Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Psyren]

Personally, my introduction to TTRPGs was Neverwinter Nights, so it's true in my case. Even if I didn't actually get to play one until like 6 or 7 years later.

Right, and BG3 will almost certainly be that for others this year too. That's great. But neither game used the OGL.

Even then, Hasbro "shelving the property" with an intact 1.0a just means we lose the likes of Forgotten Realms. Boo freakin' hoo, I'm really gonna miss Elminster. Meanwhile, Paizo, Kobold Press, Ghostfire Gaming or any other sufficiently established third party can now fill the gaping void on 3.5e and 5e's foundations. That's not a loss, that's a win.

I mean, let them "win" if that's the outcome; that doesn't mean WotC has to roll over and do nothing.

[Segev]

Ultimately, I neither see anything good for the community in 1.0(a) going away, nor anything good for WotC in managing to eliminate it. The only benefit to WotC I see even them as seeing is an elimination of competition so that they, as "THE TTRPG," can compel all TTRPG players to give them all of the money without having to put forth products that cater to TTRPG players.

The videogame assertions just don't hold water: there exist too many fantasy videogames with unique mechanics to believe that somebody making a videogame with the SRD rules is more of a threat to D&D-as-a-brand than somebody making the exact same videogame with their own underlying system. Maybe WotC and Hasbro believe otherwise, but if so, they are wrong, and will find that this 1.2 license is simply not used for videogames if it in any way is harder on the designers than 1.0(a) would've been. Designers will make their own rulesets. Even using 1.0(a) seems dubious, to me, though at least doing so would be not economically worse than designing their own.

Whatever benefit WotC sees to eliminating 1.0(a) is illusory, but I can buy that corporate executives who don't understand the market or the product would think it a good idea. But I certainly don't see any actual evidence that 1.2 will actually help WotC make more money, and certainly nothing that suggests it will be good for the customers.

[EggKookoo]

But I certainly don't see any actual evidence that 1.2 will actually help WotC make more money, and certainly nothing that suggests it will be good for the customers.

I can only imagine the level of ineptitude a developer would need to embrace in order to accept an OGL from a company that will clearly and demonstrably revoke it when it suits their whim.

[Xervous]

I can only imagine the level of ineptitude a developer would need to embrace in order to accept an OGL from a company that will clearly and demonstrably revoke it when it suits their whim.

Almost as humorous as all the NFT rug pulls. Oh wait

[johnbragg]

The videogame assertions just don't hold water: there exist too many fantasy videogames with unique mechanics to believe that somebody making a videogame with the SRD rules is more of a threat to D&D-as-a-brand than somebody making the exact same videogame with their own underlying system.

From my POV I agree, I don't see that creating a videogame on a D6 Fantasy engine or a White Wolf fistful-of-d10s engine or a GURPS engine or PTBA or a bespoke game engine is a major task (relative to, you know, creating a game and creating a good game. The simulated dice being rolled by the AI are the least of their worries, I think.)

But highly paid people at WOTC and Hasbro disagree, which gives me pause.

Maybe WotC and Hasbro believe otherwise, but if so, they are wrong,

I don't know. I don't *think* they're just looking at a new generation edition of Neverwinter Nights or Baldurs Gate or D&D Online. They're talking a lot about the line between VTTs and video games, which tells me that their next project is a video game that incorporates VTT elements. I have no idea how.

Re-watching the video from August, and the phrase is "D&D Digital, which will become a full playspace", animated miniatures on an online map. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpI7J9vtbnw&t=386s

and will find that this 1.2 license is simply not used for videogames if it in any way is harder on the designers than 1.0(a) would've been. Designers will make their own rulesets. Even using 1.0(a) seems dubious, to me, though at least doing so would be not economically worse than designing their own.

I'm pretty sure that WOTC doesn't want anyone making video games under OGL 1.2. Anyone making a videogame has to deal directly with Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro.

[quoteWhatever benefit WotC sees to eliminating 1.0(a) is illusory, but I can buy that corporate executives who don't understand the market or the product would think it a good idea. [/quote]

But I certainly don't see any actual evidence that 1.2 will actually help WotC make more money, and certainly nothing that suggests it will be good for the customers.

Likely. but they're taking a shot at launching D&D to be a billion dollar franchise, driven by D&D Digital, vaguely simulating miniatures on a tabletop, with ample "DM Assistance" features. For monetization, they'll be dropping plenty of content for DMs to design their own stuff inside the engine.

With the progress of AI technology, it's going to be very tempting for them to go ahead and "DM Assist" their way to chatbot NPCs responding as Bargle and Aleena from the Red Box set.

[warty goblin]

Whatever benefit WotC sees to eliminating 1.0(a) is illusory, but I can buy that corporate executives who don't understand the market or the product would think it a good idea. But I certainly don't see any actual evidence that 1.2 will actually help WotC make more money, and certainly nothing that suggests it will be good for the customers.

I agree it's pretty irrelevant in the actual tabletop market and the videogame spaces. If OneD&D gets the market share that 5E has, and VTTs continue to be big, I could see it paying off there. If people want to play D&D in specific remotely, and WotC's VTT is good and not hideously overpriced, being the only option that isn't handicapped for doing D&D is going to be an advantage.

I'm not saying that will happen though. But it isn't completely crazy to think it might. It still seems like a crappy, anticompetitive deal for consumers, because it's basically Wizards refusing to compete directly on quality in the VTT space, but it makes at least some sense as a business move.

[Segev]

I don't know. I don't *think* they're just looking at a new generation edition of Neverwinter Nights or Baldurs Gate or D&D Online. They're talking a lot about the line between VTTs and video games, which tells me that their next project is a video game that incorporates VTT elements. I have no idea how.

Re-watching the video from August, and the phrase is "D&D Digital, which will become a full playspace", animated miniatures on an online map. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpI7J9vtbnw&t=386s


Likely. but they're taking a shot at launching D&D to be a billion dollar franchise, driven by D&D Digital, vaguely simulating miniatures on a tabletop, with ample "DM Assistance" features. For monetization, they'll be dropping plenty of content for DMs to design their own stuff inside the engine.

With the progress of AI technology, it's going to be very tempting for them to go ahead and "DM Assist" their way to chatbot NPCs responding as Bargle and Aleena from the Red Box set.

I agree it's pretty irrelevant in the actual tabletop market and the videogame spaces. If OneD&D gets the market share that 5E has, and VTTs continue to be big, I could see it paying off there. If people want to play D&D in specific remotely, and WotC's VTT is good and not hideously overpriced, being the only option that isn't handicapped for doing D&D is going to be an advantage.

I'm not saying that will happen though. But it isn't completely crazy to think it might. It still seems like a crappy, anticompetitive deal for consumers, because it's basically Wizards refusing to compete directly on quality in the VTT space, but it makes at least some sense as a business move.

Thing is, I don't see how they need to "deauthorize" 1.0(a) to do this. Shouldn't all they need to do for that be to release OneD&D on a new GSL? If OneD&D is as dominant as 5e, that advantage remains just by not having OneD&D available to other VTTs.

I don't think it actually will be as big an advantage, though. The ability to make your own custom tooltips or what-have-you will be all that anybody needs to make other VTTs work.

Where WotC will have a huge competitive advantage is in built-for-VTT module packs, and the other VTTs need licensing form WotC now to be able to do that. I guarantee that Tomb of Annihilation is not released on the OGL in its entirety, but I have bought it on roll20 when my game group when virtual for Covid in the middle of the campaign. That must be licensed, somehow, from WotC.

If WotC wants to lock down the VTT market for their own VTT to be the only one using cool D&D material, it's as easy as not licensing their astral plane slave-revolt module, "Neologisms of the Neogi," to other VTTs. No need to revoke, "deauthorize," or otherwise impede OGL v. 1.0(a) at all for that.


Really, the stubbornness on this makes no sense unless their intent and purpose is to prevent another Pathfinder/3e split happening over [something]/OneD&D, with [something] being a 5.05e D&D the way PF1 was 3.75e D&D. Either that, or the decision-makers don't understand their own licenses as they stand.

(Or I'm missing something, but nobody's been able to propose something I'm missing that holds much water as far as I can tell.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thing is, I don't see how they need to "deauthorize" 1.0(a) to do this. Shouldn't all they need to do for that be to release OneD&D on a new GSL? If OneD&D is as dominant as 5e, that advantage remains just by not having OneD&D available to other VTTs.

I don't think it actually will be as big an advantage, though. The ability to make your own custom tooltips or what-have-you will be all that anybody needs to make other VTTs work.

Where WotC will have a huge competitive advantage is in built-for-VTT module packs, and the other VTTs need licensing form WotC now to be able to do that. I guarantee that Tomb of Annihilation is not released on the OGL in its entirety, but I have bought it on roll20 when my game group when virtual for Covid in the middle of the campaign. That must be licensed, somehow, from WotC.

If WotC wants to lock down the VTT market for their own VTT to be the only one using cool D&D material, it's as easy as not licensing their astral plane slave-revolt module, "Neologisms of the Neogi," to other VTTs. No need to revoke, "deauthorize," or otherwise impede OGL v. 1.0(a) at all for that.


Really, the stubbornness on this makes no sense unless their intent and purpose is to prevent another Pathfinder/3e split happening over [something]/OneD&D, with [something] being a 5.05e D&D the way PF1 was 3.75e D&D. Either that, or the decision-makers don't understand their own licenses as they stand.

(Or I'm missing something, but nobody's been able to propose something I'm missing that holds much water as far as I can tell.)

I completely agree with you. The only explanation for their behavior is pure anti-competitive, "don't split the party" tactics. To force everyone to stop making content for 5e and (if possible) move everyone to OneD&D and (what they hope will be) a walled garden that they can extract all the money from. Everything else, from the morality clause to the VTT policy to the deauthorization clause are either means to that end or smokescreens to deflect attention and virtue signal.

[johnbragg]

(Or I'm missing something, but nobody's been able to propose something I'm missing that holds much water as far as I can tell.)

My guess is that they're skeered that, after they build and release their D&D Digital thing and it's a success, Microsoft Activision or Facebook Meta or Alphabet Google or Apple decides "hey, we have a billion dollars lying around, we can do that too." Having access to the OGL 1.0a material would help a trillion dollar tech company to do the same thing that D&D Digital is doing.

But I don't know how much it helps. Anything World of Warcraft has already lifted has to be fair game, anything from Tolkien and Conan and Lovecraft isn't WOTC IP.

I think they're just skeered of the bigger fish, and resentful that the smaller fish are making any money at all off of TSR and WOTC content.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My guess is that they're skeered that, after they build and release their D&D Digital thing and it's a success, Microsoft Activision or Facebook Meta or Alphabet Google or Apple decides "hey, we have a billion dollars lying around, we can do that too." Having access to the OGL 1.0a material would help a trillion dollar tech company to do the same thing that D&D Digital is doing.

But I don't know how much it helps. Anything World of Warcraft has already lifted has to be fair game, anything from Tolkien and Conan and Lovecraft isn't WOTC IP.

I think they're just skeered of the bigger fish, and resentful that the smaller fish are making any money at all off of TSR and WOTC content.

OGL 1.0a doesn't help them in any measurable way. It's a rounding error. And tying yourself to a much smaller company like that doesn't make much sense either. They'd either outright buy the IP from Hasbro or make their own--being tied as a license to someone else's ip (but not the actually useful parts) is just :wtf-owl:. It'd be like buying the rights to the x-men...without actually being able to use anything from the x-men.

The bold sentence is the only one that makes any rational sense that I can see. It's envy and greed--"why are those people making money that should be ours by right[1]?"

[1] ok, they haven't done much to build it recently and are mostly resting on laurels gathered by others. Which makes things even worse.

[warty goblin]

I completely agree with you. The only explanation for their behavior is pure anti-competitive, "don't split the party" tactics. To force everyone to stop making content for 5e and (if possible) move everyone to OneD&D and (what they hope will be) a walled garden that they can extract all the money from. Everything else, from the morality clause to the VTT policy to the deauthorization clause are either means to that end or smokescreens to deflect attention and virtue signal.

So I think the deauthorization makes some sense in light of the supposed compatibility between 5E and OneD&D. There's no point in locking up all your toys if everybody can keep on using toys that are 95% the same. In particular, if they don't deauthorize, every other VTT is free to ignore stuff like no animated spells and just carry on with using 5E.

Or more broadly, if OneD&D is really close to 5E, 5E is a really strong competitor to their new game; i.e. OneD&D itself does not necessarily offer enough improvements to be worth upgrading. That's bad. Worse, if 1.0a stands, various very 5E like things can continue to exist and grow, so even if WoTC stops printing 5E stuff, everybody else can stick with the old system.

Basically I think the deauthorization is a necessary part of a two-pronged strategy to exploit D&D's high market share by 1: killing off 5E as a thing that can continue or fork off from OneD&D. This is necessary so that WoTC can 2: monetize the hell out an audience that's as captive as possible.

How well that works basically comes down to how exploitative WotC's monetization is, how much this move pisses off the player base as a whole, and how good and easy to move to the competition is.

My guess is that they're skeered that, after they build and release their D&D Digital thing and it's a success, Microsoft Activision or Facebook Meta or Alphabet Google or Apple decides "hey, we have a billion dollars lying around, we can do that too." Having access to the OGL 1.0a material would help a trillion dollar tech company to do the same thing that D&D Digital is doing.

But I don't know how much it helps. Anything World of Wardraft craft has already lifted has to be fair game, anything from Tolkien and Conan and Lovecraft isn't WOTC IP.

I think they're just skeered of the bigger fish, and resentful that the smaller fish are making any money at all off of TSR and WOTC content.

If Microsoft wants to move on VTTs, not having the OGL will matter not at all. They already own Obsidian, InExile, and oh yeah, Bethesda . They have plenty of nerds on staff who are completely capable of cooking up a completely usable ruleset (in a fair number of cases thus has been their literal job for decades, more or less), and the tech expertise to integrate it into a VTT very, very well. Then they just go "the official Skyrim TTRPG, with actual game assets" and boom, absolutely crushing victory.

Killing the OGL to prevent that is like bothering to fire harden your wooden spear while the enemy is gassing up his fighter jet. Sure you are technically better prepared, but it is also totally meaningless. And in the process, WoTC has pissed off their most dedicated fans, which are the strongest asset WoTC could have in a fight like this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So I think the deauthorization makes some sense in light of the supposed compatibility between 5E and OneD&D. There's no point in locking up all your toys if everybody can keep on using toys that are 95% the same. In particular, if they don't deauthorize, every other VTT is free to ignore stuff like no animated spells and just carry on with using 5E.

Or more broadly, if OneD&D is really close to 5E, 5E is a really strong competitor to their new game; i.e. OneD&D itself does not necessarily offer enough improvements to be worth upgrading. That's bad. Worse, if 1.0a stands, various very 5E like things can continue to exist and grow, so even if WoTC stops printing 5E stuff, everybody else can stick with the old system.

Basically I think the deauthorization is a necessary part of a two-pronged strategy to exploit D&D's high market share by 1: killing off 5E as a thing that can continue or fork off from OneD&D. This is necessary so that WoTC can 2: monetize the hell out an audience that's as captive as possible.

How well that works basically comes down to how exploitative WotC's monetization is, how much this move pisses off the player base as a whole, and how good and easy to move to the competition is.

Ie they're afraid of trying to compete on the merits, so they're trying to kneecap the competition ahead of time. Yay. Such ethics. Such confidence in their own product.

If they felt they can't differentiate far enough...don't do it. If they want to actually do this, make something new. But since their creative well is not only dry but it's filled with rotting corpses...

If Microsoft wants to move on VTTs, not having the OGL will matter not at all. They already own Obsidian, InExile, and oh yeah, Bethesda . They have plenty of nerds on staff who are completely capable of cooking up a completely usable ruleset (in a fair number of cases thus has been their literal job for decades, more or less), and the tech expertise to integrate it into a VTT very, very well. Then they just go "the official Skyrim TTRPG, with actual game assets" and boom, absolutely crushing victory.

Killing the OGL to prevent that is like bothering to fire harden your wooden spear while the enemy is gassing up his fighter jet. Sure you are technically better prepared, but it is also totally meaningless. And in the process, WoTC has pissed off their most dedicated fans, which are the strongest asset WoTC could have in a fight like this.

Agree.

[KorvinStarmast]

If they don't make a Basic for 1DnD, the the only version of Basic floating in the ether is the 5.0 version, and all that creates is confusion. The consumer desire to "try before they buy" is a constant.

Aye, hence 'that's the way to bet' finale to my post.

Anecdotal. Conversations that being able to play the ruleset in a videogame is pretty cool and makes people more excited about 5e. The question really amounts to "is the cRPG to TTRPG pipeline real?"

Interesting question. My son found playing D&D at the table when he was preteen/teen fun. He then discovered MMORPGs. He tried to join us, at about age 23, in our D&D game on a VTT and after a few sessions was not interested in spending his time like that. (1) the group was not tactically enough minded for his tastes, (2) the pace of play was agonizing (big group, most married and got interrupted a lot), and (3) half of the players showed up already into their cups. (His dad included ). So he politely declined.
He joined us for the Salt Marsh group I have, and was enjoying himself much more when RL intruded and he got put on the graveyard shift for a year and a half. Scheduling killed another participant in my campaign.
Now, he and a couple of friends are still interested in my DMing Storm King's Thunder on r20 if we can get 4 players, or 5, and a commitment to a once a week or twice a week game.
He's still working on that.
As to NWN; I bought the original NWN when it came out (CRPG) and he liked it well enough for solo play. (He never did the MMO bit, WoW happened and he enjoyed that.
He found Sword Coast Adventures (which I had on Steam) to be not quite interesting enough to keep his interest.

I've been following the post on and off for a while and I guess I'm confused with what the main argument AGAINST OGL 1.0A is.

WotC feels that it does not meet their needs in 2023 (the world has changed a bit since the basic was published) and that it may have some loopholes in it that can be exploited by competitors. That's the sense that I get. If, as one of the youtube videos going around is correct, the short to mid term aim of monetizing the D&D brand from about 150 million to about 500 million is true, then plugging any perceived revenue leaks would have to be a part of the strategy, but honestly to grow it that fast and that large they have to get ahold of a substantially larger base audience/fandom for the game than they have now in the next five years. They are for sure going towards a form of product diversification. (FWIW, Rich did something similar with his Monster for Every Season, his calendars and his Christmas Tree Ornaments, one of which I gave to a friend as a present a few years ago).

WotC stands alone in wanting deauthorization.

I had not heard that anyone else did, to date. FWIW.

[Psyren]

I don't know. I don't *think* they're just looking at a new generation edition of Neverwinter Nights or Baldurs Gate or D&D Online. They're talking a lot about the line between VTTs and video games, which tells me that their next project is a video game that incorporates VTT elements. I have no idea how.

I'd guess that it's the reverse actually - their VTT is going to include video game elements, such as AI-controlled (the traditional kind, not the modern kind) NPCs and monsters, or highly-automated spell, attack and ability resolution. As well as modern AI roleplaying as NPCs in character.

I'm pretty sure that WOTC doesn't want anyone making video games under OGL 1.2. Anyone making a videogame has to deal directly with Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro.

Right, or at the very least stick with the CC stuff (level progression, actions in combat, equipment, base spellcasting rules, creature types etc) and fill in the blanks themselves (such as making up their own races, classes, spells, monsters and magic items.)

Likely. but they're taking a shot at launching D&D to be a billion dollar franchise, driven by D&D Digital, vaguely simulating miniatures on a tabletop, with ample "DM Assistance" features. For monetization, they'll be dropping plenty of content for DMs to design their own stuff inside the engine.

With the progress of AI technology, it's going to be very tempting for them to go ahead and "DM Assist" their way to chatbot NPCs responding as Bargle and Aleena from the Red Box set.

It would be VERY interesting if you could, say, plug in an NPC's Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws, as well as things they don't know about, and then have the AI suggest things they'd say to the DM.

Aye, hence 'that's the way to bet' finale to my post.

Yep, we're in agreement

[Segev]

My guess is that they're skeered that, after they build and release their D&D Digital thing and it's a success, Microsoft Activision or Facebook Meta or Alphabet Google or Apple decides "hey, we have a billion dollars lying around, we can do that too." Having access to the OGL 1.0a material would help a trillion dollar tech company to do the same thing that D&D Digital is doing.

But I don't know how much it helps. Anything World of Warcraft has already lifted has to be fair game, anything from Tolkien and Conan and Lovecraft isn't WOTC IP.

I think they're just skeered of the bigger fish, and resentful that the smaller fish are making any money at all off of TSR and WOTC content.

Agreed, and also re-emphasizing that their move is boneheaded because it doesn't solve this problem. Microsoft decides to make Windows & Wendigos the cRPG? Nothing in OGL 1.0(a) helps them, and nothing in revoking it makes them look at 1.2 and say, "Oh, well, we'd better negotiate with Hasbro!" No, they make their own game system, just like the Elder Scrolls games do, just like Final Fantasy does, just like WoW does, etc. etc. etc. If Microsoft DID want to use the 5e or OneD&D SRD (assuming the latter was released on the OGL and 1.0(a) stood), it would be a bit of an odd choice, and honestly wouldn't save them much in the way of time and money.

D&D is, despite how much we focus on it here, not sold on its game mechanics, not to a new and broader audience. It's sold on its IP and PI. And WotC is shooting themselves in the foot trying to chase a monster that doesn't exist while blowing up the goodwill that owuld've made them scads of money on the IP.

I know I was excited to at least support D&D by seeing the movie in theaters, even if I was worried it wouldn't be all that great. I totally would've bought an official Beholder plushie, possibly three so I could give gifts to little kids of friends of mine. And no amount of branching off to (for example )Level-Up 5e would've made me stop being interested in the fictional side of D&D, even if I hated OneD&D more than I am turned off by 4e.

[Rynjin]

Final Fantasy is a really funny example because foreign companies never gave a SINGLE **** about what TSR and later Wizards actually owned in terms of RPG monsters and whatnot.

For example, the Beholder was a monster in Final Fantasy (the original), and named as such.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Final Fantasy is a really funny example because foreign companies never gave a SINGLE **** about what TSR and later Wizards actually owned in terms of RPG monsters and whatnot.

For example, the Beholder was a monster in Final Fantasy (the original), and named as such.

And FFXIV has a mind flayer boss who is an ithillid with the only difference being a name change. Still has mind blast as an ability too.

[Scots Dragon]

And FFXIV has a mind flayer boss who is an ithillid with the only difference being a name change. Still has mind blast as an ability too.

Given just how close mind flayers are to the idea of the Star Spawn of Cthulhu, it's really hard to say that they should be actual Wizards of the Coast product identity.

[Buufreak]

And FFXIV has a mind flayer boss who is an ithillid with the only difference being a name change. Still has mind blast as an ability too.

Nah. Flayers were in OG FF1 as well. They more or less sneezed the monster manual all over the game without a second thought. I seem to remember hearing that some legal action was taken about it, but then things like the 20th anniversary edition came out with same monsters, same potentially infringing name use, just a shiny new paint job and bonus dungeons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Given just how close mind flayers are to the idea of the Star Spawn of Cthulhu, it's really hard to say that they should be actual Wizards of the Coast product identity.

It may be fair to say that mind flayers were inspired by something in the pulps, very likely Lovecrafts works, given various observations made by E.G.G. over the years.
It was introduced in the Strategic Review, Issue 1. (The lovecraftian/SF/Horror roots were kind of obvious).
It wasn't called illithid until later. I don't find that term in the AD&D 1e monster manual, but I think that term was introduced in one of the Underdark modules that followed the Giants modules...but it might have been in the fire giant original module.

I did find use of that term in Dragon Mag #63 in an article on worldbuilding by Ed Greenwood, but illithid might have been in the Fiend Folio before that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Given just how close mind flayers are to the idea of the Star Spawn of Cthulhu, it's really hard to say that they should be actual Wizards of the Coast product identity.

And that goes for, well, the vast majority of wizard's ip. Other than specific unique names. And maybe the details of the great wheel?

Which is why this whole thing is a farce. "It's my IP and I should get all the money from it..."says the one who ripped it off wholesale from a melange of sources throughout history and myth.

Not that there's anything wrong with idea theft--nothing new under the sun and all that. Totally normal. But claiming that it's wrong to steal from a thief what he stole? Laughable.

[Psyren]

Final Fantasy is a really funny example because foreign companies never gave a SINGLE **** about what TSR and later Wizards actually owned in terms of RPG monsters and whatnot.

For example, the Beholder was a monster in Final Fantasy (the original), and named as such.

And FFXIV has a mind flayer boss who is an ithillid with the only difference being a name change. Still has mind blast as an ability too.

Er... doesn't the mere fact that Square-Enix changed the names of these monsters prove they DO care? If they truly didn't care they'd still be calling them "Beholder" instead of "Evil Eye/Death Eye/Deepeye" etc.

And yes, FF1 (1990) was localized on NES with the original names, but every rerelease of it since (e.g. Wonderswan, PS1, GBA) has used the revised ones.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Er... doesn't the mere fact that Square-Enix changed the names of these monsters prove they DO care? If they truly didn't care they'd still be calling them "Beholder" instead of "Evil Eye/Death Eye/Deepeye" etc.

And yes, FF1 (1990) was localized on NES with the original names, but every rerelease of it since (e.g. Wonderswan, PS1, GBA) has used the revised ones.

Names are trademark, which is very different from copyright. OGL didn't (and doesn't) give any rights to trademark material.

[EggKookoo]

Names are trademark, which is very different from copyright. OGL didn't (and doesn't) give any rights to trademark material.

I'm still annoyed that HeroForge removed their "octi-folk" without any official explanation (that I could find). I still can only assume they got a call from WotC, and the latter's actual lack of ownership over the concept of "tentacle-faced humanoid" is a Thing That Makes Me Go Hmmm.

[Rynjin]

Er... doesn't the mere fact that Square-Enix changed the names of these monsters prove they DO care? If they truly didn't care they'd still be calling them "Beholder" instead of "Evil Eye/Death Eye/Deepeye" etc.

And yes, FF1 (1990) was localized on NES with the original names, but every rerelease of it since (e.g. Wonderswan, PS1, GBA) has used the revised ones.

The American companies that did localizations cared a lot, yeah. The Japanese companies did (and still do, in many cases) have the opinion that only Japanese copyright and trademark is legally enforceable in Japan. And their laws, near as I can tell, agree with them.

It's why, as a quick example, Araki can use copyrighted band and song names in JoJo's in Japan, but they have to be localized for the West.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm still annoyed that HeroForge removed their "octi-folk" without any official explanation (that I could find). I still can only assume they got a call from WotC, and the latter's actual lack of ownership over the concept of "tentacle-faced humanoid" is a Thing That Makes Me Go Hmmm.

HeroForge probably has a specific license agreement. That overrides anything else. Just like the OGL 1.0a made you renounce any claim of compatibility, despite that being 100% legal by default.

[EggKookoo]

HeroForge probably has a specific license agreement. That overrides anything else. Just like the OGL 1.0a made you renounce any claim of compatibility, despite that being 100% legal by default.

I wonder what they would need a license for. Nothing that I've seen out of HF looks like D&D product identity. It's all pretty generic fantasy stuff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wonder what they would need a license for. Nothing that I've seen out of HF looks like D&D product identity. It's all pretty generic fantasy stuff.

Hmmm....maybe not then? I dunno. Maybe they didn't like how it printed? Had lots of complaints?

[Psyren]

Apparently the likeness was too close. Beyond that you'd have to ask HF for specifics.

[EggKookoo]

Apparently the likeness was too close. Beyond that you'd have to ask HF for specifics.

Ok, interesting, they were quiet for a while about it. Maybe during the negotiations. This is infuriating, honestly. WotC can claim to own "Illithid" but it's overreach to claim to own something they themselves pilfered from Lovecraft.