3 ms·

OGL refers to the Open Game License. Essentially you are allowed to use the rules of DnD (and other games that use the license) to make derivative work as long

OGL refers to the Open Game License. Essentially you are allowed to use the rules of DnD (and other games that use the license) to make derivative work as long as its also published with OGL. It allows homebrewed content to exist and is part of the reason the DnD community is so big. WoTC (Wizards of the Coast, the owner of DnD) is “updating” the license from 1.0 to 1.1 and is using the update as an excuse to clamp down on competition and limit what can be used. This has a far reaching effect because 1.0 would be revoked which means lots of content that has already been created would be put in a grey area, WoTC could sue anyone who made content for ownership even if it was made with the previous license. It also puts entire games like Pathfinder into question as these are essentially modded DnD.

Semaphor 4y ago
Thank you, I should have probably clarified that I meant the canceling, not the terms ;)
taneq 4y ago
Ohhhh I was wondering what the hell their beef could be with OpenGL 1.0.
forgotpwd16 4y ago
>WoTC could sue anyone who made content for ownership even if it was made with the previous license. Unless I misunderstand, according to the submitted thread this isn't the case. >The good news is that, because of the reliance principle, third party creators who have already created a work under the OGL likely could continue to sell that work even if the OGL were revoked. They just could not create any new works. Although that "likely" gives doubts.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It doesn't give doubts about whether WoC could sue, it's giving an opinion that WoC would probably lose if they did. > WoTC could sue anyone isn't contradicted at all by that opinion.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kingofpandora 4y ago
    That's not very helpful ... "Anyone can sue anyone for anything anytime."
    - mcv 4y ago
      The big question is: would they win? Nobody knows, because nothing about this has ever been tested in court as far as I know.
- enkid 4y ago
  A company that depends on selling stuff compatible with DnD is going to go out of business very quickly if they can't put new content out.
lakomen 4y ago
This sounds like fraud to me, intentional or not.
- andreareina 4y ago
  No such thing as unintentional fraud.

Semaphor 4y ago

Thank you, I should have probably clarified that I meant the canceling, not the terms ;)

taneq 4y ago

Ohhhh I was wondering what the hell their beef could be with OpenGL 1.0.

forgotpwd16 4y ago

>WoTC could sue anyone who made content for ownership even if it was made with the previous license. Unless I misunderstand, according to the submitted thread this isn't the case. >The good news is that, because of the reliance principle, third party creators who have already created a work under the OGL likely could continue to sell that work even if the OGL were revoked. They just could not create any new works. Although that "likely" gives doubts.

pessimizer 4y ago
It doesn't give doubts about whether WoC could sue, it's giving an opinion that WoC would probably lose if they did. > WoTC could sue anyone isn't contradicted at all by that opinion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kingofpandora 4y ago
  That's not very helpful ... "Anyone can sue anyone for anything anytime."
  - mcv 4y ago
    The big question is: would they win? Nobody knows, because nothing about this has ever been tested in court as far as I know.
enkid 4y ago
A company that depends on selling stuff compatible with DnD is going to go out of business very quickly if they can't put new content out.

lakomen 4y ago

This sounds like fraud to me, intentional or not.

andreareina 4y ago
No such thing as unintentional fraud.