[HN Gopher] An Open Letter on the Open Gaming License, to Wizard...
___________________________________________________________________
An Open Letter on the Open Gaming License, to Wizards of the Coast
Author : Macha
Score : 313 points
Date : 2023-01-09 18:59 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.opendnd.games)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.opendnd.games)
| drewry wrote:
| Ah so this is why my hobby open-source project of 6+ years has
| been getting a surge in traffic :) https://github.com/opendnd
|
| Totally unrelated to this of course, but very cool to see all the
| same. The OGL has been a cornerstone of innovation in this space
| and without it a lot of us would be dead in the water.
| make3 wrote:
| name should probably change so you don't get sued. am not a
| lawyer though. (cool project btw)
| cheeseomlit wrote:
| Really hope this doesn't affect OGL 1.0a the way some people are
| saying it will, particularly regarding non-DnD systems. I've been
| working on a project for several years that's based on the
| Cepheus Engine RPG system which was published under OGL 1.0a (as
| it's based on the Traveller SRD which was also used OGL 1.0a),
| which requires me to publish under that license as well. Now
| that's all up in the air, what happens if OGL 1.0a becomes
| 'unauthorized' in this case? If this ends up killing Cepheus I
| will have wasted thousands of hours of my time.
| djur wrote:
| The Traveller SRD is (c) Mongoose Publishing. It seems
| implausible that the OGL 1.0a could be construed to give Hasbro
| any control over intellectual property that isn't derived from
| their own. It should be possible for the rights owners to
| simply relicense Traveller, Fudge, etc. It's Paizo that is in a
| difficult spot, because their SRD still explicitly references
| material from Hasbro products.
| the_af wrote:
| How important is it to stick to the D&D franchise? Why are third
| parties married to something like the OGL?
|
| I understand D&D is to RPGs what Windows is (or used to be) to
| operating systems. But unlike an operating system, D&D's grasp on
| roleplaying is more fragile. There are plenty of RPG systems that
| are (subjectively) better and owe nothing to D&D's imaginary
| setting or rules. In fact, the largest innovation happens
| _outside_ the D &D franchise.
|
| There are very innovative "lite" RPGs like Trophy Dark or Risus,
| but also heavier and "crunchy" systems that owe nothing to D&D.
| Why risk your business by tying it to a franchise owned by a
| competing business?
|
| (Again, I understand riding the success of D&D's popularity. But
| unlike with computers and hardware, the "vendor lock-in" pitfall
| is easier to avoid with something as intangible as an RPG)
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| I think people are mostly worried about old material which will
| fall into a grey zone distribution-wise if Hasbro revokes the
| previous version of the OGL.
| the_af wrote:
| Oh, so this is retroactively re-licensing existing stuff?
| That's bad.
| [deleted]
| jerf wrote:
| Are they actually trying to _revoke_ the previous version? I
| do not know, which is why I ask; honest question.
|
| I observe that 1.0 contains the verbiage:
|
| "Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may
| publish updated versions of this License. You may use any
| authorized version of this License to copy, modify and
| Distribute any Open Game Content originally Distributed under
| any version of this License."
|
| which at least to my open source license not-a-lawyer read
| says that they basically can't _revoke_ it.
|
| They can relicense stuff going forward under 1.1, and that
| may be bad, but I wonder if people are misunderstanding and
| treating it as apocolyptic when it's just bad. It seems like
| the worst case scenario is the community undergoes a _de
| facto_ fork and you can stick to a 1.0 world if you want, not
| that all the 1.0 stuff goes away.
|
| This smells to me like many similar panics in our community
| when some project goes to relicense and people don't
| generally understand that the relicense only applies going
| forward, because in general you can't retroactively relicense
| an open license. (There are nuances to that statement which
| I'm skipping over, but I'd say that's the most correct
| _short_ summary. The thing that people think is happening is
| not what is happening.) Of course it is still valid to be
| upset about the relicensing going forward! It just may not be
| _quite_ as much a kick in the teeth as people think.
| aezart wrote:
| The phrase "any authorized version" is what people are
| worried about here, because the 1.1 leak includes language
| indicating that 1.0 is no longer authorized.
| msoucy wrote:
| Part of the leaked 1.1 states that 1.0a is explicitly no
| longer "authorized"
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| > Are they actually trying to revoke the previous version?
| I do not know, which is why I ask; honest question.
|
| Apparently they are. There is some uncertainty about their
| right to do so. The few lawyers opinions I have read tend
| to say they probably don't but it's not entirely clear cut.
| Someone would have to go to court for it to be ascertained
| but I doubt anyone wants to fight Hasbro for some old
| content generating no revenue.
| btown wrote:
| Not to mention that it is incredibly expensive in the
| U.S. to get a court case to a point where it creates
| binding precedent - and arguably there is no such thing
| in the modern political environment. So even if every
| single case is won or settled largely in favor of
| independent content creators, there will still be a
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect on the
| entire scene, especially on creators whose works would
| require essentially-from-scratch rewrites to use a
| different system.
| dual_dingo wrote:
| I guess the crux will be the meaning of the word
| "authorized". If Hasbro claims the OGL 1.0 is no longer
| authorized and can convince a court that this totally
| normal and OK, 3rd party vendors will have a problem.
| jerf wrote:
| Thank you, to you and the others. That makes this make a
| lot more sense.
| johnday wrote:
| They would also have to convince a court that Paragraph 9
| is intended to be restrictive, rather than permissive.
| Nowhere does it say that _only_ authorized licenses can
| be used, and it seems obviously wrong for a license to
| preclude its own use.
| thomascgalvin wrote:
| Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money to prove what is
| obvious in court. WOTC and Hasbro are counting on their
| money and lawyers to have a chilling effect.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| FWIW Pazio would probably have enough money to bring this
| up for litigation. Still, a crappy position to be in.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > which at least to my open source license not-a-lawyer
| read says that they basically can't revoke it.
|
| Its complicated.
|
| The general law of gratuitous licenses (in the US) is that
| they are revocable at will; terms of the license do not
| overcome this. Whether the restrictions in a license like
| this are limitations on the permissions it grants (leaving
| it gratuitous) or consideration in exchange for permissions
| (making it a license contract) is not always an easy
| question.
|
| Further, even if things for which the license has already
| been uses might be protected, the license text is an offer,
| and the offer can be _withdrawn_. This is important,
| because the OGL 1.0a _isn't_ sublicensable; every new user
| making a new work _directly_ licenses all ancestor works
| under it, rather than sublicensing through the immediate
| parent.
|
| But, even to the extent it is recovable, the doctrine of
| promissory estoppel may limit the effect on parties who
| have already reasonably relied on the promise of
| irrevocability.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| The D&D world is not covered by the OGL. its the core mechanics
| that have been mirrored by not just other TTRPGs, but video
| game RPGs as well.
|
| This is like if the names of the functions in the c++ STL (and
| their argument/return types) was released under gpl, and they
| came out and "updated" their license to be basically cc-by-sa-
| nc but worse and also claimed it retroactively applied to the
| license. It could technically have repercussions to other
| languages that mirrored the style.
|
| Now the fun question! how much of what was covered by the OGL
| was actually copyrightable?
|
| Ideas and facts are not copyrightable, arrangement of ideas and
| facts _can_ be copyrightable with a higher bar of
| 'creativity', but the barrer to change before it becomes a new
| 'arrangement' and not covered is also lower.
| the_af wrote:
| Ah, the OGL is just core mechanics?
|
| I cannot imagine this being a big hurdle to _videogames_ from
| now on, then. It 's not that difficult to use entirely
| different mechanics in a computer RPG, and they had the
| details anyway. If the world/setting doesn't matter, I can't
| see how this can affect videogames _not set in D &D worlds_.
|
| That is, I don't see video gamers rejecting a CRPG because
| its rules are not based on D&D. They'll get to kill monsters
| or whatever in Fantasyland, what does it matter that the
| inner workings are entirely new?
| wincy wrote:
| It might be difficult for virtual tabletop software called
| "roll20" to pivot away from the concept of using 20 sided
| dice to make decisions and determine success at an
| activity.
| djur wrote:
| Hasbro definitely doesn't own the concept of a d20 roll.
| coldpie wrote:
| You definitely can, and many do. But D&D is the _lingua franca_
| of this space. If you say you 're casting Magic Missile, I know
| you're going to toss a few d4 on the table. Even if I'm brand
| new to your adventure, if you say you're a Level 15 Magician, I
| know you're a pretty righteous dude. No other system has the
| same level of familiarity across such a broad audience.
|
| I think you're right though. No one with eyes on a big audience
| is going to want to tie their brand to a Wizards product after
| this decision. Shame.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Magician is not a class in D&D
| coldpie wrote:
| Yahhhh it's been a while for me :) I thought about googling
| but decided to gamble on my memory. Guess I lost :)
| aplkorex wrote:
| You just rolled a 1, that's all.
| [deleted]
| dragontamer wrote:
| D&D Terminology gets quite arcane, especially around the
| arcane casters.
|
| So Wizard is the class, but the title inside of D&D depends
| on the school the Wizard specializes in. Much like how we
| call a "Doctor" also a "Brain Surgeon", the "Wizard" could
| be an "Enchanter", if they specialize upon memory-rewriting
| / charming / brain-bending magic. (Ex: Charm Person,
| Suggestion, Geass, Dominate Person).
|
| But IIRC, there is no "Magician", as you said. But there
| are Evokers, Universalists, Conjurers, Diviners,
| Illusionists, Transmuters, Enchanters, Necromancers, and
| more. There are also Sorcerers (_totally_ different),
| Witches, Magi, Alchemists, Clerics, Druids.
|
| Frankly, I'm personally surprised that there's no
| "Magician" yet. Its like someone stepped into D&D and
| surprisingly guessed at the one word that wasn't actually
| in the game yet... (The closest word, "Magi" is a "Magus"
| IIRC, not a "Magician")
| shagie wrote:
| If we go back to old school AD&D... from the Player's
| Handbook (1e) the class titles for a Magic-User were:
| 1. Medium 2. Seer 3. Conjurer 4.
| Theurgist 5. Thaumaturgist 6. Magician
| 7. Enchanter 8. Warlock 9. Sorcerer
| 10. Necromancer 11. Wizard 12+ Wizard
| (nth level) ... 16. Wizard (16th level or
| Mage) 17. Wizard (17th level) 18. Wizard
| (18th level or Arch-Mage)
|
| Screen shot of a scan of the first part of the table (it
| spans two pages and the 2nd page is uninteresting):
| https://imgur.com/a/WOS2TAF
| sleepybrett wrote:
| sure .. but you'll note that he says a 15th level
| magician .. no such thing ;) Also I played a fuckton of
| AD&D .. i don't think anyone has ever used a class title
| in actual play that I know of.
| ChrisRackauckas wrote:
| That's what very good illusionists want you to think.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Sounds like the space is ready for development of an open
| framework that doesn't rely on corporate approval.
| hinkley wrote:
| "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid
| it."
|
| If you make all of your money off of books and models in a
| world full of wikis, web-apps and amateur typesetters, and
| especially 3D printing, they may worry that their revenue
| streams will dry up if they don't lock down the IP (which
| will be something an IP lawyer told them to think).
|
| And now they'll put the idea into people's heads by trying to
| avoid that situation.
|
| You don't want Matthew Mercer to have Creative Commons on his
| radar. Or a bunch of voice mail from other publishers who
| smell blood in the water. You don't want him thinking about
| ten years of fan donated artwork. Or that he hopes to retire
| some day and he and his friends can still play RPGs together,
| built on this world that is now in danger.
| springogeek wrote:
| The thing a lot of folks seem to miss is that it isn't just D&D
| using the OGL, there are non-D&D games (such as Fate, Fudge.
| Etc) which license themselves using the OGL.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| But they don't need to update the license they use, right? So
| the other games can just issue their existing and current
| material with the existing license and it's all good?
| Tyr42 wrote:
| So, the exact wording of the license includes a clause
| saying you can distribute under "any authorized version" of
| the OGL.
|
| I dont think people expected wizard's to try and
| interpretation that as something they can try and revoke.
| But they are trying and it might go to court.
| the_af wrote:
| Hmm, so no connection at all to D&D? Does this affect them at
| all, then? What benefits do they draw from using the OGL at
| all?
| mcv wrote:
| It just seemed like a good license to use to allow others
| to build on their games. Just like it's not just the FSF
| distributing original software under the GPL.
| the_af wrote:
| But the FSF is never a competing business (it's not a
| business) and the GPL doesn't grant the FSF any rights
| over your stuff. So the OGL is not really analogous.
| krisoft wrote:
| > and the GPL doesn't grant the FSF any rights over your
| stuff
|
| Neither did the version of OGL they published their stuff
| over.
|
| Imagine that the FSF goes crazy and writes a new version
| of GPL which gives them ius primae noctis, and also in
| the same new version they state the previous old version
| is no longer valid. That is the approximate analogy here.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Other communities were also concerned about the core team
| trying to take control of the system/assets. The Fate core
| folks specifically went with OGL to allay those concerns.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Pathfinder, a very D&D like game by Pazio, was originally based
| on D&D "3.5". Fourth edition was a wild departure from the
| rules as they were evolving between AD&D and 3.5. Many people
| call Pathfinder First Edition D&D 3.75.
|
| It is my understanding, however, that Pathfinder Second Edition
| is pretty much a full rewrite and only includes the OGL as a
| way for third parties to build content around Pathfinder Second
| Edition.
|
| There are a great deal of adaptations, under the OGL, of the
| original 'Moldvay' Dungeons and Dragons BECMI rules (Basic and
| Expert rules from the 80s) and the original Advanced Dungeons
| and Dragons rules as well.
|
| As it was originally written, backed up by testimony from 'the
| guys in the room', the orignal OGL was to be considered
| 'unrevokeable'.
|
| So there are kind of two bad scenarios if Hasbro/Wizards goes
| ahead with their current plans. One scenario is, OGL 1.1
| applies to 'One D&D' and therefore you'd have to sign and abide
| the 1.1 OGL if you want to build content (and only 'textual
| printed/pdf content' if I'm reading it right) for 'One D&D'.
| The worse scenario is that they attempt to revote the 1.0 OGL
| which basically means a bunch on in-print content evaporates
| because their publishers do not want to deal with 1.1 OGL.
|
| An extended wrinkle being that 'One D&D' based on their current
| plans seems to be more of a Edition 5.5 than a new ruleset
| entirely.
| [deleted]
| sircastor wrote:
| A friend invited me to a DnD game he was starting for his
| son. I'd never really played regularly before that. He said
| he invited a few other friends who reacted "Oh, 4e? No
| thanks"
|
| I understand the dedication to 3.5 - it was years, if not
| decades of experience, commitment, and buy in. It can't be
| helped to see the several editions since as desperate effort
| to get more sales from WoTC
| dragontamer wrote:
| 4E is very divisive. It oversimplified the game into a
| "turn cards sideways" simulator. Its easier to learn, but
| no one feels like their character is very unique anymore.
| Every ability became a card you could print, and you just
| "tapped / turned it sideways" to activate the card. It made
| learning characters very simple, but had very little
| flexibility compared to what the community was used to from
| 3.5.
|
| 5E and Pathfinder are the local optima. Most players say
| that if you want a "3.5-ish" system, you should do
| Pathfinder 1.0 instead. If you want a proper simplification
| of the system, 5E is far superior to 4E.
|
| I have friends who enjoy 4E by the way. But they are in the
| gross minority. Almost everyone I know who has played 4E
| agrees with me that it oversimplified the game. Yes, 3.5
| was too complex, but 4E overcorrected. 5E found a better
| simplicity vs flexibility location for most players.
|
| ----------
|
| 3.5 is fun because almost all the bonuses multiply with
| each other. So you can string together huge, multiplicative
| bonuses that stacks in convoluted manners. (Ex; Enlarge
| Person not only is +2 to STR, but also +2 Damage Dice, so
| your 2d6 greatsword becomes 3d6 damage). This
| multiplicatively stacks with Keen Weapon, Inspire Courage,
| Greater Heroism, Bull Strength, +5 Magic Weapon and more.
|
| But it also makes 3.5 very "sharp". If you fail to see the
| multiplicative bonuses, you feel very underpowered and fall
| behind the damage curve.
|
| --------
|
| 5th Edition / Pathfinder 2.0 reduce the multiplicative
| bonuses, but still have hugely unique feeling classes where
| everyone feels like they have a role to play in the party.
| It really is a happier medium.
|
| As such, most players today ignore 4.0. If you want
| simplicity, 5e is "simple enough".
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Reading your post it suddenly downed on me that the only
| good thing which might come out of Hasbro botching the
| OGL is that people might start playing games with
| actually interesting rules rather than D&D.
| dragontamer wrote:
| But "what is interesting" ??
|
| If you just want to perform improv-roleplay out some
| scenarios, then Dread is probably the best. The only
| action the players do is:
|
| 1. Pull piece out of the Jenga Tower
|
| 2. Roleplay the result (success == You succeeded at the
| current situation. Tower-falls == you die).
|
| ------------
|
| There's better systems out there (aka: Dread) if you
| really just wanted simplicity. World of Darkness is
| probably the more mainstream "simple / roleplay heavy"
| game of importance. (Dread is perhaps overly simple, but
| that's the point of it. Its basically improv /
| roleplaying simulator and that alone)
|
| D&D, for all of its faults, is a fully specified battle
| simulator. It doesn't mean that everything makes sense
| (what were the grapple rules again?), but most everything
| has been thought out, and what "should happen" is often
| written down somewhere.
|
| On the other hand, many people prefer improv / rules-free
| systems (like Dread, or World of Darkness to a lesser
| extent).
|
| Anyway, there's plenty of other games. But the niche of
| D&D is the well specified set of rules of how magic and
| physical interact with each other. (This magical force
| field has X HP and 30 Hardness, interacting with your
| Adamantine sword that ignores hardness 20 and less, etc.
| etc.)
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Oh yeah, I realise that my opinion is far from
| universally valid and that I both don't play much
| tabletop roleplaying and came to it from an improv
| background which means I'm not necessarily looking for
| the same things that other players are.
|
| Still I'm firmly in the camp of those thinking D&D focus
| a lot of attention to the insanely boring and
| uninteresting part of role playing - aka how a sword
| interacts with a magic shield in excruciatingly tedious
| mathematical details - and very little attention to
| what's actually fun which is, well, playing a role.
|
| I think its rules, its prevalence and the fact it's
| mostly played in somewhat bland heroic fantasy settings
| have been a major turndown for a lot of people who would
| actually enjoy roleplaying so in a way I guess I should
| celebrate anything making it less popular.
| dragontamer wrote:
| As a lot of my friends like to say, the two players are
| roleplayers and rollplayers.
|
| Roleplayers are here for the improv / acting.
|
| Rollplayers are here for the combat. D&D absolutely is
| combat focused.
|
| -----------
|
| Lets take an example: When a Wizard casts Disintegrate,
| and a friendly Druid casts "Wall of Stone" to block it,
| what should happen? Are you interested in debating /
| improvising the result? Do you want it to be defined?
|
| Improv players want this to be ill-defined. They want to
| make something up, depending on the current situation /
| feel of the game. If its a big boss fight and the Wizard
| is the evil big bad guy, maybe the Disintegrate goes
| through and hits the players. If its just some mook,
| maybe its a "weaker disintegrate" and gets blocked by the
| stone wall.
|
| ----------
|
| This is terrible for combat / tacticians. A tactician
| wants to know that Disintegrate _always_ makes exactly a
| "one 10-foot cube" hole in the stone structure
| (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm), and
| always counters-and-dispels Force effects. Because the
| tactics + interactions have been agreed upon ahead of
| time, it means that the tactics of the game are focused.
| Its a battle closer to chess, or perhaps war-simulators /
| war-gaming, where you need to know what interacts with
| what, and how, to proceed.
|
| You can't just make stuff up in a war-simulator. They
| need to have pre-defined actions.
| djur wrote:
| My main problem with 4e wasn't that it was oversimplified
| but that combat took forever to resolve. I was never sure
| exactly why.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Combat in 3.5 averages at like, 4 rounds, even for a boss
| fight. With the 1st, maybe 2nd round, deciding the
| results of the combat.
|
| Indeed: there are spells (Phantasmal Killer, Baleful
| Polymorph, Dominate Person, Power Word Kill, Banishment),
| that ends combat in a singular turn.
|
| You're right in that 4e combat was much slower and
| purposeful. I'm... neutral to this. I can say that 3.5 /
| Pathfinder 1.0 combat is unusually brutal... to a non-
| intuitive degree. 3.5 / Pathfinder 1.0 heavily relies
| upon resurrection magic in practice due to its unusual
| brutality.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| I had a strong negative reaction to 4e without having
| consumed any media that would have primed me to dislike it.
|
| It felt like it was designed by people who thought the kids
| are playing World of Warcraft instead of D&D, and tried to
| design a game that would appeal to them with similar party
| roles and a layout of cards in front of you that perhaps
| would remind you of a WoW inventory with all its timers.
| The problem with that while the same people might want to
| play both a table-top RPGs session and raid night, they
| don't like them for the same reasons.
|
| 5e's approach was much smarter: simplify a few annoying
| things (like level 1 damage), tweak the design and add a
| bunch of cool stuff, but otherwise just let D&D be D&D and
| lean on marketing the aesthetic/nostalgia and the ability
| to play without needing to find someone local to teach it
| to you and your friends.
| the_af wrote:
| I know about Pathfinder, but I don't understand this:
|
| > _It is my understanding, however, that Pathfinder Second
| Edition is pretty much a full rewrite and only includes the
| OGL as a way for third parties to build content around
| Pathfinder Second Edition._
|
| Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? And if they
| did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to
| Wizards of the Coast? If they used the OGL to allow third-
| parties for _Pathfinder_ , not D&D, what does this have to do
| with WotC? And cannot they simply switch to another license,
| if 2nd edition is truly a full rewrite?
|
| There's something I'm definitely missing here.
| saghm wrote:
| > Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
|
| I don't know their exact reasoning, but I always add
| licenses when publishing software I write, and they always
| are ones I didn't design (because I've never written a
| license myself). I don't think it's that crazy to use an
| established license that seems to be working well in a
| community you'd like to emulate when trying to launch
| you're own; I doubt Paizo had any more idea than the rest
| of us that WotC would pull something like this.
|
| > And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any
| obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? If they used the
| OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what
| does this have to do with WotC? And cannot they simply
| switch to another license, if 2nd edition is truly a full
| rewrite?
|
| My (admittedly primitive) understanding of licensing was
| that once something was released publicly with an
| indefinite license, it generally wouldn't be possible to
| retract that later. The copyright holder can change
| licenses as they see fit, but nobody will be bound by the
| new license unless they accept it or use a new version of
| the product that doesn't offer the old license. This leads
| me to theorize that one of a few things could be going on
| here:
|
| 1. The new version of the OGL (1.1) disallows you to
| continue using the old version (1.0) once you start using
| something with it. If this turns out to be the case, then
| people would be able to continue using the materials as-is
| at the last point where the OGL 1.0 was offered, but they
| wouldn't be able to use any future changes without
| accepting version 1.1 as a replacement for all of the
| preexisting content as well. WotC might have only intended
| this, but due to poor communications and/or wording in the
| license change, people got worried and then the narrative
| got out of control 2. The license works like I described in
| option 1 due to WotC knowing that they can't actually
| retroactively change the license for people already using
| it, but they intentionally obfuscated this to try to scare
| people into switching to using the new version even if they
| shouldn't technically have to * The license does actually a
| say that it's overriding the previous one, which is not
| actually something a license is supposed to be able to.
| WotC either doesn't realize this or is hoping that in a
| legal battle they either can either prolong it to starve
| their opponents of resources or manage to convince a judge
| to rule against the existing consensus and establish a new
| precedent.
|
| I think that option 2 is the most likely by a slight
| margin, but I might be biased as someone who played PF1 and
| now plays PF2. Option 3 would be the scariest to me given
| that a prolonged legal battle seems like it would be the
| most insulated from public opinion, which I think is mostly
| against the new license right now.
| the_af wrote:
| > _I don 't know their exact reasoning, but I always add
| licenses when publishing software I write, and they
| always are ones I didn't design (because I've never
| written a license myself). I don't think it's that crazy
| to use an established license that seems to be working
| well in a community you'd like to emulate when trying to
| launch you're own; I doubt Paizo had any more idea than
| the rest of us that WotC would pull something like this._
|
| I understand this, but you don't use licenses designed by
| your business competitors whose main product is in direct
| competition to your own. The analogy here would be
| Microsoft using a license designed _by Apple_ for Windows
| and MS Office! Or whatever their major line of products
| is nowadays.
| Macha wrote:
| > Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
|
| Let's imagine a scenario:
|
| 1. Paizo releases Pathfinder 1E. It's uses material from
| D&D 3.5 SRD which requires it to use the OGL.
|
| 2. A third party releases a campaign for pathfinder 1E. It
| uses material from pathfinder 1E which requires it to use
| the OGL
|
| 3. Paizo releases Pathfinder 2E. They change to CC BY-SA
| for their open components.
|
| 4. I now want to update that campaign to the 2E rules. But
| the original campaign publication insists I must use OGL,
| and Pathfinder 2E insists I use CC BY-SA and now I cannot.
|
| I think a mix of (a) the scenario above, (b) legal CYA in
| case it was found Pathfinder 2E was too close to 3.5e
| material and (c) using what they're used to led to the
| decision to continue to use OGL for Pathfinder 2E.
| the_af wrote:
| I see.
|
| All the "fun" of software licensing, only for pen and
| paper games. It's like we are already in hell.
| morelisp wrote:
| > Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
|
| Why do organizations other than the FSF use the GPL?
|
| _Edit because fuck this site 's rate limits._
|
| > the GPL doesn't put organizations that choose that
| license at the mercy of the FSF.
|
| IMO the OGL doesn't either - this is really a radical
| interpretation WotC is testing and Dancey's statements
| alone - at the time and today - are going to be enough to
| get the ridiculousness dismissed. (IANAL TINLA, but I do
| have some ancient - like 2003-era - OGL-published stuff
| floating around.)
|
| Conversely the idea that you might need to agree to a newer
| license to get ongoing access to new things - there's a
| close parallel with the FSF and the GFDL (where I
| disagreed) and the Tivo/patent clauses in GPL3 (where I
| agreed). But that has nothing to do with the license per se
| and everything to do with still wanting what the license
| holder-author is offering.
| lovich wrote:
| If you navigate to the comment you want to reply to, it
| doesn't appear to be rate limited. Only when viewing the
| full thread
| morelisp wrote:
| I'm referring to the actual rate limit because dang and I
| disagree about the average quality of my comments, not
| the idiosyncratic UI.
| the_af wrote:
| Well, the GPL doesn't put organizations that choose that
| license at the mercy of the FSF. The FSF isn't a business
| competing with the organizations that choose the GPL. The
| FSF also cannot change the rules of the license _a
| posteriori_.
|
| The OGL doesn't look much like the GPL. Wizards of the
| Coast is a business in direct competition to others using
| the OGL. It's also crazy that something under the OGL
| falls in WotC's jurisdiction even if it uses no rules or
| settings from D&D -- I must have misunderstood this
| because this is simply too crazy to be true.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| > And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any
| obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast?
|
| The most reasonable opinion I have read on this is that
| Paizo themselves are not entirely convinced the second
| edition can be legally seen as an untainted full rewrite
| and use the OGL out of precaution.
|
| They should be able to relicense but Hasbro might sue them
| arguing that actually the licensing situation isn't that
| clear.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
|
| Why would they when there's a well-known and (before recent
| events) fully trusted license already established within
| the community?
| the_af wrote:
| That's probably why they used the OGL, agreed. But it's
| crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct
| business competitor? If you can do a major rules rewrite
| (and I understand Pathfinder is on the more
| complex/crunchy side of RPGs), surely you have the know-
| how to design your own license?
|
| Even if all the actors in this dramedy are profit-driven
| businesses, I can't wrap my head around the OGL not being
| driven by a consortium. How on earth does WotC have final
| say?
|
| In any case, they are probably regretting it now. I hope
| this sets a precedent.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a
| direct business competitor?
|
| Microsoft also publishes software under open-source
| licenses [0]. The license is short and well-understood,
| it's not like a large piece of software that might
| contain backdoors. Also, people trust(-ed) that license.
|
| > If you can do a major rules rewrite [...], surely you
| have the know-how to design your own license?
|
| Yes, but you'd just end up with a similarly worded
| license that people don't know. Why spend that money?
|
| Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I can easily see why
| they decided against that. Also, Paizo is probably
| sufficiently funded by now that suing them is a bit
| dangerous for WotC, as they risk a bad precedent.
|
| [0] Which are not necessarily competitors, but might also
| not be friendly towards MS.
| indigochill wrote:
| > But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a
| direct business competitor?
|
| Not necessarily. In software we have the MIT license.
| Anyone can freeze any version of the product and
| use/distribute it freely in perpetuity regardless of
| whatever relicensing may happen later to other versions.
|
| It sounds like the OGL was written in that spirit.
| Whether its legal language will back that up in court,
| maybe we'll find out.
| the_af wrote:
| I don't think the MIT license or the GPL (mentioned by
| someone else) are good parallels.
|
| When you release software under an open source license
| such as those, you are not using a license designed and
| solely controlled by your business competitor!
|
| The OGL situation would be like Microsoft releasing
| Windows under a license designed and solely controlled by
| Apple.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| > Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
|
| Lawyers cost money.
|
| > And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any
| obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast?
|
| The theory is that they are not.
|
| > If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for
| Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC?
|
| People point out that the PF2 works have OGL licenses.
|
| I'm sure we'll all find out in the coming weeks/months
| Yuioup wrote:
| I thought that Pathfinder 2e was much like software
| development: The latest commit in a branch which has OGL
| 1.0 at its root.
|
| Does OGL 1.1 mean that /all/ branches are affected?
| ninth_ant wrote:
| That is what Wotc is trying to do, yes. They are trying
| to post-facto invalidate 1.0a after 20+ years.
|
| The software equivalent would be if the FSF found some
| sneaky legalese, and came out with a hostile GPL 5 and
| simultaneously invalidated all previous versions of the
| GPL. Thus rendering everyone pre-v5 unable to publish
| going forward, with the only recourse to "upgrade" to the
| new version.
|
| It's sick, and likely not legal, but in the D&D example
| Hasbro have a much bigger legal team than the people they
| are trying to bully. So the threat of a potentially
| expensive lawsuit to force small fish into a legally
| dubious license.
| rhdunn wrote:
| There are a number of games released under the OGL, e.g.:
|
| 1. 13th Age
|
| 2. Castles & Crusades
|
| 3. Fudge
|
| 4. Pathfinder
|
| Note that some of these (e.g. Pathfinder) make use of the D&D
| base rules and setting (System Reference Document, SRD) covered
| by the OGL. However, not all the games released under the OGL
| are tied to elements of the SRD.
|
| The issue with the revocation of the OGL 1.0a license is that
| it affects all of those games.
|
| Then there are all the publishers (Critical Role, MCDM, etc.)
| creating settings and campaigns for D&D and related systems
| under the OGL.
|
| The OGL 1.1 license affects video (like Critical Role's Legends
| of Vox Machina) and other content. It affects people using
| Patreon for revenue, and possibly (through mentioning
| pantomime) things like cosplay on TikTok and Patreon.
|
| The full implications are not fully known, and a lot of this
| would likely need challenging in court. It also depends on how
| much WotC/Hasbro are willing to challenge/go after.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > The issue with the revocation of the OGL 1.0a license is
| that it affects all of those games.
|
| How so, if they're not using WotC IP?
|
| Honest question, it seems absurd to me that the can cancel a
| license and have it affect people who licensed their own IP
| under those conditions.
| gmueckl wrote:
| IANAL. I am looking at a copy of OGL 1.0a and find this
| paragraph: 9. Updating the License:
| Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated
| versions of this License. You may use any authorized
| version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any
| Open Game Content originally distributed under any version
| of this License.
|
| I believe that the crux of the matter is "authorized
| version of this License". I can see a few ways to argue
| that this phrase gives WotC the right to revoke any version
| of the license other than the most current one.
| golem14 wrote:
| So not being a lawyer and not giving legal advice, to me
| this seems to say that as someone producing something
| with OGL1.0, "you MAY replace it with a newer, authorized
| version" means that if you don't, the old version stays,
| or goes away entirely ? I,e. you then may decide to use
| another new fresh license of your own choosing ? Or it
| becomes unlicensed ?
|
| Because if there is a requirement that at anytime an
| authorized version were to be used, wouldn't the language
| needed be "you MUST replace it with a newer, authorized
| version" ?
| musicale wrote:
| I don't read that as "we can revoke this retroactively on
| anything, even non-WoTC games" but I guess the lawyers
| will hash it out.
| rhdunn wrote:
| The OGL 1.1 license (according to the leaked draft/text)
| explicitly says that OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized
| license.
|
| The 1.1 license is clear that any content using SRD
| (System Reference Document) content will be in violation
| unless they update to the 1.1 license (and thus comply
| with either OGL 1.1 Commercial, OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial,
| or the Fan Content license).
|
| The situation around non-SRD OGL content is murkier.
| the_af wrote:
| Same question, I cannot wrap my head around this. If this
| is true, the OGL was a trap. But how did they not realize
| this, did they have no lawyers going over the license?
| enasterosophes wrote:
| You can't revoke a license. Any change in the OGL will affect
| new products, not what was already made.
| schlauerfox wrote:
| You can if it's argued that the license was revocable, or
| forced to use new licenses. That's why everyone is angry,
| it's vague and who can afford to fight Hasbro in court when
| they use the vagueness to start a bully campaign against
| smaller creators first?
| bonzini wrote:
| You can't revoke it but the question is whether it can
| affect _future redistribution_ of pre-existing derivatives.
| The license appears to say so, but even if it does it may
| not be legal and thus would be voided.
| krisoft wrote:
| > affects video (like Critical Role's Legends of Vox Machina)
|
| I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :) While
| we know that the origins of the show is in DnD there is
| nothing in it they could claim copyright over. It is the same
| as if a shower manufacturer would like to claim an idea I had
| while showering.
|
| And while the CR team is quite small next to Hasbro, they
| have Amazon Studios as a producer who could probably lend
| them firepower.
| patja wrote:
| They don't call it by name, but the prominent and frequent
| use of the Bigby's Hand spell seems like a vulnerability.
| My understanding is that WOTC defends their IP rights to
| the spells with specific characters' names attached
| (Tenser's, Bigby's, etc.)
| hinkley wrote:
| CR Campaign 1 was on Pathfinder until they started trying
| to broadcast. You can see in the first few episodes how
| they struggle with remembering that the rules are
| different, Taliesen Jaffe ended up with a completely custom
| class because nothing mapped.
|
| The hunter also keeps thinking that her pet is useful,
| which apparently is a thing in PF, but is definitely not in
| 5e.
|
| As for:
|
| > I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :)
|
| They are already getting a bite of that apple. It's called
| free advertising, which they've been getting for almost 10
| years now and all of the attendant profits from people
| trying to start their own Critical Role and buying models
| and books to go along with it.
|
| And in the case of CR, they're also the publishers for some
| books based on CR, which means they're getting royalties
| from that as well.
|
| I said this is double-dipping, but it's triple-dipping.
| It's just greed. Of the same sort we often have to deal
| with here, where something is done to build a community and
| then the bean counters try to figure out how to maximize
| profits. This isn't just bad for WotC or RPGs, things like
| this continue to set precedents that every company is lying
| to you and any outreach project is just about getting free
| labor.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| They will have a proper licensing agreement of their own
| that WotC will be happy to amend with pretty much whatever,
| given the crazy marketing value they have.
| musicale wrote:
| I don't see how Wizards can "revoke" the OGL retroactively.
|
| I _really_ don 't see how they can "revoke" the OGL on non-
| WoTC games.
|
| Maybe Wizbro is mad that they're not getting any of the money
| that youtube and roll20 are taking in, but pulling a Nintendo
| seems completely counterproductive, since youtube and
| streamers are basically advertising D&D and helping newcomers
| learn how to play the game, and roll20 expands the group of
| players who can play (and also enabled groups to continue -
| or start - during the pandemic!)
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| > Note that some of these (e.g. Pathfinder) make use of the
| D&D base rules and setting
|
| Pathfinder does not use Forgotten Realms or any other WotC
| setting, afaik.
|
| And Pathfinder 2nd edition is no longer based on the D&D
| rules.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| It has enabled developers to freely use the mechanics that make
| up much of the DnD - the "game engine" so to speak: the
| attribute system, levels, skills, classes, and so on - without
| paying license fees. The consequence of this is that franchises
| like Pathfinder now have to pay license fees for these
| mechanics. The consequence is that video games set in this
| universe [1] now have to pay liceses to WotC.
|
| I assume these games will just slightly tweak the formula: use
| D30s instead of D20, change some class names, and so on. It's
| exceptionally hard to robustly copyright and enforce
| mathematics, but WotC's lawyers probably pose a significant
| enough threat to scare away developers.
|
| 1. for example:
| https://www.gog.com/en/game/pathfinder_kingmaker_explorer_ed...
| advisedwang wrote:
| FWIW general game mechanics are not copyrightable. So you
| don't need a license for core ideas like AC, character
| attributes, D20 skill/attack/save rolls, modifiers,
| advantage/disadvantage, equiptment yadda yadda.
|
| It's the specifics of D&D's implementation where you need a
| license. You'd certainly need to develop your own feats,
| spells (and not just change the names!). You'd need new
| classes, or at least major changes (no re-using the level
| progressions or traits).
|
| You'd need to play test the new variants because changes
| would be large enough to require new balncing.
|
| All in all not a trivial modification.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Interestingly, I got a conclusive answer to this question
| when working at S2 on Heroes of Newerth.
|
| The CEO accidentally CC'ed me (he meant to CC Sean, not
| Shawn) on a letter from Valve's lawyer threatening us with
| legal action for copying Beastmaster's mechanics. They had
| a side-by-side of ours (https://hon.fandom.com/wiki/Tundra)
| vs theirs (https://dota2.fandom.com/wiki/Beastmaster), and
| pointed out that the mechanics were identical.
|
| It was very surprising. So the answer is "Maybe not, but
| that won't stop companies from threatening to sue you." Or
| "Maybe it is, and companies will threaten to sue you." No
| one really knows, since it hasn't been tested in court.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| So you can't have a spell called "arcane missile" that does
| 1d4 damage every 2 levels of the caster? Can you really
| copyright the concept of an ability that deals (level // 2)
| * 1d4 damage to an enemy?
|
| My understanding is that this is where things get tricky:
| realistically WotC probably can't go after anyone that
| creates an ability that is mechanically identical to DnD
| ability. Things like spell names, might be, but "fireball"
| is far too general to be copyrighted. But what about a
| spell called "fireball" that also has the same mechanics?
| That's where things can get complicated.
|
| So what if they just doubled all HP values and damage
| values, and changed any names that are not unambiguously
| generic ("invisibility", "fireball", etc.) ? Damage values
| no longer overlap, and spell names are different. On what
| basis does WotC have to claim infringement?
| the_af wrote:
| > _So you can 't have a spell called "arcane missile"
| that does 1d4 damage every 2 levels of the caster?_
|
| I think you can. I don't think copyright covers gameplay
| mechanisms, it just covers the actual text of the rules.
| As long as you don't copy the actual text describing
| D&D's arcane missile, you can have it in your game. But
| IANAL.
| mNovak wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but my understanding last I looked into it
| was that names and rules cannot be copyrighted (names can
| be trademarked though). In very limited cases a novel
| mechanic could be patented (famously MTG 'tapping' of
| cards). The issue overall is that no one wants to risk it
| in court, so there's no recent precedent to take
| inspiration from.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > Not a lawyer, but my understanding last I looked into
| it was that names and rules cannot be copyrighted (names
| can be trademarked though)
|
| That's what the person you're replying to wrote.
| the_af wrote:
| Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's the text itself that's
| copyrighteable. So you can definitely use the same die
| rolls or whatever as long as you significantly paraphrase.
|
| Spells and classes names cannot be used if they are
| trademarked, right? But if WotC didn't trademark
| "fireball", "paladin" or "hobgoblin", you can totally use
| them.
| viraptor wrote:
| > How important is it to stick to the D&D franchise?
|
| Nor very important in my experience. I get that it's the most
| popular system globally, but the popularity seems uneven. Where
| I grew up people played Warhammer, Legends of 5 rings, vampire
| masquerade, and some others. I can't remember anyone playing
| DnD specifically. So... there are larger communities that don't
| really care about that one.
| jeffwask wrote:
| Hasbro is working overtime to alienate the game communities they
| purchased.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| I'm so tired of everything remotely like this.
|
| Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a
| truly open set of RPGs?
|
| Some that would be amenable to making into Computer RPGs.
|
| Some that maybe that would be nearly impossible to automate.
| (That's fine, too.)
|
| Under some licenses like CC BY / CC BY-SA / CC BY-NC?
|
| I _like_ buying RPG books. I would continue to do so, even if the
| license was CC BY. I also like getting searchable PDFs, and
| turning dungeons into a Wiki for the DM to make it easy to find
| content.
|
| I mean... Come on...
| wincy wrote:
| Richard Garfield made Magic the Gathering and was given carte
| blanche by Valve to make Artifact, and it bombed spectacularly.
|
| Just because you bottled lightning once, doesn't mean you can
| do it ever again.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| Other game developers have made hit after hit.
|
| And I think the nature of open content is still relatively
| new, so that's the best explanation I have for why it hasn't
| been done yet.
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| AFAIK Garfield was involved in the game design, which is
| actually appreciated by the players. What made the game
| reviews tank is the game monetization schemes.
| scruple wrote:
| FWIW, Basic Fantasy RPG [0] is in the process of converting to
| CC BY-SA right now [1].
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Fantasy_RPG
|
| [1]:
| https://www.basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596...
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make
| a truly open set of RPGs?
|
| No need to even do that, there is plenty of alternative RPG and
| game systems out there already. It's not about money. It's
| about principles. But people wants to play "D&D", Hasbro's IP,
| Hasbro rules and business practices...
|
| But also let's not forget how some conferences managed to shut
| down and shun the competition by forbidding them to attend the
| conferences to promote their alternative creations, insuring
| Hasbro/WotC prominent market shares... There is a lot to say
| about that "community", a lot of corrupt individuals...
| mcv wrote:
| Truly open RPGs already exist. Fudge, for example. And Fate
| (based on Fudge, because it's open and they can). And if
| Pathfinder 2 is indeed free from any old d20 content (I don't
| know), then that one counts too.
|
| The big problem is that there's not a single one that everybody
| agrees to use as the new standard. D&D is the standard. Like
| Windows. Everybody knows it sucks, but nobody can agree on a
| single alternative, and the market stays with what people know.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > The big problem is that there's not a single one that
| everybody agrees to use as the new standard. D&D is the
| standard. Like Windows. Everybody knows it sucks, but nobody
| can agree on a single alternative, and the market stays with
| what people know.
|
| I don't understand why there needs to be "a standard". in the
| 80's, 90's people played Runequest, Warhammer, GURPS, AD&D,
| Dark Eye... there was no need for a "standard". No, people
| are lazy and just want to play what is popular, this isn't a
| standard. Games rules are half the table top RPG, the stories
| are as important if not more...
|
| Furthermore, back in the days, people were interested in
| innovative rules or universes, D&D is none of that, it's the
| most bland and boring game system...
| VikingCoder wrote:
| Fudge uses OGL, which is the topic under discussion.
|
| https://www.fudgerpg.com/about/about-fudge/fudge-ogl-
| require...
|
| PF 2.0 also uses OGL:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/104wjuo/why_d.
| ..
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Eclipse Phase was released under CC BY-NC-SA:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Phase
|
| I don't know if there are others or not.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| There are tons, the parent commenter just doesn't know.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| I found several NC. That didn't suit my purposes at the
| time. It's great to hear there are more. Would you care to
| list your favorites? Or the ones you believe are already
| popular?
| RangerScience wrote:
| On nice! I read some about it a long time ago, it looks like
| a very cool system.
|
| Similarly, I was coming in to post Sufficiently Advances,
| which is (I think) Creative Commons.
|
| As always, the issue isn't so much content, is selling
| _people_ on it so they use it, get excited, get involved.
| Like everything open, when you don 't have a budget to make
| that happen, it gets a lot harder.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| EP was very common at conventions when I used to attend
| them more regularly, and they had good hardbound editions
| for sale (which I purchased). They did their part to
| promote the game and achieved good success with it. It was
| all over r/rpg for scifi gaming in the early 10s (after
| that I dropped off of Reddit generally so I'm not sure how
| much it gets posted and discussed anymore there or similar
| forums).
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| > Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make
| a truly open set of RPGs?
|
| Why are you waiting for someone else to do this? Do it
| yourself!
|
| Something that bothers me more than most things is when people
| demand _others_ act to solve a growing problem. Sure, you 're
| not the most qualified person to do it, but actual execution
| trumps qualifications every time.
|
| Get out there! Get in touch with some excellent game designers,
| ask them what it would take to get their help. Come up with a
| plan based on their feedback and execute it!
|
| Or at least if you're not going to do it, recognize that your
| reasons for not doing it are probably exceedingly similar to
| everyone else's reasons for not doing it, and stop asking the
| question.
| msoucy wrote:
| What makes you think that GP isn't already doing so, and
| trying to rally others to do the same?
| VikingCoder wrote:
| There are game designers possibly reading this thread.
|
| I've approached two of my favorites, back possibly too long
| ago before Kickstarter was more of a known quantity, and they
| both said "hard pass" at the time.
| bob1029 wrote:
| > and stop asking the question.
|
| I agreed up until this part. Even if you aren't going to do
| it, stoking the fire with otherwise idle conversation might
| get more motivated individuals interested.
| movedx wrote:
| > Something that bothers me more than most things is when
| people demand others act to solve a growing problem. Sure,
| you're not the most qualified person to do it, but actual
| execution trumps qualifications every time.
|
| I would agree with this, however most people can't organise
| and maintain the most mundane aspects of their lives, let
| alone gather a large group of people together to combat some
| big goal like this.
| SSLy wrote:
| For a reasonable explanation from some of the community members
| https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/882669948646850573/10...
|
| For the 1.1 leak mentioned there https://rollforcombat.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Ga...
|
| Please note the length of the document corroborates the length of
| about 9000 words as mentioned by tech journalists.
| deleted_account wrote:
| I was a tabletop gamer for 25 years before I played my first sit-
| down D&D session. GURPS, Paranoia, Cyberpunk 2020, WHFRP, TOON,
| Amber, World of Darkness...you name it. To say, "Wizards of the
| Coast wants to dismantle the tabletop industry," feels like
| hyperbole when there's a rich history of alternatives, but I
| sympathize with the content creators. There's a cultural battle
| as much as there is a commercial one being waged here.
|
| That said you gotta be _asleep_ to not see the tightening of the
| reins coming from these mega-companies sitting on fertile
| creative IP. Marvel Cinematic Universe only made -- what? -- $28B
| worldwide while making Rocket-fucking-Raccoon a household name.
| Games Workshop put the screws to content creators leading to the
| launch of Warhammer+ and r/grimdank is still hitting the front
| page of Reddit. Not to mention Uber-nerd Henry Cavill is hooking
| up with Amazon to bring 40K to streaming.
|
| The strategy works and I suspect it's driven entirely by folks --
| all grown up and with deep pockets -- thirsty to see their
| marginalized childhood hobbies hit the mainstream. I'm
| conflicted. As much as I want to say, "Fuck WotC. Fuck Games
| Workshop" there's visceral appeal in hoping for good Drizzt
| Do'Urden movie or the Drop Site Massacre becoming as much a
| cultural touchstone as the The Red Wedding.
| make3 wrote:
| This is some old school microsoft shit, make everyone expand on
| your products & be dependant on them thinking they're safe by
| publishing an open license, then swap it under their feet forcing
| everyone to pay 25%.
|
| That's like if Apple had decided overnight to start charging apps
| their infamous 30% fee
| mabbo wrote:
| It's the natural process in a capitalistic system.
|
| First, you build something that everyone loves and build up a
| huge stockpile of consumer trust. You use that consumer trust to
| gain market share, and eventually a lot of market _power_ (though
| you never use those words or imply that you know you have market
| power).
|
| Then once you're dominant, you exploit that consumer trust to
| make more money.
|
| It worked pretty well for companies like Amazon and Google. WotC
| are just doing it a bit blatantly, or perhaps people saw through
| the ploy more easily than they had anticipated.
| raydiatian wrote:
| Maybe I don't fully understand how public copyright licenses
| work.
|
| Do you need to apply for a license?
|
| When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die?
|
| If somebody infringes on your license, do you get a free OGL
| lawyer or something to help your case?
|
| In conclusion, it almost sounds like OGL is fucking useless in
| the first place if they can just upgrade it to be paid at scale
| but clearly I'm missing something
| boole1854 wrote:
| > When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die?
|
| The issue is that part of the 1.0 license says users "may use
| any _authorized version_ of this License to copy, modify and
| distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under
| any version of this License " (emphasis added).
|
| And part of 1.1 says that 1.0 "is no longer an authorized
| license agreement".
|
| So, in other words, 1.0 had an embedded kill switch which 1.1
| activates. At least that's the legal theory which WotC is
| operating on.
| nevinera wrote:
| > Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may
| publish updated versions of this License. You may use any
| authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute
| any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of
| this License.
|
| So it sounds like their approach here is dependent on the
| interpretation of "any authorized version" to mean "authorized
| _by us_", which would allow them to declare past versions
| "unauthorized"? I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds.. unlikely to
| stick.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| Is there a lawyer here that can give us an opinion here for
| entertainment - not legal advice - reasons?
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Maybe I'm missing something here but this summary feels pretty
| FUD-y. WotC has the right to re-license their own content, and we
| are free to disagree with that decision, but surely they have no
| legal means to force _other creators_ to switch their own content
| to the new license version simply because they are using a
| license text that was drafted by WoTC? Plenty of OSS projects
| have stuck with GPLv2 in similar circumstances.
|
| And I'm less clear on this point, but are they even able to
| change the license terms under which third-parties have used WotC
| content that was already published under the old license?
| Couldn't these third parties continue using the existing content
| so long as they forgo new additions which are published under the
| more restrictive license? Or can they really revoke that
| licensing on previously published content?
| brigade wrote:
| A nuance: they might not be able to revoke existing OGL 1.0
| licenses for anyone that has already used it to publish
| derivates, but they can likely cancel the _offer_ , even for
| existing OGL 1.0 content, for anyone that hasn't yet relied on
| the OGL to ship WotC IP. Which would in turn limit all future
| derivates to existing OGL 1.0 license holders, which would
| practically achieve Hasbro's rumored goals.
| johnday wrote:
| > Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously
| published content?
|
| It depends entirely on your definition of "can".
|
| If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. If you
| mean, is this action supported by _WotC 's own historic
| interpretation of their own license_, then no. If you mean, can
| they force the hand of smaller creators by threat of
| litigation, then certainly they can.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no.
|
| IANAL, but isn't this a situation where smaller companies
| could band together and sue WoTC for Declaratory Relief [0],
| even if WoTC hasn't _yet_ sued any of them for continuing to
| operate under the old license it 's trying to revoke under
| questionable circumstances?
|
| [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief
| flockonus wrote:
| Had this question too, can you clarify, so say there is an
| existing biz that uses some of DnD content like perks or
| classes; their software is said at v1.0 now, but then they
| want to include another class from existing DnD 3.5, or some
| perk, which would bump their release. Are they now obligated
| to signup for this new license, or can they just reference
| the old system version and license, much like a software
| would??
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| It's likely that Hasbro and WOTC are betting on the threat of
| litigation being a meaningful deterrent from actually seeing
| whether their attempts to retroactively nullify 1.0 holds up.
|
| In general, I agree. I think we're seeing a "hobby" community
| freak out when the owners of the brand turn away from the
| "ideals" of the hobby in question. This mainly effects people
| who are making money using the DnD brand. Something that Hasbro
| owns. Whether they also own the _past_ of that brand, and can
| alter its licensing, seems like the real ambiguity that Hasbro
| are hiding behind the curtain.
| Tyr42 wrote:
| Wizards also pulled the ability for people to download pdfs
| they already paid for with zero notice before, when they
| revoked a resellers license. Pretty dick move, and they think
| they can try and pull that shit again.
| SSLy wrote:
| Whoa, do you have more sources about this event?
| ivraatiems wrote:
| IANAL, but I would love the opinion of anyone more qualified on
| this: Suppose I am one of the "Expert Tier" companies and I'm
| making a lot of money off of using OGL 1.0 licensed works in
| conjunction with my own.
|
| The OGL[0] says Wizards can authorize new versions of the
| license, but it doesn't define "authorized" and it doesn't say
| anywhere they can deauthorize old ones. It also says that the
| terms of the license are perpetual.
|
| If I saw WOTC was going to make a change like this, obviously I'd
| retain counsel, but why wouldn't I take a position something
| like:
|
| 1) We don't believe that Wizards can arbitrarily bind us to the
| terms of any new license just because they have "authorized" it.
|
| 2) We will only release content that uses OGL 1.0a licensed works
| and never anything using 1.1 or any other version.
|
| 3) If Wizards doesn't like it, they can sue us and try to enforce
| their license. It'll be on them to prove the license binds us,
| and they'll look like assholes in front of their community of
| players.
|
| When my option is "give up all my corporate secrets and also lose
| 25% of my money" or this, why shouldn't I do this?
|
| [0] https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
|
| Edit: Another source I found that seems to suggest this might be
| an option, to an extent - or that there might be other ways to
| challenge this decision: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-
| take-a-minute-to-tal...
| [deleted]
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| There was a good thread recently where a lawyer helps
| distinguish "perpetual" and "irrevocable", which us laypeople
| tend to confuse.
|
| Basically the license is perpetual in that there's no default
| expiry; but it is NOT irrevocable. Consequences of license
| being revoked would then depend on details, jurisdiction,
| law,precedent,court, potentially past vs future work, and
| whether you're feeling lucky, punk :-/
| Buttons840 wrote:
| The next question of interest to HN then, is whether or not
| the MIT license is revocable? (The MIT license never says the
| word "irrevocable".)
| ivraatiems wrote:
| Very interesting distinction, thank you.
| Perseids wrote:
| > There was a good thread recently where a lawyer helps
| distinguish "perpetual" and "irrevocable", which us laypeople
| tend to confuse.
|
| Gosh, why does it have to be this way? It's even harder for
| non-native speakers to read legal documents "correctly", i.e.
| the way courts would interpret them. I understand that
| contracts and laws need precise language, but, in contrast
| to, say, mathematics, reading legal documents is such an
| important activity that we cannot ignore the needs of
| laypeople - they have to follow contracts and laws, too,
| after all. And I don't think it's plausible that clashes
| between general use of words and legalese are unavoidable,
| especially as contracts don't seem to be optimized for
| brevity.
|
| And in general, us laypeople should vehemently demand
| contracts and laws to be optimized for easy reading. Imagine
| what good a precedent could do, where a complete EULAs was
| judged void, because they were to hard to
| read/understand/interpret.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| The issue is that law, especially contract law, very often
| turns on the minutiae of what specifically was intended by
| a given statement in text. That's why contracts have pages
| and pages of definitions that seem obvious, and why courts
| assign special meanings to terms like "irrevocable".
|
| That is to say, at some point in the past, some court case
| probably turned on proving that "irrevocable" was supposed
| to mean something different than "perpetual," and so now
| the standard is to assume that's what it means, unless the
| contract explicitly says something different. What if I
| want a contract that I can't choose to take back, but which
| doesn't last forever?
|
| It's a problem of trying to force precision on a language
| that is inherently imprecise, topped off with concepts that
| are actually hard to understand.
| naniwaduni wrote:
| The risk that if Wizards moves forward with undertaking #3,
| that they can remain big and assholey for longer than you can
| remain solvent.
|
| (Giving up 25% of your revenue is obviously an enormous blow,
| but seems possible to be in a position where you think you can
| just about squeeze by long enough to pivot if you suck it up
| and take their terms as you try to move away from doing any new
| 1.1-related works.)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The risk that if Wizards moves forward with undertaking #3,
| that they can remain big and assholey for longer than you can
| remain solvent.
|
| To be fair, Hasbro seems to pull this every other major D&D
| version since introducing the OGL with 3rd edition, so we
| should expect Two D&D to be a return to more open licensing
| after the inevitable debacle of One D&D.
|
| Sucks to be one of the companies that exists solely around
| the ecosystem of the 5e wave of "Hasbro is trying to
| encourage third party support rather than squeezing
| producers", or one of the ones that survived the 4e squeeze
| because Hasbro didn't try to squeeze pure legacy use.
| chefandy wrote:
| I wonder what constitutes a new game for purposes of the
| contract. Could I release "Circvmventia: Qvest of the
| Changeling" and then when you hit 600k modify the game art and
| character names and release "Circvmventia: Changeling Reborne,"
| etc. I imagine they'd just modify the license again to get more
| control but it could buy time.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I would assume (IANAL!) that it would work similarly to
| software license upgrades. The IP created and licensed under
| version 1.0 would still be under version 1.0, and only IP
| created after 1.1 is released is affected, and then there must
| be some action on part of the small games company to agree to
| it.
|
| I suspect it depends of course on the exact terms of license
| and what users of version 1.0 agreed to in terms of future
| binding.
|
| Might be an interesting case with more than a little relevance
| for (US) software licenses
| ivraatiems wrote:
| Wizards seems to think this will explicitly not be the case,
| and they can effectively force everyone to abide by the terms
| of a new license just by making one. Which maybe they can!
| But it seems like the right move might be to force them to
| try it.
| raydiatian wrote:
| If a language model can run a D&D campaign, what do we need
| Wizards for?
| FridgeSeal wrote:
| Have you tried?
|
| It loses the thread and descends into incoherence pretty
| quickly.
|
| Also, because if it can do that, it was at some point trained
| on material licensed under the OGL, or WotC directly.
| ankaAr wrote:
| Are u kidding me? Again? Are we fighting against the same company
| again? We never learned anything. They had the article where they
| can change anything at any time, that was always a red flag, and
| was from the first day.
|
| As gm it is a shame that someone uses that licence all those
| years. Paizo made a rewrite and I think was the only company that
| saw that coming decades ago. But many mainstream groups used the
| content and the rights that the licence gave to push their
| projects and made a fortune (and wizards used that to push again
| the game), and now they are saying: no more. Well, bad luck for
| you.
|
| Use a real open licence, even a CC-BY-SA-NC if you wants, not a
| licence with a backdoor from the owner!
|
| My god, the community is fighting a battle for less than 20
| companies affected because they wanted to use a stupid licence.
|
| OGL 1.1 is bad as 1.0 was, it is the same shit, now with a
| royalty and just because of that, they are all like crazies. Was
| always as bad as now.
| [deleted]
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| If D&D "goes dark", why not try another role playing system?
|
| GURPS is a well-designed favorite made by Steven Jackson Games:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| It's not like GURPS is unknown to community members. If someone
| wants an alternative to D&D there are a thousand alternatives.
| This is like if you said "Don't like English? Try the well-
| designed favorite Spanish."
| Eji1700 wrote:
| And honestly gurps is the last one I'd recommend for the
| average 5e player looking to jump ship.
|
| It's crunchy as hell and a major commitment.
|
| Pathfinder 2 is likely going to be the biggest winner in this
| but hopefully other systems benefit as well.
|
| Dungeon world strikes me as another easy analogue and there's
| plenty of different stuff like Spire/Heart or Lancer that's
| made waves.
|
| Not to say that gurps is bad. I hope they see a bump too.
| Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably
| isn't playing 5e or already knows it exists
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > And honestly gurps is the last one I'd recommend for the
| average 5e player looking to jump ship.
|
| This kind of comment is also why it's funny to suggest
| "just use X" to D&D players. RPG nerds are effectively poor
| software engieners. Ask 10 of them for an opinion on TT RPG
| rulesets and you'll get 300 opinions.
|
| > Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps
| probably isn't playing 5e or already knows it exists
|
| Absolutely correct.
| mcv wrote:
| There's certainly no shortage of excellent alternatives, but
| none of them have the cultural mindshare that D&D has.
| allone wrote:
| Before french revolution: enlightened monarchy
|
| After french revolution: tyranny and paranoia
|
| Shortly after: "universal" democracy (modulo something)
|
| Do we really need to repeat the exercise. It'll only lead to
| tears.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > On top of that, games such as Pathfinder 1E and 2E, 13th Age,
| Fudge, and Traveller--which use the 1.0 OGL as the backbone of
| their existence--will need to cease sales of upcoming products or
| give WotC 25% of their revenue to stay in compliance with the new
| license
|
| How does this work? Why are they forced to do so?
| mcv wrote:
| Hasbro claims they are. Whether that's actually true is very
| questionable, but most RPG publishers will not want to fight
| Hasbro in court.
| jeremycw wrote:
| I am not a lawyer and please correct me if I'm wrong but as I
| understand it rules and mechanics are not copyrightable. What is
| copyrightable is the flavor text and specific compilation of the
| rule set into the "Rule Book". The rule book becomes a
| copyrightable work. This means that your are within your legal
| right to make a game called "Dragons & Daggers" where all the
| combat mechanics, rules, etc are identical to Dungeons & Dragons
| as long as the "glue" text and flavour text is original content.
| It seems to me like a community fork licensed under CC that plays
| exactly the same is not impossible.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Spells use text to explain their mechanics, and that text is
| copyrightable. You'd likely need to re-write the spell lists
| from scratch.
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Dungeons and Dragons' new license tightens its grip on
| competition_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 -
| Jan 2023 (203 comments)
| cbrozefsky wrote:
| Regarding the ability to copyright the "method of playing" or
| "rules" of a game:
|
| https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/fl108.pdf
|
| The US Copyright Office says it can apply to text or description,
| but not to the rules.
|
| WoTC did have a patent issues for MtG, but I dont think that's
| going to work for D20 rules. Perhaps they will attempt to patent
| the OneD&D release?
|
| Either way, it's quite clear that corporations will attempt to
| colonize and control our culture, and lie and scheme their way to
| expand their profit extraction.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| The wealth of written content is exactly what's valuable about
| D&D. The rules aren't interesting nor innovative.
|
| There is a Wizard Spell that does 1d4 damage at spell slot 1.
| It is called Magic Missile. There is a block of text that
| describes the Magic Missile. If you want D&D you can't just
| clone the mechanic of spells, you also have to write a massive
| amount of _copywritten_ content.
| cbrozefsky wrote:
| I don't think "cloning D&D" is what any of these third
| parties are doing. It's producing add-ons, source books, or
| videos of them playing. That is, original content that is
| compatible with, and tuned for the rule system.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| Fine any other synonym for "clone" if that's your issue.
| It's the idea that many many of these products are dressing
| on top of the SRD.
| jesusofnazarath wrote:
| [dead]
| secabeen wrote:
| WotC/Hasbro has named their next release "One D&D". They clearly
| want to clear the field of other compatible rules-sets, and have
| just a singular system that they control, manage, and profit
| from. My guess is that they see the profits that Apple and Google
| make from their App Store, and want all future add-on content to
| D&D to be paying them 25% of revenues, rather than 0% right now.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I played D&D for about 27 years, but I never thought it was
| particularly _good_. It was just the lingua franca, the kernel a
| relatively small community could come together around.
|
| I don't think D&D has to be the default tabletop RPG anymore, nor
| should it be. Partly due to the OGL and its knock-on effects,
| lots more people entered the community. Maybe they want different
| things than just a miniatures combat-oriented pastiche of
| Tolkien, Howard, and Vance. You can publish books more easily,
| distribute them more easily, market them more easily. I think the
| tabletop industry could sustain a community without D&D if it had
| to, and maybe it has to. I wonder if maybe that's a good thing.
|
| WoTC's decision was selfish, tone-deaf, destructive; all that
| stuff. It will hurt people with existing businesses built around
| OGL content. That sucks. But, I don't think it will (as this open
| letter states) dismantle the tabletop industry. On the contrary,
| I hope it frees it from its dependence on a capricious IP owner
| with a brittle license. For the players, maybe it frees them from
| a mediocre system and the most generic, uninteresting fantasy
| setting ever. There's a lot more out there, maybe this is a good
| opportunity to explore some of it.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| My understanding is that this also puts the more robust "forks"
| like Pathfinder at risk.
| shuntress wrote:
| I think they actually did a really good job with the 5e rules.
| I started in 3.5e 15+ years ago. I very strongly dislike 4e. I
| haven't yet been convinced by any alternatives that the d20
| system isn't optimal.
|
| D&D 5th edition obviously has problems but, like other comments
| say, it is the current "lingua franca" of the space and it's
| difficult to conceive of any realistic open replacement that
| isn't essentially just _" D&D 5e with some relatively minor
| tweaks"_.
| [deleted]
| vintermann wrote:
| I agree that D&D doesn't need to be the default tabletop RPG
| anymore. But you bet I want the freedom to borrow everything I
| liked from every version of it I played (which doesn't include
| anything recent, by the way). I want to be able to talk about
| it online too, hell, even PLAY it online.
|
| And if Hasbro are so desperate to prevent that from happening
| that they'll call in the shit-flinging lawyers - the kind who
| don't even try to have a solid argument, they just try to make
| engaging with them maximally unpleasant to everyone involved -
| then I will be most pissed with Hasbro.
|
| You too, will have to live in fear of attracting their
| attention. The whole point of this sort of litigation is that
| they're signaling, they're not going to be reasonable. Are you
| SURE you're not infringing in the shit-flinging lawyers' eyes?
|
| That doesn't sound like a good opportunity to explore to me.
| thefurdrake wrote:
| Gosh, yeah, this'll definitely stop all those content creators
| from doing a find and replace to make their content fit for
| Pathfinder 2 or any non-OGL-tainted system on the planet.
|
| This might actually do good for tabletop gaming in general, if
| Hasbro's cancerous behavior causes people to flee their IP and
| show interest in other things.
|
| I really don't think this is going to work out the way these
| braindead business executives seem to think it will. People will
| move their content to a different platform because DnD has never
| been anything more than a storytelling/content framework.
|
| Hasbro mad cuz community content better than their own. Go back
| to ruining ponies.
| legitster wrote:
| Am I right to assume WotC's move is basically aimed at groups
| like Critical Role?
|
| On one hand, I have no interest in defending corporate copyright
| rules. But on the other hand, I disagree that this would stifle
| creativity. If there are hundreds of companies out there that
| only exist to pump out content for the D&D ruleset, surely making
| them pay for the privilege would encourage some of them to build
| _new_ rulesets?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _...the company may terminate the agreement if third-party
| creators publish material that is "blatantly racist, sexist,
| homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory._
|
| This makes me believe less that this is an organic push within
| WotC and more a push by a special interest group. Given that we
| know WotC didn't write OGL 1.1, it would make sense that a
| special interest group funded it with the stipulation that they
| added the trans bit in.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > Given that we know WotC didn't write OGL 1.1
|
| I have seen no evidence of this so far? Any source?
| anakha wrote:
| WotC CEO and president Cynthia Williams was on the record as
| saying that the DnD brand is under monetized.
| https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news...
|
| Hasbro CEO, also the former WoTC CEO, has ramped up monetization
| of the Magic the Gathering brand significantly in recent years,
| partly at the expense of cashing in on the secondary market.
|
| WoTC choking the OGL is consistent with them looking to pump up
| their profits.
| madrox wrote:
| In another place and time, a similar circumstance is what led
| Blizzard to unintentionally provide the tools for inspiring the
| MOBA genre, which spawned League of Legends and DOTA2. That
| altered games forever. You'll notice few games ship with map
| editors anymore, and game UGC is very tightly locked down.
| Blizzard leaders have stated that letting MOBA get away from them
| was their biggest miss.
|
| D&D is having a similar moment where companies that were built on
| D&D are becoming bigger than them, and WotC wants to compete more
| directly now that digital is becoming a priority for TTRPGs. Once
| you decide to do that, you no longer want to be a platform for
| your competitor. In a way, this is similar Apple banning apps
| that directly compete with built-in iOS features. While also an
| unpopular move, you can hardly blame them.
| cpv wrote:
| And then Blizzard updated the user agreement (around the
| Warcraft 3 Reforged), mentioning that all player generated
| content is owned by the company.
|
| So in case some genius comes with another successful custom map
| (or whatever), the company has new ideas to work on, for free.
| madrox wrote:
| I believe they updated the EULA long before that, but
| Reforged got a lot of press about it since it represents such
| a contrast between yesterday's games and today's.
| the_af wrote:
| I don't understand how gamers (non-videogame gamers in this case)
| put up with ruthless monetization and lock-in attempts by the
| biggest companies.
|
| RPGs is a particularly bizarre case. You really don't need
| _anything_ but a group of friends, your imagination and some
| rules to play roleplaying games. Ok, so you want merchandise --
| player screens and mats and minis -- all of that 's optional,
| there's no RPG police that can prevent you making your own or
| buying from third parties. So you have adventure modules... I
| made my own adventures back when I was a teenager, but I can sort
| of see not everyone has the imagination to make their own, plus
| being able to "share" a world with other gaming groups so you can
| say you defeated the Temple of Elemental Evil or whatnot is sort
| of cool; not my thing, but I can see it.
|
| But now apparently Wizards of the Coast is not content with all
| the stuff they already sell, so they are starting to build a
| virtual world (+ app, of course) where you can customize your
| character, buy DLC, etc. Of course, all tidily locked-in, because
| what better way to keep a tight reign than owning the app?
|
| I can't wrap my head around this. An app? DLC? Custom items? For
| a game that _happens inside your head_ , and that most people
| choose to play to do something other than _staring at a screen_?
| Has the world gone crazy?
|
| You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination...
| [deleted]
| remram wrote:
| This letter is proof they are not putting up with it. Or do you
| mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this
| crap?
|
| > You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination
|
| Obviously you need rulebooks, campaign modules, etc. This is
| the stuff that is under license from WotC.
| the_af wrote:
| Sorry, my rant was semi-related: I mean the upcoming digital
| D&D app that Wizards of the Coast expects players to use.
| Isn't it crazy that they expect to sell you DLC for online
| avatars for a game that happens in your imagination?
|
| > _Obviously you need rulebooks_
|
| Yes.
|
| > _campaign modules_
|
| Unlike the rulebook, these are nice but not mandatory. And if
| you're crafty, you can derive inspiration from other fantasy
| worlds, books, novels and movies. I do understand not
| everybody is creative enough or wants to spend time doing
| this though; I also understand some people value a "shared
| world" they can discuss with other players beyond their
| group.
|
| > _Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC
| pulls this crap?_
|
| At some point, yes. I mean, there are plenty of other awesome
| RPGs to play, right? You are not locked-in to D&D in the same
| sense many people are locked-in to Windows.
| SSLy wrote:
| More than D&D itself, and its players, the new "OGL"
| creates tremendous hurdles for the 3rd party, admittedly a
| little cottage, industry that bloomed around OGL.
|
| I'm absolutely fine without D&D, but Hasbro is going
| against makers of Pathfinder, my preferred dungeon crawler
| RPG.
| scubbo wrote:
| I agree with the broad thrust of your argument, but I cannot
| emphasize enough how useful DnDBeyond is for character
| creation, rule/item lookups, shared campaign content, etc.
| Sure, you don't _need_ it, but it makes the experience so much
| easier and more pleasant, allowing you to spend your time on
| the bits of the hobby you actually enjoy rather than trawling
| through reference books (if trawling through reference books
| _is_ the bit that you enjoy, you are free to keep doing that :)
| )
|
| It's not useful _enough_ to make me want to keep using it in
| this new climate, but still - don't undermine your (very
| correct!) argument by under-valuing the non-DLC aspects of RPG
| apps.
| legitster wrote:
| > For a game that happens inside your head, and that most
| people choose to play to do something other than staring at a
| screen? Has the world gone crazy?
|
| I think the thing that happened is that D&D transitioned from
| being a game to a _lifestyle brand_. It 's not actually about
| playing a game anymore, it's about collecting books and buying
| swag and watching Youtube shows.
| wincy wrote:
| Right so D&D has always been inspired from wargames, and combat
| and such occurs on a grid, with measurements and dice rolls.
|
| With the pandemic virtual tabletops blew up and Hasbro (let's
| call them what they really are, one of the largest game
| companies in the world) wants a piece of this action, or maybe
| all the pieces for that matter.
|
| I play online using a virtual tabletop and while we often just
| use our imaginations, the VTT keeps track of our character
| sheets, our current equipment, our gold amounts, a log of all
| our dice rolls and what skill we were rolling. I used a 3D
| modeling program to make screenshots that I use as tokens for
| my character. Our DM runs multiple games and the virtual
| tabletop is also a note taking app that allows his notes to
| correspond to objects in the game, attached to certain places,
| or the entire campaign. Like a specialized Evernote. He
| couldn't keep track of all the games he runs without it (or he
| could but it'd be harder).
|
| It makes things a lot easier than just logging onto a zoom call
| and playing pretend. All this convenience would be a lot more
| expensive if it was just through the one official source.
|
| I understand what they're doing but it's going to stifle the
| innovation that's been happening in this space and finally get
| D&D to be a "video game" like they tried with 4th edition.
| mcv wrote:
| Entirely true. However, Dungeons & Dragons is by far the
| biggest brand in the hobby. Bigger than the hobby itself,
| arguably. I'm pretty sure "Dungeons & Dragons" is better known
| than "Roleplaying Games". The brand is huge, it's the biggest
| thing that attracts new players, and WotC/Hasbro owns it. And
| they want to monetise it.
|
| Most experienced roleplayers who know that there's a world
| outside D&D won't put up with it, but to lots of new players
| flocking to the big name, having something computer/app based
| may actually help make it more familiar. They've never heard of
| Pathfinder, let alone Call of Cthulhu, Fate or Shadowrun, and
| they have no idea how to play it. That's what they're coming to
| D&D for: to learn how to play it.
|
| And if WotC/Hasbro is now going to tell them they need to pay
| to make their character in an online virtual world, they may
| never find what they were looking for.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| Not only have many players never heard of these systems,
| unfortunately many don't want to learn them once they do. I
| like Pathfinder, and Call of Cthulhu, and Mouseguard, and
| Fate; unfortunately, my players have little interest in
| picking up a new set of rules so that we can do the same
| thing, maybe just a little differently or cheaper.
|
| And I get that! Learning the DnD rules to a point where you
| can roll up a character and take full advantage of the
| available actions and skills without a turn taking forever
| takes time. And once folks have done it once, they don't
| really care to do it again and again; that starts to feel
| like work, and this is supposed to be a game. For some, the
| tradeoffs aren't worth it.
|
| It is a little disappointing, though, seeing all this change
| on the horizon and knowing that I would lose more than half
| of my players if I tried to get us into a different rule
| system.
| mcv wrote:
| > my players have little interest in picking up a new set
| of rules so that we can do the same thing
|
| Does that mean they also won't switch to a new edition of
| D&D?
|
| My biggest concern, though, is for new players. The ones
| who aren't even invested in the D&D ruleset yet. They don't
| know the rules, they don't know what roleplaying even is,
| but they've heard of D&D, and that's what they want to
| play, unaware that there are better options out there.
|
| I think the really big fix here is not so much undoing OGL
| 1.1, but undoing the dominant position of the D&D trademark
| itself; prospective players need to have heard of
| Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and all the others. But that's
| hard to do, with D&D's long and rich history, and a single
| name is much more memorable than a long list of
| alternatives.
| the_af wrote:
| > _I think the really big fix here is not so much undoing
| OGL 1.1, but undoing the dominant position of the D &D
| trademark itself; prospective players need to have heard
| of Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and all the others. But
| that's hard to do, with D&D's long and rich history, and
| a single name is much more memorable than a long list of
| alternatives._
|
| Fully agreed! If there are such things as Mac or Linux
| evangelists, why can't there be Call of Cthulhu ones?
| Evangelizing _games_ is far easier than doing so for
| computers. People are willing to learn new games. It 's
| all some people ever seem to do, learning and collecting
| new games!
| the_af wrote:
| That's disappointing to hear, especially since many RPGs
| out there are both more fun and _simpler_ than D &D.
| the_af wrote:
| I suspect you are right, and it's depressing.
|
| I do think it's a bit easier to escape this trap, because an
| inventive game master can convince their group of friends to
| play something else, and this is easier than getting someone
| to switch from Windows. It's simply teaching them a new game!
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Some friends of mine started their own RPG decades ago. They
| have built up long branches of history/lore, star charts, a
| dozen or so species, several factions disputing territory,
| weapons, vehicles, armor classes, dozens of attributes per
| character, mysterious artifacts, magic, etc. and art to go
| along with most of it.
|
| It's the only RPG I have played more than a handful of times.
| RPGs are a labor of love, friendship, and fun: no more, no
| less.
| the_af wrote:
| I love your reply, and fully agreed!
|
| I do understand that kind of involvement in the hobby is not
| for everyone. I'm not obtuse, I understand the appeal of
| ready-made fantasy worlds and adventures. But still...
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the
| license? Are they trying retroactively to gain IP over all
| ""DnD"" derivative works? Are they just doing something different
| for One D&D?
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the
| license?
|
| Well Hasbro wants to make money of third party D&D content,
| nothing more. Why were people still using D&D when non
| corporate alternatives exist?
|
| The people at the head of these companies could be selling
| vacuum cleaners it wouldn't make a difference, at the end of
| the day it's all about maximizing short term profit.
| cstever wrote:
| For a little bit of flavor. After I saw this post (I don't follow
| D&D or Wizards or Hasbro news) I thought immediately of BFRPG.
| Found this post in Basic Fantasy's forum, so this move by WotC is
| definitely going to have an impact.
|
| https://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596
| etchalon wrote:
| Maybe more people to discover, and build with, Monte Cook's
| excellent Cypher System: https://csol.montecookgames.com/license/
| chemmail wrote:
| I think they will find they are screwed and this desperate
| attempt is the straw. We see this in computing world where
| everyone did their best to avoid going to x86 and went to ARM,
| but now that ARM is so uncertain now they will abandon and go
| RISC V.
| gkoberger wrote:
| I imagine the logic was that someone at Hasbro saw Critical Role,
| Dimension 20, etc making millions and felt it was "unfair"
| they're not getting any money.
|
| But there's a quote attributed to Bill Gates that feels relevant
| here: "A platform is when the economic value of everybody that
| uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it."
|
| DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long term
| will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to "optimize"
| their revenue right now.
| mcv wrote:
| But Critical Role is also great advertisement. If Hasbro goes
| after them, Critical Role can just switch to another system and
| give them free advertisement instead. I guarantee that every
| single RPG creator would love for Critical Role to pick their
| system.
| gkoberger wrote:
| Oh I 100% agree. This is lose-lose for Hasbro (either people
| pay and are angry, or leave), and there's no way they
| ultimately make more with these rules than without them.
| wincy wrote:
| I think Critical Role is in no danger of them "going after"
| them as there are officially licensed Critical Role books and
| miniatures.
|
| I'd imagine they're wanting to get a cut of whatever money
| Paizo, and Kobold Gaming Press, or the D&D miniatures and
| books kickstarters that regularly raise hundreds of thousands
| of dollars.
| djur wrote:
| If anything, this might put their partnership with Critical
| Role at risk.
| Macha wrote:
| I think the primary target is VTTs serving D&D 5e gameplay
| systems as an alternative to their planned 6e
| microtransaction machine in their upcoming OneD&D/D&D
| Beyond VTT. They want to sell classes and feats and spells
| etc. to players as microtransactions and justify it with 3d
| models and animations, but at that price many players would
| opt to forgot the 3d content for a system where they didn't
| have to pay... unless Wizards manage to prevent that system
| existing.
|
| As a secondary target, getting a cut of Paizo's revenue is
| something I imagine Wizards like the idea of, but was not
| the primary goal.
|
| Critical Role will probably just get a plain royalty free
| license for use in their main show as a side deal for the
| amount it promotes the game.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long
| term will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to
| "optimize" their revenue right now.
|
| Assuming they don't tank their platform, which it very much
| looks like right now.
| carapace wrote:
| * * *
| markus_zhang wrote:
| If I build a computer game using places and characters from one
| of the world say Ansalon, how much fee I need to pay WotC?
| Assuming I sell it on Steam for some paltry revenue.
| coldpie wrote:
| Unless you make over $750k, nothing.
| https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d
|
| This is Wizards trying to walk a fine line. They want a cut of
| the profits from the big-name D&D-based content creators, but
| they don't want to kill the entire creative community. I'm not
| sure they're going to succeed. Pissing off the biggest names
| putting your product in the spotlight in return for a couple
| bucks seems a really dumb idea to me.
| the_af wrote:
| What are the big names? Paizo/Pathfinder? Can't they simply
| do their own thing and stop relying on D&D _precisely_
| because they are so big their customer base already knows
| them?
|
| Or is it computer games? With computers handling the rules,
| you can just make your own RPG rules, right? Or is it the
| setting? Do people really only play videogames that are set
| in Faerun or Icewind Dale or whatever? Can't you just make
| your own stuff up and call it Arda-- er, Middle-- er, Ancient
| Magical Land of Elves?
| jshwlkr wrote:
| I believe Disney is connected to some OGL-based products,
| or at least was. Star Wars in general, I think, has some
| OGL connections.
| the_af wrote:
| Wow. Surely Disney of all companies can probably break
| clean of the OGL and do their own thing, right?
|
| I mean, I would totally watch a battle between Disney's
| and Wizards of the Coast's legal departments. I suspect
| the Goliath in this case is Disney, and there are no
| Davids.
| pflats wrote:
| Not true. One of the very first lines there states that:
|
| > OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use
| in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted
| as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and
| PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games,
| are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan
| Content Policy or a custom agreement with us.
|
| The Fan Content Policy is:
|
| https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy
|
| Which says that:
|
| > You can't require payments, surveys, downloads,
| subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan
| Content;
|
| > You can't sell or license your Fan Content to any third
| parties for any type of compensation; and
|
| > Your Fan Content must be free for others (including
| Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you
| anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.
|
| > You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking
| advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations--so long
| as it doesn't interfere with the Community's access to your
| Fan Content.
|
| All of this exists (IMO) because game mechanics aren't
| subject to copyright, so you can, if you'd like, read these
| two sets of rules as Hasbro saying, "This is what we're
| willing to let you do without having to get a lawyer to
| defend yourself in court, even if it's legally allowed."
|
| Note, though, that in GP's post, "places and characters from
| one of the world say Ansalon" very much _are_ covered by WotC
| 's copyrights (and probably some trademarks too).
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Thanks, looks like it's pretty strigent. Well worst case
| I'll put it up for free when done. Don't think anyone is
| going to pay anyway, just a hobby project.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Important to note that:
|
| 1) you are required to report your income if it is above
| $50k.
|
| 2) Once you sign they can arbitrarily adjust that $750k with
| nothing but a notice that the license has been updated.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Nope, ogl 1.1 doesn't apply to anything but printed
| matieral/pdfs... 'books' essentially.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| They grant themselves a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
| worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use the
| content under the new OGL for any purpose and they can revoke
| your license for any reason provided they give you a 30 days
| notice.
|
| You would have to be crazy to agree to that. Hasbro can
| literally tell you you have 30 days to pack then sell your
| product as their own.
| PeterisP wrote:
| OGL only covers rules and mechanics, and some of the common,
| generic races/classes/spells/gear. All of the 'fluff' e.g.
| places and characters and worldbuilding is not licensed by OGL.
| OGL allows you to build _your_ places and characters and
| content so that they 're compatible with D&D content.
| delecti wrote:
| The Dragonlance universe is one of the more complicated
| examples you could have picked, because there's been some
| lawsuits about the rights. Also, video games have always
| required additional licensing, so you picked an almost entirely
| orthogonal example. The OGL covers printed (or digital "print")
| content.
| zaarn wrote:
| The original OGL very much allows video games. KOTOR is for
| example a game that includes a copy of the OGL. There is also
| several virtual tabletop softwares that ship with OGL
| content.
| ajross wrote:
| I don't think any Dragonlance content was ever published under
| the OGL, FWIW. The covered content is limited to the rules and
| the core(-ish) monster stat blocks. The fiction was never part
| of the deal (nor should it have been, IMHO).
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Interesting. Does that mean If I loosely follow the rules
| (say mages use mana points which change by shape of moons)
| and don't use the stats (after all it's just a Ultima
| spinoff), I probably don't need to worry anything about
| licensing fee? I really don't think it's going to make any
| meaningful money anyway.
| ajross wrote:
| The Ultima series itself didn't bother to license D&D, so
| you're fine. Basic ideas of mechanics can't be copyrighted,
| and no one ever got a patent on "hit points" et. al.
| kubb wrote:
| We need a table top system on GPL or a similar licence, with a
| full universe and lore. Do you think YC would fund a startup to
| build it up?
| andolanra wrote:
| There are a truly massive number of RPGs out there with a wide
| variety of open licenses, especially the various Creative
| Commons licenses. The indie RPG sphere is _massive_ and
| includes tabletop systems that range from "mild variations on
| the core D&D formula" to "almost fundamentally alien approaches
| to doing structured role-playing". D&D has long-standing brand
| recognition and cultural cachet, but it hasn't been the only
| player in this space for _decades_.
| kubb wrote:
| Sure, but do any of them have the quality and polish to
| replace DnD?
| mattmanser wrote:
| Think your wishful thinking belongs on /r/choosingbeggars
| :)
| kubb wrote:
| Umm, we deserve high quality open source projects. I'm
| not complaining about the existing ones, just pointing
| out the opportunity.
| grumple wrote:
| DnD has inconsistent quality and has a ton of rules, but
| few of them add much value. There's really not much polish
| either imo. The vast majority of the rulebook get ignored
| because they don't make the game better and often make it
| worse. The current generation of players, largely inspired
| by the rise in acceptance of geeky hobbies, by Critical
| Role and similar shows, etc, would be better off with a
| different system entirely. These people play to have fun
| with friends, to have exciting stories and moments, not to
| follow the ten thousand rules and baggage dnd has acquired
| over the years.
|
| Dungeon Masters make or break the game. They do it by
| storytelling, by presenting challenges and helping players
| overcome them, by creating a sense of ownership and reward.
| DnD is not good at teaching people to do those things.
|
| I've played some other systems, and immediately they were
| easier to play and more fun for the group. You don't need
| 20 rule books, you need a simple set of rules and a desire
| to participate in a shared storytelling experience, and
| that's really it.
| andolanra wrote:
| Absolutely and then some! I personally would argue that D&D
| itself--5E in particular here--is actually a fairly
| _middling_ tabletop game. It 's held back by a lot of
| historical cruft because even new editions end up being
| forced to stick to decades-old design decisions for the
| sake of tradition. A simple example here is the distinction
| between ability scores and ability modifiers: this is an
| old D&D-ism and trying to remove it sparks complaints about
| how it's "not D&D", but it's frankly some unnecessary
| complexity and other tabletop games lose nothing by
| dropping scores and just using modifiers.
|
| Apart from the core design, D&D is also pretty middling as
| a _product_. Being a DM for D &D is _hard_ --a fair bit
| harder than running many other tabletop games--and the book
| are at best a so-so resource: there's a lot of extra prep
| and careful balance that rests on the DM's shoulders, and
| doing it right means either falling back part-and-parcel on
| adventure modules or doing a lot of careful tuning and
| reading forums and Reddit threads. In an ideal world, the
| core books would include everything you need to know, but
| in practice the best DM advice is outside the core books
| (and sometimes even contradicts the books themselves!) Many
| other games don't have this problem.
|
| To be clear, I don't think D&D is a _bad_ game, but
| _plenty_ of other games out there have clearer core
| designs, better presentations, easier-to-grasp rules, and
| overall more polish.
| kubb wrote:
| At this point I'm hoping for some names of high quality
| open source high fantasy RPGs with a lot of content ready
| to jump in and play.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Sure, but do any of them have the quality and polish to
| replace DnD?
|
| D&D isn't anymore polished than Runequest or Warhammer in
| the commercial space, or a ton of Creative Common RPG. D&D
| is just more popular. This isn't polish, this is
| "corporate".
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| It's kinda wild to watch HN suggest that a tech company can
| do as well as established tabletop gaming companies as if
| it's as easy as asking ChatGPT. I suppose considering how
| beloved Tesla and Theranos were I shouldn't be surprised.
| kubb wrote:
| We can also code it for the Metaverse! Mark please invest
| 4-5 Million.
| mcv wrote:
| The OGL was intended to be the GPL but for table top games.
|
| Admittedly, the settings, characters, books and similar content
| were never part of the deal. It was more meant to be a common
| standard that everybody could build on.
|
| But a common world that everybody could expand upon, would very
| quickly become a gigantic mess.
| xavdid wrote:
| This is disappointing, but not surprising. I don't play Magic
| anymore, but it's been clear for years that WotC is prioritizing
| profit over game health.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Yep, this is an all-too-normal letdown from WotC. They really
| are trying to milk their franchises, without concern for their
| longevity. That's too bad.
|
| For me, this is more reason to continue with the D&D 3.5 and
| pathfinder ecosystems for my RPGs.
| xtirpation wrote:
| Devil's advocate: if they've been doing this for years (and I
| do agree wholeheartedly with you personally) then has it really
| been detrimental to game health? Presumably they have metrics
| indicating positive growth or they wouldn't be pushing in this
| direction.
|
| Maybe it just means old players like us are no longer the
| target and it's to the long-term benefit of the game to tell us
| to pound sand as they have for years.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| I'll be the devil here-- I played a Magic event with my
| teenage son last year and it was a blast. We're not big
| collectors, but over the holidays we got some commander decks
| and I played with my sons.
|
| It's amazing to me that they have kept Magic that relevant
| and commercial that long. People always complain about
| "greedy" corporations but guess what? Greedy corporations
| make the books, movies, video games, board games that you
| play. If they were failing no one would complain. In these
| spaces complaints about your motives come with success.
| xavdid wrote:
| That's totally fair! I'm glad you enjoyed it. At its core,
| Magic is a great game and I really do wish for its success.
| I just think WotC is compromising the long-term health of
| the game in the name of short-term profits (which is not
| unusual in big companies).
|
| > People always complain about "greedy" corporations but
| guess what? Greedy corporations make the books, movies,
| video games, board games that you play.
|
| I will push back here a bit - I play a lot of videogames
| from small-medium size indie studios (I play relatively few
| AAA videogames anymore) specifically for their perceived
| lack of greed. Sure, anyone selling a game wants it to be
| profitable and fund future games, but indies aren't doing
| so by selling "Gold Editions" of their $70 game that exist
| purely to squeeze money out of players. Indie devs make a
| game and hope to be lucky enough that it gets enough press
| (and good reviews) to bring in revenue.
| wincy wrote:
| Hasbro announced they intended to double revenue in five
| years, and apparently did it in half that. So you're right,
| they are profiting a lot off of the changes they've made. It
| includes things like selling a $1000 "Magic 30th Anniversary"
| that has 4 beta booster "packs" that have different backs so
| aren't legal in any tournament play but otherwise look like
| the Black Lotus and Moxes that are absurdly expensive now.
| xavdid wrote:
| It's a fair question, and one I don't really have the answer
| to without internal WotC metrics. I really think it depends
| on how we define "game health" (and whether we, the players,
| define it the same way that they do).
|
| I'd say the game is healthy if people keep playing, the
| community grows, the meta isn't stale, and there's still
| interest in the game. By that metric, the game feels
| unhealthy to me.
|
| I would _guess_ that WotC is most concerned with overall
| revenue (and potential for future revenue). I would bet that
| any reduced player counts have been offset by sales of
| higher-margin product (so numbers probably look decent right
| now). But, long term, I think these actions have hurt the
| brand, so the next product will have to have a higher price
| to make up for fewer sales.
|
| Of course, I'm just theorizing here. I have no inside info
| and most of my feelings (especially as a no-longer-player)
| are driven by what I hear from friends and read online (the
| latter of which, of course, skews negative).
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| Also keep in mind the idea that the loudest percentages are
| not usually representative.
|
| Just because it _seems_ like everyone is leaving WotC
| properties doesn 't mean they actually are.
| xavdid wrote:
| Yeah absolutely! Hard to say anything with conviction at
| this point.
|
| Anecdotally, many friends and I played religiously from
| middle school through college. Nearly all of them have
| stopped, most have sold their cards. Of course, we got
| older/more busy during that time, but we also have more
| disposable income (and chose not to spend it on cards).
| So, it certainly feels like my sphere has left,
| personally.
| PeterisP wrote:
| The only thing that the gaming industry needs to do is to boycott
| the new edition of D&D, and evolve the games which were
| originally based on OGL 1.0 content (e.g. "3.5" D&D) on a
| parallel track, ignoring all the OGL 1.1 things, explicitly
| foregoing any compatibility with D&D 6th edition (or whatever it
| will be called), and building up a thriving ecosystem of content
| which they are definitely capable of doing separately from WotC.
| dahdum wrote:
| OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you'll no longer be able to use the
| content under those terms.
| ezfe wrote:
| They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that
| license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying
| they are doesn't mean they can actually do that.
|
| Think of the implications it would have if anyone could
| revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for
| violating the replacement license.
| [deleted]
| Bjartr wrote:
| > Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they
| can actually do that.
|
| They can act as if they can and sue those that try to
| ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it
| would take to actually settle the question of if they can.
| Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to
| avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't
| actually do that.
| dahdum wrote:
| The license wasn't irrevocable. It was perpetual, but those
| mean quite different things according to the IP lawyers
| I've seen commenting on this.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| This site makes it sound like even that won't be possible,
| which I find a questionable claim (see my top-level comment).
| armoredkitten wrote:
| Part of the contention is that the OGL 1.1 is trying to
| retroactively revoke the OGL 1.0. Whether or not that is legal
| is, well, a legal question. But boycotting the new edition is
| not "the only thing" the industry has to do, if building on the
| OGL 1.0 is no longer valid.
|
| Provided that WotC does follow through with trying to revoke
| the previous version, the major thing that will have to play
| out is to figure out which third-party company is going to end
| up trying to battle Hasbro in court over whether their maneuver
| is legal. If anyone, it will probably be Paizo, as one of the
| largest players building off the OGL. But until that legal
| question is settled, boycotting the new version (while still
| building off OGL 1.0) is a dangerous option.
| alexvoda wrote:
| I say the community should be more proactive.
|
| Hasbro is surely using plenty of open source software under
| licenses like MIT, BSD, GPL v2 which do not have the magic
| word "irrevocable". I say some software devs should just
| declare that if Hasbro retroactively revokes licenses then
| the licenses for their IT infrastructure also gets revoked.
|
| If this goes to court and Hasbro wins, this creates an
| monstrously dangerous precedent for the software industry. So
| maybe someone should take their infrastructure hostage before
| it get to court.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| There seems to be language in OGL 1.1 that is trying to
| retroactively nullify OGL 1.0. So anyone trying to make
| something new related to DnD, where they would need to agree to
| OGL 1.1, would essentially reapply 1.1 to everything they have
| already made. At least that's how some people have tried to
| describe the situation to me.
|
| I don't see that being remotely enforceable or even a strong
| argument were something brought to court, but I think WOTC
| (really Hasbro ) is using the threat of litigation to limit the
| ability for creators to continue to make new things _that
| identify themselves explicitly as DnD_. WOTC is basically
| betting that the rpg market is really a DnD market, captive to
| the brand, which will probably backfire on them.
| dcow wrote:
| How are we even in a scenario where the _ideas_ from one game can
| be covered by the _copy_ right of the author? What law today
| covers the ideas born out of a copyrighted work? Or is it mostly
| that people see this OGL as explicit permission where otherwise
| there'd be none which, despite the fact that they'd win, would
| still leave open the possibility that derivative authors could be
| sued (and out resourced, legally)?
| shuntress wrote:
| I think the catch is more on extensions and accessories for
| D&D. There is obvious stuff like pre-packaged one-shot
| adventure books or custom character classes. Less obvious stuff
| like DM screens, stat-trackers, or spell cards. Then there's
| the "corporate dystopia nightmare" like wizard of the coast
| demanding a cut on sales of dice towers, notebooks, d20s, etc.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-09 23:01 UTC)