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, 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.