Given WOTC statements about D&D being undermonetised as a brand, their desires to monetise D&D like mobile games are monetised (off the backs of DM's, to boot), their recent statements about a new 1.1 version of the OGL (which isn't actually an OGL but the kind of hybrid trademark/open/royalty license WOTC wisely avoided back in '00), and their already-on-a-slippery-slope demands for royalties...

WOTC is clearly being run by greedheads who are seeking a much larger level of control over D&D, in order to extract more money from D&D customers without having to provide more value.

I'm surmising that WOTC lawyers are planning even now to bring a suit to claw back the release of D&D mechanics, creatures, etc. in the 3.5 SRD (under the terms of the 1.0a Open Gaming License) in an attempt to invalidate all the "we don't get paid for it" D&D (and free-to-customers D&D) out in the wild. THEY WANT ROYALTIES ON EVERYTHING. ACKS, Stars Without Number, Pathfinder, everything.

They may even seek to invalidate the 1.0a OGL itself.

This company is going the same route as Activision, EA, John Deere, Mercedes Benz, and so many others: they exert control to extract, or seek to extract, money from customers without providing value. In fact, in many cases they provide WORSE value in their attempts to maximize the money they extract.

Suing over the SRD is a logical step in this progression, and only a matter of time. I'm not saying they will succeed, I'm predicting that they will try.

This is a prediction with a time horizon of, let's say, 5 years. Even if it happens after 5 years I'll be wrong, and happy to admit to it. But I don't think I will.

It will be interesting to see how the OGL holds up compared to similar Open Source software licences.  OSS licenses have been successful so far.  If the OGL has similar legalities, it should be pretty much untouchable.  The only semi-successful attack I'm aware of on open source software licenses was based on patents (Oracle vs Google over Java), which I think don't apply to game rules or content.  In any case, I'm glad I already have hard copies of a bunch of cool stuff....

Edit to add:  I really hope ACKS Imperial Edition gets released before any legal apocalypses!

Hasbro's market cap is $8.5 billion.

"clearly being run by greedheads"

You do understand how large corporations work, right? All they see is money that is being taken from their coffers. I'm honestly surprised WotC has gotten this far along without having to tighten the screws on obvious money-bleeding policies (even if it's literally pennies in the grand scheme of things). The SRD/OGL can be challenged in court by Hasbro and then all the independent publishers go under because one can afford to actually to defend the litigation. That's life, son.

I don't think going after SRDs is going to do anything for them. In fact, I doubt small publishers are even on their radar. Reading the new 1.1 nOGL it's pretty clear they think digital tools are the future and they probably plan on micro-transactioning  them to the hilt(1999 crowns to unlock the necromancer subclass!!).

They'll go after things that threaten their monopoly on the digital platform. Character generators, VTTs, online campaign tools, basically anything that would compete with them on One, which will completely out-date and replace 5e.

People still on 3.5 and earlier is too small potatoes for them. They don't care about neckbeards like us. They want the Twitch and Critical Role generation who are used to the Diablo Immortal treatment.

Quote from: atomic on January 02, 2023, 03:11:29 PM
It will be interesting to see how the OGL holds up compared to similar Open Source software licences.  OSS licenses have been successful so far.  If the OGL has similar legalities, it should be pretty much untouchable.

There is a big difference here. The original OSS licenses were written by independent programmers, starting with Richard Stallman.

However, the original OGL (v1.0a) was written by WotC lawyers as a corporate move to maximize their profits. I suspect they might not try to invalidate the license in general. They are still fine with most use of it, as it improves their profits just as planned. However, they might get more stringent in enforcing the content chain. They might go after any use of non-open content, like people copying stuff that's in D&D books but not in the SRD. This has been done by a number of retro-clones, and possibly by other OGL users.

Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 05:14:37 PM
...
However, the original OGL (v1.0a) was written by WotC lawyers as a corporate move to maximize their profits. I suspect they might not try to invalidate the license in general. They are still fine with most use of it, as it improves their profits just as planned. However, they might get more stringent in enforcing the content chain. They might go after any use of non-open content, like people copying stuff that's in D&D books but not in the SRD. This has been done by a number of retro-clones, and possibly by other OGL users.

Agreed.

I think an issue that they might face if they decide to do so, is that they have not done any such enforcement for well over a decade now. Which if things actually go to court, it could be a significant factor for things not going WotC's way.

Of course, "if things actually go to court" being the operative statement...

WotC will get a lot of mileage just out of pure lawfare until they run into someone willing to go to the expense of fighting them in court, should they choose to go down this route.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 02, 2023, 05:32:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 05:14:37 PM
...
However, the original OGL (v1.0a) was written by WotC lawyers as a corporate move to maximize their profits. I suspect they might not try to invalidate the license in general. They are still fine with most use of it, as it improves their profits just as planned. However, they might get more stringent in enforcing the content chain. They might go after any use of non-open content, like people copying stuff that's in D&D books but not in the SRD. This has been done by a number of retro-clones, and possibly by other OGL users.

Agreed.

I think an issue that they might face if they decide to do so, is that they have not done any such enforcement for well over a decade now. Which if things actually go to court, it could be a significant factor for things not going WotC's way.

Of course, "if things actually go to court" being the operative statement...

WotC will get a lot of mileage just out of pure lawfare until they run into someone willing to go to the expense of fighting them in court, should they choose to go down this route.

Or until they run into someone, who simply tells them to drink piss. 

The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo

Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.

How do you think this will affect games like Cepheus Engine because Mongoose Publishing used the WotC OGL for Traveller 1e, but did not use anything besides the license from WotC.

Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo

I haven't watched the video yet, but the OGL will matter for those who use the OGL. To win a lawsuit, WotC doesn't necessarily have to prove copyright violation. They just have to prove breach of contract that the users have not followed the terms of the OGL.

Prior to the OGL, there were people who published games quite similar to D&D. One can sue over similarity of wording, not just fully copying all rules word-for-word. How similar the wording needs to be has yet to be fully tested in court. For example, TSR sued GDW over the Mythus game with ridiculous points like this:

Quote(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57)."

Still, I think the leverage there was Gygax as author. And I haven't looked over the wording myself. Still, most other game companies did not get sued by TSR.

Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 07:13:51 PM
Prior to the OGL, there were people who published games quite similar to D&D. One can sue over similarity of wording, not just fully copying all rules word-for-word. How similar the wording needs to be has yet to be fully tested in court. For example, TSR sued GDW over the Mythus game with ridiculous points like this:

Quote(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57)."

To amplify: Is this a baloney claim? Of course it is.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the law, usually it's the guys with the deeper pockets who win. So clear baloney may just have its way.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 02, 2023, 07:33:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 07:13:51 PM
Prior to the OGL, there were people who published games quite similar to D&D. One can sue over similarity of wording, not just fully copying all rules word-for-word. How similar the wording needs to be has yet to be fully tested in court. For example, TSR sued GDW over the Mythus game with ridiculous points like this:

Quote(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57)."

To amplify: Is this a baloney claim? Of course it is.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the law, usually it's the guys with the deeper pockets who win. So clear baloney may just have its way.

The real trick is going to come with products not derived from WotC material who used the license to make it easier for other properties to make things for THEIR systems. Also for those who subsequently so modified their systems that the OGL exists more as a vestigal limb than anything core to either the mechanics or content

I. e. good luck with the d20Hero SRD associated with Mutants & Masterminds 3e... other than rolling a d20 to resolve actions... and only a d20, no variable polyhedral damage rolls... there's almost nothing shared. Not attributes, not derived stats, not classes, not level structure, not powers, not setting, not opponents. One may as well try to re-litigate Andy Worhol's painting of a the Coca-Cola cans (where it was determined that ownership of a thing doesn't prevent someone else from creating something based on the thing if the original remains intact).

The same for Stars Without Number, which uses different dice mechanics and whose setting has no connection at all to any WotC has released.

My suspicion is that if WotC goes after companies using the OGL1.0 in earnest that an effort at a crowdfunded class action against them would start to organize fairly quickly as a joint ruling would protect everyone.

Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo

Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.

Rules procedures are not protectable, neither is a high level concept such as magical healing. But an RPG is more than just rules. In the absence of the OGL, I think OSRIC & BFRPG etc very likely would be infringing WoTC's copyrights in AD&D and B/X D&D. Conversely I think something like White Star probably does not infringe any copyrights even sans OGL, even though it takes a bunch of SF aliens and general concepts, and OD&D mechanics.

Quote from: S'mon on January 03, 2023, 03:04:57 AM

Quote from: Yabba on January 02, 2023, 06:14:59 PM
The Ogl won't even matter if what people are saying about the laws are right. According to them game rules can't be copyrighted so as long as you don't copy the original rules word to word. Questing Beast made a pretty good video on it you can find here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCpgeIKxSo

Then again he isn't a lawyer, and there's bound to be some loophole hasbro's lawyers can exploit if they really want to go after something.

Rules procedures are not protectable, neither is a high level concept such as magical healing. But an RPG is more than just rules. In the absence of the OGL, I think OSRIC & BFRPG etc very likely would be infringing WoTC's copyrights in AD&D and B/X D&D. Conversely I think something like White Star probably does not infringe any copyrights even sans OGL, even though it takes a bunch of SF aliens and general concepts, and OD&D mechanics.

How possible is it for a blurred lines type case to emerge? I am thinking about how something you couldn't copyright before (essentially a 'sound') suddenly became copyrightable (I am not a lawyer so I may be getting that case's details wrong, but I followed it because I am interested in music). There were a couple of other weird cases in music, including the Kate Perry one (but I believe that was overturned by a later judge). The bottom line in music though is all this stuff I was told about what you can and can't copyright, when I was learning to play, has been thrown into question by recent legal decisions. Has the whole "You can't copyright a game mechanic" thing already been established in the courts or is that just something that reflects current legal thinking but hasn't actually been tested?

All I know for sure is, when I realized I had as many or more differences from any version of D&D as Palladium does I decided I would drop the WotC OGL entirely (the plan is to use a custom one; probably lacking section 7 since I want third parties to be able to identify compatibility of their material).

This required a few more nomenclature changes* and dropping the traditional D&D monster lore for either going back to real myths and legends or to my own ideas... and I actually think that actually made it a stronger product as a result because I, and I suspect many others, have sort of used D&D's lore like a crutch. How many settings have chromatic dragons just because D&D does? How many have green rubbery regenerating trolls? How many have halflings just because D&D does? How many treat Medusa as a class of humanoid monster while gorgons are four-legged bull-like beasts... because D&D did it that way? How many divide the infernal into opposing devil and demon camps because that's D&D's lore? How about the arcane/divine casting divide where only divine magic heals?

It's really easy to get lazy with your world-building when someone has already done a lot of work and for the low low cost of adding a single page of legalese to the back of your book it can, minus a few exceptions, all be yours. But that comes with other strings, like section seven and, well, the odds that, in spite of the license being perpetual, that Hasbro's greed/desperation would eventually result in lawfare to revoke it on the legal grounds of "at $400 an hour, how long can you afford to oppose Hasbro's lawyers dragging things out?"

My hunch is they punch Paizo first because, even with PF2 mechanics, so much of the lore came out of the 3.5eSRD that they'll try to claim its derivative of their copyrights.

The other place I think they'd hit early is d20SRD.org which hosts full versions of the 3.5e and 5e SRDs for reference by others via the OGL1.0a, because they don't want easy access to the older SRDs and they probably wouldn't have near as much money to fight the lawfare.

Win those and maybe something against one of the main OSR brands that used the OGL to recreate an earlier version of D&D whole cloth (again on the "we have the money to drag this out until you're bankrupt" principle of lawfare rather than anything that would actually stand in court) and Hasbro would have a significant chilling effect on the competition who's been using the OGL1.0a that will all just "go away" if you update to the v1.1 and start reporting your income and products for their licensing badge (and because they are so tone deaf I wouldn't be surprised if the badge they want applied is a gold star).

The best defense as I see it is a crowdfunded class action (all the main OGL users) countersuit against Hasbro for breach of contract (the license says perpetual and they are trying to force it to not be) as soon as their first warning letters go out.

* ironically, what convinced me to drop it was all the changes to terms I'd already had to make due to how much interia some existing terms had; i.e. hit points = meat. No matter how I tried to get testers to understand they were 100% skill/fatigue/morale/luck and non-physical in the system it wouldn't stick and players had issues with non-magical recovery from say, a captain rallying you to keep fighting (so you dig deep and push through your fatigue and fear) until I dropped hit points and added "Edge" which you spent to avoid taking serious damage... it's the same damnable thing, but when the mechanics say "The captain uses Rally on you and restores your Edge" no one fights it as unrealistic anymore.