10 ms·

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 use

by the_af 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Oh, so this is retroactively re-licensing existing stuff? That's bad.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jerf 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
  - dual_dingo 4y ago
    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.
    - johnday 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        FWIW Pazio would probably have enough money to bring this up for litigation. Still, a crappy position to be in.
    - jerf 4y ago
      Thank you, to you and the others. That makes this make a lot more sense.
  - msoucy 4y ago
    Part of the leaked 1.1 states that 1.0a is explicitly no longer "authorized"
MrStonedOne 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      Hasbro definitely doesn't own the concept of a d20 roll.
    - the_af 4y ago
      The D20 is not owned by D&D. Frostgrave is D20 based and owes nothing to the OGL or D&D.
coldpie 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Magician is not a class in D&D
  - ChrisRackauckas 4y ago
    That's what very good illusionists want you to think.
  - coldpie 4y ago
    Yahhhh it's been a while for me :) I thought about googling but decided to gamble on my memory. Guess I lost :)
    - aplkorex 4y ago
      You just rolled a 1, that's all.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    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")
idiotsecant 4y ago
Sounds like the space is ready for development of an open framework that doesn't rely on corporate approval.
- hinkley 4y ago
  "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 4y ago
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.
- the_af 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        > 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.
        the_af 4y ago
        But that's not how the existing license works, so who cares about any new GPL license? Unless you explicitly said "I want my work under the GPL or whatever crazy new version of the GPL ever exists", with the extra detail that the GPL is designed by a business competitor who is jealous of your success. It'd be crazy.
sleepybrett 4y ago
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.
- the_af 4y ago
  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.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    > 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.
rhdunn 4y ago
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 4y ago
  > 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.
  - the_af 4y ago
    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?
  - gmueckl 4y ago
    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.
Manuel_D 4y ago
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_edition https://www.gog.com/en/game/pathfinder_kingmaker_explorer_ed...
- advisedwang 4y ago
  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.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    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?
viraptor 4y ago
> 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.
freshhawk 4y ago
In practice it's much harder to avoid. Especially with the new players driving all the recent growth. The brand is so dominant that in any group most of the players will play D&D or they will not play. If you don't have the brand on your 3rd party product then the average number of units you will sell is around zero. It's not really Windows, D&D is Windows+Apple+Linux and everything else is one of the BSDs.
- the_af 4y ago
  > The brand is so dominant that in any group most of the players will play D&D I cannot wrap my brain around this. For boardgames, which is a growing market and has been for years now, people are buying and learning new games every day, especially geeks who are only too eager to teach them to their gaming groups. How come for RPGs it's too difficult for one geek to evangelize a new RPG to their group, especially if they are newbies not too invested in an ongoing RPG campaign? D&D is a very complex system, there are far simpler, newbie-friendly rules out there. How come you cannot convince your newbie friends to try one? One other commenter was mentioning how complex D&D is, how every spell and level and weapon is interconnected in very restricting ways in order to prevent overpowered characters -- that cannot be easy to teach! I played plenty of D&D based video games, like Icewind Dale, and for the life of me I'm thankful the computer hides all the complexity; I wouldn't have played them otherwise!
  - freshhawk 4y ago
    I honestly don't understand it completely, but there are a lot of casual players who will not even read the rules intro in the players handbook, and will play for a long time without ever learning how their character works. They don't want to leanr anything, they just want their DM friend to take them through some games and make it fun, so learning something they aren't even vaguely familiar with sounds like a lot of work. It's also a longstanding, odd thing that even experienced players will spend a huge amount of time homebrewing hacks to D&D to make it work as a different kind of game instead of learning a new system that works well for the kind of game they want to play. Ttrpg systems seem to have a lot more momentum/brand loyalty than you would guess. A lot of D&D players play a fairly "adversarial DM" style and, rightly, don't want to play the more narrative focused or rules-light systems that are easy to learn, because giving players freedom will lead to them abusing it. The dynamic is players wanting a power fantasy and relying on the DM to stop them from ruining the game with their rule bending. I'm one of those people who likes learning new ttrpg systems and trying out different systems, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask about this. It seems like it's a lot of compounding factors, including a lot of growth being driven by streamers and new players who want to play D&D, not some nerd stuff they've never heard of.
poulpy123 4y ago
Afaik D&D is the ttrpg game that has the biggest market share, more that 50% iirc. It's the only one known to the general public with several forgettable movies (one more soon), many games, and a lot of references in other cultural creations (such as the successful serie stranger thing) and was on the top of the wave created by the recent renaissance of boardgames/ttrpg. As for the OGL license, you have to understand that ttrpg companies are usually very small (some people, sometimes only one) so they can't really spend a lot on exploring what is the best license or publicize a new one. So they take the license that is the most used in their domain which is the OGL
- the_af 4y ago
  I understand D&D is the "Windows" of RPGs. I understand the market- and mind-share it enjoys. (Those movies: not many people remember or know about them though!). Obviously when Paizo forked D&D 3.5 and started Pathfinder, they were riding on the popularity of this particular RPG. Also evident is why there is a cottage industry of third-party modules, campaigns and gadgets for D&D: it makes sense to make these for the most popular system. The thing is, it's much harder to implement "vendor lock-in" for RPGs than it is for hardware or software which has business uses. The cost of switching to another RPG system is very low: all it takes for a group of friends to start a new RPG is for the geekiest of them to buy a rulebook and evangelize it, there's almost zero cost (but the rulebook(s), of course). I find videogames are a red herring as an argument for D&D, since most people playing CRPGs based on D&D don't even need to understand the rules; the computer does everything for them. And people will buy a flashy CRPG regardless of the underlying engine, all that matters is that the game is fun, hyped, has nice graphics, and friends are playing.
  - poulpy123 4y ago
    Don't forget there is a new movie coming very soon and I've just read a TV serie is in preparation. IMHO WotC is pursuing a double strategy. On one side they try to pull a marvel, meaning becoming big in the media industry with movies, series and videogame (I expect to see many D& D games in the future if the movie is successful). On the other side they will try to create a subscription based walled garden in the RPG world. you're right that for the moment switching to a new system isn't really expensive, it may change if wotc manage to create this walled garden

by the_af 4y ago

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

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 4y ago
Oh, so this is retroactively re-licensing existing stuff? That's bad.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jerf 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
- dual_dingo 4y ago
  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.
  - johnday 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        FWIW Pazio would probably have enough money to bring this up for litigation. Still, a crappy position to be in.
  - jerf 4y ago
    Thank you, to you and the others. That makes this make a lot more sense.
- msoucy 4y ago
  Part of the leaked 1.1 states that 1.0a is explicitly no longer "authorized"

MrStonedOne 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    Hasbro definitely doesn't own the concept of a d20 roll.
  - the_af 4y ago
    The D20 is not owned by D&D. Frostgrave is D20 based and owes nothing to the OGL or D&D.

coldpie 4y ago

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 4y ago
Magician is not a class in D&D
- ChrisRackauckas 4y ago
  That's what very good illusionists want you to think.
- coldpie 4y ago
  Yahhhh it's been a while for me :) I thought about googling but decided to gamble on my memory. Guess I lost :)
  - aplkorex 4y ago
    You just rolled a 1, that's all.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  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")

idiotsecant 4y ago

Sounds like the space is ready for development of an open framework that doesn't rely on corporate approval.

hinkley 4y ago
"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 4y ago

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.

the_af 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      > 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.
      - the_af 4y ago
        But that's not how the existing license works, so who cares about any new GPL license? Unless you explicitly said "I want my work under the GPL or whatever crazy new version of the GPL ever exists", with the extra detail that the GPL is designed by a business competitor who is jealous of your success. It'd be crazy.

sleepybrett 4y ago

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.

the_af 4y ago
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.
- morelisp 4y ago
  > 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.

rhdunn 4y ago

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 4y ago
> 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.
- the_af 4y ago
  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?
- gmueckl 4y ago
  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.

Manuel_D 4y ago

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_edition https://www.gog.com/en/game/pathfinder_kingmaker_explorer_ed...

advisedwang 4y ago
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.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  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?

viraptor 4y ago

> 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.

freshhawk 4y ago

In practice it's much harder to avoid. Especially with the new players driving all the recent growth. The brand is so dominant that in any group most of the players will play D&D or they will not play. If you don't have the brand on your 3rd party product then the average number of units you will sell is around zero. It's not really Windows, D&D is Windows+Apple+Linux and everything else is one of the BSDs.

the_af 4y ago
> The brand is so dominant that in any group most of the players will play D&D I cannot wrap my brain around this. For boardgames, which is a growing market and has been for years now, people are buying and learning new games every day, especially geeks who are only too eager to teach them to their gaming groups. How come for RPGs it's too difficult for one geek to evangelize a new RPG to their group, especially if they are newbies not too invested in an ongoing RPG campaign? D&D is a very complex system, there are far simpler, newbie-friendly rules out there. How come you cannot convince your newbie friends to try one? One other commenter was mentioning how complex D&D is, how every spell and level and weapon is interconnected in very restricting ways in order to prevent overpowered characters -- that cannot be easy to teach! I played plenty of D&D based video games, like Icewind Dale, and for the life of me I'm thankful the computer hides all the complexity; I wouldn't have played them otherwise!
- freshhawk 4y ago
  I honestly don't understand it completely, but there are a lot of casual players who will not even read the rules intro in the players handbook, and will play for a long time without ever learning how their character works. They don't want to leanr anything, they just want their DM friend to take them through some games and make it fun, so learning something they aren't even vaguely familiar with sounds like a lot of work. It's also a longstanding, odd thing that even experienced players will spend a huge amount of time homebrewing hacks to D&D to make it work as a different kind of game instead of learning a new system that works well for the kind of game they want to play. Ttrpg systems seem to have a lot more momentum/brand loyalty than you would guess. A lot of D&D players play a fairly "adversarial DM" style and, rightly, don't want to play the more narrative focused or rules-light systems that are easy to learn, because giving players freedom will lead to them abusing it. The dynamic is players wanting a power fantasy and relying on the DM to stop them from ruining the game with their rule bending. I'm one of those people who likes learning new ttrpg systems and trying out different systems, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask about this. It seems like it's a lot of compounding factors, including a lot of growth being driven by streamers and new players who want to play D&D, not some nerd stuff they've never heard of.

poulpy123 4y ago

Afaik D&D is the ttrpg game that has the biggest market share, more that 50% iirc. It's the only one known to the general public with several forgettable movies (one more soon), many games, and a lot of references in other cultural creations (such as the successful serie stranger thing) and was on the top of the wave created by the recent renaissance of boardgames/ttrpg. As for the OGL license, you have to understand that ttrpg companies are usually very small (some people, sometimes only one) so they can't really spend a lot on exploring what is the best license or publicize a new one. So they take the license that is the most used in their domain which is the OGL

the_af 4y ago
I understand D&D is the "Windows" of RPGs. I understand the market- and mind-share it enjoys. (Those movies: not many people remember or know about them though!). Obviously when Paizo forked D&D 3.5 and started Pathfinder, they were riding on the popularity of this particular RPG. Also evident is why there is a cottage industry of third-party modules, campaigns and gadgets for D&D: it makes sense to make these for the most popular system. The thing is, it's much harder to implement "vendor lock-in" for RPGs than it is for hardware or software which has business uses. The cost of switching to another RPG system is very low: all it takes for a group of friends to start a new RPG is for the geekiest of them to buy a rulebook and evangelize it, there's almost zero cost (but the rulebook(s), of course). I find videogames are a red herring as an argument for D&D, since most people playing CRPGs based on D&D don't even need to understand the rules; the computer does everything for them. And people will buy a flashy CRPG regardless of the underlying engine, all that matters is that the game is fun, hyped, has nice graphics, and friends are playing.
- poulpy123 4y ago
  Don't forget there is a new movie coming very soon and I've just read a TV serie is in preparation. IMHO WotC is pursuing a double strategy. On one side they try to pull a marvel, meaning becoming big in the media industry with movies, series and videogame (I expect to see many D& D games in the future if the movie is successful). On the other side they will try to create a subscription based walled garden in the RPG world. you're right that for the moment switching to a new system isn't really expensive, it may change if wotc manage to create this walled garden