Results 211 to 240 of 1473
Thread: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-19, 06:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2021
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
No advise from threads, just something a lawyer and I discussed in relationship to an unrelated matter.
And yes, it is grounds to reject WOTC products, there we agree. As I noted, my concerns would be claims of violations based on dimilarities, because you know, I used the word "orc" for something inspired (but not fully developed from) ancient Minoan and Myconean culture, and therefore I must be violating their IP
even though I'd never touch DnD after this. You and I are in substantial agreement.Last edited by ToranIronfinder; 2023-01-19 at 06:35 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 06:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Perth, West Australia
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I would suggest the health of a brand depends rather more substantially on something other than social media campaigns against things people don't like, or on being tarred with bad products from bad people who don't work for them.
Case in point being the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Was originally to be published under the d20 trademark from c. 2000. The d20 trademark also got amended to include a "community decency" wordology, and WOTC used that to pull the licence for that product. It was because the OGL existed that the product still was published. I didn't see the towers of WOTC come crashing down because of it; by early 2000s standards the book was an eyebrow-raiser at least. (Although on a cold read these days, it's almost middle of the road if you exclude some of the interior art. It's kind of sad the book's acknowledgements contained more names of models than playtesters, but oh well.)
-
2023-01-19, 06:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Perth, West Australia
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-19, 06:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
One note--
I didn't see any clause in there on a quick readthrough that lets you sublicense or declare your content to be available for others to use under that same license. There are only 4 types:
1) CC stuff (explicitly deliniated)
2) Their Licensed Stuff (anything else from the SRD)
3) Your Licensed Stuff (anything you make under the license)
4) Unlicensed Stuff (everything else of theirs).
But in order to be category 3, it must include Their Licensed Stuff and Your Licensed Stuff. Not "Someone else who accepted this license's Licensed Stuff, even if they said it was under the license."
This doesn't mean that you can't let someone else use your stuff...but you can only let them use the stuff that doesn't count as Your Licensed Stuff. Because they can't inherit the OGL status from you, they have to get it separately.
Maybe I'm not reading it correctly? But that's a real bummer, since then you can't freely use other people's OGL stuff, whereas before they could declare some of it Open Gaming Content which was added to the OGL pool alongside the SRD material, etc. Now you have (if I'm reading that correctly) to do a separate license dance for that stuff.Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-19, 06:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Endicott, NY
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-19, 07:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Speaking for myself, (without anyone putting words in my mouth):
As with the previous OGL, the current one include Wizards of the Coast's name. That means anyone releasing products under it will be including the license, and WotC's name, in their product. Simply put, WotC has the right to control which books reference their company by name. This clause gives them a means of defense if a reprehensible work does so. That's beneficial to any creator who is offering a license, including ORC if it were to somehow end up with Paizo's name at the top, not just WotC.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-19, 07:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Ah. Well if one believed WoTC making more money would be good for TTRPGs, and I agree we're not going to progress. But Psyren can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
EDIT: Sorry Psyren, I missed your post.
No dispute here, I understand why they're doing it and why it makes sense from WoTC's perspective. But this doesn't address my question--how is that good for the TTRPG community? How is that good for me as a TTRPG player? How is it good for anyone other than WoTC?
END EDIT
Ironically, there is an angle for 'this is good for the community'; it's that the community to a large extent leaves WoTC, competing products spring up, and D&D is no longer the only game in town (or overwhelmingly most common game, if you have to be literal). We get more experimentation with mechanics, some new innovations, and everyone wins.
But in that case the community would be providing the win, not WoTC.
Yeah, the wording of that section is incredibly hostile to creators. Suppose some version of their Spelljammer issue happened with a 3PP. In WoTC's case, they published an errata and apology online, and that was that. But if a 3PP does the same...maybe their work never sees the light of day again. Which is just to say, the kind of mistakes that run afoul of the clause are easy to make, even for the company defining the terms.Last edited by Atranen; 2023-01-19 at 07:13 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 07:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Last edited by Lemmy; 2023-01-19 at 07:15 PM.
Homebrew Stuff:- Lemmy's Custom Weapon Generation System! - (D&D 3.X and PF)
Not all heroes wield scimitars, falchions and longbows! (I'm quite proud of this one ) - Lemmy's Homebrew Cauldron
You can find all my work here.
-
2023-01-19, 07:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Endicott, NY
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
It might be the sleep deprivation talking but what does disagreeing with this bolded:
That's the whole point--what they have identified as 'core goals' are in competition with the best way to have a healthy TTRPG community. It's not a question of 'what we can get them to budge on', it's a question of why have they adopted these as core goals in the first place, given that they must do something bad for the community in order to achieve them?
Unless you're trying to argue that WotC deciding that it gets to be S&P for everyone who uses the OGL 1.2 is somehow good for the health of TTRPG community at large?
Which, come to think of it, does kinda it fit with the idea that WotC=the TTRPG community.Last edited by Blackdrop; 2023-01-19 at 07:17 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 07:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-19, 07:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2019
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
And after all the discussion... nothing will really change. WotC will lose some market share and a degree of control, mostly because this flap has raised the question of whether or not the OGL is even needed except in a few cases and there will be a couple of lawsuits that determine the exact boundaries of the IP claim (can they claim mechanics?). But they'll damage control and the vast majority of the players will go back to playing D&D because they love the IP and the game itself. It's the game everyone uses to date themselves. I've been playing since version X. They aren't going anywhere. Ten years from now they'll be saying "I survived OGL".
-
2023-01-19, 07:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
9(d) might be standard but it is abusable with 7(a). Just modify a dynamic section to be unenforceable and then revoke the entire license.
6(f) allows it to be revoked and allows it to be abused.
9(d) allows it to be revoked.
7(a) is abusable*
* I see a code injection abuse, I don't know if that would hold up in court or if it would trigger 9(d).
3 + 9(e) could be reasonable or could be an exploit to limit accountability for plagiarism (and make plagiarism turn a profit).
Edit: On a reread, 3 is reasonable. I thought it prevented punitive damages.Last edited by OldTrees1; 2023-01-19 at 09:05 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 07:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
The whole thing leading to conflating 'who owns the material being licensed' and 'who owns the concept of this license' (and by extension having this really artificial 'if person A is going to let person B use something they made, WotC is a concerned party because person A is using a license written first by WotC') is really a mess. Even some other license where some party tries to retain a sense of ownership over the license text itself seems vulnerable to conflicts of interest, especially when that owning company is a TTRPG company.
Like, if I were making something that I had sole ownership of, choosing to license that out as OGL or even ORC seems like just giving control to a third party who otherwise wouldn't be a stakeholder at all. It seems foolish to do that rather than, say, just entering the work into public domain or using one of the generic CC licenses.Last edited by NichG; 2023-01-19 at 07:21 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 07:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- Abilene, TX
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I think a different part of the hateful conduct rule’s problems is that WotC’s standards for immorality are obscure even to WotC. The rewriting of the Hadozee show that WotC can believe it is acting in good faith and doing diligence and then be persuaded (totally voluntarily) to take down the content. That’s not to say the rewrite was bad, but it is saying it can just not achieve it’s own moral standard by accident. What sort of person wants to be judged by someone who is not even aware of their own rules?
Vincent Omnia Veritas
Bandwagon Leader of the Hinjo Fanclub
-
2023-01-19, 07:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2021
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Also the 3.x material isn't delineated, which as I noted is the big problem for someone publishing under OpenD6.
http://www.antipaladingames.com/2023...i-six.html?m=1
-
2023-01-19, 07:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Waterdeep
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Roll for it 5e Houserules and Homebrew
Old Extended Signature
Awesome avatar by Ceika
-
2023-01-19, 07:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
We were explicitly talking about WotC's "core goals." Could you please stop dragging in baggage from completely different threads where I wasn't even discussing the OGL?
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-19, 07:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Or maybe people will stay mad enough to tank D&Done and make the other Wizasbro projects failures in their owners' money-symbol-covered eyes.
I don't think will be enough to stop WotC from existing, but people voting with their wallets DID impact the company in the past. There is no reason to think Wizasbro is going to take a small loss and nothing else.
Well, no reason YET.Last edited by Unoriginal; 2023-01-19 at 07:28 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 07:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I can agree with that. And we have more pushback yet. I could see the "you agree not to sue" clause in 6f attracting some ire.
They're not just idly referring to them though, they're actively using their license. I can see that being too close to tacit approval for WotC. You're always free to release your content without it.
I'm going to be very amused if/when ORC includes a similar clause.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-19, 07:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Waterdeep
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Roll for it 5e Houserules and Homebrew
Old Extended Signature
Awesome avatar by Ceika
-
2023-01-19, 07:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Endicott, NY
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Let's try this again.
What does disagreeing with this:
...what they have identified as 'core goals' are in competition with the best way to have a healthy TTRPG community...
And what you refer to as "baggage" I'm trying to use as "context", 'cuz I genuinely have no idea what your point is supposed to be.
-
2023-01-19, 07:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2021
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Yes but as the license is often posted in books not because WOTC content is used, but to avoid frivolous suits based on "similarities" it does present a problem. The real problem isn't for people creating an overt DnD setting. "It is that WOTC could say your orcs are similar to ours so you will pull your product line or we will sue you." You really can't use 1.2 for that type of protection from the frivolous suits that will I expect will follow.
Last edited by ToranIronfinder; 2023-01-19 at 07:44 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 07:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-19, 07:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-19, 07:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Waterdeep
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
What is considered hateful or offensive is much like what is considered politically correct, its not universally understood and is subject to change over time. Leaving that open to interpretation is going to lead to problems even before you account for a single entity determining it.
Roll for it 5e Houserules and Homebrew
Old Extended Signature
Awesome avatar by Ceika
-
2023-01-19, 07:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
They can define it clearly, i.e. in a way where a 3PP can be sure prior to publication that their work will not be invalidated, or they can give up defining it. Given the topic in question, I don't think a clear enough definition is possible.
And I agree with Blackdrop that I don't see how this relates to the question of whether a walled garden is best for the TTRPG community.
-
2023-01-19, 07:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2021
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Yep. Particularly when done publically.
Kane
What is considered hateful or offensive is much like what is considered politically correct, its not universally understood and is subject to change over time. Leaving that open to interpretation is going to lead to problems even before you account for a single entity determining it.Last edited by ToranIronfinder; 2023-01-19 at 08:01 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 07:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Endicott, NY
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-19, 08:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Language and culture change over time. Locking in a specific definition now is not helpful.
As a core goal, the alternative is no license at all. You could hold out hope that "ORC" does not include a similar clause I suppose, but given that Paizo's compatibility license includes a similar provision, and that inclusivity and having the means to oppose being associated with offensive content is one of the key areas where Paizo and WotC share common ground, I think your chances are slim.
There is no "game." It's the best option and you have no better alternative.Last edited by Psyren; 2023-01-19 at 08:05 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 08:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2016
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Last time I checked the community already does a decent job of policing this sort of thing. Like if someone does publish a work that is morally objectionable, word will spread via review that the content is morally objectionable.
It is impossible to do them via Kickstarter, Amazon, DriveThru RGP, etc.
I suppose that you can make them for unofficial distribution, but then the OGL 1.2 doesn't apply them anyway.So before you take my childish advice, I would recommend that you take my adult advice. Talk to your Dm about the problem (if it is even a problem or whatever) and have them talk to the other player about how they are acting and if they are willing to change their behavior, then the problem is solved. If not then you can take my childish advice.