.
It would probably alarm WotC/Hasbro greatly though.

QuoteNo Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing.

So any written adventure that includes a murder mystery is grounds for termination, because murder is illegal and thus not allowed content. Am I wrong here? Strictly speaking, I don't think so.
Also:

QuoteWe have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

Translation: "If we don't like you, we'll invent any bullshit reason to get rid of you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it because you agreed to this shit." Even if you're a woke company, this should be a gigantic red flag. We all know that the loony left will turn on each other for any perceived indiscretion. No one is safe from this nonsense.

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 21, 2023, 12:10:11 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 12:05:57 AM
Oh, IF they go through it would be a real shame if someone were to make "Nazi Vixens from the Moon" using their expression of the mechanics and in the credits page they put:

"Mechanics CC By Wizards of the Coast"  ;D

Lol, I was chatting to someone along those lines.
More a what if there were setting based on the "Iron sky" movie using the CC license (probably what you're referring to)? It has Nazis in it, but it's not Pro Nazi, They're defo painted in a bad light, but more a comedy.
It would probably alarm WotC/Hasbro greatly though.

It doesn't need to be pronazi, you could make it like Actual Fucking Monsters, where you play the Nazis as the bad guys doing bad stuff.

But probably just including them would cause great Reeeeeeeeee

But it would be glorious if someone made an effort to go for the maximum reeeeeeeeee.

I'm not going to be that someone, because I want to make the games I want to play.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 20, 2023, 08:11:34 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:27:20 AMOf particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

How does that legal definition work in the age of print on demand?

Digital products are still "published" and copyright. Giving the buyer authorization to print their digital book doesn't change that. It doesn't magically change the publication date to the year it was physically printed.

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.

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.

Where did you find that?

And just out of curiosity, have they published the 5.1 srd?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 02:00:02 AM

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.

Where did you find that?

And just out of curiosity, have they published the 5.1 srd?

OGL 1.2 draft https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf
2nd page of OGL 1.2 draft
Introduction to System Reference Document 5.1
MANY WAYS TO CREATE. Dungeons & Dragons content is available to you in many ways:
• The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System
Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any
limitations at all on how you use that content.

5.1 SRD https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf is the CURRENT 5e SRD licenced under OGL 1.0. They purport to 'de-authorise' 1.0 and replace it with a  new OGL.

From Foundry's statement:
"The draft OGL 1.2 license references a separate document, the "Virtual Tabletop Policy", which covers the terms under which virtual tabletops and VTT content for may be offered under the OGL. Unfortunately, this policy is severely flawed.

A crucial issue with this document is that it is a policy rather than part of the legal terms of the OGL itself. As a policy, it may be changed without altering the terms of OGL 1.2. If Wizards of the Coast were to decide in the future that they are not actually "big fans of VTTs", this could easily become a restrictive policy which states that VTTs are not permitted. Just as print publishers have rightly insisted that the OGL must be irrevocable, the rights granted to software projects must also have a secure and trustworthy foundation to justify the investment required to create digital tools."

The full statement can be found here: https://foundryvtt.com/article/ogl12-response-feedback/

So, nothingburgers (a virtually empty set of copyrighted data released under CC by 4.0) and poison pills (VTT policy is not a license and so can be changed at any time at Hasbro's whims... weasel wording on "previously published" instead of "previously created" and deauthorization of OGL1.0a in general) all around in the OGL1.2.

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."

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.

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...

Quote from: S'mon on January 21, 2023, 02:40:30 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2023, 02:00:02 AM

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.

Where did you find that?

And just out of curiosity, have they published the 5.1 srd?

OGL 1.2 draft https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf
2nd page of OGL 1.2 draft
Introduction to System Reference Document 5.1
MANY WAYS TO CREATE. Dungeons & Dragons content is available to you in many ways:
• The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System
Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any
limitations at all on how you use that content.

5.1 SRD https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf is the CURRENT 5e SRD licenced under OGL 1.0. They purport to 'de-authorise' 1.0 and replace it with a  new OGL.

Thanks, thought the srd I had was the 5.0 but it's the same.

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. ???

All this time spent re-naming this and that is wasted.

Pundit is doing none of this nonsense for his games. And Wotzi actually knows he exists...

If Wotzi decides to lawfare you, re-naming Dex to Agility will not save you. They will lawfare you with the claim that you are violating the "creative expression" of their D&D rules set with your totally not-D&D Clone.

The only real worry is the handful of Wotzi specific trademarked terms.

It increasingly seems that everything else is going to go to court.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 05:23:54 PM

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).

Mythras Classic Fantasy uses a skill-based system. Classes are translated as packages of skills. I think that's more elegant, altho I definitely think skill-based systems have their problems (http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=3726). I like Risus Cliches because they exist in a space between skill-based and class-based systems.

Your take also vaguely reminds me of 4e. I think 4e had a good idea by separating roles from power sources, but where they screwed up was trying to force old classes into molds they probably were unsuitable for, as opposed to just using the pure roles and power sources.

I think Spheres of Power really improves on this by giving a more toolkit take on classes. Rather than picking wizard, sorcerer, druid or whatever, you pick a class/role like pure caster or mageknight gish, pick a casting tradition that provides the benefits/drawbacks of being a wizard or druid or whatever, and then specialize in what magic effects you cast from their listing of spheres of influence. This lets you replicate the traditional classes while also being able to easily create new ones to suit your setting. This also helps to cut down on class bloat.

I personally don't think Wotc has a leg to stand on vis a vis Lulu or DTRPG/OBS. According to Motley Fool (an investing website), MtG and D&D account for 72% of Hasbreo's profit, and 20% of their revenue. If DTRPG/OBS were to take down all OGL/WotC stuff (and let WotC handle DMsGuild, never mind if they even bother to give them the files or database or whatever) it would RUIN WotC in mere days, definitely enough to show up on a shareholder's report.

Hasbro is not the monolithic, unlimited wealth-level threat everyone seems to think it is, a big bad lawsuit would cost them badly.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 21, 2023, 08:13:21 PM
Mythras Classic Fantasy uses a skill-based system. Classes are translated as packages of skills. I think that's more elegant, altho I definitely think skill-based systems have their problems (http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=3726). I like Risus Cliches because they exist in a space between skill-based and class-based systems.

Your take also vaguely reminds me of 4e. I think 4e had a good idea by separating roles from power sources, but where they screwed up was trying to force old classes into molds they probably were unsuitable for, as opposed to just using the pure roles and power sources.

Part of my testing crew were my half-dozen godkids who for the bulk of that testin were ages 10-14. Part of what led me to the nested choice classes was observing how they interacted with various setups and that one was the easiest for those not already familiar with rpgs.

Pick a Kind. It probably has another choice to make as part of it (ex. what element an Eldritch is associated with).

Pick a background and pick three of six skills and a couple of boons from its list.

Pick one of six classes, then pick one focus option and one of the paths.

There were thousands of combinations, but each choice point had only a relative handful of options to choose from.

Also from my experience, even kids have a pretty good idea of what kind/race and background they want beforehand so a clear summary so they get the one that best matches their idea actually solves the "too many choices at once" problem pretty handily... classes ("how you fight") were where option paralysis most set in so that is where the nesting of choices got used a lot.

The need to have the setting be something my godkids' parents would find acceptable for them to play definitely played a role in shaping what I refer to as a "superversive" (the opposite of subversion) setting with an established monotheistic faith alongside the typical fantasy polytheistic ones (which as my setting notes is for portraying virtuous pagan heroes such as those in Greco-Roman, Norse and Egyptian myths and legends) and the practice of Necromancy and Demon worship portrayed as absolutely evil and damaging to the free will of their users (such that, by default, they are available only to NPCs in the default setting... though they're balanced with other PC options if you need them for a different setting with different metaphysical assumptions.

And yes, the similarities to 4E aren't entirely an accident. The project began as an attempt at a 4E retroclone, but my design principle of "question everything" and "be willing to kill sacred cows in favor of best practices" quickly resulted in a system that, other than a few conceptual elements (starting a bit more powerful, capping the upper levels of power and points of light as a useful sandbox structure) bore almost no resemblance to 4E at all.

I could fill a book chronicling all the changes made based on player feedback that made it the system it is today. Being humble enough to admit I was wrong about certain concepts was a tough pill, but made my system better overall.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 09:16:04 PM
The need to have the setting be something my godkids' parents would find acceptable for them to play definitely played a role in shaping what I refer to as a "superversive" (the opposite of subversion) setting with an established monotheistic faith alongside the typical fantasy polytheistic ones (which as my setting notes is for portraying virtuous pagan heroes such as those in Greco-Roman, Norse and Egyptian myths and legends) and the practice of Necromancy and Demon worship portrayed as absolutely evil and damaging to the free will of their users (such that, by default, they are available only to NPCs in the default setting... though they're balanced with other PC options if you need them for a different setting with different metaphysical assumptions.

I've found myself gravitating towards a Church of Sol Invictus to patronize clerics, monks (western flavored here) and paladins in my setting. I've done similar for other iconic class concepts: wizards and mageknights are students of Hermeticism, witches and rangers (cunning folk) are devotees of Hecate and other former pagan deities who were syncretized as church saints, warlocks make pacts with the Devil, barbarians and druids are practitioners of the Old Faith, sorcerers aren't considered safe/sanctioned unless they've been baptized, artificers are a fairly new development from the Duchies of Vinci (think steampunk renaissance Italy), etc. Very Eurofantasy.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 21, 2023, 04:27:45 PM

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.

I'm not saying someone WILL do it, but the risk of someone using their expression of the rules to write a wrong-bad game and be forced to put the attribution exists.

Given the propensity off the woke to find shit to be offended by the chances of this happening approach certainty.

I take their expression, I write a game, it has all the classic tropes, 100% Evil monsters, slavers, etc as enemies for the Players. Well I'm now practically Hitler, since my book has the attribution to wotzi by the magic of guilt by association now wotzi is guilty too.

Quote from: FingerRod on January 21, 2023, 04:27:45 PM

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.

Well, if someone were to make such a game, it'd probably be very wise of them to do so secretly, then release it under a "dummy lable" so it can't be affiliated with their more serious work. The alternative is to make it an obvious satire, with plenty of jokes aimed at the "anti-hero" PCs. The only difference between playing satirical Nazis and a band of rampaging orcs or goblins is the stigma attached to the former. Ironically, the German National Socialist party receives far more stigma than any other Socialist/Communist party, despite the latter having a far higher body-count (and a much less functional economic system).

For this reason, I wonder if "Stalinists From The Moon" wouldn't be a better approach. It would still generate the same Reeee-sponse from woke lefties, but for a different (and perhaps more poignant) reason. If done cleverly or subtlely enough, the satire may even go missed and get lefties to actually purchase the product (they aren't exactly known for being critical thinkers, after all).

Quote from: Jaeger on January 21, 2023, 07:14:37 PM
All this time spent re-naming this and that is wasted.

Pundit is doing none of this nonsense for his games. And Wotzi actually knows he exists...

If Wotzi decides to lawfare you, re-naming Dex to Agility will not save you. They will lawfare you with the claim that you are violating the "creative expression" of their D&D rules set with your totally not-D&D Clone.

The only real worry is the handful of Wotzi specific trademarked terms.

It increasingly seems that everything else is going to go to court.

This is correct (I teach copyright & trademark law in the UK).

Quote from: Effete on January 22, 2023, 02:44:42 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 21, 2023, 04:27:45 PM

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.

Well, if someone were to make such a game, it'd probably be very wise of them to do so secretly, then release it under a "dummy lable" so it can't be affiliated with their more serious work. The alternative is to make it an obvious satire, with plenty of jokes aimed at the "anti-hero" PCs. The only difference between playing satirical Nazis and a band of rampaging orcs or goblins is the stigma attached to the former. Ironically, the German National Socialist party receives far more stigma than any other Socialist/Communist party, despite the latter having a far higher body-count (and a much less functional economic system).

For this reason, I wonder if "Stalinists From The Moon" wouldn't be a better approach. It would still generate the same Reeee-sponse from woke lefties, but for a different (and perhaps more poignant) reason. If done cleverly or subtlely enough, the satire may even go missed and get lefties to actually purchase the product (they aren't exactly known for being critical thinkers, after all).

A "moon commies" game already exists, albeit as a parody. It's described as follows:
"Star Marx is a french roleplaying game for beginners or more experienced players who don't take themselves seriously, from 7 to 777 years old, in the universe of the famous Travel Guide of the Adventurer of Imaginary Worlds, Star Marx!

Star Marx is an original and parodic science fiction universe where the Russians won the Cold War and conquered space."

Quote from: Effete on January 22, 2023, 02:44:42 AM
For this reason, I wonder if "Stalinists From The Moon" wouldn't be a better approach. It would still generate the same Reeee-sponse from woke lefties, but for a different (and perhaps more poignant) reason. If done cleverly or subtlely enough, the satire may even go missed and get lefties to actually purchase the product (they aren't exactly known for being critical thinkers, after all).

Before it became the grand sprawling thing that is the Grand Tour universe, back in the 80s, Ben Bova wrote a novel called Privateers, about a future where the USSR controlled space travel, and the protagonist of the book was a sort of proto-Elon Musk-ish swashbuckling hyper-capitalist determined to break their stranglehold on the world.

... I really, really want to make that into an RPG setting, now.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 22, 2023, 08:26:09 AM

Quote from: Effete on January 22, 2023, 02:44:42 AM
For this reason, I wonder if "Stalinists From The Moon" wouldn't be a better approach. It would still generate the same Reeee-sponse from woke lefties, but for a different (and perhaps more poignant) reason. If done cleverly or subtlely enough, the satire may even go missed and get lefties to actually purchase the product (they aren't exactly known for being critical thinkers, after all).

Before it became the grand sprawling thing that is the Grand Tour universe, back in the 80s, Ben Bova wrote a story about a future where the USSR controlled space travel, and the protagonist of the book was a sort of proto-Elon Musk-ish swashbuckling hyper-capitalist determined to break their stranglehold on the world.

... I really, really want to make that into an RPG setting, now.

That does sound light-years cooler!
I'll need to find that story.

Quote from: Effete on January 22, 2023, 08:31:09 AM

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 22, 2023, 08:26:09 AM

Quote from: Effete on January 22, 2023, 02:44:42 AM
For this reason, I wonder if "Stalinists From The Moon" wouldn't be a better approach. It would still generate the same Reeee-sponse from woke lefties, but for a different (and perhaps more poignant) reason. If done cleverly or subtlely enough, the satire may even go missed and get lefties to actually purchase the product (they aren't exactly known for being critical thinkers, after all).

Before it became the grand sprawling thing that is the Grand Tour universe, back in the 80s, Ben Bova wrote a story about a future where the USSR controlled space travel, and the protagonist of the book was a sort of proto-Elon Musk-ish swashbuckling hyper-capitalist determined to break their stranglehold on the world.

... I really, really want to make that into an RPG setting, now.

That does sound light-years cooler!
I'll need to find that story.

I went back and edited my post once I looked up the title, since I forgot it, but it's "Privateers", by Ben Bova.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 22, 2023, 08:31:52 AM
I went back and edited my post once I looked up the title, since I forgot it, but it's "Privateers", by Ben Bova.

Thank you!

Oh, man! It even has a very marketable title aleady! "Privateers of Red Space" or some such.

Took the survey and thanked them for identifying as a business not wanting my patronage. Nice and simple.

I was surprised that there were more than a few people on the ENW and TBP sites who are aligned with a similar mindset as those of us here. That having been said, I wonder if there might be WotC/Hasbro plants...

One turd in particular on ENW (FormerLurker) seems to be simping pretty damn hard for the new "They'll release core mechanics" announcement, as well as "it could be worse" messaging.

I'm hoping that no one buys into this type of thinking, especially the smallest 3pp who have the most to lose.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 21, 2023, 09:16:04 PM
And yes, the similarities to 4E aren't entirely an accident. The project began as an attempt at a 4E retroclone, but my design principle of "question everything" and "be willing to kill sacred cows in favor of best practices" quickly resulted in a system that, other than a few conceptual elements (starting a bit more powerful, capping the upper levels of power and points of light as a useful sandbox structure) bore almost no resemblance to 4E at all.

  Still looking forward to it and still hoping that it serves as fulfillment of unintentional prophecy (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/necro-d-d-4th-edtion-facts.368653/page-15#post-8968203), because that darkest hour sure seems to be approaching swiftly...

Quote from: FingerRod on January 21, 2023, 04:27:45 PM

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.

I'd play that VG/watch that movie/buy that book/run that as a one-shot, at least.

Just the name is so awesome, it deserves to be a quick-play game about manly American Men fighting off an invasion of Nazi Vixens in flying saucers lead by Elsa, She-Wolf of the SS. (The Nazi Vixens are the Bad Guys.)

Like Wolfenstein, but with buxom blondes here to steal Virile Aryan men to continue building the Master Race on the Moon.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 21, 2023, 03:27:45 AMThe full statement can be found here: https://foundryvtt.com/article/ogl12-response-feedback/

Thank you for posting that. Very interesting breakdown from the VTT perspective.

I posted a bit on this on the Giants of the Playground, but their moderation is . . . . highly subjective apparently (the major problem with vague posting guidelines--including 6f of 1.2 being one tends to set a different standard for one's political allies than one's political opponents).

I think there are a few problems I'm not seeing addressed here:

1. There are a number of lawyers disputing whether or not you can copyright mechanics, I won't weigh in, but even if one could, the problem in this industry is that everything is borrowed from somewhere, even most of the iconic DnD monsters are borrowed from other literary sources, so is the Vancian approach to magic, and WTOC is far from being original, they lifted an entire setting for D20 modern and printed it in a magazine article lifted from a Sci-fi author's work (without crediting him). Mechanically 3.0 appears to have adapted the mechanics of the skill system (and likely much more) from skill based systems that existed previously (Attribute+skill rank) replacing the roll under approach for non-weapon proficiencies of 2e, or the way abilities functioned. Interestingly, I noticed it was similar to the last edition WEG put out for Star Wars, and interestingly WOTC's version of Star Wars was being developed concurrently with DnD 3.0, it had at least one designer that had worked on the previous license, and that system very clearly borrows other concepts from the WEG system, meaning they referenced it. It would be interesting for a lawyer to look at whether some of that amounts to outright plagiarism in some of the explanation systems.

2. The problem for OSR publishers and other bigger names will be the question of similarity particularly with things like classes. I have no idea what systems would or wouldn't be affected here. The big issue isn't what can WOTC prove in terms of the court case, but can the other side afford an adequate defense?

3. The VTT thing may have some serious anti-trust concerns. There are rules that dominate market players have to essentially provide even terms in regards to various customers. I think it is likely the exclusion of foundry or others will be a problem, or if not it points to the need to modernize American Anti-trust laws.

4. What I think may be the most interesting scenario is that there is OGC that Wizards did not create. OpenD6 was made open, for example, using OGL 1.0a (and I think it would be interesting to figure out how all that works if WOTC is able to successfully defend the position that they can deauthorize the license, since it will affect IP that they do not own). But if WOTC is able to deauthorize themselves, they may have poison pilled themselves. If they have borrowed open game content in some way, shape or form, (say if the similarities between saves in 5e from ability scores is borrowed from Castles and Crusades Siege engine, there are similarities and differences here), then by deauthorizing 1.0a, they have removed their ability to use that content in whatever system they are using now, say their new system. Other publishers should probably look at WOTC's new products to verify if any of it comes from their work before giving WOTC the right to use it by signing 1.2a.

Quote from: Toran Ironfinder on January 23, 2023, 12:41:29 PM
I posted a bit on this on the Giants of the Playground, but their moderation is . . . . highly subjective apparently (the major problem with vague posting guidelines--including 6f of 1.2 being one tends to set a different standard for one's political allies than one's political opponents).

I think there are a few problems I'm not seeing addressed here:

1. There are a number of lawyers disputing whether or not you can copyright mechanics, I won't weigh in, but even if one could, the problem in this industry is that everything is borrowed from somewhere, even most of the iconic DnD monsters are borrowed from other literary sources, so is the Vancian approach to magic, and WTOC is far from being original, they lifted an entire setting for D20 modern and printed it in a magazine article lifted from a Sci-fi author's work (without crediting him). Mechanically 3.0 appears to have adapted the mechanics of the skill system (and likely much more) from skill based systems that existed previously (Attribute+skill rank) replacing the roll under approach for non-weapon proficiencies of 2e, or the way abilities functioned. Interestingly, I noticed it was similar to the last edition WEG put out for Star Wars, and interestingly WOTC's version of Star Wars was being developed concurrently with DnD 3.0, it had at least one designer that had worked on the previous license, and that system very clearly borrows other concepts from the WEG system, meaning they referenced it. It would be interesting for a lawyer to look at whether some of that amounts to outright plagiarism in some of the explanation systems.

2. The problem for OSR publishers and other bigger names will be the question of similarity particularly with things like classes. I have no idea what systems would or wouldn't be affected here. The big issue isn't what can WOTC prove in terms of the court case, but can the other side afford an adequate defense?

3. The VTT thing may have some serious anti-trust concerns. There are rules that dominate market players have to essentially provide even terms in regards to various customers. I think it is likely the exclusion of foundry or others will be a problem, or if not it points to the need to modernize American Anti-trust laws.

4. What I think may be the most interesting scenario is that there is OGC that Wizards did not create. OpenD6 was made open, for example, using OGL 1.0a (and I think it would be interesting to figure out how all that works if WOTC is able to successfully defend the position that they can deauthorize the license, since it will affect IP that they do not own). But if WOTC is able to deauthorize themselves, they may have poison pilled themselves. If they have borrowed open game content in some way, shape or form, (say if the similarities between saves in 5e from ability scores is borrowed from Castles and Crusades Siege engine, there are similarities and differences here), then by deauthorizing 1.0a, they have removed their ability to use that content in whatever system they are using now, say their new system. Other publishers should probably look at WOTC's new products to verify if any of it comes from their work before giving WOTC the right to use it by signing 1.2a.

The simplest solution is to never touch a WotC offered license, period.

As to copyrighting mechanics... previous case law says you can't, but you CAN copyright their expression (the specific wording of your mechanics). You can also claim copyright on sufficiently specific collections od distinct elements that are expressed partly through mechanics (ex. The specific spellcasting system of levels, slots, schools, preparation, components and spell lists that compromise a D&D wizard... vs. the generic concept of a wizard).

Quote from: Toran Ironfinder on January 23, 2023, 12:41:29 PM
But if WOTC is able to deauthorize themselves, they may have poison pilled themselves. If they have borrowed open game content in some way, shape or form, (say if the similarities between saves in 5e from ability scores is borrowed from Castles and Crusades Siege engine, there are similarities and differences here), then by deauthorizing 1.0a, they have removed their ability to use that content in whatever system they are using now, say their new system. Other publishers should probably look at WOTC's new products to verify if any of it comes from their work before giving WOTC the right to use it by signing 1.2a.

WotC has almost never published anything commercial using other people's work under the OGL. Apparently there were only two exceptions back in the 3E era, which are long out of print now. One of them is two pages in the Monster Manual II, which could trivially be deleted from the PDF, and even if they left them in, it would be hard for White Wolf to get anything from a lawsuit over that.

Quote from: jhkim on January 23, 2023, 02:22:16 PM

Quote from: Toran Ironfinder on January 23, 2023, 12:41:29 PM
But if WOTC is able to deauthorize themselves, they may have poison pilled themselves. If they have borrowed open game content in some way, shape or form, (say if the similarities between saves in 5e from ability scores is borrowed from Castles and Crusades Siege engine, there are similarities and differences here), then by deauthorizing 1.0a, they have removed their ability to use that content in whatever system they are using now, say their new system. Other publishers should probably look at WOTC's new products to verify if any of it comes from their work before giving WOTC the right to use it by signing 1.2a.

WotC has almost never published anything commercial using other people's work under the OGL. Apparently there were only two exceptions back in the 3E era, which are long out of print now. One of them is two pages in the Monster Manual II, which could trivially be deleted from the PDF, and even if they left them in, it would be hard for White Wolf to get anything from a lawsuit over that.

Explicitly, that they admited to, publicly...

I'm not so knowledgable of WotC's output or of all the TTRPGs out there under the OGL or not, to vouch one way or the other...

But, if wotzi intents to get all "lawfare asshole" on others it might be worthwhile for the other publishers (who know their work better) to start combing WotC's output for stuff they might or might not have gotten "inspired" from their own products.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 23, 2023, 03:30:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 23, 2023, 02:22:16 PM

Quote from: Toran Ironfinder on January 23, 2023, 12:41:29 PM
But if WOTC is able to deauthorize themselves, they may have poison pilled themselves. If they have borrowed open game content in some way, shape or form, (say if the similarities between saves in 5e from ability scores is borrowed from Castles and Crusades Siege engine, there are similarities and differences here), then by deauthorizing 1.0a, they have removed their ability to use that content in whatever system they are using now, say their new system. Other publishers should probably look at WOTC's new products to verify if any of it comes from their work before giving WOTC the right to use it by signing 1.2a.

WotC has almost never published anything commercial using other people's work under the OGL. Apparently there were only two exceptions back in the 3E era, which are long out of print now. One of them is two pages in the Monster Manual II, which could trivially be deleted from the PDF, and even if they left them in, it would be hard for White Wolf to get anything from a lawsuit over that.

Explicitly, that they admited to, publicly...

I'm not so knowledgable of WotC's output or of all the TTRPGs out there under the OGL or not, to vouch one way or the other...

I'm not so knowledgable about WotC or third-party output either. I wasn't speaking about copying in general. I'm only talking about copying by use of the OGL v1.0a. They haven't done so, so de-authorizing the OGL v1.0a doesn't poison pill them as Toran Ironfinder suggested.

If they copied without using the OGL, then they could be sued regardless of whether they de-authorized or not.

Quote from: Toran Ironfinder on January 23, 2023, 12:41:29 PM
4. What I think may be the most interesting scenario is that there is OGC that Wizards did not create. OpenD6 was made open, for example, using OGL 1.0a (and I think it would be interesting to figure out how all that works if WOTC is able to successfully defend the position that they can deauthorize the license, since it will affect IP that they do not own).

This is the point I had been raising since this whole thing began. The OGL is not just a vehicle for DnD content, as WotC wants people to believe. It has always been a framework for other publishers to share content by removing the "grey area" between owned IP and public domain.

However, it de facto became a DnD/d20 content-machine simply because why the hell wouldn't you use the biggest TT game on the market to piggy-back your content off of? This was not only the OGL's biggest success, but also it's biggest failure. So many 3PP wanted to remain compatible with the DnD gravy train, that the OGL failed to sufficiently produce enough "hybrid" systems.

QuoteBut if WOTC is able to deauthorize themselves, they may have poison pilled themselves. If they have borrowed open game content in some way, shape or form, (say if the similarities between saves in 5e from ability scores is borrowed from Castles and Crusades Siege engine, there are similarities and differences here), then by deauthorizing 1.0a, they have removed their ability to use that content in whatever system they are using now, say their new system. Other publishers should probably look at WOTC's new products to verify if any of it comes from their work before giving WOTC the right to use it by signing 1.2a.

Unlikely. As jhkim pointed out, WotC rarely used other Open Game Content in their products. Hindsight being 20/20, this now looks like a calculated decision. OGL 1.0(a) users would be very hard pressed to show that certain DnD material would be revoked if 1.0(a) is deauthorized. The fight should focus on challenging WotC claim they can even do such a thing.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 23, 2023, 02:38:51 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on January 21, 2023, 04:27:45 PM

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.

I'd play that VG/watch that movie/buy that book/run that as a one-shot, at least.

Just the name is so awesome, it deserves to be a quick-play game about manly American Men fighting off an invasion of Nazi Vixens in flying saucers lead by Elsa, She-Wolf of the SS. (The Nazi Vixens are the Bad Guys.)

Like Wolfenstein, but with buxom blondes here to steal Virile Aryan men to continue building the Master Race on the Moon.

Haha okay fair enough :)

Quote from: Toran Ironfinder on January 23, 2023, 12:41:29 PMThe big issue isn't what can WOTC prove in terms of the court case, but can the other side afford an adequate defense?

Their best defense?

Probably the unhindered existence of Palladium Books since 1983.

TSR never sued Palladium for making their Not-AD&D RPG via Palladium Fantasy, nor any of their dozen other RPGs with many "similiarities" to what WotC wants to claim is their own.

Then in 1999, WotC bought TSR and for 24 years, they have also not lifted a single finger against Palladium who has continued to crank out books every year and never used the OGL, but has relied upon Fair Use for everything.

And what about the Warhammer Fantasy RPGs?

Of course, the same could be said about the Ultima and Wizardry games, and a bazillion other CRPGs published since 1999.

If WotC really wants to protect their IP, then why haven't they?

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 23, 2023, 08:47:05 PM
Their best defense?

Probably the unhindered existence of Palladium Books since 1983.

TSR never sued Palladium for making their Not-AD&D RPG via Palladium Fantasy, nor any of their dozen other RPGs with many "similiarities" to what WotC wants to claim is their own.

Then in 1999, WotC bought TSR and for 24 years, they have also not lifted a single finger against Palladium who has continued to crank out books every year and never used the OGL, but has relied upon Fair Use for everything.

And what about the Warhammer Fantasy RPGs?

Of course, the same could be said about the Ultima and Wizardry games, and a bazillion other CRPGs published since 1999.

If WotC really wants to protect their IP, then why haven't they?

Really, other than having elves and dwarves (and halflings, and... you know, general Tolkien tropes. Although IIRC Palladium Fantasy doesn't have halflings...), those two aren't actually that close to D&D IP wise. They don't have any of the big points of IP that WotC usually harps on, like Mindflayers and Displacer Beasts and the Great Wheel and such. WotC doesn't, can't, and won't try to generically claim they own "Tolkien derived fantasy", because, yeah, as you point out, everyone else has been doing it since like a year or two after D&D came out. That ship has sailed, sunk, been raised from the bottom, and is sailing again.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 23, 2023, 09:41:10 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 23, 2023, 08:47:05 PM
Their best defense?

Probably the unhindered existence of Palladium Books since 1983.

TSR never sued Palladium for making their Not-AD&D RPG via Palladium Fantasy, nor any of their dozen other RPGs with many "similiarities" to what WotC wants to claim is their own.

Then in 1999, WotC bought TSR and for 24 years, they have also not lifted a single finger against Palladium who has continued to crank out books every year and never used the OGL, but has relied upon Fair Use for everything.

And what about the Warhammer Fantasy RPGs?

Of course, the same could be said about the Ultima and Wizardry games, and a bazillion other CRPGs published since 1999.

If WotC really wants to protect their IP, then why haven't they?

Really, other than having elves and dwarves (and halflings, and... you know, general Tolkien tropes. Although IIRC Palladium Fantasy doesn't have halflings...), those two aren't actually that close to D&D IP wise. They don't have any of the big points of IP that WotC usually harps on, like Mindflayers and Displacer Beasts and the Great Wheel and such. WotC doesn't, can't, and won't try to generically claim they own "Tolkien derived fantasy", because, yeah, as you point out, everyone else has been doing it since like a year or two after D&D came out. That ship has sailed, sunk, been raised from the bottom, and is sailing again.

Except Copyright isn't like Trademark:

If you start using GW's trademark and they do nothing they will lose the Trademark. Others can cite you as a defense.

If you start using GW's copyright they have the luxury of not doing shit, because they don't lose the copyright because you used it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 23, 2023, 09:45:47 PM
Except Copyright isn't like Trademark:

If you start using GW's trademark and they do nothing they will lose the Trademark. Others can cite you as a defense.

If you start using GW's copyright they have the luxury of not doing shit, because they don't lose the copyright because you used it.

You're right, Copyright isn't like Trademark. You can't copyright a vague idea. You have to actually have a unique expression. "Elf" is not a unique expression. Even "pointy eared slender long-lived elves" are not a unique expression.

Quote from: Effete on January 23, 2023, 05:12:45 PM

Quote from: Toran Ironfinder on January 23, 2023, 12:41:29 PM
4. What I think may be the most interesting scenario is that there is OGC that Wizards did not create. OpenD6 was made open, for example, using OGL 1.0a (and I think it would be interesting to figure out how all that works if WOTC is able to successfully defend the position that they can deauthorize the license, since it will affect IP that they do not own).

This is the point I had been raising since this whole thing began. The OGL is not just a vehicle for DnD content, as WotC wants people to believe. It has always been a framework for other publishers to share content by removing the "grey area" between owned IP and public domain.

However, it de facto became a DnD/d20 content-machine simply because why the hell wouldn't you use the biggest TT game on the market to piggy-back your content off of? This was not only the OGL's biggest success, but also it's biggest failure. So many 3PP wanted to remain compatible with the DnD gravy train, that the OGL failed to sufficiently produce enough "hybrid" systems.

QuoteBut if WOTC is able to deauthorize themselves, they may have poison pilled themselves. If they have borrowed open game content in some way, shape or form, (say if the similarities between saves in 5e from ability scores is borrowed from Castles and Crusades Siege engine, there are similarities and differences here), then by deauthorizing 1.0a, they have removed their ability to use that content in whatever system they are using now, say their new system. Other publishers should probably look at WOTC's new products to verify if any of it comes from their work before giving WOTC the right to use it by signing 1.2a.

Unlikely. As jhkim pointed out, WotC rarely used other Open Game Content in their products. Hindsight being 20/20, this now looks like a calculated decision. OGL 1.0(a) users would be very hard pressed to show that certain DnD material would be revoked if 1.0(a) is deauthorized. The fight should focus on challenging WotC claim they can even do such a thing.

True as far as it goes, they have never claimed that they are using OGC content from other companies, though I have noted why I believe it is likely they have done as much borrowing as anyone else. However, if they did borrow OGC from another company using OGC content, under OGL 1.0a, if I understand this correctly, they could cure the problem by copying the OGL 1.0a into their products. . . . of course, if it is deauthorized, this cure is then lost. If court cases are filed, its possible that a fine tooth comb will be applied to a number of gaming products.

As to mechanics, I'm not a lawyer, all I know is different lawyers have different opinions on issues related to "expression of mechanics" and whether issues related to court law apply to RPGs, I'm not making an argument that this is the direction they will go in, I'm noting that its not necessarily as simple as we might want to think so having a defense ready might be wise.

Quote from: Toran Ironfinder on January 24, 2023, 12:02:12 AM
True as far as it goes, they have never claimed that they are using OGC content from other companies, though I have noted why I believe it is likely they have done as much borrowing as anyone else. However, if they did borrow OGC from another company using OGC content, under OGL 1.0a, if I understand this correctly, they could cure the problem by copying the OGL 1.0a into their products. . . . of course, if it is deauthorized, this cure is then lost. If court cases are filed, its possible that a fine tooth comb will be applied to a number of gaming products.

But if WotC never used the OGL, then by DEFINITION they haven't used "Open Game Content." They would have used other purported material under the doctrine of Fair Use (public domain). Any lawsuit challenging WotC's ability to deauthorize the license would be shooting itself in the head if they wandered off into this territory. Furthermore, it would be extremely counter-productive, since challenging WotC on such copyright claims only opens the door for them to make similar claims against other publishers. It's a fool's errand.

QuoteAs to mechanics, I'm not a lawyer, all I know is different lawyers have different opinions on issues related to "expression of mechanics" and whether issues related to court law apply to RPGs, I'm not making an argument that this is the direction they will go in, I'm noting that its not necessarily as simple as we might want to think so having a defense ready might be wise.

Yeah, copyright has always been messy since there's no clear distinction where an idea becomes an IP. This was the entire point of tbe OGL... for publishers to say "this stuff is free use, this stuff is not." By opting-in to the license, you agree to those terms (regardless of how fuzzy they may be in a traditional copyright case). If you never used the OGL, those terms cannot be used against you.