An Open Letter on the Open Gaming License, to Wizards of the Coast(opendnd.games)
opendnd.games
An Open Letter on the Open Gaming License, to Wizards of the Coast
https://www.opendnd.games
357 comments
And also
Wizards of the Coast Trying to Retroactively Cancel OGL 1.0a - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 - Jan 2023 (233 comments)
Wizards of the Coast Trying to Retroactively Cancel OGL 1.0a - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 - Jan 2023 (233 comments)
Thanks!
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast?
The most reasonable opinion I have read on this is that Paizo themselves are not entirely convinced the second edition can be legally seen as an untainted full rewrite and use the OGL out of precaution.
They should be able to relicense but Hasbro might sue them arguing that actually the licensing situation isn’t that clear.
The most reasonable opinion I have read on this is that Paizo themselves are not entirely convinced the second edition can be legally seen as an untainted full rewrite and use the OGL out of precaution.
They should be able to relicense but Hasbro might sue them arguing that actually the licensing situation isn’t that clear.
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
Lawyers cost money.
> And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast?
The theory is that they are not.
> If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC?
People point out that the PF2 works have OGL licenses.
I'm sure we'll all find out in the coming weeks/months
Lawyers cost money.
> And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast?
The theory is that they are not.
> If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC?
People point out that the PF2 works have OGL licenses.
I'm sure we'll all find out in the coming weeks/months
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
Why would they when there's a well-known and (before recent events) fully trusted license already established within the community?
Why would they when there's a well-known and (before recent events) fully trusted license already established within the community?
That's probably why they used the OGL, agreed. But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? If you can do a major rules rewrite (and I understand Pathfinder is on the more complex/crunchy side of RPGs), surely you have the know-how to design your own license?
Even if all the actors in this dramedy are profit-driven businesses, I can't wrap my head around the OGL not being driven by a consortium. How on earth does WotC have final say?
In any case, they are probably regretting it now. I hope this sets a precedent.
Even if all the actors in this dramedy are profit-driven businesses, I can't wrap my head around the OGL not being driven by a consortium. How on earth does WotC have final say?
In any case, they are probably regretting it now. I hope this sets a precedent.
> But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor?
Microsoft also publishes software under open-source licenses [0]. The license is short and well-understood, it's not like a large piece of software that might contain backdoors. Also, people trust(-ed) that license.
> If you can do a major rules rewrite [...], surely you have the know-how to design your own license?
Yes, but you'd just end up with a similarly worded license that people don't know. Why spend that money?
Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I can easily see why they decided against that. Also, Paizo is probably sufficiently funded by now that suing them is a bit dangerous for WotC, as they risk a bad precedent.
[0] Which are not necessarily competitors, but might also not be friendly towards MS.
Microsoft also publishes software under open-source licenses [0]. The license is short and well-understood, it's not like a large piece of software that might contain backdoors. Also, people trust(-ed) that license.
> If you can do a major rules rewrite [...], surely you have the know-how to design your own license?
Yes, but you'd just end up with a similarly worded license that people don't know. Why spend that money?
Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I can easily see why they decided against that. Also, Paizo is probably sufficiently funded by now that suing them is a bit dangerous for WotC, as they risk a bad precedent.
[0] Which are not necessarily competitors, but might also not be friendly towards MS.
> [0] Which are not necessarily competitors, but might also not be friendly towards MS.
Until not that long ago, Microsoft considered open source licenses a "cancer". While they have changed their stance since then, I'm sure they did some major risk assessment and have safeguards in place of the kind a company like Paizo simply isn't capable of. More importantly, the core MS line of products isn't licensed with a license they don't control.
"Not necessarily competitors" makes all the difference here! This is not a minor detail, but a major one. Look at how Wizards of the Coast is framing the issue, and I quote them [0]:
> “the Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to help grow D&D and expand it creatively. It wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.”
and
> “OGL wasn’t intended to fund major competitors and it wasn’t intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear.”
[0] source: https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...
Until not that long ago, Microsoft considered open source licenses a "cancer". While they have changed their stance since then, I'm sure they did some major risk assessment and have safeguards in place of the kind a company like Paizo simply isn't capable of. More importantly, the core MS line of products isn't licensed with a license they don't control.
"Not necessarily competitors" makes all the difference here! This is not a minor detail, but a major one. Look at how Wizards of the Coast is framing the issue, and I quote them [0]:
> “the Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to help grow D&D and expand it creatively. It wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.”
and
> “OGL wasn’t intended to fund major competitors and it wasn’t intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear.”
[0] source: https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...
> But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor?
Not necessarily. In software we have the MIT license. Anyone can freeze any version of the product and use/distribute it freely in perpetuity regardless of whatever relicensing may happen later to other versions.
It sounds like the OGL was written in that spirit. Whether its legal language will back that up in court, maybe we'll find out.
Not necessarily. In software we have the MIT license. Anyone can freeze any version of the product and use/distribute it freely in perpetuity regardless of whatever relicensing may happen later to other versions.
It sounds like the OGL was written in that spirit. Whether its legal language will back that up in court, maybe we'll find out.
I don't think the MIT license or the GPL (mentioned by someone else) are good parallels.
When you release software under an open source license such as those, you are not using a license designed and solely controlled by your business competitor!
The OGL situation would be like Microsoft releasing Windows under a license designed and solely controlled by Apple.
When you release software under an open source license such as those, you are not using a license designed and solely controlled by your business competitor!
The OGL situation would be like Microsoft releasing Windows under a license designed and solely controlled by Apple.
So what? Unless it has a clause that allows licensees to use a newer version of the license at their will (like GPL optionally has), it doesn't matter who "controls" the license at all. It has no impact on you and your work. You used a specific set of rules as a license for your work and unless you explicitly allowed it, these rules don't change.
Well, at the very least it seems unwise. Your core business shouldn't be put at the mercy of a competitor.
I see the new management of Wizards of the Coast as now arguing that "the OGL was never meant to fund competitors [to D&D's owners]". It seems they are echoing my sentiments!
Whether what they are attempting is lawful is besides the issue: what matters is that Paizo and whoever wouldn't be at risk had they not chosen a license designed by -- and completely controlled by -- their business competition!
I see the new management of Wizards of the Coast as now arguing that "the OGL was never meant to fund competitors [to D&D's owners]". It seems they are echoing my sentiments!
Whether what they are attempting is lawful is besides the issue: what matters is that Paizo and whoever wouldn't be at risk had they not chosen a license designed by -- and completely controlled by -- their business competition!
> Your core business shouldn't be put at the mercy of a competitor.
Of course, but that's not what happens when you use someone else's license at all. And no, whoever used OGL with their project is not at any risk at all - unless they used or made derivative works of existing WotC's content licensed under OGL, in which case they had no other choice than to use OGL anyway.
Of course, but that's not what happens when you use someone else's license at all. And no, whoever used OGL with their project is not at any risk at all - unless they used or made derivative works of existing WotC's content licensed under OGL, in which case they had no other choice than to use OGL anyway.
Hard to understand what all the ruckus is about then.
> Of course, but that's not what happens when you use someone else's license at all. And no, whoever used OGL with their project is not at any risk at all - unless they used or made derivative works of existing WotC's content licensed under OGL, in which case they had no other choice than to use OGL anyway.
Other people in this comments section are arguing otherwise! Whose interpretation should I trust? Yours? Theirs? Wizards'?
> Of course, but that's not what happens when you use someone else's license at all. And no, whoever used OGL with their project is not at any risk at all - unless they used or made derivative works of existing WotC's content licensed under OGL, in which case they had no other choice than to use OGL anyway.
Other people in this comments section are arguing otherwise! Whose interpretation should I trust? Yours? Theirs? Wizards'?
Are they? I've read several lengthy threads by now and haven't seen such stance being proposed.
The issue with Pathfinder is that it was a derivative work of D&D, and although it has been rewritten since it's not clear whether the rewrite still is or not. If it is, then it couldn't be licensed on anything else than OGL and may be affected by OGL 1.1; if it's not, then it's simply unaffected by OGL 1.1 (or at least not in a way that will cause any troubles), since it's not up to WotC to decide how is this work being licensed.
The issue with Pathfinder is that it was a derivative work of D&D, and although it has been rewritten since it's not clear whether the rewrite still is or not. If it is, then it couldn't be licensed on anything else than OGL and may be affected by OGL 1.1; if it's not, then it's simply unaffected by OGL 1.1 (or at least not in a way that will cause any troubles), since it's not up to WotC to decide how is this work being licensed.
>But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor?
Maybe, but a license is just an agreement between two parties on how they can use a copyrighted work. And in the original text, there was no means for WotC to revoke the license from other companies. It would be like if you released software using GPL2, then the GNU project released GPL3 which was much more restrictive, required you to pay rms for any software you release and tried to claim that anything licensed with GPL2 was now licensed with GPL3. You'd think that crazy, and nobody would be asking you why you released software with a license you didn't design.
Maybe, but a license is just an agreement between two parties on how they can use a copyrighted work. And in the original text, there was no means for WotC to revoke the license from other companies. It would be like if you released software using GPL2, then the GNU project released GPL3 which was much more restrictive, required you to pay rms for any software you release and tried to claim that anything licensed with GPL2 was now licensed with GPL3. You'd think that crazy, and nobody would be asking you why you released software with a license you didn't design.
> It would be like if you released software using GPL2, then the GNU project released GPL3 which was much more restrictive, required you to pay rms for any software you release and tried to claim that anything licensed with GPL2 was now licensed with GPL3.
Yes, but that's not so hard to imagine, it's basically:
Imagine the GPL is issued by a for-profit company not an ideological nonprofit, and imagine the “X or any later versiom” clause is replaced by or “Any authorized version clause”, and imagine that the for-profit company decides that the use of the older versions are contrary to its existing interests?
Heck, there is a reason that even as it is written, and even with the FSF being a nonprofit with a stable ideology, some people, when licensing their own work, usd GPLvWhatever without the or-any-later version clause.
Yes, but that's not so hard to imagine, it's basically:
Imagine the GPL is issued by a for-profit company not an ideological nonprofit, and imagine the “X or any later versiom” clause is replaced by or “Any authorized version clause”, and imagine that the for-profit company decides that the use of the older versions are contrary to its existing interests?
Heck, there is a reason that even as it is written, and even with the FSF being a nonprofit with a stable ideology, some people, when licensing their own work, usd GPLvWhatever without the or-any-later version clause.
I think the fact the OGL was designed by a business, not a nonprofit, and that this business' goals compete with your own, makes this situation radically different.
The FSF doesn't compete with your business and doesn't want a cut of your business.
Moreover, if you are going to use a license designed by a competing business for your main line of products (e.g. Pathfinder) you better make sure your competitor is not the sole arbiter of that license! A consortium of businesses would make more sense.
The FSF doesn't compete with your business and doesn't want a cut of your business.
Moreover, if you are going to use a license designed by a competing business for your main line of products (e.g. Pathfinder) you better make sure your competitor is not the sole arbiter of that license! A consortium of businesses would make more sense.
> But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor?
No? This kind of thing happens all the time with various kinds of contracts, e.g. in finance if one bank comes up with some kind of instrument most of their competitors will try to follow the same thing. It's like asking why would you use a file format designed by a direct business competitor.
No? This kind of thing happens all the time with various kinds of contracts, e.g. in finance if one bank comes up with some kind of instrument most of their competitors will try to follow the same thing. It's like asking why would you use a file format designed by a direct business competitor.
But not really, right? Using a competitor's file format is a way of adding interoperability to your product. And a file format cannot dictate how you can legally use or sell the whole of your product; at worst you can be barred from using that particular format if your competitor sees it fit.
The bank analogy also doesn't match. A closer analogy would be if your bank must use their competitor's installations and infrastructure, and risk bankruptcy whenever the competitor thinks they don't want to lend them their installations anymore.
Using your direct competitor's license, fully under their control, is closer to handing them the keys to your company for no obvious benefit, right?
The bank analogy also doesn't match. A closer analogy would be if your bank must use their competitor's installations and infrastructure, and risk bankruptcy whenever the competitor thinks they don't want to lend them their installations anymore.
Using your direct competitor's license, fully under their control, is closer to handing them the keys to your company for no obvious benefit, right?
> The bank analogy also doesn't match. A closer analogy would be if your bank must use their competitor's installations and infrastructure, and risk bankruptcy whenever the competitor thinks they don't want to lend them their installations anymore.
No it isn't? The license is just the contractual agreement. Like, I'm not sure if the second bank to offer overnight repurchase agreements literally copied the first one's contract and just changed their name, but they certainly could've, and that's been normal practice with some newer financial products.
> Using your direct competitor's license, fully under their control, is closer to handing them the keys to your company for no obvious benefit, right?
No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to.
No it isn't? The license is just the contractual agreement. Like, I'm not sure if the second bank to offer overnight repurchase agreements literally copied the first one's contract and just changed their name, but they certainly could've, and that's been normal practice with some newer financial products.
> Using your direct competitor's license, fully under their control, is closer to handing them the keys to your company for no obvious benefit, right?
No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to.
But your bank analogy is still flawed, isn't it? This isn't a case of a bank following suit and copying another bank's offering, this is a case of a company using terms of another company and riding on their "infrastructure" (IP, licenses, etc). For a RPG company, these intangibles are infrastructure, not legalese. Remember, this runs on human brains, not on computers or ATMs.
> No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to.
It is under their control because they are the only ones that can modify, add or remove provisions to the license. This is like a file format where only one company can determine the standard: it sucks for everyone else! At best you're playing catch-up, at worst the owner can bar you from using the format. A consortium would be less risky.
And apparently the current situation shows it was very risky indeed!
> No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to.
It is under their control because they are the only ones that can modify, add or remove provisions to the license. This is like a file format where only one company can determine the standard: it sucks for everyone else! At best you're playing catch-up, at worst the owner can bar you from using the format. A consortium would be less risky.
And apparently the current situation shows it was very risky indeed!
> This isn't a case of a bank following suit and copying another bank's offering, this is a case of a company using terms of another company and riding on their "infrastructure" (IP, licenses, etc). For a RPG company, these intangibles are infrastructure, not legalese.
Hold on, we're just talking about the license, aren't we? I thought the question was about why they were using the OGL, which is very much just the legalese/contract.
Hold on, we're just talking about the license, aren't we? I thought the question was about why they were using the OGL, which is very much just the legalese/contract.
To be honest I think I managed to confuse myself. But that's because I think everyone is conflating everything in this case.
Some people seem to think the OGL is the "blood" of these third party companies, without which their business model doesn't exist. Surprisingly -- but I have trouble believing this -- some think OGL-licensed games are at risk even if they are unrelated to the D&D franchise and its gameplay mechanics (I hope this is just a misunderstanding!).
But let's say this is just legalese. Does it seem wise to let your core product be sold under contractual terms defined by your direct business competitor, which by their own admission has no interest in "funding the competition"? (they've been quoted saying this).
Some people seem to think the OGL is the "blood" of these third party companies, without which their business model doesn't exist. Surprisingly -- but I have trouble believing this -- some think OGL-licensed games are at risk even if they are unrelated to the D&D franchise and its gameplay mechanics (I hope this is just a misunderstanding!).
But let's say this is just legalese. Does it seem wise to let your core product be sold under contractual terms defined by your direct business competitor, which by their own admission has no interest in "funding the competition"? (they've been quoted saying this).
> But let's say this is just legalese. Does it seem wise to let your core product be sold under contractual terms defined by your direct business competitor, which by their own admission has no interest in "funding the competition"? (they've been quoted saying this).
I think it's probably fine. Like, if WotC is willing to sell their product on these terms, it's probably safe for me to sell my product on the same terms, especially if we're direct competitors. Obviously there's a risk, but there's a risk in not competing too. Compare price matching.
I think it's probably fine. Like, if WotC is willing to sell their product on these terms, it's probably safe for me to sell my product on the same terms, especially if we're direct competitors. Obviously there's a risk, but there's a risk in not competing too. Compare price matching.
> 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.
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.
Well, the GPL doesn't put organizations that choose that license at the mercy of the FSF. The FSF isn't a business competing with the organizations that choose the GPL. The FSF also cannot change the rules of the license a posteriori.
The OGL doesn't look much like the GPL. Wizards of the Coast is a business in direct competition to others using the OGL. It's also crazy that something under the OGL falls in WotC's jurisdiction even if it uses no rules or settings from D&D -- I must have misunderstood this because this is simply too crazy to be true.
The OGL doesn't look much like the GPL. Wizards of the Coast is a business in direct competition to others using the OGL. It's also crazy that something under the OGL falls in WotC's jurisdiction even if it uses no rules or settings from D&D -- I must have misunderstood this because this is simply too crazy to be true.
> The FSF also cannot change the rules of the license a posteriori.
GNU can and has changed the rules of one of their licenses. Specifically the GFDL 1.3 was released to allow all the wikis licensed under GFDL 1.1+/GFDL1.2+ to migrate to CC-BY-SA.
This is arguably a case of using the power for good, but fear of them using the power for bad is exactly why e.g. Linux is GPLv2-only rather than GPLv2-or-later
GNU can and has changed the rules of one of their licenses. Specifically the GFDL 1.3 was released to allow all the wikis licensed under GFDL 1.1+/GFDL1.2+ to migrate to CC-BY-SA.
This is arguably a case of using the power for good, but fear of them using the power for bad is exactly why e.g. Linux is GPLv2-only rather than GPLv2-or-later
If I understand this correctly, your example isn't a case of retroactively modifying a license.
If you publish something under an X+ license, aren't you effectively saying "the conditions of this or a later revision apply"? You are willingly choosing to use this version or a later one. So if a later one changes one of the provisions of the prior version, this isn't a retroactive change but something you explicitly wanted when you used version X+. Version X isn't changed at all, it's just that you explicitly said you accepted version X+1 whenever it became available.
Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+? Seems... unwise. Not like the GPL or whatever, because the GPL is not aimed at restricting your business success and is not designed by your direct business competitor!
If you publish something under an X+ license, aren't you effectively saying "the conditions of this or a later revision apply"? You are willingly choosing to use this version or a later one. So if a later one changes one of the provisions of the prior version, this isn't a retroactive change but something you explicitly wanted when you used version X+. Version X isn't changed at all, it's just that you explicitly said you accepted version X+1 whenever it became available.
Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+? Seems... unwise. Not like the GPL or whatever, because the GPL is not aimed at restricting your business success and is not designed by your direct business competitor!
> Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+?
Yes.
There are two reasons for this, one is that the first edition of pathfinder had to be, because it used material from D&D 3.5, and then the second edition didn't want to break compatibility with the first edition's ecosystem, and the second is it would violate the copyright of the OGL itself to use a modified version without an "or later version" clause. The same would be true for the GPL, except the GPL expressly provides a mechanism to choose to use the or later clause or not.
Yes.
There are two reasons for this, one is that the first edition of pathfinder had to be, because it used material from D&D 3.5, and then the second edition didn't want to break compatibility with the first edition's ecosystem, and the second is it would violate the copyright of the OGL itself to use a modified version without an "or later version" clause. The same would be true for the GPL, except the GPL expressly provides a mechanism to choose to use the or later clause or not.
Ah, I get it! So Pathfinder 1st Ed was based in a version of D&D (3.5) which already used version OGL+! That's the piece of the puzzle I was missing: the minute Paizo decided to fork D&D, they became locked into this unfortunate licensing choice, at the mercy of future license updates. I also understand you cannot decide to use a "pinned" version if the original you're licensing is already using a "plus" version.
In hindsight, it looks like a terrible decision for Pathfinder to have accepted those terms. Had I been then, I would have made an entirely new game "in the spirit" of 3.5 but starting from scratch. I guess they opted for the more appealing route of trying to more directly appeal to disgruntled fans or D&D, and now they are facing the downsides of that. It sucks, agreed.
I guess this is a lesson about the risks of trying to ride another company's success instead of making your own thing. And yes, it happens with software as well.
(I'm still not convinced this will affect companies/games using the OGL for things entirely unrelated to D&D. That'd be surreal!)
In hindsight, it looks like a terrible decision for Pathfinder to have accepted those terms. Had I been then, I would have made an entirely new game "in the spirit" of 3.5 but starting from scratch. I guess they opted for the more appealing route of trying to more directly appeal to disgruntled fans or D&D, and now they are facing the downsides of that. It sucks, agreed.
I guess this is a lesson about the risks of trying to ride another company's success instead of making your own thing. And yes, it happens with software as well.
(I'm still not convinced this will affect companies/games using the OGL for things entirely unrelated to D&D. That'd be surreal!)
If you navigate to the comment you want to reply to, it doesn’t appear to be rate limited. Only when viewing the full thread
I’m referring to the actual rate limit because dang and I disagree about the average quality of my comments, not the idiosyncratic UI.
huh, I don't think I've ever actually triggered that and I've done some marathon posting sessions where I replied within <30 seconds. Is that a per user rate limiter?
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
Let's imagine a scenario:
1. Paizo releases Pathfinder 1E. It's uses material from D&D 3.5 SRD which requires it to use the OGL.
2. A third party releases a campaign for pathfinder 1E. It uses material from pathfinder 1E which requires it to use the OGL
3. Paizo releases Pathfinder 2E. They change to CC BY-SA for their open components.
4. I now want to update that campaign to the 2E rules. But the original campaign publication insists I must use OGL, and Pathfinder 2E insists I use CC BY-SA and now I cannot.
I think a mix of (a) the scenario above, (b) legal CYA in case it was found Pathfinder 2E was too close to 3.5e material and (c) using what they're used to led to the decision to continue to use OGL for Pathfinder 2E.
Let's imagine a scenario:
1. Paizo releases Pathfinder 1E. It's uses material from D&D 3.5 SRD which requires it to use the OGL.
2. A third party releases a campaign for pathfinder 1E. It uses material from pathfinder 1E which requires it to use the OGL
3. Paizo releases Pathfinder 2E. They change to CC BY-SA for their open components.
4. I now want to update that campaign to the 2E rules. But the original campaign publication insists I must use OGL, and Pathfinder 2E insists I use CC BY-SA and now I cannot.
I think a mix of (a) the scenario above, (b) legal CYA in case it was found Pathfinder 2E was too close to 3.5e material and (c) using what they're used to led to the decision to continue to use OGL for Pathfinder 2E.
I see.
All the "fun" of software licensing, only for pen and paper games. It's like we are already in hell.
All the "fun" of software licensing, only for pen and paper games. It's like we are already in hell.
I thought that Pathfinder 2e was much like software development: The latest commit in a branch which has OGL 1.0 at its root.
Does OGL 1.1 mean that /all/ branches are affected?
Does OGL 1.1 mean that /all/ branches are affected?
That is what Wotc is trying to do, yes. They are trying to post-facto invalidate 1.0a after 20+ years.
The software equivalent would be if the FSF found some sneaky legalese, and came out with a hostile GPL 5 and simultaneously invalidated all previous versions of the GPL. Thus rendering everyone pre-v5 unable to publish going forward, with the only recourse to “upgrade” to the new version.
It’s sick, and likely not legal, but in the D&D example Hasbro have a much bigger legal team than the people they are trying to bully. So the threat of a potentially expensive lawsuit to force small fish into a legally dubious license.
The software equivalent would be if the FSF found some sneaky legalese, and came out with a hostile GPL 5 and simultaneously invalidated all previous versions of the GPL. Thus rendering everyone pre-v5 unable to publish going forward, with the only recourse to “upgrade” to the new version.
It’s sick, and likely not legal, but in the D&D example Hasbro have a much bigger legal team than the people they are trying to bully. So the threat of a potentially expensive lawsuit to force small fish into a legally dubious license.
On top of what the other said about having a license that is well known, one of the rationale is not having to spend a lot of time and money being sure that nothing covered but the OGL in version 1 is used in version 2
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them?
I don't know their exact reasoning, but I always add licenses when publishing software I write, and they always are ones I didn't design (because I've never written a license myself). I don't think it's that crazy to use an established license that seems to be working well in a community you'd like to emulate when trying to launch you're own; I doubt Paizo had any more idea than the rest of us that WotC would pull something like this.
> And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC? And cannot they simply switch to another license, if 2nd edition is truly a full rewrite?
My (admittedly primitive) understanding of licensing was that once something was released publicly with an indefinite license, it generally wouldn't be possible to retract that later. The copyright holder can change licenses as they see fit, but nobody will be bound by the new license unless they accept it or use a new version of the product that doesn't offer the old license. This leads me to theorize that one of a few things could be going on here:
1. The new version of the OGL (1.1) disallows you to continue using the old version (1.0) once you start using something with it. If this turns out to be the case, then people would be able to continue using the materials as-is at the last point where the OGL 1.0 was offered, but they wouldn't be able to use any future changes without accepting version 1.1 as a replacement for all of the preexisting content as well. WotC might have only intended this, but due to poor communications and/or wording in the license change, people got worried and then the narrative got out of control 2. The license works like I described in option 1 due to WotC knowing that they can't actually retroactively change the license for people already using it, but they intentionally obfuscated this to try to scare people into switching to using the new version even if they shouldn't technically have to * The license does actually a say that it's overriding the previous one, which is not actually something a license is supposed to be able to. WotC either doesn't realize this or is hoping that in a legal battle they either can either prolong it to starve their opponents of resources or manage to convince a judge to rule against the existing consensus and establish a new precedent.
I think that option 2 is the most likely by a slight margin, but I might be biased as someone who played PF1 and now plays PF2. Option 3 would be the scariest to me given that a prolonged legal battle seems like it would be the most insulated from public opinion, which I think is mostly against the new license right now.
I don't know their exact reasoning, but I always add licenses when publishing software I write, and they always are ones I didn't design (because I've never written a license myself). I don't think it's that crazy to use an established license that seems to be working well in a community you'd like to emulate when trying to launch you're own; I doubt Paizo had any more idea than the rest of us that WotC would pull something like this.
> And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC? And cannot they simply switch to another license, if 2nd edition is truly a full rewrite?
My (admittedly primitive) understanding of licensing was that once something was released publicly with an indefinite license, it generally wouldn't be possible to retract that later. The copyright holder can change licenses as they see fit, but nobody will be bound by the new license unless they accept it or use a new version of the product that doesn't offer the old license. This leads me to theorize that one of a few things could be going on here:
1. The new version of the OGL (1.1) disallows you to continue using the old version (1.0) once you start using something with it. If this turns out to be the case, then people would be able to continue using the materials as-is at the last point where the OGL 1.0 was offered, but they wouldn't be able to use any future changes without accepting version 1.1 as a replacement for all of the preexisting content as well. WotC might have only intended this, but due to poor communications and/or wording in the license change, people got worried and then the narrative got out of control 2. The license works like I described in option 1 due to WotC knowing that they can't actually retroactively change the license for people already using it, but they intentionally obfuscated this to try to scare people into switching to using the new version even if they shouldn't technically have to * The license does actually a say that it's overriding the previous one, which is not actually something a license is supposed to be able to. WotC either doesn't realize this or is hoping that in a legal battle they either can either prolong it to starve their opponents of resources or manage to convince a judge to rule against the existing consensus and establish a new precedent.
I think that option 2 is the most likely by a slight margin, but I might be biased as someone who played PF1 and now plays PF2. Option 3 would be the scariest to me given that a prolonged legal battle seems like it would be the most insulated from public opinion, which I think is mostly against the new license right now.
> I don't know their exact reasoning, but I always add licenses when publishing software I write, and they always are ones I didn't design (because I've never written a license myself). I don't think it's that crazy to use an established license that seems to be working well in a community you'd like to emulate when trying to launch you're own; I doubt Paizo had any more idea than the rest of us that WotC would pull something like this.
I understand this, but you don't use licenses designed by your business competitors whose main product is in direct competition to your own. The analogy here would be Microsoft using a license designed by Apple for Windows and MS Office! Or whatever their major line of products is nowadays.
I understand this, but you don't use licenses designed by your business competitors whose main product is in direct competition to your own. The analogy here would be Microsoft using a license designed by Apple for Windows and MS Office! Or whatever their major line of products is nowadays.
And yet Apple run iCloud on Linux servers on Microsoft Azure. Is it really that different? (EDIT: Google says they moved to GCP in 2018, but doesn't change the point)
I think it's different. In your example, what is the license Apple is using for its major product that was designed by Microsoft?
A software platform is not a license. But also, Apple moved to GCP, problem solved. This doesn't seem to be the same situation as Paizo's, is it?
A software platform is not a license. But also, Apple moved to GCP, problem solved. This doesn't seem to be the same situation as Paizo's, is it?
If Paizo wholly owns the IP (PF1E: No, SF: Maybe, PF2E: Probably), then they can move to a competing license like CC-BY-SA. That would solve the "cannot distribute their own products" problem, but it would mean their entire ecosystem including third parties would need to propagate that change.
It also doesn't change the fact that Wizards could argue they have an OGL v1.0a+ license, and use OGL v1.1 to put pathfinder 1e srd on their new vtt without paying paizo for example
It also doesn't change the fact that Wizards could argue they have an OGL v1.0a+ license, and use OGL v1.1 to put pathfinder 1e srd on their new vtt without paying paizo for example
Yes, now I understand. Thanks for this and your other explanation.
If I were Paizo I would sever Pathfinder entirely from the OGL, especially if they rewrote their game from scratch, and ask modules writers to switch to the new licensing. But what do I know?
If I were Paizo I would sever Pathfinder entirely from the OGL, especially if they rewrote their game from scratch, and ask modules writers to switch to the new licensing. But what do I know?
A friend invited me to a DnD game he was starting for his son. I’d never really played regularly before that. He said he invited a few other friends who reacted “Oh, 4e? No thanks”
I understand the dedication to 3.5 - it was years, if not decades of experience, commitment, and buy in. It can’t be helped to see the several editions since as desperate effort to get more sales from WoTC
I understand the dedication to 3.5 - it was years, if not decades of experience, commitment, and buy in. It can’t be helped to see the several editions since as desperate effort to get more sales from WoTC
4E is very divisive. It oversimplified the game into a "turn cards sideways" simulator. Its easier to learn, but no one feels like their character is very unique anymore. Every ability became a card you could print, and you just "tapped / turned it sideways" to activate the card. It made learning characters very simple, but had very little flexibility compared to what the community was used to from 3.5.
5E and Pathfinder are the local optima. Most players say that if you want a "3.5-ish" system, you should do Pathfinder 1.0 instead. If you want a proper simplification of the system, 5E is far superior to 4E.
I have friends who enjoy 4E by the way. But they are in the gross minority. Almost everyone I know who has played 4E agrees with me that it oversimplified the game. Yes, 3.5 was too complex, but 4E overcorrected. 5E found a better simplicity vs flexibility location for most players.
----------
3.5 is fun because almost all the bonuses multiply with each other. So you can string together huge, multiplicative bonuses that stacks in convoluted manners. (Ex; Enlarge Person not only is +2 to STR, but also +2 Damage Dice, so your 2d6 greatsword becomes 3d6 damage). This multiplicatively stacks with Keen Weapon, Inspire Courage, Greater Heroism, Bull Strength, +5 Magic Weapon and more.
But it also makes 3.5 very "sharp". If you fail to see the multiplicative bonuses, you feel very underpowered and fall behind the damage curve.
--------
5th Edition / Pathfinder 2.0 reduce the multiplicative bonuses, but still have hugely unique feeling classes where everyone feels like they have a role to play in the party. It really is a happier medium.
As such, most players today ignore 4.0. If you want simplicity, 5e is "simple enough".
5E and Pathfinder are the local optima. Most players say that if you want a "3.5-ish" system, you should do Pathfinder 1.0 instead. If you want a proper simplification of the system, 5E is far superior to 4E.
I have friends who enjoy 4E by the way. But they are in the gross minority. Almost everyone I know who has played 4E agrees with me that it oversimplified the game. Yes, 3.5 was too complex, but 4E overcorrected. 5E found a better simplicity vs flexibility location for most players.
----------
3.5 is fun because almost all the bonuses multiply with each other. So you can string together huge, multiplicative bonuses that stacks in convoluted manners. (Ex; Enlarge Person not only is +2 to STR, but also +2 Damage Dice, so your 2d6 greatsword becomes 3d6 damage). This multiplicatively stacks with Keen Weapon, Inspire Courage, Greater Heroism, Bull Strength, +5 Magic Weapon and more.
But it also makes 3.5 very "sharp". If you fail to see the multiplicative bonuses, you feel very underpowered and fall behind the damage curve.
--------
5th Edition / Pathfinder 2.0 reduce the multiplicative bonuses, but still have hugely unique feeling classes where everyone feels like they have a role to play in the party. It really is a happier medium.
As such, most players today ignore 4.0. If you want simplicity, 5e is "simple enough".
My main problem with 4e wasn't that it was oversimplified but that combat took forever to resolve. I was never sure exactly why.
Combat in 3.5 averages at like, 4 rounds, even for a boss fight. With the 1st, maybe 2nd round, deciding the results of the combat.
Indeed: there are spells (Phantasmal Killer, Baleful Polymorph, Dominate Person, Power Word Kill, Banishment), that ends combat in a singular turn.
You're right in that 4e combat was much slower and purposeful. I'm... neutral to this. I can say that 3.5 / Pathfinder 1.0 combat is unusually brutal... to a non-intuitive degree. 3.5 / Pathfinder 1.0 heavily relies upon resurrection magic in practice due to its unusual brutality.
Indeed: there are spells (Phantasmal Killer, Baleful Polymorph, Dominate Person, Power Word Kill, Banishment), that ends combat in a singular turn.
You're right in that 4e combat was much slower and purposeful. I'm... neutral to this. I can say that 3.5 / Pathfinder 1.0 combat is unusually brutal... to a non-intuitive degree. 3.5 / Pathfinder 1.0 heavily relies upon resurrection magic in practice due to its unusual brutality.
Reading your post it suddenly downed on me that the only good thing which might come out of Hasbro botching the OGL is that people might start playing games with actually interesting rules rather than D&D.
But "what is interesting" ??
If you just want to perform improv-roleplay out some scenarios, then Dread is probably the best. The only action the players do is:
1. Pull piece out of the Jenga Tower
2. Roleplay the result (success == You succeeded at the current situation. Tower-falls == you die).
------------
There's better systems out there (aka: Dread) if you really just wanted simplicity. World of Darkness is probably the more mainstream "simple / roleplay heavy" game of importance. (Dread is perhaps overly simple, but that's the point of it. Its basically improv / roleplaying simulator and that alone)
D&D, for all of its faults, is a fully specified battle simulator. It doesn't mean that everything makes sense (what were the grapple rules again?), but most everything has been thought out, and what "should happen" is often written down somewhere.
On the other hand, many people prefer improv / rules-free systems (like Dread, or World of Darkness to a lesser extent).
Anyway, there's plenty of other games. But the niche of D&D is the well specified set of rules of how magic and physical interact with each other. (This magical force field has X HP and 30 Hardness, interacting with your Adamantine sword that ignores hardness 20 and less, etc. etc.)
If you just want to perform improv-roleplay out some scenarios, then Dread is probably the best. The only action the players do is:
1. Pull piece out of the Jenga Tower
2. Roleplay the result (success == You succeeded at the current situation. Tower-falls == you die).
------------
There's better systems out there (aka: Dread) if you really just wanted simplicity. World of Darkness is probably the more mainstream "simple / roleplay heavy" game of importance. (Dread is perhaps overly simple, but that's the point of it. Its basically improv / roleplaying simulator and that alone)
D&D, for all of its faults, is a fully specified battle simulator. It doesn't mean that everything makes sense (what were the grapple rules again?), but most everything has been thought out, and what "should happen" is often written down somewhere.
On the other hand, many people prefer improv / rules-free systems (like Dread, or World of Darkness to a lesser extent).
Anyway, there's plenty of other games. But the niche of D&D is the well specified set of rules of how magic and physical interact with each other. (This magical force field has X HP and 30 Hardness, interacting with your Adamantine sword that ignores hardness 20 and less, etc. etc.)
Oh yeah, I realise that my opinion is far from universally valid and that I both don’t play much tabletop roleplaying and came to it from an improv background which means I’m not necessarily looking for the same things that other players are.
Still I’m firmly in the camp of those thinking D&D focus a lot of attention to the insanely boring and uninteresting part of role playing - aka how a sword interacts with a magic shield in excruciatingly tedious mathematical details - and very little attention to what’s actually fun which is, well, playing a role.
I think its rules, its prevalence and the fact it’s mostly played in somewhat bland heroic fantasy settings have been a major turndown for a lot of people who would actually enjoy roleplaying so in a way I guess I should celebrate anything making it less popular.
Still I’m firmly in the camp of those thinking D&D focus a lot of attention to the insanely boring and uninteresting part of role playing - aka how a sword interacts with a magic shield in excruciatingly tedious mathematical details - and very little attention to what’s actually fun which is, well, playing a role.
I think its rules, its prevalence and the fact it’s mostly played in somewhat bland heroic fantasy settings have been a major turndown for a lot of people who would actually enjoy roleplaying so in a way I guess I should celebrate anything making it less popular.
As a lot of my friends like to say, the two players are roleplayers and rollplayers.
Roleplayers are here for the improv / acting.
Rollplayers are here for the combat. D&D absolutely is combat focused.
-----------
Lets take an example: When a Wizard casts Disintegrate, and a friendly Druid casts "Wall of Stone" to block it, what should happen? Are you interested in debating / improvising the result? Do you want it to be defined?
Improv players want this to be ill-defined. They want to make something up, depending on the current situation / feel of the game. If its a big boss fight and the Wizard is the evil big bad guy, maybe the Disintegrate goes through and hits the players. If its just some mook, maybe its a "weaker disintegrate" and gets blocked by the stone wall.
----------
This is terrible for combat / tacticians. A tactician wants to know that Disintegrate _always_ makes exactly a "one 10-foot cube" hole in the stone structure (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm), and always counters-and-dispels Force effects. Because the tactics + interactions have been agreed upon ahead of time, it means that the tactics of the game are focused. Its a battle closer to chess, or perhaps war-simulators / war-gaming, where you need to know what interacts with what, and how, to proceed.
You can't just make stuff up in a war-simulator. They need to have pre-defined actions. Knowing that this level 5 spell (Wall of Stone) can effectively counter a level 6 Disintegrate is an oddity in the hierarchy of magic (usually, you need an equal, or higher-level spell to counter other magic). But taking advantage of resource-management (they spend level 6 spell, you spend level 5 spell, so you have more resources left over afterwards) is just part of the game.
Roleplayers are here for the improv / acting.
Rollplayers are here for the combat. D&D absolutely is combat focused.
-----------
Lets take an example: When a Wizard casts Disintegrate, and a friendly Druid casts "Wall of Stone" to block it, what should happen? Are you interested in debating / improvising the result? Do you want it to be defined?
Improv players want this to be ill-defined. They want to make something up, depending on the current situation / feel of the game. If its a big boss fight and the Wizard is the evil big bad guy, maybe the Disintegrate goes through and hits the players. If its just some mook, maybe its a "weaker disintegrate" and gets blocked by the stone wall.
----------
This is terrible for combat / tacticians. A tactician wants to know that Disintegrate _always_ makes exactly a "one 10-foot cube" hole in the stone structure (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm), and always counters-and-dispels Force effects. Because the tactics + interactions have been agreed upon ahead of time, it means that the tactics of the game are focused. Its a battle closer to chess, or perhaps war-simulators / war-gaming, where you need to know what interacts with what, and how, to proceed.
You can't just make stuff up in a war-simulator. They need to have pre-defined actions. Knowing that this level 5 spell (Wall of Stone) can effectively counter a level 6 Disintegrate is an oddity in the hierarchy of magic (usually, you need an equal, or higher-level spell to counter other magic). But taking advantage of resource-management (they spend level 6 spell, you spend level 5 spell, so you have more resources left over afterwards) is just part of the game.
To give you an idea of how wide the gap is, my issue is not that I want the interaction to be ill-defined. I never ever want to have to think about the interactions between named spells in a fight. That’s a narratively uninteresting part of the situation. If there is to be a fight between people with fantastical powers, I want the rules to solve the thing quickly without unnecessary fuss so we can get back to what matters. Your two last paragraphs are just tedium from my point of view which is why I dislike D&D so much I guess.
> I never ever want to have to think about the interactions between named spells in a fight.
Alas, that's not how games work. Someone casts "Insanity", can it be removed with Dispel Magic? What about Antimagic Field? What happens if you kill the person, then resurrect them, do they come back with the insanity effect?
The story must go on. You either decide that you want it ill specified (ie: whoever improvs the best gets the decision), or you have a rulebook that carefully lays out the interactions.
You don't have to know the interactions. Simply knowledge that millions of other players have come across this game, and have likely already come across this situation and have analyzed the rules + made a decision is enough.
No person wants to memorize rulebooks. But we dungeon masters do so to ensure fairness in our decisions. If someone doesn't like the ruling, i can always point out the rulebook (or if not the rules, then an online discussion of a similar situation) that will settle the debate.
-----------
Because if you know a thing about players, they will try everything to "Just for flavor, have that +5 Magic Sword on their Gorilla because its awesome" (when they really just want to roll more damage than everyone else in the party).
If I let the Druid effectively have twice the magic items of everyone and letting his pet-gorilla play a Fighter, then everyone else loses (because there's no way they can keep up with the damage output of a Gorilla using weapons locked to martial class). Martial weapons are locked to martial classes for a reason: those classes lose spellcasting but gain more damage to gain another role (the damage-dealing role) to play in this game.
In effect: the 1d8 fists of a Gorilla are there and balanced against the needs of everyone else. The Druid + Pet-Gorilla already play with two turns per... turn. They're already considered quite strong in the game, I as the dungeon master, need to know where "too much damage" starts to seep in and where "Improv rulebreaking" can start making the Druid stupidly overpowered.
----------
I've played with lots of "Improv" people. Even with their best interests at heart, the game innately becomes a "Lemme bullshit my own powers to be better than everyone else's, so that I'm the star of this show".
Maybe you don't do it, but *someone* in the group always tries to do this. You need to cut them down and restrict them so that their power level remains roughly on the same level as everyone else in the party. Knowing the limitations of spells, as well as the limitations of weapons, is a good starting point to ensuring fairness at the table.
------
Going back to the top. Insanity is 7th level and is explicitly stated that only 7th level spells and above (like Limited Wish) can remove it. Trying to bullshit a 3rd level spell (Dispel Magic) into removing Insanity means that the Wizards / Sorcerers become overpowered, relative to the abilities of everyone else. You have to make them spend a 7th level slot to heal this particular curse.
Alas, that's not how games work. Someone casts "Insanity", can it be removed with Dispel Magic? What about Antimagic Field? What happens if you kill the person, then resurrect them, do they come back with the insanity effect?
The story must go on. You either decide that you want it ill specified (ie: whoever improvs the best gets the decision), or you have a rulebook that carefully lays out the interactions.
You don't have to know the interactions. Simply knowledge that millions of other players have come across this game, and have likely already come across this situation and have analyzed the rules + made a decision is enough.
No person wants to memorize rulebooks. But we dungeon masters do so to ensure fairness in our decisions. If someone doesn't like the ruling, i can always point out the rulebook (or if not the rules, then an online discussion of a similar situation) that will settle the debate.
-----------
Because if you know a thing about players, they will try everything to "Just for flavor, have that +5 Magic Sword on their Gorilla because its awesome" (when they really just want to roll more damage than everyone else in the party).
If I let the Druid effectively have twice the magic items of everyone and letting his pet-gorilla play a Fighter, then everyone else loses (because there's no way they can keep up with the damage output of a Gorilla using weapons locked to martial class). Martial weapons are locked to martial classes for a reason: those classes lose spellcasting but gain more damage to gain another role (the damage-dealing role) to play in this game.
In effect: the 1d8 fists of a Gorilla are there and balanced against the needs of everyone else. The Druid + Pet-Gorilla already play with two turns per... turn. They're already considered quite strong in the game, I as the dungeon master, need to know where "too much damage" starts to seep in and where "Improv rulebreaking" can start making the Druid stupidly overpowered.
----------
I've played with lots of "Improv" people. Even with their best interests at heart, the game innately becomes a "Lemme bullshit my own powers to be better than everyone else's, so that I'm the star of this show".
Maybe you don't do it, but *someone* in the group always tries to do this. You need to cut them down and restrict them so that their power level remains roughly on the same level as everyone else in the party. Knowing the limitations of spells, as well as the limitations of weapons, is a good starting point to ensuring fairness at the table.
------
Going back to the top. Insanity is 7th level and is explicitly stated that only 7th level spells and above (like Limited Wish) can remove it. Trying to bullshit a 3rd level spell (Dispel Magic) into removing Insanity means that the Wizards / Sorcerers become overpowered, relative to the abilities of everyone else. You have to make them spend a 7th level slot to heal this particular curse.
> Alas, that's not how games work.
Plenty of games work this way thankfully.
What you describe after is hell. That’s exactly what I hate about RPG. You don’t have to care about balancing power level and people “bullshiting“ their powers if your game simply doesn’t have these mechanics. I don’t want to have to play through a detailed combats ever especially in a heroic fantasy setting. That’s as far removed from fun a situation as I can imagine.
It’s interesting because our discussion makes it obvious that there are entirely orthogonal way of enjoying RPG with next to no overlap.
Plenty of games work this way thankfully.
What you describe after is hell. That’s exactly what I hate about RPG. You don’t have to care about balancing power level and people “bullshiting“ their powers if your game simply doesn’t have these mechanics. I don’t want to have to play through a detailed combats ever especially in a heroic fantasy setting. That’s as far removed from fun a situation as I can imagine.
It’s interesting because our discussion makes it obvious that there are entirely orthogonal way of enjoying RPG with next to no overlap.
To give my perspective, I fully agree with you and I'm not an "improv" kind of gamer. I want combat, but I also want simple rules and a fast flow to the gameplay, not tedium.
D&D is not only tedious to me, it's also a "mechanicist" (for lack of a better word) approach to fantasy. It's rules-based rather than fun-based. It doesn't tell a story, it tells how spell X interacts with weapon Y and how to read charts and stats. A fight in movies doesn't happen like that, the flow and thrill is entirely different.
I'm ok rolling dice, it's fun! But give me a result fast and make it narratively meaningful, nothing breaks immersion like arguing whether a level 35 Pastamancer can cast Fireball against a level 5 shield of enchanted wood.
D&D is not only tedious to me, it's also a "mechanicist" (for lack of a better word) approach to fantasy. It's rules-based rather than fun-based. It doesn't tell a story, it tells how spell X interacts with weapon Y and how to read charts and stats. A fight in movies doesn't happen like that, the flow and thrill is entirely different.
I'm ok rolling dice, it's fun! But give me a result fast and make it narratively meaningful, nothing breaks immersion like arguing whether a level 35 Pastamancer can cast Fireball against a level 5 shield of enchanted wood.
> Alas, that's not how games work. Someone casts "Insanity", can it be removed with Dispel Magic? What about Antimagic Field? What happens if you kill the person, then resurrect them, do they come back with the insanity effect?
> The story must go on. You either decide that you want it ill specified (ie: whoever improvs the best gets the decision), or you have a rulebook that carefully lays out the interactions.
> You don't have to know the interactions. Simply knowledge that millions of other players have come across this game, and have likely already come across this situation and have analyzed the rules + made a decision is enough.
You need a way to resolve conflicts. But that doesn't need to be some kind of zillion-layer spell simulation game (and in fact I'd argue that that just lends itself to its own kind of bullshitting, where people find ways to do things like the peasant railgun or locate city nuke).
> Going back to the top. Insanity is 7th level and is explicitly stated that only 7th level spells and above (like Limited Wish) can remove it. Trying to bullshit a 3rd level spell (Dispel Magic) into removing Insanity means that the Wizards / Sorcerers become overpowered, relative to the abilities of everyone else. You have to make them spend a 7th level slot to heal this particular curse.
OK so why bother having specific named spells with specific mechanics? Just say that guy's a level 7 wizard so his spell has strength 7+d6, my guy's a level 3 wizard so my spell has strength 3+d6, we make our rolls and the explanation of what happens (he bewitches my mate to make him insane and I try to dispel it) is purely flavour? That's no less objective, no less easy to be fair about (in fact it gives me far fewer avenues to try and bullshit you), but it doesn't require us to go memorize a textbook's worth of spell names and interactions.
Think about how you as a DM resolve non-combat conflicts in D&D - I want to persude the King's council to do this, another party member wants to blackmail the chancellor to vote against me - something that's a far more interesting part of most RPG games than "the party kills all the orcs". Why isn't that worth simulating in all this mechanical detail? Or is it that simulating it in such detail wouldn't actually enhance the experience? Then why not treat combat the same way?
> The story must go on. You either decide that you want it ill specified (ie: whoever improvs the best gets the decision), or you have a rulebook that carefully lays out the interactions.
> You don't have to know the interactions. Simply knowledge that millions of other players have come across this game, and have likely already come across this situation and have analyzed the rules + made a decision is enough.
You need a way to resolve conflicts. But that doesn't need to be some kind of zillion-layer spell simulation game (and in fact I'd argue that that just lends itself to its own kind of bullshitting, where people find ways to do things like the peasant railgun or locate city nuke).
> Going back to the top. Insanity is 7th level and is explicitly stated that only 7th level spells and above (like Limited Wish) can remove it. Trying to bullshit a 3rd level spell (Dispel Magic) into removing Insanity means that the Wizards / Sorcerers become overpowered, relative to the abilities of everyone else. You have to make them spend a 7th level slot to heal this particular curse.
OK so why bother having specific named spells with specific mechanics? Just say that guy's a level 7 wizard so his spell has strength 7+d6, my guy's a level 3 wizard so my spell has strength 3+d6, we make our rolls and the explanation of what happens (he bewitches my mate to make him insane and I try to dispel it) is purely flavour? That's no less objective, no less easy to be fair about (in fact it gives me far fewer avenues to try and bullshit you), but it doesn't require us to go memorize a textbook's worth of spell names and interactions.
Think about how you as a DM resolve non-combat conflicts in D&D - I want to persude the King's council to do this, another party member wants to blackmail the chancellor to vote against me - something that's a far more interesting part of most RPG games than "the party kills all the orcs". Why isn't that worth simulating in all this mechanical detail? Or is it that simulating it in such detail wouldn't actually enhance the experience? Then why not treat combat the same way?
> like the peasant railgun
Which doesn't exist in the game. When the last peasant lets go of the object, it falls to the grown on the same square as the peasant.
It only becomes "bullshit", when the improv player comes in and argues that because the object traveled 500-squares in less than 5-seconds, it must be going at X speed or Y momentum and carries forward.
But that's just bullshit. There's nothing in 3.5 that discusses "momentum", or "acceleration". It is "It is a move action to hand an object to another player". That's the rule.
People who mess with shenanigans are the problem, including peasant railgunners.
Which doesn't exist in the game. When the last peasant lets go of the object, it falls to the grown on the same square as the peasant.
It only becomes "bullshit", when the improv player comes in and argues that because the object traveled 500-squares in less than 5-seconds, it must be going at X speed or Y momentum and carries forward.
But that's just bullshit. There's nothing in 3.5 that discusses "momentum", or "acceleration". It is "It is a move action to hand an object to another player". That's the rule.
People who mess with shenanigans are the problem, including peasant railgunners.
Some games indeed take the approach you suggest. It's just that D&D has convinced its fan base that you need lots of names, details and complications.
> Think about how you as a DM resolve non-combat conflicts in D&D - I want to persude the King's council to do this
If your players are anything like my players, they'll cast Dominate Person on the King's Council. I'll have to note with them that the King's Council are elite and therefore expected to have Mind Blank, offering them immunity to their attempts.
They can work with persuasion, but if they are under the effect of Glibness, the King's Wizard would be able to see Glibness as an aura. The King's Paladin may use Zone of Truth to counteract the effects of Glibness, or maybe point out Glibness as "cheating" in the King's Court.
(Mind Blank doesn't help vs Glibness. Glibness simply makes the party's Bard's lies more believable. Its not an actual enchantment upon the King's Court, but instead a "buff" given to the Bard. So additional levels of security for the King's Guard are needed.)
As such, the battle of spells, trust, and other such interactions becomes a game. How well have the players prepared for the social encounter? Are they trying to use spells to "cheat"? How are the king's guards, Wizards, and Clerics trying to prevent the cheating?
Should I let the players get away with cheating? Well, I don't decide. I let the dice decide. As well as the rules that the game are around.
------------
Maybe the party is able to successfully hide the Glibness through some means. If they thought through their attempts to +40 Bluff check to convince the King's court of their intentions, I will grant them the +40 bluff check.
But if their Glibness / attempts at cheating are discovered, I'll grant a heavy penalty (-15) to their interactions for the rest of court.
-------
Players _WILL_ attempt to cheat (aka: use a spell to "solve") social encounters. This is just part of the game, and part of the fun. Are you, the dungeon master, ready to offer them a proper game of wits and preparation?
> OK so why bother having specific named spells with specific mechanics? Just say that guy's a level 7 wizard so his spell has strength 7+d6, my guy's a level 3 wizard so my spell has strength 3+d6, we make our rolls and the explanation of what happens (he bewitches my mate to make him insane and I try to dispel it) is purely flavour? That's no less objective, no less easy to be fair about (in fact it gives me far fewer avenues to try and bullshit you), but it doesn't require us to go memorize a textbook's worth of spell names and interactions.
Notice the above interactions. Glibness, despite level 3, avoids the Mind Blank preparation. Mind Blank does protect vs the more direct forms of enchantment (ex: Suggestion, Dominate Person, Geass), but it isn't a complete defense for the King's guard.
Of course, maybe the King's Dragon simply casts Anti-magic field and negates all magical preparations for the encountrer.
Note that Artifacts (aka: items from god) are immune vs mortal magic, and are one able to avoid the effects of Anti-magic field. This is where the DM has an opportunity to override the rules of the system and provide a story. (You can, at any time, "win the bullshit" fest by declaring an item a special artifact).
But you want to ensure that if you ever do declare a god-level artifact in play, that the players "saw it coming" to an extent (foreshadowing), or otherwise works in your story.
This is far more tactical, and even story-driven, than rolling a d6 and saying "my dice was higher than yours therefore I win".
---------
A skilled DM will also do this when its story-appropriate. I would _NEVER_ have an Orc-King's court pull these shenanigans (outside of maybe one Half-Orc Cleric who the players would be familiar with). But the opposite problem may happen, the Orc-King, upon losing an argument to skill alone, may claim the adventurers were cheating at the argument/debate through magic and it'd be up to the players to prove (to a non-magical being) that they were in fact, not using magic.
Etc. etc.
With skill, you can setup good stories more easily through these interactions.
If your players are anything like my players, they'll cast Dominate Person on the King's Council. I'll have to note with them that the King's Council are elite and therefore expected to have Mind Blank, offering them immunity to their attempts.
They can work with persuasion, but if they are under the effect of Glibness, the King's Wizard would be able to see Glibness as an aura. The King's Paladin may use Zone of Truth to counteract the effects of Glibness, or maybe point out Glibness as "cheating" in the King's Court.
(Mind Blank doesn't help vs Glibness. Glibness simply makes the party's Bard's lies more believable. Its not an actual enchantment upon the King's Court, but instead a "buff" given to the Bard. So additional levels of security for the King's Guard are needed.)
As such, the battle of spells, trust, and other such interactions becomes a game. How well have the players prepared for the social encounter? Are they trying to use spells to "cheat"? How are the king's guards, Wizards, and Clerics trying to prevent the cheating?
Should I let the players get away with cheating? Well, I don't decide. I let the dice decide. As well as the rules that the game are around.
------------
Maybe the party is able to successfully hide the Glibness through some means. If they thought through their attempts to +40 Bluff check to convince the King's court of their intentions, I will grant them the +40 bluff check.
But if their Glibness / attempts at cheating are discovered, I'll grant a heavy penalty (-15) to their interactions for the rest of court.
-------
Players _WILL_ attempt to cheat (aka: use a spell to "solve") social encounters. This is just part of the game, and part of the fun. Are you, the dungeon master, ready to offer them a proper game of wits and preparation?
> OK so why bother having specific named spells with specific mechanics? Just say that guy's a level 7 wizard so his spell has strength 7+d6, my guy's a level 3 wizard so my spell has strength 3+d6, we make our rolls and the explanation of what happens (he bewitches my mate to make him insane and I try to dispel it) is purely flavour? That's no less objective, no less easy to be fair about (in fact it gives me far fewer avenues to try and bullshit you), but it doesn't require us to go memorize a textbook's worth of spell names and interactions.
Notice the above interactions. Glibness, despite level 3, avoids the Mind Blank preparation. Mind Blank does protect vs the more direct forms of enchantment (ex: Suggestion, Dominate Person, Geass), but it isn't a complete defense for the King's guard.
Of course, maybe the King's Dragon simply casts Anti-magic field and negates all magical preparations for the encountrer.
Note that Artifacts (aka: items from god) are immune vs mortal magic, and are one able to avoid the effects of Anti-magic field. This is where the DM has an opportunity to override the rules of the system and provide a story. (You can, at any time, "win the bullshit" fest by declaring an item a special artifact).
But you want to ensure that if you ever do declare a god-level artifact in play, that the players "saw it coming" to an extent (foreshadowing), or otherwise works in your story.
This is far more tactical, and even story-driven, than rolling a d6 and saying "my dice was higher than yours therefore I win".
---------
A skilled DM will also do this when its story-appropriate. I would _NEVER_ have an Orc-King's court pull these shenanigans (outside of maybe one Half-Orc Cleric who the players would be familiar with). But the opposite problem may happen, the Orc-King, upon losing an argument to skill alone, may claim the adventurers were cheating at the argument/debate through magic and it'd be up to the players to prove (to a non-magical being) that they were in fact, not using magic.
Etc. etc.
With skill, you can setup good stories more easily through these interactions.
I think there's a third position, the one I hold:
I've zero interest in LARP'ing or "acting" my role, but also zero interest in crunchy stats-heavy combat. I prefer light adventures with fast paced combat where not every fart is regulated by a chart. A Frostgrave level of complexity is about right for me; or Risus.
I do find narrative experimental games such as Trophy Dark appealing, but they may require too much from players.
I've zero interest in LARP'ing or "acting" my role, but also zero interest in crunchy stats-heavy combat. I prefer light adventures with fast paced combat where not every fart is regulated by a chart. A Frostgrave level of complexity is about right for me; or Risus.
I do find narrative experimental games such as Trophy Dark appealing, but they may require too much from players.
I had a strong negative reaction to 4e without having consumed any media that would have primed me to dislike it.
It felt like it was designed by people who thought the kids are playing World of Warcraft instead of D&D, and tried to design a game that would appeal to them with similar party roles and a layout of cards in front of you that perhaps would remind you of a WoW inventory with all its timers. The problem with that while the same people might want to play both a table-top RPGs session and raid night, they don't like them for the same reasons.
5e's approach was much smarter: simplify a few annoying things (like level 1 damage), tweak the design and add a bunch of cool stuff, but otherwise just let D&D be D&D and lean on marketing the aesthetic/nostalgia and the ability to play without needing to find someone local to teach it to you and your friends.
It felt like it was designed by people who thought the kids are playing World of Warcraft instead of D&D, and tried to design a game that would appeal to them with similar party roles and a layout of cards in front of you that perhaps would remind you of a WoW inventory with all its timers. The problem with that while the same people might want to play both a table-top RPGs session and raid night, they don't like them for the same reasons.
5e's approach was much smarter: simplify a few annoying things (like level 1 damage), tweak the design and add a bunch of cool stuff, but otherwise just let D&D be D&D and lean on marketing the aesthetic/nostalgia and the ability to play without needing to find someone local to teach it to you and your friends.
[deleted]
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.
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.
Magician is not a class in D&D
That's what very good illusionists want you to think.
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")
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")
If we go back to old school AD&D... from the Player's Handbook (1e) the class titles for a Magic-User were:
1. Medium
2. Seer
3. Conjurer
4. Theurgist
5. Thaumaturgist
6. Magician
7. Enchanter
8. Warlock
9. Sorcerer
10. Necromancer
11. Wizard
12+ Wizard (nth level)
...
16. Wizard (16th level or Mage)
17. Wizard (17th level)
18. Wizard (18th level or Arch-Mage)
sure .. but you'll note that he says a 15th level magician .. no such thing ;) Also I played a fuckton of AD&D .. i don't think anyone has ever used a class title in actual play that I know of.
[deleted]
It has enabled developers to freely use the mechanics that make up much of the DnD - the "game engine" so to speak: the attribute system, levels, skills, classes, and so on - without paying license fees. The consequence of this is that franchises like Pathfinder now have to pay license fees for these mechanics. The consequence is that video games set in this universe [1] now have to pay liceses to WotC.
I assume these games will just slightly tweak the formula: use D30s instead of D20, change some class names, and so on. It's exceptionally hard to robustly copyright and enforce mathematics, but WotC's lawyers probably pose a significant enough threat to scare away developers.
1. for example: https://www.gog.com/en/game/pathfinder_kingmaker_explorer_ed...
I assume these games will just slightly tweak the formula: use D30s instead of D20, change some class names, and so on. It's exceptionally hard to robustly copyright and enforce mathematics, but WotC's lawyers probably pose a significant enough threat to scare away developers.
1. for example: https://www.gog.com/en/game/pathfinder_kingmaker_explorer_ed...
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.
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.
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?
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?
> So you can't have a spell called "arcane missile" that does 1d4 damage every 2 levels of the caster?
I think you can. I don't think copyright covers gameplay mechanisms, it just covers the actual text of the rules. As long as you don't copy the actual text describing D&D's arcane missile, you can have it in your game. But IANAL.
I think you can. I don't think copyright covers gameplay mechanisms, it just covers the actual text of the rules. As long as you don't copy the actual text describing D&D's arcane missile, you can have it in your game. But IANAL.
I think for a single spell there's fairly little you'd need to modify (just the actual text of the description, and changing unique names). Not even changing damage dice.
The problem is making a whole spellbook with a one-to-one correspondence to WoTC's spellbook, even if each of those entries has been modified. The spellbook is more than just a bunch of separate spells - it's a collection carefully designed for balanced gameplay and has protection in itself. See [1] for one way that "compilations" can be treated as having more rights.
The EU also allows copyright of databases [2], and I think the spell list meets the criteria.
And don't forget you'd also be doing the same thing with races, classes, equipment, monsters, conditions, deities, feats, blah blah blah. Put together I think it's pretty likely to be infringing somewhere! Certainly enough that a lawsuit isn't getting dismissed.
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX...
The problem is making a whole spellbook with a one-to-one correspondence to WoTC's spellbook, even if each of those entries has been modified. The spellbook is more than just a bunch of separate spells - it's a collection carefully designed for balanced gameplay and has protection in itself. See [1] for one way that "compilations" can be treated as having more rights.
The EU also allows copyright of databases [2], and I think the spell list meets the criteria.
And don't forget you'd also be doing the same thing with races, classes, equipment, monsters, conditions, deities, feats, blah blah blah. Put together I think it's pretty likely to be infringing somewhere! Certainly enough that a lawsuit isn't getting dismissed.
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX...
Not a lawyer, but my understanding last I looked into it was that names and rules cannot be copyrighted (names can be trademarked though). In very limited cases a novel mechanic could be patented (famously MTG 'tapping' of cards). The issue overall is that no one wants to risk it in court, so there's no recent precedent to take inspiration from.
> Not a lawyer, but my understanding last I looked into it was that names and rules cannot be copyrighted (names can be trademarked though)
That's what the person you're replying to wrote.
That's what the person you're replying to wrote.
Interestingly, I got a conclusive answer to this question when working at S2 on Heroes of Newerth.
The CEO accidentally CC'ed me (he meant to CC Sean, not Shawn) on a letter from Valve's lawyer threatening us with legal action for copying Beastmaster's mechanics. They had a side-by-side of ours (https://hon.fandom.com/wiki/Tundra) vs theirs (https://dota2.fandom.com/wiki/Beastmaster), and pointed out that the mechanics were identical.
It was very surprising. So the answer is "Maybe not, but that won't stop companies from threatening to sue you." Or "Maybe it is, and companies will threaten to sue you." No one really knows, since it hasn't been tested in court.
The CEO accidentally CC'ed me (he meant to CC Sean, not Shawn) on a letter from Valve's lawyer threatening us with legal action for copying Beastmaster's mechanics. They had a side-by-side of ours (https://hon.fandom.com/wiki/Tundra) vs theirs (https://dota2.fandom.com/wiki/Beastmaster), and pointed out that the mechanics were identical.
It was very surprising. So the answer is "Maybe not, but that won't stop companies from threatening to sue you." Or "Maybe it is, and companies will threaten to sue you." No one really knows, since it hasn't been tested in court.
Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's the text itself that's copyrighteable. So you can definitely use the same die rolls or whatever as long as you significantly paraphrase.
Spells and classes names cannot be used if they are trademarked, right? But if WotC didn't trademark "fireball", "paladin" or "hobgoblin", you can totally use them.
Spells and classes names cannot be used if they are trademarked, right? But if WotC didn't trademark "fireball", "paladin" or "hobgoblin", you can totally use them.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
So not being a lawyer and not giving legal advice, to me this seems to say that as someone producing something with OGL1.0, "you MAY replace it with a newer, authorized version" means that if you don't, the old version stays, or goes away entirely ? I,e. you then may decide to use another new fresh license of your own choosing ? Or it becomes unlicensed ?
Because if there is a requirement that at anytime an authorized version were to be used, wouldn't the language needed be "you MUST replace it with a newer, authorized version" ?
Because if there is a requirement that at anytime an authorized version were to be used, wouldn't the language needed be "you MUST replace it with a newer, authorized version" ?
I don't read that as "we can revoke this retroactively on anything, even non-WoTC games" but I guess the lawyers will hash it out.
The OGL 1.1 license (according to the leaked draft/text) explicitly says that OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized license.
The 1.1 license is clear that any content using SRD (System Reference Document) content will be in violation unless they update to the 1.1 license (and thus comply with either OGL 1.1 Commercial, OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial, or the Fan Content license).
The situation around non-SRD OGL content is murkier.
The 1.1 license is clear that any content using SRD (System Reference Document) content will be in violation unless they update to the 1.1 license (and thus comply with either OGL 1.1 Commercial, OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial, or the Fan Content license).
The situation around non-SRD OGL content is murkier.
> How so, if they're not using WotC IP?
The concern is that changing that making OGL 1.0a unauthorized (has this already happened to 1.0?) has the effect banning further use of it with new works derived from works originally licensed under it or OGL 1.0 under the terms of ant OGL version (this relies on the any authorized version clause being seen as restrictive, not permissive.)
Its theoretically fixable for non-WotC dependent content, if everyone upstream relicenses under different terms starting from the root, but that's not going to help where creators are out of touch or license compatibility led to WotC content cross pollinating.
The concern is that changing that making OGL 1.0a unauthorized (has this already happened to 1.0?) has the effect banning further use of it with new works derived from works originally licensed under it or OGL 1.0 under the terms of ant OGL version (this relies on the any authorized version clause being seen as restrictive, not permissive.)
Its theoretically fixable for non-WotC dependent content, if everyone upstream relicenses under different terms starting from the root, but that's not going to help where creators are out of touch or license compatibility led to WotC content cross pollinating.
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?
I don't see how Wizards can "revoke" the OGL retroactively.
I really don't see how they can "revoke" the OGL on non-WoTC games.
Maybe Wizbro is mad that they're not getting any of the money that youtube and roll20 are taking in, but pulling a Nintendo seems completely counterproductive, since youtube and streamers are basically advertising D&D and helping newcomers learn how to play the game, and roll20 expands the group of players who can play (and also enabled groups to continue - or start - during the pandemic!)
I really don't see how they can "revoke" the OGL on non-WoTC games.
Maybe Wizbro is mad that they're not getting any of the money that youtube and roll20 are taking in, but pulling a Nintendo seems completely counterproductive, since youtube and streamers are basically advertising D&D and helping newcomers learn how to play the game, and roll20 expands the group of players who can play (and also enabled groups to continue - or start - during the pandemic!)
OGL 1.0a:
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.
This clause doesn't grant updated versions the authority to deauthorize prior versions.
> affects video (like Critical Role's Legends of Vox Machina)
I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :) While we know that the origins of the show is in DnD there is nothing in it they could claim copyright over. It is the same as if a shower manufacturer would like to claim an idea I had while showering.
And while the CR team is quite small next to Hasbro, they have Amazon Studios as a producer who could probably lend them firepower.
I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :) While we know that the origins of the show is in DnD there is nothing in it they could claim copyright over. It is the same as if a shower manufacturer would like to claim an idea I had while showering.
And while the CR team is quite small next to Hasbro, they have Amazon Studios as a producer who could probably lend them firepower.
CR Campaign 1 was on Pathfinder until they started trying to broadcast. You can see in the first few episodes how they struggle with remembering that the rules are different, Taliesen Jaffe ended up with a completely custom class because nothing mapped.
The hunter also keeps thinking that her pet is useful, which apparently is a thing in PF, but is definitely not in 5e.
As for:
> I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :)
They are already getting a bite of that apple. It's called free advertising, which they've been getting for almost 10 years now and all of the attendant profits from people trying to start their own Critical Role and buying models and books to go along with it.
And in the case of CR, they're also the publishers for some books based on CR, which means they're getting royalties from that as well.
I said this is double-dipping, but it's triple-dipping. It's just greed. Of the same sort we often have to deal with here, where something is done to build a community and then the bean counters try to figure out how to maximize profits. This isn't just bad for WotC or RPGs, things like this continue to set precedents that every company is lying to you and any outreach project is just about getting free labor.
The hunter also keeps thinking that her pet is useful, which apparently is a thing in PF, but is definitely not in 5e.
As for:
> I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :)
They are already getting a bite of that apple. It's called free advertising, which they've been getting for almost 10 years now and all of the attendant profits from people trying to start their own Critical Role and buying models and books to go along with it.
And in the case of CR, they're also the publishers for some books based on CR, which means they're getting royalties from that as well.
I said this is double-dipping, but it's triple-dipping. It's just greed. Of the same sort we often have to deal with here, where something is done to build a community and then the bean counters try to figure out how to maximize profits. This isn't just bad for WotC or RPGs, things like this continue to set precedents that every company is lying to you and any outreach project is just about getting free labor.
They don't call it by name, but the prominent and frequent use of the Bigby's Hand spell seems like a vulnerability. My understanding is that WOTC defends their IP rights to the spells with specific characters' names attached (Tenser's, Bigby's, etc.)
They will have a proper licensing agreement of their own that WotC will be happy to amend with pretty much whatever, given the crazy marketing value they have.
You can't revoke a license. Any change in the OGL will affect new products, not what was already made.
You can if it's argued that the license was revocable, or forced to use new licenses. That's why everyone is angry, it's vague and who can afford to fight Hasbro in court when they use the vagueness to start a bully campaign against smaller creators first?
You can't revoke it but the question is whether it can affect future redistribution of pre-existing derivatives. The license appears to say so, but even if it does it may not be legal and thus would be voided.
Yeah, I understand it's complicated, but there is already a lot of FUD in the world about what copyright and licensing mean. The WotC/OGL discussion deserves a sober discussion by people who understand copyright and licensing, not going along with the fever emanating from places like Twitter.
> Note that some of these (e.g. Pathfinder) make use of the D&D base rules and setting
Pathfinder does not use Forgotten Realms or any other WotC setting, afaik.
And Pathfinder 2nd edition is no longer based on the D&D rules.
Pathfinder does not use Forgotten Realms or any other WotC setting, afaik.
And Pathfinder 2nd edition is no longer based on the D&D rules.
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.
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.
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.
> Are they actually trying to revoke the previous version? I do not know, which is why I ask; honest question.
Apparently they are. There is some uncertainty about their right to do so. The few lawyers opinions I have read tend to say they probably don’t but it’s not entirely clear cut. Someone would have to go to court for it to be ascertained but I doubt anyone wants to fight Hasbro for some old content generating no revenue.
Apparently they are. There is some uncertainty about their right to do so. The few lawyers opinions I have read tend to say they probably don’t but it’s not entirely clear cut. Someone would have to go to court for it to be ascertained but I doubt anyone wants to fight Hasbro for some old content generating no revenue.
Not to mention that it is incredibly expensive in the U.S. to get a court case to a point where it creates binding precedent - and arguably there is no such thing in the modern political environment. So even if every single case is won or settled largely in favor of independent content creators, there will still be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect on the entire scene, especially on creators whose works would require essentially-from-scratch rewrites to use a different system.
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.
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.
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.
FWIW Pazio would probably have enough money to bring this up for litigation. Still, a crappy position to be in.
Thank you, to you and the others. That makes this make a lot more sense.
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.
> which at least to my open source license not-a-lawyer read says that they basically can't revoke it.
Its complicated.
The general law of gratuitous licenses (in the US) is that they are revocable at will; terms of the license do not overcome this. Whether the restrictions in a license like this are limitations on the permissions it grants (leaving it gratuitous) or consideration in exchange for permissions (making it a license contract) is not always an easy question.
Further, even if things for which the license has already been uses might be protected, the license text is an offer, and the offer can be withdrawn. This is important, because the OGL 1.0a isn’t sublicensable; every new user making a new work directly licenses all ancestor works under it, rather than sublicensing through the immediate parent.
But, even to the extent it is recovable, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may limit the effect on parties who have already reasonably relied on the promise of irrevocability.
Its complicated.
The general law of gratuitous licenses (in the US) is that they are revocable at will; terms of the license do not overcome this. Whether the restrictions in a license like this are limitations on the permissions it grants (leaving it gratuitous) or consideration in exchange for permissions (making it a license contract) is not always an easy question.
Further, even if things for which the license has already been uses might be protected, the license text is an offer, and the offer can be withdrawn. This is important, because the OGL 1.0a isn’t sublicensable; every new user making a new work directly licenses all ancestor works under it, rather than sublicensing through the immediate parent.
But, even to the extent it is recovable, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may limit the effect on parties who have already reasonably relied on the promise of irrevocability.
Yeah, they explicitly had that FAQ on the OGL with stated that it was in WotC's best interest never to make a worse OGL since if they did that people would always be free to use a prior version, as explicitly stated in the license - that sure sounds like a promise. It also sounds like a description of their interpretation of the contract, which is also relevent.
The OGL does explicitly use the phrase "in consideration for", which you'd hope would make this non-gratuitous. Then again, IANAL.
The OGL does explicitly use the phrase "in consideration for", which you'd hope would make this non-gratuitous. Then again, IANAL.
Part of the leaked 1.1 states that 1.0a is explicitly no longer "authorized"
They are going to "revoke" that license in the way that you will no longer be able to sell content with that license in the stores they control (which are all of the ones that matter).
Oh, so this is retroactively re-licensing existing stuff? That's bad.
[deleted]
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 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 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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
But they don't need to update the license they use, right? So the other games can just issue their existing and current material with the existing license and it's all good?
So, the exact wording of the license includes a clause saying you can distribute under "any authorized version" of the OGL.
I dont think people expected wizard's to try and interpretation that as something they can try and revoke. But they are trying and it might go to court.
I dont think people expected wizard's to try and interpretation that as something they can try and revoke. But they are trying and it might go to court.
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?
Other communities were also concerned about the core team trying to take control of the system/assets. The Fate core folks specifically went with OGL to allay those concerns.
Fate Core is dual-licensed under the OGL and CC-BY. https://www.faterpg.com/licensing/licensing-fate-cc-by/
So are you saying the license is good (or so they thought) for third-parties making modules or content for any OGL-licensed game?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
It'd be crazy.
> 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.
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.
Sounds like the space is ready for development of an open framework that doesn't rely on corporate approval.
"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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I imagine the logic was that someone at Hasbro saw Critical Role, Dimension 20, etc making millions and felt it was "unfair" they're not getting any money.
But there's a quote attributed to Bill Gates that feels relevant here: "A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it."
DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long term will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to "optimize" their revenue right now.
But there's a quote attributed to Bill Gates that feels relevant here: "A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it."
DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long term will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to "optimize" their revenue right now.
But Critical Role is also great advertisement. If Hasbro goes after them, Critical Role can just switch to another system and give them free advertisement instead. I guarantee that every single RPG creator would love for Critical Role to pick their system.
I think Critical Role is in no danger of them “going after” them as there are officially licensed Critical Role books and miniatures.
I’d imagine they’re wanting to get a cut of whatever money Paizo, and Kobold Gaming Press, or the D&D miniatures and books kickstarters that regularly raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I’d imagine they’re wanting to get a cut of whatever money Paizo, and Kobold Gaming Press, or the D&D miniatures and books kickstarters that regularly raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I think the primary target is VTTs serving D&D 5e gameplay systems as an alternative to their planned 6e microtransaction machine in their upcoming OneD&D/D&D Beyond VTT. They want to sell classes and feats and spells etc. to players as microtransactions and justify it with 3d models and animations, but at that price many players would opt to forgot the 3d content for a system where they didn't have to pay... unless Wizards manage to prevent that system existing.
As a secondary target, getting a cut of Paizo's revenue is something I imagine Wizards like the idea of, but was not the primary goal.
Critical Role will probably just get a plain royalty free license for use in their main show as a side deal for the amount it promotes the game.
As a secondary target, getting a cut of Paizo's revenue is something I imagine Wizards like the idea of, but was not the primary goal.
Critical Role will probably just get a plain royalty free license for use in their main show as a side deal for the amount it promotes the game.
If anything, this might put their partnership with Critical Role at risk.
Oh I 100% agree. This is lose-lose for Hasbro (either people pay and are angry, or leave), and there's no way they ultimately make more with these rules than without them.
> DnD is a platform now. That's really cool for them, and long term will benefit them a ton, even if they aren't able to "optimize" their revenue right now.
Assuming they don't tank their platform, which it very much looks like right now.
Assuming they don't tank their platform, which it very much looks like right now.
Absolutely nothing was stopping wotc from getting a bunch of actors in a room and paying them to play with someone like jeremy crawford on twitch...
Ah so this is why my hobby open-source project of 6+ years has been getting a surge in traffic :) https://github.com/opendnd
Totally unrelated to this of course, but very cool to see all the same. The OGL has been a cornerstone of innovation in this space and without it a lot of us would be dead in the water.
Totally unrelated to this of course, but very cool to see all the same. The OGL has been a cornerstone of innovation in this space and without it a lot of us would be dead in the water.
name should probably change so you don't get sued. am not a lawyer though. (cool project btw)
I was a tabletop gamer for 25 years before I played my first sit-down D&D session. GURPS, Paranoia, Cyberpunk 2020, WHFRP, TOON, Amber, World of Darkness...you name it. To say, "Wizards of the Coast wants to dismantle the tabletop industry," feels like hyperbole when there's a rich history of alternatives, but I sympathize with the content creators. There's a cultural battle as much as there is a commercial one being waged here.
That said you gotta be _asleep_ to not see the tightening of the reins coming from these mega-companies sitting on fertile creative IP. Marvel Cinematic Universe only made — what? — $28B worldwide while making Rocket-fucking-Raccoon a household name. Games Workshop put the screws to content creators leading to the launch of Warhammer+ and r/grimdank is still hitting the front page of Reddit. Not to mention Uber-nerd Henry Cavill is hooking up with Amazon to bring 40K to streaming.
The strategy works and I suspect it's driven entirely by folks — all grown up and with deep pockets — thirsty to see their marginalized childhood hobbies hit the mainstream. I'm conflicted. As much as I want to say, "Fuck WotC. Fuck Games Workshop" there's visceral appeal in hoping for good Drizzt Do'Urden movie or the Drop Site Massacre becoming as much a cultural touchstone as the The Red Wedding.
That said you gotta be _asleep_ to not see the tightening of the reins coming from these mega-companies sitting on fertile creative IP. Marvel Cinematic Universe only made — what? — $28B worldwide while making Rocket-fucking-Raccoon a household name. Games Workshop put the screws to content creators leading to the launch of Warhammer+ and r/grimdank is still hitting the front page of Reddit. Not to mention Uber-nerd Henry Cavill is hooking up with Amazon to bring 40K to streaming.
The strategy works and I suspect it's driven entirely by folks — all grown up and with deep pockets — thirsty to see their marginalized childhood hobbies hit the mainstream. I'm conflicted. As much as I want to say, "Fuck WotC. Fuck Games Workshop" there's visceral appeal in hoping for good Drizzt Do'Urden movie or the Drop Site Massacre becoming as much a cultural touchstone as the The Red Wedding.
I can't express just how much I want the Horus Heresy saga to receive the high-production-value HBO/Netflix/Amazon treatment. The animated content on Warhammer+ is good and all, but that would be a dream.
What? Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie wasn't enough for you?
I kid. Every 40K fan wants this, but it almost feels like hubris to hope it actually happens. I have to wonder if the Amazon deal[1] is Games Workshop's attempt to get out of the streaming business. Nothing coming out of Warhammer+ is breaking out of the core fanbase; I couldn't fathom suggesting to anyone not familiar with the universe, "Yo, you got to checkout this show The Exodite."
My guess is GW is falling back to its comfort zone of licensing IP: "Amazon Studios today announced that it has secured global rights to Warhammer 40,000...The agreement encompasses rights to the universe across series, film, and more..."[2] When you have two producers from Vertigo Entertainment, one of which happens to be dating Henry Cavill, brokering an escape hatch I'm sure they were, "Yes, please."
My guess is we're going to see Eisenhorn first[3] which feels like a far more approachable introduction to the setting anyways.
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/henry-cavill-wa... [2] https://www.warhammer-community.com/press_releases/amazon-st... [3] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/warhammer-tv-se...
I kid. Every 40K fan wants this, but it almost feels like hubris to hope it actually happens. I have to wonder if the Amazon deal[1] is Games Workshop's attempt to get out of the streaming business. Nothing coming out of Warhammer+ is breaking out of the core fanbase; I couldn't fathom suggesting to anyone not familiar with the universe, "Yo, you got to checkout this show The Exodite."
My guess is GW is falling back to its comfort zone of licensing IP: "Amazon Studios today announced that it has secured global rights to Warhammer 40,000...The agreement encompasses rights to the universe across series, film, and more..."[2] When you have two producers from Vertigo Entertainment, one of which happens to be dating Henry Cavill, brokering an escape hatch I'm sure they were, "Yes, please."
My guess is we're going to see Eisenhorn first[3] which feels like a far more approachable introduction to the setting anyways.
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/henry-cavill-wa... [2] https://www.warhammer-community.com/press_releases/amazon-st... [3] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/warhammer-tv-se...
WotC CEO and president Cynthia Williams was on the record as saying that the DnD brand is under monetized. https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news...
Hasbro CEO, also the former WoTC CEO, has ramped up monetization of the Magic the Gathering brand significantly in recent years, partly at the expense of cashing in on the secondary market.
WoTC choking the OGL is consistent with them looking to pump up their profits.
Hasbro CEO, also the former WoTC CEO, has ramped up monetization of the Magic the Gathering brand significantly in recent years, partly at the expense of cashing in on the secondary market.
WoTC choking the OGL is consistent with them looking to pump up their profits.
I used to play MtG back in the early 90's, but got out because I needed money for college books, not cards.
My son got interested recently through some friends and I started looking about getting him into it around the time WotC released the $1000 old-school proxy packs. Needless to say, it turned me off.
My son got interested recently through some friends and I started looking about getting him into it around the time WotC released the $1000 old-school proxy packs. Needless to say, it turned me off.
It’s not like TSR were the good guys either. I wrote off DnD until CR precisely because it has a reputation of being owned by assholes. They just slowed down for a while but here we are again
Habro is being pressured by outside investors to increase revenue from their Wizards division or spin it off.
Maybe I'm missing something here but this summary feels pretty FUD-y. WotC has the right to re-license their own content, and we are free to disagree with that decision, but surely they have no legal means to force other creators to switch their own content to the new license version simply because they are using a license text that was drafted by WoTC? Plenty of OSS projects have stuck with GPLv2 in similar circumstances.
And I'm less clear on this point, but are they even able to change the license terms under which third-parties have used WotC content that was already published under the old license? Couldn't these third parties continue using the existing content so long as they forgo new additions which are published under the more restrictive license? Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?
And I'm less clear on this point, but are they even able to change the license terms under which third-parties have used WotC content that was already published under the old license? Couldn't these third parties continue using the existing content so long as they forgo new additions which are published under the more restrictive license? Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?
> Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?
It depends entirely on your definition of "can".
If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. If you mean, is this action supported by WotC's own historic interpretation of their own license, then no. If you mean, can they force the hand of smaller creators by threat of litigation, then certainly they can.
It depends entirely on your definition of "can".
If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. If you mean, is this action supported by WotC's own historic interpretation of their own license, then no. If you mean, can they force the hand of smaller creators by threat of litigation, then certainly they can.
> If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no.
IANAL, but isn't this a situation where smaller companies could band together and sue WoTC for Declaratory Relief [0], even if WoTC hasn't yet sued any of them for continuing to operate under the old license it's trying to revoke under questionable circumstances?
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief
IANAL, but isn't this a situation where smaller companies could band together and sue WoTC for Declaratory Relief [0], even if WoTC hasn't yet sued any of them for continuing to operate under the old license it's trying to revoke under questionable circumstances?
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief
At least one company seems to have asked their lawyers to send a letter[0] to WoTC as discussed in this comment[1] on another HN thread here[2].
The wording giving them 10 days to respond to the questions seems to sound like it's heading towards something like what you suggested?
[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRM...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34272424
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687
The wording giving them 10 days to respond to the questions seems to sound like it's heading towards something like what you suggested?
[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRM...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34272424
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687
Had this question too, can you clarify, so say there is an existing biz that uses some of DnD content like perks or classes; their software is said at v1.0 now, but then they want to include another class from existing DnD 3.5, or some perk, which would bump their release.
Are they now obligated to signup for this new license, or can they just reference the old system version and license, much like a software would??
Worse - the seeming intent of WotC is to effectively cancel the previous version, which mean anything that's already written including v1.0 could no longer be legally distributed or sold.
[deleted]
It's likely that Hasbro and WOTC are betting on the threat of litigation being a meaningful deterrent from actually seeing whether their attempts to retroactively nullify 1.0 holds up.
In general, I agree. I think we're seeing a "hobby" community freak out when the owners of the brand turn away from the "ideals" of the hobby in question. This mainly effects people who are making money using the DnD brand. Something that Hasbro owns. Whether they also own the past of that brand, and can alter its licensing, seems like the real ambiguity that Hasbro are hiding behind the curtain.
In general, I agree. I think we're seeing a "hobby" community freak out when the owners of the brand turn away from the "ideals" of the hobby in question. This mainly effects people who are making money using the DnD brand. Something that Hasbro owns. Whether they also own the past of that brand, and can alter its licensing, seems like the real ambiguity that Hasbro are hiding behind the curtain.
Wizards also pulled the ability for people to download pdfs they already paid for with zero notice before, when they revoked a resellers license. Pretty dick move, and they think they can try and pull that shit again.
Whoa, do you have more sources about this event?
Oh, thanks. Luckily the PDF's in question have been liberated since..
But the people who make money using the current ogl provide lots of value to d&d consumers that wotc simply isn't filling. At the end of the day it's a foot gun.
A nuance: they might not be able to revoke existing OGL 1.0 licenses for anyone that has already used it to publish derivates, but they can likely cancel the offer, even for existing OGL 1.0 content, for anyone that hasn't yet relied on the OGL to ship WotC IP. Which would in turn limit all future derivates to existing OGL 1.0 license holders, which would practically achieve Hasbro's rumored goals.
WotC owns or controls all the places those creators sell their stuff. So they definitely have the economic means to force creators to abandon the old license. They will also probbaly just threaten people with their odd legal interpretation of their actual legal means as well, and plenty of people will comply.
I played D&D for about 27 years, but I never thought it was particularly good. It was just the lingua franca, the kernel a relatively small community could come together around.
I don't think D&D has to be the default tabletop RPG anymore, nor should it be. Partly due to the OGL and its knock-on effects, lots more people entered the community. Maybe they want different things than just a miniatures combat-oriented pastiche of Tolkien, Howard, and Vance. You can publish books more easily, distribute them more easily, market them more easily. I think the tabletop industry could sustain a community without D&D if it had to, and maybe it has to. I wonder if maybe that's a good thing.
WoTC's decision was selfish, tone-deaf, destructive; all that stuff. It will hurt people with existing businesses built around OGL content. That sucks. But, I don't think it will (as this open letter states) dismantle the tabletop industry. On the contrary, I hope it frees it from its dependence on a capricious IP owner with a brittle license. For the players, maybe it frees them from a mediocre system and the most generic, uninteresting fantasy setting ever. There's a lot more out there, maybe this is a good opportunity to explore some of it.
I don't think D&D has to be the default tabletop RPG anymore, nor should it be. Partly due to the OGL and its knock-on effects, lots more people entered the community. Maybe they want different things than just a miniatures combat-oriented pastiche of Tolkien, Howard, and Vance. You can publish books more easily, distribute them more easily, market them more easily. I think the tabletop industry could sustain a community without D&D if it had to, and maybe it has to. I wonder if maybe that's a good thing.
WoTC's decision was selfish, tone-deaf, destructive; all that stuff. It will hurt people with existing businesses built around OGL content. That sucks. But, I don't think it will (as this open letter states) dismantle the tabletop industry. On the contrary, I hope it frees it from its dependence on a capricious IP owner with a brittle license. For the players, maybe it frees them from a mediocre system and the most generic, uninteresting fantasy setting ever. There's a lot more out there, maybe this is a good opportunity to explore some of it.
I agree that D&D doesn't need to be the default tabletop RPG anymore. But you bet I want the freedom to borrow everything I liked from every version of it I played (which doesn't include anything recent, by the way). I want to be able to talk about it online too, hell, even PLAY it online.
And if Hasbro are so desperate to prevent that from happening that they'll call in the shit-flinging lawyers - the kind who don't even try to have a solid argument, they just try to make engaging with them maximally unpleasant to everyone involved - then I will be most pissed with Hasbro.
You too, will have to live in fear of attracting their attention. The whole point of this sort of litigation is that they're signaling, they're not going to be reasonable. Are you SURE you're not infringing in the shit-flinging lawyers' eyes?
That doesn't sound like a good opportunity to explore to me.
And if Hasbro are so desperate to prevent that from happening that they'll call in the shit-flinging lawyers - the kind who don't even try to have a solid argument, they just try to make engaging with them maximally unpleasant to everyone involved - then I will be most pissed with Hasbro.
You too, will have to live in fear of attracting their attention. The whole point of this sort of litigation is that they're signaling, they're not going to be reasonable. Are you SURE you're not infringing in the shit-flinging lawyers' eyes?
That doesn't sound like a good opportunity to explore to me.
I think they actually did a really good job with the 5e rules. I started in 3.5e 15+ years ago. I very strongly dislike 4e. I haven't yet been convinced by any alternatives that the d20 system isn't optimal.
D&D 5th edition obviously has problems but, like other comments say, it is the current "lingua franca" of the space and it's difficult to conceive of any realistic open replacement that isn't essentially just "D&D 5e with some relatively minor tweaks".
D&D 5th edition obviously has problems but, like other comments say, it is the current "lingua franca" of the space and it's difficult to conceive of any realistic open replacement that isn't essentially just "D&D 5e with some relatively minor tweaks".
I agree. Similarly to you I started about 15 years ago with 3.5 and I am pretty satisfied with 5e.
I think the issue is for better or worse D&D is more or less synonymous with Tabletop roleplaying games, especially when you are talking to people outside of the space.
So many of the concepts from D&D from the attribute system (Strength, dexterity Constitution etc.) To the classes (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin and so on) show up all over the place in things like video games etc. At this point I think it's very hard to come up with a fantasy setting and not have it look like somewhat of a D&D clone.
Outside the D&D D20 system I really like the World of Darkness system which is D10 based. I don't think it especially popular though.
I think the issue is for better or worse D&D is more or less synonymous with Tabletop roleplaying games, especially when you are talking to people outside of the space.
So many of the concepts from D&D from the attribute system (Strength, dexterity Constitution etc.) To the classes (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin and so on) show up all over the place in things like video games etc. At this point I think it's very hard to come up with a fantasy setting and not have it look like somewhat of a D&D clone.
Outside the D&D D20 system I really like the World of Darkness system which is D10 based. I don't think it especially popular though.
My understanding is that this also puts the more robust "forks" like Pathfinder at risk.
[deleted]
In another place and time, a similar circumstance is what led Blizzard to unintentionally provide the tools for inspiring the MOBA genre, which spawned League of Legends and DOTA2. That altered games forever. You'll notice few games ship with map editors anymore, and game UGC is very tightly locked down. Blizzard leaders have stated that letting MOBA get away from them was their biggest miss.
D&D is having a similar moment where companies that were built on D&D are becoming bigger than them, and WotC wants to compete more directly now that digital is becoming a priority for TTRPGs. Once you decide to do that, you no longer want to be a platform for your competitor. In a way, this is similar Apple banning apps that directly compete with built-in iOS features. While also an unpopular move, you can hardly blame them.
D&D is having a similar moment where companies that were built on D&D are becoming bigger than them, and WotC wants to compete more directly now that digital is becoming a priority for TTRPGs. Once you decide to do that, you no longer want to be a platform for your competitor. In a way, this is similar Apple banning apps that directly compete with built-in iOS features. While also an unpopular move, you can hardly blame them.
And then Blizzard updated the user agreement (around the Warcraft 3 Reforged), mentioning that all player generated content is owned by the company.
So in case some genius comes with another successful custom map (or whatever), the company has new ideas to work on, for free.
So in case some genius comes with another successful custom map (or whatever), the company has new ideas to work on, for free.
I believe they updated the EULA long before that, but Reforged got a lot of press about it since it represents such a contrast between yesterday's games and today's.
Warcraft 3 mods also launched the tower defense genre
Really hope this doesn't affect OGL 1.0a the way some people are saying it will, particularly regarding non-DnD systems. I've been working on a project for several years that's based on the Cepheus Engine RPG system which was published under OGL 1.0a (as it's based on the Traveller SRD which was also used OGL 1.0a), which requires me to publish under that license as well. Now that's all up in the air, what happens if OGL 1.0a becomes 'unauthorized' in this case? If this ends up killing Cepheus I will have wasted thousands of hours of my time.
The Traveller SRD is (c) Mongoose Publishing. It seems implausible that the OGL 1.0a could be construed to give Hasbro any control over intellectual property that isn't derived from their own. It should be possible for the rights owners to simply relicense Traveller, Fudge, etc. It's Paizo that is in a difficult spot, because their SRD still explicitly references material from Hasbro products.
This is disappointing, but not surprising. I don't play Magic anymore, but it's been clear for years that WotC is prioritizing profit over game health.
Devil's advocate: if they've been doing this for years (and I do agree wholeheartedly with you personally) then has it really been detrimental to game health? Presumably they have metrics indicating positive growth or they wouldn't be pushing in this direction.
Maybe it just means old players like us are no longer the target and it's to the long-term benefit of the game to tell us to pound sand as they have for years.
Maybe it just means old players like us are no longer the target and it's to the long-term benefit of the game to tell us to pound sand as they have for years.
It's a fair question, and one I don't really have the answer to without internal WotC metrics. I really think it depends on how we define "game health" (and whether we, the players, define it the same way that they do).
I'd say the game is healthy if people keep playing, the community grows, the meta isn't stale, and there's still interest in the game. By that metric, the game feels unhealthy to me.
I would _guess_ that WotC is most concerned with overall revenue (and potential for future revenue). I would bet that any reduced player counts have been offset by sales of higher-margin product (so numbers probably look decent right now). But, long term, I think these actions have hurt the brand, so the next product will have to have a higher price to make up for fewer sales.
Of course, I'm just theorizing here. I have no inside info and most of my feelings (especially as a no-longer-player) are driven by what I hear from friends and read online (the latter of which, of course, skews negative).
I'd say the game is healthy if people keep playing, the community grows, the meta isn't stale, and there's still interest in the game. By that metric, the game feels unhealthy to me.
I would _guess_ that WotC is most concerned with overall revenue (and potential for future revenue). I would bet that any reduced player counts have been offset by sales of higher-margin product (so numbers probably look decent right now). But, long term, I think these actions have hurt the brand, so the next product will have to have a higher price to make up for fewer sales.
Of course, I'm just theorizing here. I have no inside info and most of my feelings (especially as a no-longer-player) are driven by what I hear from friends and read online (the latter of which, of course, skews negative).
Also keep in mind the idea that the loudest percentages are not usually representative.
Just because it seems like everyone is leaving WotC properties doesn't mean they actually are.
Just because it seems like everyone is leaving WotC properties doesn't mean they actually are.
Yeah absolutely! Hard to say anything with conviction at this point.
Anecdotally, many friends and I played religiously from middle school through college. Nearly all of them have stopped, most have sold their cards. Of course, we got older/more busy during that time, but we also have more disposable income (and chose not to spend it on cards). So, it certainly feels like my sphere has left, personally.
Anecdotally, many friends and I played religiously from middle school through college. Nearly all of them have stopped, most have sold their cards. Of course, we got older/more busy during that time, but we also have more disposable income (and chose not to spend it on cards). So, it certainly feels like my sphere has left, personally.
It’s strange for me to hear takes like this. I have thousands of dollars in magic cards from the 90s, but stopped playing when I became an adult.
During the pandemic I started playing Arena, and was astonished to discover I could play entirely for free. I haven’t paid them a dime since the last tournament I went to in the 2010s.
As far as I can tell there is a HUGE amount of play on Arena. Presumably someone is paying for that, but it’s not me.
So from my perspective WotC has done the opposite of the money grab they’re accused of.
During the pandemic I started playing Arena, and was astonished to discover I could play entirely for free. I haven’t paid them a dime since the last tournament I went to in the 2010s.
As far as I can tell there is a HUGE amount of play on Arena. Presumably someone is paying for that, but it’s not me.
So from my perspective WotC has done the opposite of the money grab they’re accused of.
Hasbro announced they intended to double revenue in five years, and apparently did it in half that. So you’re right, they are profiting a lot off of the changes they’ve made. It includes things like selling a $1000 “Magic 30th Anniversary” that has 4 beta booster “packs” that have different backs so aren’t legal in any tournament play but otherwise look like the Black Lotus and Moxes that are absurdly expensive now.
I'll be the devil here-- I played a Magic event with my teenage son last year and it was a blast. We're not big collectors, but over the holidays we got some commander decks and I played with my sons.
It's amazing to me that they have kept Magic that relevant and commercial that long. People always complain about "greedy" corporations but guess what? Greedy corporations make the books, movies, video games, board games that you play. If they were failing no one would complain. In these spaces complaints about your motives come with success.
It's amazing to me that they have kept Magic that relevant and commercial that long. People always complain about "greedy" corporations but guess what? Greedy corporations make the books, movies, video games, board games that you play. If they were failing no one would complain. In these spaces complaints about your motives come with success.
That's totally fair! I'm glad you enjoyed it. At its core, Magic is a great game and I really do wish for its success. I just think WotC is compromising the long-term health of the game in the name of short-term profits (which is not unusual in big companies).
> People always complain about "greedy" corporations but guess what? Greedy corporations make the books, movies, video games, board games that you play.
I will push back here a bit - I play a lot of videogames from small-medium size indie studios (I play relatively few AAA videogames anymore) specifically for their perceived lack of greed. Sure, anyone selling a game wants it to be profitable and fund future games, but indies aren't doing so by selling "Gold Editions" of their $70 game that exist purely to squeeze money out of players. Indie devs make a game and hope to be lucky enough that it gets enough press (and good reviews) to bring in revenue.
> People always complain about "greedy" corporations but guess what? Greedy corporations make the books, movies, video games, board games that you play.
I will push back here a bit - I play a lot of videogames from small-medium size indie studios (I play relatively few AAA videogames anymore) specifically for their perceived lack of greed. Sure, anyone selling a game wants it to be profitable and fund future games, but indies aren't doing so by selling "Gold Editions" of their $70 game that exist purely to squeeze money out of players. Indie devs make a game and hope to be lucky enough that it gets enough press (and good reviews) to bring in revenue.
My career has been in video games and I agree that many medium sized studios are not greedy, they probably have higher motives in general. A lot of these projects are made for love not money and stay that way. But there are types of video games that take a lot of money to be made. They would never be made for love, or by a community, because you can't run a creative project on that scale except as a business. There is no open source model for movies, novels or video games in my opinion. You can say those people making games as a business are greedy but in my experience they have pretty similar ethics to people in any business, for better or worse.
Yep, this is an all-too-normal letdown from WotC. They really are trying to milk their franchises, without concern for their longevity. That's too bad.
For me, this is more reason to continue with the D&D 3.5 and pathfinder ecosystems for my RPGs.
For me, this is more reason to continue with the D&D 3.5 and pathfinder ecosystems for my RPGs.
Gosh, yeah, this'll definitely stop all those content creators from doing a find and replace to make their content fit for Pathfinder 2 or any non-OGL-tainted system on the planet.
This might actually do good for tabletop gaming in general, if Hasbro's cancerous behavior causes people to flee their IP and show interest in other things.
I really don't think this is going to work out the way these braindead business executives seem to think it will. People will move their content to a different platform because DnD has never been anything more than a storytelling/content framework.
Hasbro mad cuz community content better than their own. Go back to ruining ponies.
This might actually do good for tabletop gaming in general, if Hasbro's cancerous behavior causes people to flee their IP and show interest in other things.
I really don't think this is going to work out the way these braindead business executives seem to think it will. People will move their content to a different platform because DnD has never been anything more than a storytelling/content framework.
Hasbro mad cuz community content better than their own. Go back to ruining ponies.
I'm so tired of everything remotely like this.
Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs?
Some that would be amenable to making into Computer RPGs.
Some that maybe that would be nearly impossible to automate. (That's fine, too.)
Under some licenses like CC BY / CC BY-SA / CC BY-NC?
I _like_ buying RPG books. I would continue to do so, even if the license was CC BY. I also like getting searchable PDFs, and turning dungeons into a Wiki for the DM to make it easy to find content.
I mean... Come on...
Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs?
Some that would be amenable to making into Computer RPGs.
Some that maybe that would be nearly impossible to automate. (That's fine, too.)
Under some licenses like CC BY / CC BY-SA / CC BY-NC?
I _like_ buying RPG books. I would continue to do so, even if the license was CC BY. I also like getting searchable PDFs, and turning dungeons into a Wiki for the DM to make it easy to find content.
I mean... Come on...
Truly open RPGs already exist. Fudge, for example. And Fate (based on Fudge, because it's open and they can). And if Pathfinder 2 is indeed free from any old d20 content (I don't know), then that one counts too.
The big problem is that there's not a single one that everybody agrees to use as the new standard. D&D is the standard. Like Windows. Everybody knows it sucks, but nobody can agree on a single alternative, and the market stays with what people know.
The big problem is that there's not a single one that everybody agrees to use as the new standard. D&D is the standard. Like Windows. Everybody knows it sucks, but nobody can agree on a single alternative, and the market stays with what people know.
Fudge uses OGL, which is the topic under discussion.
https://www.fudgerpg.com/about/about-fudge/fudge-ogl-require...
PF 2.0 also uses OGL:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/104wjuo/why_d...
https://www.fudgerpg.com/about/about-fudge/fudge-ogl-require...
PF 2.0 also uses OGL:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/104wjuo/why_d...
> The big problem is that there's not a single one that everybody agrees to use as the new standard. D&D is the standard. Like Windows. Everybody knows it sucks, but nobody can agree on a single alternative, and the market stays with what people know.
I don't understand why there needs to be "a standard". in the 80's, 90's people played Runequest, Warhammer, GURPS, AD&D, Dark Eye... there was no need for a "standard". No, people are lazy and just want to play what is popular, this isn't a standard. Games rules are half the table top RPG, the stories are as important if not more...
Furthermore, back in the days, people were interested in innovative rules or universes, D&D is none of that, it's the most bland and boring game system...
I don't understand why there needs to be "a standard". in the 80's, 90's people played Runequest, Warhammer, GURPS, AD&D, Dark Eye... there was no need for a "standard". No, people are lazy and just want to play what is popular, this isn't a standard. Games rules are half the table top RPG, the stories are as important if not more...
Furthermore, back in the days, people were interested in innovative rules or universes, D&D is none of that, it's the most bland and boring game system...
D&D drowns out the rest of the market, practically speaking. We don’t have a great way to measure overall play but Roll20, the dominant virtual tabletop, publishes their stats regularly and D&D is more than 50%. Call of Cthulhu is around 15%. It drops quickly from there.
There’s a huge network effect at work here. It’s easier to find D&D players than players of any other game — not that you can’t find them, but D&D is easier. WotC runs organized play programs such that I can walk into almost any brick and mortar tabletop gaming store in the country and immediately find a regular game.
Look at https://startplaying.games/search and count the number of D&D games compared to anything else.
And this has happened before. D&D 4e got rid of the OGL, which made people have these same conversations. This did create Pathfinder, but even cloning the earlier version of D&D didn’t prevent WotC from dominating except during the year or two between 4e and the current edition. Plus 4e played really differently, which won’t be the case for this new edition.
There’s a huge network effect at work here. It’s easier to find D&D players than players of any other game — not that you can’t find them, but D&D is easier. WotC runs organized play programs such that I can walk into almost any brick and mortar tabletop gaming store in the country and immediately find a regular game.
Look at https://startplaying.games/search and count the number of D&D games compared to anything else.
And this has happened before. D&D 4e got rid of the OGL, which made people have these same conversations. This did create Pathfinder, but even cloning the earlier version of D&D didn’t prevent WotC from dominating except during the year or two between 4e and the current edition. Plus 4e played really differently, which won’t be the case for this new edition.
The differences between the rules are not important, that's exactly why there needs to be a standard.
TTRPG rules are not tabletop game rules: they don't say what happens, GM does. TTRPG rules are a language that abstracts away trivia in a somewhat objective manner.
This is similar to having many programming languages: ideally you would want to have a single language for everything, but they all suck in different small ways.
TTRPG rules are not tabletop game rules: they don't say what happens, GM does. TTRPG rules are a language that abstracts away trivia in a somewhat objective manner.
This is similar to having many programming languages: ideally you would want to have a single language for everything, but they all suck in different small ways.
> back in the days, people were interested in innovative rules or universes
People still are. There's been tons of innovation over the past 20 years, and some of it even seeped into D&D and Warhammer.
But despite everything, D&D is still the big name everybody recognises. Maybe there doesn't need to be a standard, but there is, and it's D&D. Just like with Windows.
People still are. There's been tons of innovation over the past 20 years, and some of it even seeped into D&D and Warhammer.
But despite everything, D&D is still the big name everybody recognises. Maybe there doesn't need to be a standard, but there is, and it's D&D. Just like with Windows.
> Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs?
Why are you waiting for someone else to do this? Do it yourself!
Something that bothers me more than most things is when people demand others act to solve a growing problem. Sure, you're not the most qualified person to do it, but actual execution trumps qualifications every time.
Get out there! Get in touch with some excellent game designers, ask them what it would take to get their help. Come up with a plan based on their feedback and execute it!
Or at least if you're not going to do it, recognize that your reasons for not doing it are probably exceedingly similar to everyone else's reasons for not doing it, and stop asking the question.
Why are you waiting for someone else to do this? Do it yourself!
Something that bothers me more than most things is when people demand others act to solve a growing problem. Sure, you're not the most qualified person to do it, but actual execution trumps qualifications every time.
Get out there! Get in touch with some excellent game designers, ask them what it would take to get their help. Come up with a plan based on their feedback and execute it!
Or at least if you're not going to do it, recognize that your reasons for not doing it are probably exceedingly similar to everyone else's reasons for not doing it, and stop asking the question.
> and stop asking the question.
I agreed up until this part. Even if you aren't going to do it, stoking the fire with otherwise idle conversation might get more motivated individuals interested.
I agreed up until this part. Even if you aren't going to do it, stoking the fire with otherwise idle conversation might get more motivated individuals interested.
There are game designers possibly reading this thread.
I've approached two of my favorites, back possibly too long ago before Kickstarter was more of a known quantity, and they both said "hard pass" at the time.
Also, have you ever been approached by an "idea guy"? It's obnoxious as hell. "Hi, I'm creating a video game. All I need is a game designer, 2 programmers, 2 artists, and a sound guy. Pay is on commission." It's like, What? What do you bring to the table?
I bring very little to this table, other than the assertion that I would spend money on this product, if it existed.
But it's entirely possible a game designer will see this, and decide to run their own Kickstarter, based off of the comment I made and the comments I got back.
Or, someone more knowledgeable than me could have explained to me why my idea was unworkable. Or someone could have shared ten links to existing products or ongoing Kickstarters.
I'm not afraid to speak up in a public place about my hopes. Why should I be?
I mean, maybe you meant to be encouraging, but please accept my feedback that your comment seems to me to be an attempt to discourage discussion.
I've approached two of my favorites, back possibly too long ago before Kickstarter was more of a known quantity, and they both said "hard pass" at the time.
Also, have you ever been approached by an "idea guy"? It's obnoxious as hell. "Hi, I'm creating a video game. All I need is a game designer, 2 programmers, 2 artists, and a sound guy. Pay is on commission." It's like, What? What do you bring to the table?
I bring very little to this table, other than the assertion that I would spend money on this product, if it existed.
But it's entirely possible a game designer will see this, and decide to run their own Kickstarter, based off of the comment I made and the comments I got back.
Or, someone more knowledgeable than me could have explained to me why my idea was unworkable. Or someone could have shared ten links to existing products or ongoing Kickstarters.
I'm not afraid to speak up in a public place about my hopes. Why should I be?
I mean, maybe you meant to be encouraging, but please accept my feedback that your comment seems to me to be an attempt to discourage discussion.
Yeah, I want to discourage people from asking the naive question: "Why don't people solve <problem> for me?!"
Do it yourself, or at least examine why you won't, and then recognize that the people involved are also humans, and many of those reasons you and others here have listed apply to these "special" people too.
Discussion is nearly worthless; so many people can generate so much of it for so little cost, it must be worth basically nothing. There's far too much of it, and far too little action.
This site is literally the social media arm of a startup accelerator, go start something up!
Do it yourself, or at least examine why you won't, and then recognize that the people involved are also humans, and many of those reasons you and others here have listed apply to these "special" people too.
Discussion is nearly worthless; so many people can generate so much of it for so little cost, it must be worth basically nothing. There's far too much of it, and far too little action.
This site is literally the social media arm of a startup accelerator, go start something up!
Is it better if I explicitly ask,
"Can anyone shoot holes through this idea of mine? Has anyone else already done this? Is anyone else interested in helping me do this?"
Or would that still warrant discouragement from you? Because, honestly, that's the tone I intended. And if you can't read that tone, maybe that's on you?
"Can anyone shoot holes through this idea of mine? Has anyone else already done this? Is anyone else interested in helping me do this?"
Or would that still warrant discouragement from you? Because, honestly, that's the tone I intended. And if you can't read that tone, maybe that's on you?
Yeah as long as you’re not asking for other people to solve your problems, all good from me!
Just to close the loop, in case you didn't know, the next biggest players in the Table-Top Role Playing Game World got together and did exactly what I was hoping for:
> In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Legendary Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.
This would be roughly akin to Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Rackspace announcing they would work together to fight some awful cloud computing initiative from Amazon. But thanks for angrily telling one dude on HN that he should be the one to lead the charge. Really great advice, thanks.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announc...
> In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Legendary Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.
This would be roughly akin to Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Rackspace announcing they would work together to fight some awful cloud computing initiative from Amazon. But thanks for angrily telling one dude on HN that he should be the one to lead the charge. Really great advice, thanks.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announc...
> Something that bothers me more than most things is when people demand others act to solve a growing problem. Sure, you're not the most qualified person to do it, but actual execution trumps qualifications every time.
I would agree with this, however most people can't organise and maintain the most mundane aspects of their lives, let alone gather a large group of people together to combat some big goal like this.
I would agree with this, however most people can't organise and maintain the most mundane aspects of their lives, let alone gather a large group of people together to combat some big goal like this.
What makes you think that GP isn't already doing so, and trying to rally others to do the same?
Richard Garfield made Magic the Gathering and was given carte blanche by Valve to make Artifact, and it bombed spectacularly.
Just because you bottled lightning once, doesn’t mean you can do it ever again.
Just because you bottled lightning once, doesn’t mean you can do it ever again.
Other game developers have made hit after hit.
And I think the nature of open content is still relatively new, so that's the best explanation I have for why it hasn't been done yet.
And I think the nature of open content is still relatively new, so that's the best explanation I have for why it hasn't been done yet.
AFAIK Garfield was involved in the game design, which is actually appreciated by the players. What made the game reviews tank is the game monetization schemes.
Eclipse Phase was released under CC BY-NC-SA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Phase
I don't know if there are others or not.
I don't know if there are others or not.
On nice! I read some about it a long time ago, it looks like a very cool system.
Similarly, I was coming in to post Sufficiently Advances, which is (I think) Creative Commons.
As always, the issue isn't so much content, is selling people on it so they use it, get excited, get involved. Like everything open, when you don't have a budget to make that happen, it gets a lot harder.
Similarly, I was coming in to post Sufficiently Advances, which is (I think) Creative Commons.
As always, the issue isn't so much content, is selling people on it so they use it, get excited, get involved. Like everything open, when you don't have a budget to make that happen, it gets a lot harder.
EP was very common at conventions when I used to attend them more regularly, and they had good hardbound editions for sale (which I purchased). They did their part to promote the game and achieved good success with it. It was all over r/rpg for scifi gaming in the early 10s (after that I dropped off of Reddit generally so I'm not sure how much it gets posted and discussed anymore there or similar forums).
There are tons, the parent commenter just doesn't know.
I found several NC. That didn't suit my purposes at the time. It's great to hear there are more. Would you care to list your favorites? Or the ones you believe are already popular?
FWIW, Basic Fantasy RPG [0] is in the process of converting to CC BY-SA right now [1].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Fantasy_RPG
[1]: https://www.basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Fantasy_RPG
[1]: https://www.basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596...
Off the top of my head:
GUMSHOE, FATE, Forged in the Dark, Dungeon World, Quest, and Trophy are all available under CC BY licenses. Many of those are fairly popular (if you don’t compare them to D&D) — six figure Kickstarter revenue, for example. Creative Commons has been a reasonably common choice for game designers who want open content for a decade or so.
GUMSHOE, FATE, Forged in the Dark, Dungeon World, Quest, and Trophy are all available under CC BY licenses. Many of those are fairly popular (if you don’t compare them to D&D) — six figure Kickstarter revenue, for example. Creative Commons has been a reasonably common choice for game designers who want open content for a decade or so.
Thank you much!
> GUMSHOE - Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution Unported License
> FATE - Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) / OGL
> Forged in the Dark (Blades in the Dark) - Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license.
> Dungeon World - Creative Commons Attribution
> Quest - Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License
> Trophy - custom, permissive-looking license
Yours was by far the most helpful response I got.
There's also this list:
https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Open_Game_Systems
Which I found from another thread you were in:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304853
> GUMSHOE - Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution Unported License
> FATE - Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) / OGL
> Forged in the Dark (Blades in the Dark) - Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license.
> Dungeon World - Creative Commons Attribution
> Quest - Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License
> Trophy - custom, permissive-looking license
Yours was by far the most helpful response I got.
There's also this list:
https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Open_Game_Systems
Which I found from another thread you were in:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304853
In case someone wanders into this conversation later, Paizo just announced that they are doing something exactly like what I hoped for.
> In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Legendary Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announc...
> In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Legendary Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v?Paizo-Announc...
> Why do we not crowdfund some excellent game designers to make a truly open set of RPGs?
No need to even do that, there is plenty of alternative RPG and game systems out there already. It's not about money. It's about principles. But people wants to play "D&D", Hasbro's IP, Hasbro rules and business practices...
But also let's not forget how some conferences managed to shut down and shun the competition by forbidding them to attend the conferences to promote their alternative creations, insuring Hasbro/WotC prominent market shares... There is a lot to say about that "community", a lot of corrupt individuals...
No need to even do that, there is plenty of alternative RPG and game systems out there already. It's not about money. It's about principles. But people wants to play "D&D", Hasbro's IP, Hasbro rules and business practices...
But also let's not forget how some conferences managed to shut down and shun the competition by forbidding them to attend the conferences to promote their alternative creations, insuring Hasbro/WotC prominent market shares... There is a lot to say about that "community", a lot of corrupt individuals...
The problem isn't money, it's getting a large group of people to agree on...anything.
The only thing that the gaming industry needs to do is to boycott the new edition of D&D, and evolve the games which were originally based on OGL 1.0 content (e.g. "3.5" D&D) on a parallel track, ignoring all the OGL 1.1 things, explicitly foregoing any compatibility with D&D 6th edition (or whatever it will be called), and building up a thriving ecosystem of content which they are definitely capable of doing separately from WotC.
Part of the contention is that the OGL 1.1 is trying to retroactively revoke the OGL 1.0. Whether or not that is legal is, well, a legal question. But boycotting the new edition is not "the only thing" the industry has to do, if building on the OGL 1.0 is no longer valid.
Provided that WotC does follow through with trying to revoke the previous version, the major thing that will have to play out is to figure out which third-party company is going to end up trying to battle Hasbro in court over whether their maneuver is legal. If anyone, it will probably be Paizo, as one of the largest players building off the OGL. But until that legal question is settled, boycotting the new version (while still building off OGL 1.0) is a dangerous option.
Provided that WotC does follow through with trying to revoke the previous version, the major thing that will have to play out is to figure out which third-party company is going to end up trying to battle Hasbro in court over whether their maneuver is legal. If anyone, it will probably be Paizo, as one of the largest players building off the OGL. But until that legal question is settled, boycotting the new version (while still building off OGL 1.0) is a dangerous option.
I say the community should be more proactive.
Hasbro is surely using plenty of open source software under licenses like MIT, BSD, GPL v2 which do not have the magic word "irrevocable". I say some software devs should just declare that if Hasbro retroactively revokes licenses then the licenses for their IT infrastructure also gets revoked.
If this goes to court and Hasbro wins, this creates an monstrously dangerous precedent for the software industry. So maybe someone should take their infrastructure hostage before it get to court.
Hasbro is surely using plenty of open source software under licenses like MIT, BSD, GPL v2 which do not have the magic word "irrevocable". I say some software devs should just declare that if Hasbro retroactively revokes licenses then the licenses for their IT infrastructure also gets revoked.
If this goes to court and Hasbro wins, this creates an monstrously dangerous precedent for the software industry. So maybe someone should take their infrastructure hostage before it get to court.
There seems to be language in OGL 1.1 that is trying to retroactively nullify OGL 1.0. So anyone trying to make something new related to DnD, where they would need to agree to OGL 1.1, would essentially reapply 1.1 to everything they have already made. At least that's how some people have tried to describe the situation to me.
I don't see that being remotely enforceable or even a strong argument were something brought to court, but I think WOTC (really Hasbro ) is using the threat of litigation to limit the ability for creators to continue to make new things that identify themselves explicitly as DnD. WOTC is basically betting that the rpg market is really a DnD market, captive to the brand, which will probably backfire on them.
I don't see that being remotely enforceable or even a strong argument were something brought to court, but I think WOTC (really Hasbro ) is using the threat of litigation to limit the ability for creators to continue to make new things that identify themselves explicitly as DnD. WOTC is basically betting that the rpg market is really a DnD market, captive to the brand, which will probably backfire on them.
OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.
They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that.
Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.
Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.
> Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that.
They can act as if they can and sue those that try to ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it would take to actually settle the question of if they can. Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't actually do that.
They can act as if they can and sue those that try to ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it would take to actually settle the question of if they can. Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't actually do that.
The license wasn’t irrevocable. It was perpetual, but those mean quite different things according to the IP lawyers I’ve seen commenting on this.
So what some but not all have indicated is that if there is consideration, it goes from a license to a license contract which negates the default revocability of a regular license. The OGL v1.0a and precedents around some open source licenses (Jacobsen vs Katzer, for the Artistic License) indicate that licensing your own work under the same terms counts as consideration.
Others have indicated there may be a detrimental reliance (US) or promissory estoppel (EU) case against Wizards to change the license at this point given they have made public statements on the record about the non-revocability of the OGL v1.0a and have allowed the current OGL ecosystem to exist under that assumption for 23 years.
The third situation is that neither of the above matter, which is a problem for the software industry as plenty of open source licenses (GPLv2, BSD, MIT, Apache 1.1) have the exact same omission of "irrevocable".
Others have indicated there may be a detrimental reliance (US) or promissory estoppel (EU) case against Wizards to change the license at this point given they have made public statements on the record about the non-revocability of the OGL v1.0a and have allowed the current OGL ecosystem to exist under that assumption for 23 years.
The third situation is that neither of the above matter, which is a problem for the software industry as plenty of open source licenses (GPLv2, BSD, MIT, Apache 1.1) have the exact same omission of "irrevocable".
[deleted]
This site makes it sound like even that won't be possible, which I find a questionable claim (see my top-level comment).
Maybe more people to discover, and build with, Monte Cook's excellent Cypher System: https://csol.montecookgames.com/license/
I am not a lawyer and please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it rules and mechanics are not copyrightable. What is copyrightable is the flavor text and specific compilation of the rule set into the "Rule Book". The rule book becomes a copyrightable work. This means that your are within your legal right to make a game called "Dragons & Daggers" where all the combat mechanics, rules, etc are identical to Dungeons & Dragons as long as the "glue" text and flavour text is original content. It seems to me like a community fork licensed under CC that plays exactly the same is not impossible.
Spells use text to explain their mechanics, and that text is copyrightable. You'd likely need to re-write the spell lists from scratch.
[deleted]
For a little bit of flavor. After I saw this post (I don't follow D&D or Wizards or Hasbro news) I thought immediately of BFRPG. Found this post in Basic Fantasy's forum, so this move by WotC is definitely going to have an impact.
https://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596
https://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596
WotC/Hasbro has named their next release "One D&D". They clearly want to clear the field of other compatible rules-sets, and have just a singular system that they control, manage, and profit from. My guess is that they see the profits that Apple and Google make from their App Store, and want all future add-on content to D&D to be paying them 25% of revenues, rather than 0% right now.
We need a table top system on GPL or a similar licence, with a full universe and lore. Do you think YC would fund a startup to build it up?
There are a truly massive number of RPGs out there with a wide variety of open licenses, especially the various Creative Commons licenses. The indie RPG sphere is massive and includes tabletop systems that range from "mild variations on the core D&D formula" to "almost fundamentally alien approaches to doing structured role-playing". D&D has long-standing brand recognition and cultural cachet, but it hasn't been the only player in this space for decades.
Sure, but do any of them have the quality and polish to replace DnD?
Absolutely and then some! I personally would argue that D&D itself—5E in particular here—is actually a fairly middling tabletop game. It's held back by a lot of historical cruft because even new editions end up being forced to stick to decades-old design decisions for the sake of tradition. A simple example here is the distinction between ability scores and ability modifiers: this is an old D&D-ism and trying to remove it sparks complaints about how it's "not D&D", but it's frankly some unnecessary complexity and other tabletop games lose nothing by dropping scores and just using modifiers.
Apart from the core design, D&D is also pretty middling as a product. Being a DM for D&D is hard—a fair bit harder than running many other tabletop games—and the book are at best a so-so resource: there's a lot of extra prep and careful balance that rests on the DM's shoulders, and doing it right means either falling back part-and-parcel on adventure modules or doing a lot of careful tuning and reading forums and Reddit threads. In an ideal world, the core books would include everything you need to know, but in practice the best DM advice is outside the core books (and sometimes even contradicts the books themselves!) Many other games don't have this problem.
To be clear, I don't think D&D is a bad game, but plenty of other games out there have clearer core designs, better presentations, easier-to-grasp rules, and overall more polish.
Apart from the core design, D&D is also pretty middling as a product. Being a DM for D&D is hard—a fair bit harder than running many other tabletop games—and the book are at best a so-so resource: there's a lot of extra prep and careful balance that rests on the DM's shoulders, and doing it right means either falling back part-and-parcel on adventure modules or doing a lot of careful tuning and reading forums and Reddit threads. In an ideal world, the core books would include everything you need to know, but in practice the best DM advice is outside the core books (and sometimes even contradicts the books themselves!) Many other games don't have this problem.
To be clear, I don't think D&D is a bad game, but plenty of other games out there have clearer core designs, better presentations, easier-to-grasp rules, and overall more polish.
At this point I'm hoping for some names of high quality open source high fantasy RPGs with a lot of content ready to jump in and play.
It depends on what you're looking for! I'll give just a handful here, but I'm happy to expand if you have a specific follow-up questions to these.
If you're interesting in something very D&D-like, there's obviously Pathfinder 2E[1], which builds on the same D&D skeleton but has a much sharper and cleaner approach to grid-based tactical combat. However, I'd also suggest looking at some of the games in the OSR ("Old School Renaissance") space. Games like The Black Hack[2] or Maze Rats[3] provide a much smaller set of rules which are easy to adapt to other adventures: the goal is that you can take adventure modules for effectively any existing D&D-like game—including both present and past versions of D&D—and run them with little overhead.
Something pretty different mechanically but which is quite compelling in that space is Torchbearer[4], which is based on the underlying Burning Wheel[5] system but made significantly simpler (and shares a lot of those simplifications with Mouse Guard[6] except it's, well, not about sword-wielding mice.) Torchbearer is a great dungeon-crawl-focused system that can really capture grit and difficulty in a way that's a lot of fun, but it's also the kind of game where you can get a total party kill not just by a dragon but also by running out of food and torches, so expect a grimy tough game out of it!
If you're looking for something even further afield, I'd suggest taking a peek at Dungeon World[7], which borrows the core mechanics from indie darling Apocalypse World[8] but applies them to a traditional D&D milieu: that said, I'd actually start with Homebrew World[9], which streamlines and clarifies a lot of the rules, but it might require Dungeon World itself to get a handle on how to run the game. Games inspired by Apocalypse World—sometimes called Powered by the Apocalypse games—definitely play a bit differently—they tend to be a bit more "zoomed-out", e.g. combat being resolved in a fewer high-level rolls rather than playing out a full sequence of six-second slices like D&D—and they aren't to everyone's liking, but I think they're worth trying.
I'm also going to plug my personal favorite tabletop game, Blades in the Dark[10], which is not a traditional fantasy game (although people have adapted the the rules to more traditional fantasy, c.f. Raiders in the Dark[11]) but which I think is super compelling. It's about criminals in a haunted Victorian-ish setting doing odd jobs, and builds a system that's top-of-its-class for doing that, including mechanical support for heist-movie-style flashbacks and a lot of systems designed to let you do risky moves and narrowly avoid failure from them. Some of my absolute favorite TTRPG moments have been in Blades games.
Any of that sound interesting? Want other examples or directions?
[1]: https://paizo.com/pathfinder [2]: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/255088/The-Black-Hack-S... with the open content collected at https://the-black-hack.jehaisleprintemps.net/ [3]: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/197158/Maze-Rats [4]: https://www.burningwheel.com/torchbearer-2e-core-set/ [5]: https://www.burningwheel.com/burning-wheel/ [6]: https://www.mouseguard.net/book/role-playing-game/ [7]: https://dungeon-world.com/ [8]: http://apocalypse-world.com/ [9]: https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2019/05/homebrew-world-v15... [10]: https://bladesinthedark.com/greetings-scoundrel [11]: https://smallcoolgames.itch.io/raiders-in-the-dark
If you're interesting in something very D&D-like, there's obviously Pathfinder 2E[1], which builds on the same D&D skeleton but has a much sharper and cleaner approach to grid-based tactical combat. However, I'd also suggest looking at some of the games in the OSR ("Old School Renaissance") space. Games like The Black Hack[2] or Maze Rats[3] provide a much smaller set of rules which are easy to adapt to other adventures: the goal is that you can take adventure modules for effectively any existing D&D-like game—including both present and past versions of D&D—and run them with little overhead.
Something pretty different mechanically but which is quite compelling in that space is Torchbearer[4], which is based on the underlying Burning Wheel[5] system but made significantly simpler (and shares a lot of those simplifications with Mouse Guard[6] except it's, well, not about sword-wielding mice.) Torchbearer is a great dungeon-crawl-focused system that can really capture grit and difficulty in a way that's a lot of fun, but it's also the kind of game where you can get a total party kill not just by a dragon but also by running out of food and torches, so expect a grimy tough game out of it!
If you're looking for something even further afield, I'd suggest taking a peek at Dungeon World[7], which borrows the core mechanics from indie darling Apocalypse World[8] but applies them to a traditional D&D milieu: that said, I'd actually start with Homebrew World[9], which streamlines and clarifies a lot of the rules, but it might require Dungeon World itself to get a handle on how to run the game. Games inspired by Apocalypse World—sometimes called Powered by the Apocalypse games—definitely play a bit differently—they tend to be a bit more "zoomed-out", e.g. combat being resolved in a fewer high-level rolls rather than playing out a full sequence of six-second slices like D&D—and they aren't to everyone's liking, but I think they're worth trying.
I'm also going to plug my personal favorite tabletop game, Blades in the Dark[10], which is not a traditional fantasy game (although people have adapted the the rules to more traditional fantasy, c.f. Raiders in the Dark[11]) but which I think is super compelling. It's about criminals in a haunted Victorian-ish setting doing odd jobs, and builds a system that's top-of-its-class for doing that, including mechanical support for heist-movie-style flashbacks and a lot of systems designed to let you do risky moves and narrowly avoid failure from them. Some of my absolute favorite TTRPG moments have been in Blades games.
Any of that sound interesting? Want other examples or directions?
[1]: https://paizo.com/pathfinder [2]: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/255088/The-Black-Hack-S... with the open content collected at https://the-black-hack.jehaisleprintemps.net/ [3]: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/197158/Maze-Rats [4]: https://www.burningwheel.com/torchbearer-2e-core-set/ [5]: https://www.burningwheel.com/burning-wheel/ [6]: https://www.mouseguard.net/book/role-playing-game/ [7]: https://dungeon-world.com/ [8]: http://apocalypse-world.com/ [9]: https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2019/05/homebrew-world-v15... [10]: https://bladesinthedark.com/greetings-scoundrel [11]: https://smallcoolgames.itch.io/raiders-in-the-dark
Thanks for your detailed response, it's excellent and so kind of you to give me such detailed suggestions. I feel I have to check out every single one of these systems. I only knew Pathfinder and Dungeon World.
I like the idea of the OSR systems with small rulesets. So I'll check The Black Hack first. Do you know about any systems like this one that have been published under the Creative Commons license?
I like the idea of the OSR systems with small rulesets. So I'll check The Black Hack first. Do you know about any systems like this one that have been published under the Creative Commons license?
The other one I mentioned—Maze Rats—is licensed as CC BY 4.0, so that might be a good place to start! (The Black Hack is licensed under the OGL 1.0, which unfortunately means it's not immune to the whole mess that this thread is about, but I'm hoping that a lot of the creators who put stuff out under the OGL 1.0 either come up with a new license that's not associated with WotC or relicense their stuff under something like a CC license. I guess we'll see!)
It's kinda wild to watch HN suggest that a tech company can do as well as established tabletop gaming companies as if it's as easy as asking ChatGPT. I suppose considering how beloved Tesla and Theranos were I shouldn't be surprised.
We can also code it for the Metaverse! Mark please invest 4-5 Million.
DnD has inconsistent quality and has a ton of rules, but few of them add much value. There's really not much polish either imo. The vast majority of the rulebook get ignored because they don't make the game better and often make it worse. The current generation of players, largely inspired by the rise in acceptance of geeky hobbies, by Critical Role and similar shows, etc, would be better off with a different system entirely. These people play to have fun with friends, to have exciting stories and moments, not to follow the ten thousand rules and baggage dnd has acquired over the years.
Dungeon Masters make or break the game. They do it by storytelling, by presenting challenges and helping players overcome them, by creating a sense of ownership and reward. DnD is not good at teaching people to do those things.
I've played some other systems, and immediately they were easier to play and more fun for the group. You don't need 20 rule books, you need a simple set of rules and a desire to participate in a shared storytelling experience, and that's really it.
Dungeon Masters make or break the game. They do it by storytelling, by presenting challenges and helping players overcome them, by creating a sense of ownership and reward. DnD is not good at teaching people to do those things.
I've played some other systems, and immediately they were easier to play and more fun for the group. You don't need 20 rule books, you need a simple set of rules and a desire to participate in a shared storytelling experience, and that's really it.
> Sure, but do any of them have the quality and polish to replace DnD?
D&D isn't anymore polished than Runequest or Warhammer in the commercial space, or a ton of Creative Common RPG. D&D is just more popular. This isn't polish, this is "corporate".
D&D isn't anymore polished than Runequest or Warhammer in the commercial space, or a ton of Creative Common RPG. D&D is just more popular. This isn't polish, this is "corporate".
Think your wishful thinking belongs on /r/choosingbeggars :)
Umm, we deserve high quality open source projects. I'm not complaining about the existing ones, just pointing out the opportunity.
The OGL was intended to be the GPL but for table top games.
Admittedly, the settings, characters, books and similar content were never part of the deal. It was more meant to be a common standard that everybody could build on.
But a common world that everybody could expand upon, would very quickly become a gigantic mess.
Admittedly, the settings, characters, books and similar content were never part of the deal. It was more meant to be a common standard that everybody could build on.
But a common world that everybody could expand upon, would very quickly become a gigantic mess.
Maybe I don’t fully understand how public copyright licenses work.
Do you need to apply for a license?
When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die?
If somebody infringes on your license, do you get a free OGL lawyer or something to help your case?
In conclusion, it almost sounds like OGL is fucking useless in the first place if they can just upgrade it to be paid at scale but clearly I’m missing something
Do you need to apply for a license?
When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die?
If somebody infringes on your license, do you get a free OGL lawyer or something to help your case?
In conclusion, it almost sounds like OGL is fucking useless in the first place if they can just upgrade it to be paid at scale but clearly I’m missing something
> When OGL1.1 comes out does 1.0 die?
The issue is that part of the 1.0 license says users "may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License" (emphasis added).
And part of 1.1 says that 1.0 "is no longer an authorized license agreement".
So, in other words, 1.0 had an embedded kill switch which 1.1 activates. At least that's the legal theory which WotC is operating on.
The issue is that part of the 1.0 license says users "may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License" (emphasis added).
And part of 1.1 says that 1.0 "is no longer an authorized license agreement".
So, in other words, 1.0 had an embedded kill switch which 1.1 activates. At least that's the legal theory which WotC is operating on.
I have no law experience but I feel like no longer recognizing a previous license you created doesn't force an upgrade to a new license, but rather would invalidate any licensing at all on all content that had the old license.
I realized after writing this that my logic doesn't work great and I would rather just delete this if possible :)
> On top of that, games such as Pathfinder 1E and 2E, 13th Age, Fudge, and Traveller—which use the 1.0 OGL as the backbone of their existence—will need to cease sales of upcoming products or give WotC 25% of their revenue to stay in compliance with the new license
How does this work? Why are they forced to do so?
How does this work? Why are they forced to do so?
Hasbro claims they are. Whether that's actually true is very questionable, but most RPG publishers will not want to fight Hasbro in court.
For a reasonable explanation from some of the community members https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/882669948646850573/10...
For the 1.1 leak mentioned there https://rollforcombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Ga...
Please note the length of the document corroborates the length of about 9000 words as mentioned by tech journalists.
For the 1.1 leak mentioned there https://rollforcombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Open-Ga...
Please note the length of the document corroborates the length of about 9000 words as mentioned by tech journalists.
I'm under the impression that in the USA copyright doesn't protect rule systems[1]. I imagine a clean rewrite of the SRD would be relatively straightforward. I expect it would take some lawyering to make sure it was done properly, but it clearly can be done.
I also know from people in the legal business that Hasbro is notoriously litigious. They will happily drag out a suit and make it as expensive as possible even when they don't really have a case.
[1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05891d4f-1658...
I also know from people in the legal business that Hasbro is notoriously litigious. They will happily drag out a suit and make it as expensive as possible even when they don't really have a case.
[1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05891d4f-1658...
If D&D "goes dark", why not try another role playing system?
GURPS is a well-designed favorite made by Steven Jackson Games:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS
GURPS is a well-designed favorite made by Steven Jackson Games:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS
It's not like GURPS is unknown to community members. If someone wants an alternative to D&D there are a thousand alternatives. This is like if you said "Don't like English? Try the well-designed favorite Spanish."
And honestly gurps is the last one I’d recommend for the average 5e player looking to jump ship.
It’s crunchy as hell and a major commitment.
Pathfinder 2 is likely going to be the biggest winner in this but hopefully other systems benefit as well.
Dungeon world strikes me as another easy analogue and there’s plenty of different stuff like Spire/Heart or Lancer that’s made waves.
Not to say that gurps is bad. I hope they see a bump too. Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists
It’s crunchy as hell and a major commitment.
Pathfinder 2 is likely going to be the biggest winner in this but hopefully other systems benefit as well.
Dungeon world strikes me as another easy analogue and there’s plenty of different stuff like Spire/Heart or Lancer that’s made waves.
Not to say that gurps is bad. I hope they see a bump too. Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists
> And honestly gurps is the last one I’d recommend for the average 5e player looking to jump ship.
This kind of comment is also why it's funny to suggest "just use X" to D&D players. RPG nerds are effectively poor software engieners. Ask 10 of them for an opinion on TT RPG rulesets and you'll get 300 opinions.
> Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists
Absolutely correct.
This kind of comment is also why it's funny to suggest "just use X" to D&D players. RPG nerds are effectively poor software engieners. Ask 10 of them for an opinion on TT RPG rulesets and you'll get 300 opinions.
> Just feel like the kind of person who likes gurps probably isn’t playing 5e or already knows it exists
Absolutely correct.
Well in all fairness, GURPS games and OSR games are just very different games. Sure they're roughly "RPGs" where people roleplay as characters in a world with stats for structure, but their attitudes toward actions and conflict resolution are completely different which lends them to completely different gameplay and audiences.
It's like saying Monopoly and Agricola are both board games. They are but they're also very different.
It's like saying Monopoly and Agricola are both board games. They are but they're also very different.
>> This is like if you said "Don't like English? Try the well-designed favorite Spanish."
If English had revised OGL-like terms of use, would it see the same usage?
Seriously, the revised OGL is onerous and greedy. As a long time fan of tabletop role playing I can't see the changes being accepted by the community.
>> If someone wants an alternative to D&D there are a thousand alternatives.
What are some of your favorite D&D alternatives?
If English had revised OGL-like terms of use, would it see the same usage?
Seriously, the revised OGL is onerous and greedy. As a long time fan of tabletop role playing I can't see the changes being accepted by the community.
>> If someone wants an alternative to D&D there are a thousand alternatives.
What are some of your favorite D&D alternatives?
The difficulty of switching from English to Spanish is far, far beyond that of switching role-playing games. Even learning a new RPG from scratch is far easier - who would play them otherwise?
There's certainly no shortage of excellent alternatives, but none of them have the cultural mindshare that D&D has.
Regarding the ability to copyright the "method of playing" or "rules" of a game:
https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/fl108.pdf
The US Copyright Office says it can apply to text or description, but not to the rules.
WoTC did have a patent issues for MtG, but I dont think that's going to work for D20 rules. Perhaps they will attempt to patent the OneD&D release?
Either way, it's quite clear that corporations will attempt to colonize and control our culture, and lie and scheme their way to expand their profit extraction.
https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/fl108.pdf
The US Copyright Office says it can apply to text or description, but not to the rules.
WoTC did have a patent issues for MtG, but I dont think that's going to work for D20 rules. Perhaps they will attempt to patent the OneD&D release?
Either way, it's quite clear that corporations will attempt to colonize and control our culture, and lie and scheme their way to expand their profit extraction.
The wealth of written content is exactly what's valuable about D&D. The rules aren't interesting nor innovative.
There is a Wizard Spell that does 1d4 damage at spell slot 1. It is called Magic Missile. There is a block of text that describes the Magic Missile. If you want D&D you can't just clone the mechanic of spells, you also have to write a massive amount of copywritten content.
There is a Wizard Spell that does 1d4 damage at spell slot 1. It is called Magic Missile. There is a block of text that describes the Magic Missile. If you want D&D you can't just clone the mechanic of spells, you also have to write a massive amount of copywritten content.
I don't think "cloning D&D" is what any of these third parties are doing. It's producing add-ons, source books, or videos of them playing. That is, original content that is compatible with, and tuned for the rule system.
Some are to an extent. There are several modern adaptations of the old 'Moldvay' Basic/Expert Dungeon and Dragons rules (The old red and blue books/boxes). Basically getting them down in a better way on paper, smoothing some rough edges out.
Fine any other synonym for "clone" if that's your issue. It's the idea that many many of these products are dressing on top of the SRD.
Again... you can't copyright or patent rules of a game. I understand the OGL exists as a sort of off-hand agreement, but I am concerned as to why we all have decided that a "game system" is somehow a different, copyrightable thing, when it is essentially a fancy way of saying "rules of a game."
I'm honestly confused by the entire situation. I remain confused as to why any Hasbro suit regarding this would not just get thrown out by a court. It seems very obvious to me that the D20 system isn't controllable, and that referencing D&D books for more details is clearly fair use.
I'm honestly confused by the entire situation. I remain confused as to why any Hasbro suit regarding this would not just get thrown out by a court. It seems very obvious to me that the D20 system isn't controllable, and that referencing D&D books for more details is clearly fair use.
The text across hundreds of books, modules, guides, maps, and other materials that describe various classes, items, spells, and other elements is 100% copyrightable, and anything that is "substantially similar" would be infringing on those copyrights. So yes, you're right, you can't copyright the real world rule for a game, but with enough existing copyrighted text, good luck describing similar rules in a similar universe with similar naming in a way that isn't substantially similar.
> Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
So it sounds like their approach here is dependent on the interpretation of "any authorized version" to mean "authorized _by us_", which would allow them to declare past versions "unauthorized"? I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds.. unlikely to stick.
So it sounds like their approach here is dependent on the interpretation of "any authorized version" to mean "authorized _by us_", which would allow them to declare past versions "unauthorized"? I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds.. unlikely to stick.
Is there a lawyer here that can give us an opinion here for entertainment - not legal advice - reasons?
If I build a computer game using places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon, how much fee I need to pay WotC? Assuming I sell it on Steam for some paltry revenue.
The Dragonlance universe is one of the more complicated examples you could have picked, because there's been some lawsuits about the rights. Also, video games have always required additional licensing, so you picked an almost entirely orthogonal example. The OGL covers printed (or digital "print") content.
The original OGL very much allows video games. KOTOR is for example a game that includes a copy of the OGL. There is also several virtual tabletop softwares that ship with OGL content.
Unless you make over $750k, nothing. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d
This is Wizards trying to walk a fine line. They want a cut of the profits from the big-name D&D-based content creators, but they don't want to kill the entire creative community. I'm not sure they're going to succeed. Pissing off the biggest names putting your product in the spotlight in return for a couple bucks seems a really dumb idea to me.
This is Wizards trying to walk a fine line. They want a cut of the profits from the big-name D&D-based content creators, but they don't want to kill the entire creative community. I'm not sure they're going to succeed. Pissing off the biggest names putting your product in the spotlight in return for a couple bucks seems a really dumb idea to me.
Not true. One of the very first lines there states that:
> OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us.
The Fan Content Policy is:
https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy
Which says that:
> You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content;
> You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and
> Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.
> You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content.
All of this exists (IMO) because game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, so you can, if you'd like, read these two sets of rules as Hasbro saying, "This is what we're willing to let you do without having to get a lawyer to defend yourself in court, even if it's legally allowed."
Note, though, that in GP's post, "places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon" very much are covered by WotC's copyrights (and probably some trademarks too).
> OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us.
The Fan Content Policy is:
https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy
Which says that:
> You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content;
> You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and
> Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.
> You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content.
All of this exists (IMO) because game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, so you can, if you'd like, read these two sets of rules as Hasbro saying, "This is what we're willing to let you do without having to get a lawyer to defend yourself in court, even if it's legally allowed."
Note, though, that in GP's post, "places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon" very much are covered by WotC's copyrights (and probably some trademarks too).
Thanks, looks like it's pretty strigent. Well worst case I'll put it up for free when done. Don't think anyone is going to pay anyway, just a hobby project.
They grant themselves a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use the content under the new OGL for any purpose and they can revoke your license for any reason provided they give you a 30 days notice.
You would have to be crazy to agree to that. Hasbro can literally tell you you have 30 days to pack then sell your product as their own.
You would have to be crazy to agree to that. Hasbro can literally tell you you have 30 days to pack then sell your product as their own.
Important to note that:
1) you are required to report your income if it is above $50k.
2) Once you sign they can arbitrarily adjust that $750k with nothing but a notice that the license has been updated.
1) you are required to report your income if it is above $50k.
2) Once you sign they can arbitrarily adjust that $750k with nothing but a notice that the license has been updated.
What are the big names? Paizo/Pathfinder? Can't they simply do their own thing and stop relying on D&D precisely because they are so big their customer base already knows them?
Or is it computer games? With computers handling the rules, you can just make your own RPG rules, right? Or is it the setting? Do people really only play videogames that are set in Faerun or Icewind Dale or whatever? Can't you just make your own stuff up and call it Arda-- er, Middle-- er, Ancient Magical Land of Elves?
Or is it computer games? With computers handling the rules, you can just make your own RPG rules, right? Or is it the setting? Do people really only play videogames that are set in Faerun or Icewind Dale or whatever? Can't you just make your own stuff up and call it Arda-- er, Middle-- er, Ancient Magical Land of Elves?
I believe Disney is connected to some OGL-based products, or at least was. Star Wars in general, I think, has some OGL connections.
Wow. Surely Disney of all companies can probably break clean of the OGL and do their own thing, right?
I mean, I would totally watch a battle between Disney's and Wizards of the Coast's legal departments. I suspect the Goliath in this case is Disney, and there are no Davids.
I mean, I would totally watch a battle between Disney's and Wizards of the Coast's legal departments. I suspect the Goliath in this case is Disney, and there are no Davids.
Nope, ogl 1.1 doesn't apply to anything but printed matieral/pdfs... 'books' essentially.
OGL only covers rules and mechanics, and some of the common, generic races/classes/spells/gear. All of the 'fluff' e.g. places and characters and worldbuilding is not licensed by OGL. OGL allows you to build your places and characters and content so that they're compatible with D&D content.
I don't think any Dragonlance content was ever published under the OGL, FWIW. The covered content is limited to the rules and the core(-ish) monster stat blocks. The fiction was never part of the deal (nor should it have been, IMHO).
Interesting. Does that mean If I loosely follow the rules (say mages use mana points which change by shape of moons) and don't use the stats (after all it's just a Ultima spinoff), I probably don't need to worry anything about licensing fee? I really don't think it's going to make any meaningful money anyway.
The Ultima series itself didn't bother to license D&D, so you're fine. Basic ideas of mechanics can't be copyrighted, and no one ever got a patent on "hit points" et. al.
How are we even in a scenario where the ideas from one game can be covered by the copyright of the author? What law today covers the ideas born out of a copyrighted work? Or is it mostly that people see this OGL as explicit permission where otherwise there'd be none which, despite the fact that they'd win, would still leave open the possibility that derivative authors could be sued (and out resourced, legally)?
I think the catch is more on extensions and accessories for D&D. There is obvious stuff like pre-packaged one-shot adventure books or custom character classes. Less obvious stuff like DM screens, stat-trackers, or spell cards. Then there's the "corporate dystopia nightmare" like wizard of the coast demanding a cut on sales of dice towers, notebooks, d20s, etc.
Am I right to assume WotC's move is basically aimed at groups like Critical Role?
On one hand, I have no interest in defending corporate copyright rules. But on the other hand, I disagree that this would stifle creativity. If there are hundreds of companies out there that only exist to pump out content for the D&D ruleset, surely making them pay for the privilege would encourage some of them to build new rulesets?
On one hand, I have no interest in defending corporate copyright rules. But on the other hand, I disagree that this would stifle creativity. If there are hundreds of companies out there that only exist to pump out content for the D&D ruleset, surely making them pay for the privilege would encourage some of them to build new rulesets?
I'm pretty sure the primary target is third party VTTs, and that Critical Role will probably get a royalty free side deal, precisely to prevent them jumping ship with their marketing power.
…the company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.
This makes me believe less that this is an organic push within WotC and more a push by a special interest group. Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1, it would make sense that a special interest group funded it with the stipulation that they added the trans bit in.
This makes me believe less that this is an organic push within WotC and more a push by a special interest group. Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1, it would make sense that a special interest group funded it with the stipulation that they added the trans bit in.
> Given that we know WotC didn’t write OGL 1.1
I have seen no evidence of this so far? Any source?
I have seen no evidence of this so far? Any source?
This is some old school microsoft shit, make everyone expand on your products & be dependant on them thinking they're safe by publishing an open license, then swap it under their feet forcing everyone to pay 25%.
That's like if Apple had decided overnight to start charging apps their infamous 30% fee
That's like if Apple had decided overnight to start charging apps their infamous 30% fee
I think they will find they are screwed and this desperate attempt is the straw. We see this in computing world where everyone did their best to avoid going to x86 and went to ARM, but now that ARM is so uncertain now they will abandon and go RISC V.
DnD is a community effort shaped by the needs and wants of players. It doesn't just belong to WotC. This was the rationale behind OGL 1.0. Trying to claim all derivatives for themselves is a Dick Move with consequences.
Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the license? Are they trying retroactively to gain IP over all ""DnD"" derivative works? Are they just doing something different for One D&D?
> Can someone explain to me why WoTC is actually changing the license?
Well Hasbro wants to make money of third party D&D content, nothing more. Why were people still using D&D when non corporate alternatives exist?
The people at the head of these companies could be selling vacuum cleaners it wouldn't make a difference, at the end of the day it's all about maximizing short term profit.
Well Hasbro wants to make money of third party D&D content, nothing more. Why were people still using D&D when non corporate alternatives exist?
The people at the head of these companies could be selling vacuum cleaners it wouldn't make a difference, at the end of the day it's all about maximizing short term profit.
The existence of the OGL v1.0a as given to this point allows you to take a big chunk of the D&D 5e rules and content (specifically this subset: https://www.5esrd.com/) and 3.5e (this subset): https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm and implement a character builder, database lookup, etc, roll engine etc. which you would need to make a virtual tabletop to compete with their upcoming product.
This is a problem for Wizards of the Coast as they view DnD as "heavily under-monetised" and so would like to change that with DnD 6E (aka OneD&D) to a model more similar to microtransaction laden video games. In particular, as part of OneD&D, they are building a whole new VTT on top of D&D Beyond which they acquired last year. This new VTT will have 3d models and animations which they want to sell to players, and D&D Beyond already allows selling pieces of rules for players to use in their character sheet seperately (see here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cau...).
This compares to the current model of D&D where maybe the GM buys a couple of books and shares them to their table or people just look up the SRD for the rules and use a third party character builder or VTT. The problem is if you're comparing "1 person spends $60 and 4-5 people pay $0" to "6 people pay recurring microtransaction revenue at the level of popular video games", then the 3d models and fancy effects are highly unlikely to avoid people choosing one of the cheaper options using the open licensed material.
So #1 they'd like to kill the ability for third parties to interfere with their new monetisation models. As for benefit #2, if they get to kill Pathfinder which is the closest game to D&D in licensing shenanigans, then that also removes the easiest option for players to move to if they accomplish point #1 alone. Failing that, they'll settle for #2b, which is capturing the revenue of Paizo (the publisher of Pathfinder) for themselves so that even if players flee D&D to alternatives, Wizards aren't losing any money.
As a tertiary benefit, maybe they manage to bully some smaller content creators into agreeing to 1.1 with the terms that they get to sell it on OneD&D to pad out their content library and make OneD&D more appealing to end users.
This is a problem for Wizards of the Coast as they view DnD as "heavily under-monetised" and so would like to change that with DnD 6E (aka OneD&D) to a model more similar to microtransaction laden video games. In particular, as part of OneD&D, they are building a whole new VTT on top of D&D Beyond which they acquired last year. This new VTT will have 3d models and animations which they want to sell to players, and D&D Beyond already allows selling pieces of rules for players to use in their character sheet seperately (see here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/tashas-cau...).
This compares to the current model of D&D where maybe the GM buys a couple of books and shares them to their table or people just look up the SRD for the rules and use a third party character builder or VTT. The problem is if you're comparing "1 person spends $60 and 4-5 people pay $0" to "6 people pay recurring microtransaction revenue at the level of popular video games", then the 3d models and fancy effects are highly unlikely to avoid people choosing one of the cheaper options using the open licensed material.
So #1 they'd like to kill the ability for third parties to interfere with their new monetisation models. As for benefit #2, if they get to kill Pathfinder which is the closest game to D&D in licensing shenanigans, then that also removes the easiest option for players to move to if they accomplish point #1 alone. Failing that, they'll settle for #2b, which is capturing the revenue of Paizo (the publisher of Pathfinder) for themselves so that even if players flee D&D to alternatives, Wizards aren't losing any money.
As a tertiary benefit, maybe they manage to bully some smaller content creators into agreeing to 1.1 with the terms that they get to sell it on OneD&D to pad out their content library and make OneD&D more appealing to end users.
Hasbro is working overtime to alienate the game communities they purchased.
Before french revolution: enlightened monarchy
After french revolution: tyranny and paranoia
Shortly after: "universal" democracy (modulo something)
Do we really need to repeat the exercise. It'll only lead to tears.
After french revolution: tyranny and paranoia
Shortly after: "universal" democracy (modulo something)
Do we really need to repeat the exercise. It'll only lead to tears.
Why did this disappear from the front page?
It's the natural process in a capitalistic system.
First, you build something that everyone loves and build up a huge stockpile of consumer trust. You use that consumer trust to gain market share, and eventually a lot of market power (though you never use those words or imply that you know you have market power).
Then once you're dominant, you exploit that consumer trust to make more money.
It worked pretty well for companies like Amazon and Google. WotC are just doing it a bit blatantly, or perhaps people saw through the ploy more easily than they had anticipated.
First, you build something that everyone loves and build up a huge stockpile of consumer trust. You use that consumer trust to gain market share, and eventually a lot of market power (though you never use those words or imply that you know you have market power).
Then once you're dominant, you exploit that consumer trust to make more money.
It worked pretty well for companies like Amazon and Google. WotC are just doing it a bit blatantly, or perhaps people saw through the ploy more easily than they had anticipated.
If a language model can run a D&D campaign, what do we need Wizards for?
Have you tried?
It loses the thread and descends into incoherence pretty quickly.
Also, because if it can do that, it was at some point trained on material licensed under the OGL, or WotC directly.
It loses the thread and descends into incoherence pretty quickly.
Also, because if it can do that, it was at some point trained on material licensed under the OGL, or WotC directly.
I don't understand how gamers (non-videogame gamers in this case) put up with ruthless monetization and lock-in attempts by the biggest companies.
RPGs is a particularly bizarre case. You really don't need anything but a group of friends, your imagination and some rules to play roleplaying games. Ok, so you want merchandise -- player screens and mats and minis -- all of that's optional, there's no RPG police that can prevent you making your own or buying from third parties. So you have adventure modules... I made my own adventures back when I was a teenager, but I can sort of see not everyone has the imagination to make their own, plus being able to "share" a world with other gaming groups so you can say you defeated the Temple of Elemental Evil or whatnot is sort of cool; not my thing, but I can see it.
But now apparently Wizards of the Coast is not content with all the stuff they already sell, so they are starting to build a virtual world (+ app, of course) where you can customize your character, buy DLC, etc. Of course, all tidily locked-in, because what better way to keep a tight reign than owning the app?
I can't wrap my head around this. An app? DLC? Custom items? For a game that happens inside your head, and that most people choose to play to do something other than staring at a screen? Has the world gone crazy?
You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination...
RPGs is a particularly bizarre case. You really don't need anything but a group of friends, your imagination and some rules to play roleplaying games. Ok, so you want merchandise -- player screens and mats and minis -- all of that's optional, there's no RPG police that can prevent you making your own or buying from third parties. So you have adventure modules... I made my own adventures back when I was a teenager, but I can sort of see not everyone has the imagination to make their own, plus being able to "share" a world with other gaming groups so you can say you defeated the Temple of Elemental Evil or whatnot is sort of cool; not my thing, but I can see it.
But now apparently Wizards of the Coast is not content with all the stuff they already sell, so they are starting to build a virtual world (+ app, of course) where you can customize your character, buy DLC, etc. Of course, all tidily locked-in, because what better way to keep a tight reign than owning the app?
I can't wrap my head around this. An app? DLC? Custom items? For a game that happens inside your head, and that most people choose to play to do something other than staring at a screen? Has the world gone crazy?
You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination...
Right so D&D has always been inspired from wargames, and combat and such occurs on a grid, with measurements and dice rolls.
With the pandemic virtual tabletops blew up and Hasbro (let’s call them what they really are, one of the largest game companies in the world) wants a piece of this action, or maybe all the pieces for that matter.
I play online using a virtual tabletop and while we often just use our imaginations, the VTT keeps track of our character sheets, our current equipment, our gold amounts, a log of all our dice rolls and what skill we were rolling. I used a 3D modeling program to make screenshots that I use as tokens for my character. Our DM runs multiple games and the virtual tabletop is also a note taking app that allows his notes to correspond to objects in the game, attached to certain places, or the entire campaign. Like a specialized Evernote. He couldn’t keep track of all the games he runs without it (or he could but it’d be harder).
It makes things a lot easier than just logging onto a zoom call and playing pretend. All this convenience would be a lot more expensive if it was just through the one official source.
I understand what they’re doing but it’s going to stifle the innovation that’s been happening in this space and finally get D&D to be a “video game” like they tried with 4th edition.
With the pandemic virtual tabletops blew up and Hasbro (let’s call them what they really are, one of the largest game companies in the world) wants a piece of this action, or maybe all the pieces for that matter.
I play online using a virtual tabletop and while we often just use our imaginations, the VTT keeps track of our character sheets, our current equipment, our gold amounts, a log of all our dice rolls and what skill we were rolling. I used a 3D modeling program to make screenshots that I use as tokens for my character. Our DM runs multiple games and the virtual tabletop is also a note taking app that allows his notes to correspond to objects in the game, attached to certain places, or the entire campaign. Like a specialized Evernote. He couldn’t keep track of all the games he runs without it (or he could but it’d be harder).
It makes things a lot easier than just logging onto a zoom call and playing pretend. All this convenience would be a lot more expensive if it was just through the one official source.
I understand what they’re doing but it’s going to stifle the innovation that’s been happening in this space and finally get D&D to be a “video game” like they tried with 4th edition.
Entirely true. However, Dungeons & Dragons is by far the biggest brand in the hobby. Bigger than the hobby itself, arguably. I'm pretty sure "Dungeons & Dragons" is better known than "Roleplaying Games". The brand is huge, it's the biggest thing that attracts new players, and WotC/Hasbro owns it. And they want to monetise it.
Most experienced roleplayers who know that there's a world outside D&D won't put up with it, but to lots of new players flocking to the big name, having something computer/app based may actually help make it more familiar. They've never heard of Pathfinder, let alone Call of Cthulhu, Fate or Shadowrun, and they have no idea how to play it. That's what they're coming to D&D for: to learn how to play it.
And if WotC/Hasbro is now going to tell them they need to pay to make their character in an online virtual world, they may never find what they were looking for.
Most experienced roleplayers who know that there's a world outside D&D won't put up with it, but to lots of new players flocking to the big name, having something computer/app based may actually help make it more familiar. They've never heard of Pathfinder, let alone Call of Cthulhu, Fate or Shadowrun, and they have no idea how to play it. That's what they're coming to D&D for: to learn how to play it.
And if WotC/Hasbro is now going to tell them they need to pay to make their character in an online virtual world, they may never find what they were looking for.
Not only have many players never heard of these systems, unfortunately many don't want to learn them once they do. I like Pathfinder, and Call of Cthulhu, and Mouseguard, and Fate; unfortunately, my players have little interest in picking up a new set of rules so that we can do the same thing, maybe just a little differently or cheaper.
And I get that! Learning the DnD rules to a point where you can roll up a character and take full advantage of the available actions and skills without a turn taking forever takes time. And once folks have done it once, they don't really care to do it again and again; that starts to feel like work, and this is supposed to be a game. For some, the tradeoffs aren't worth it.
It is a little disappointing, though, seeing all this change on the horizon and knowing that I would lose more than half of my players if I tried to get us into a different rule system.
And I get that! Learning the DnD rules to a point where you can roll up a character and take full advantage of the available actions and skills without a turn taking forever takes time. And once folks have done it once, they don't really care to do it again and again; that starts to feel like work, and this is supposed to be a game. For some, the tradeoffs aren't worth it.
It is a little disappointing, though, seeing all this change on the horizon and knowing that I would lose more than half of my players if I tried to get us into a different rule system.
> my players have little interest in picking up a new set of rules so that we can do the same thing
Does that mean they also won't switch to a new edition of D&D?
My biggest concern, though, is for new players. The ones who aren't even invested in the D&D ruleset yet. They don't know the rules, they don't know what roleplaying even is, but they've heard of D&D, and that's what they want to play, unaware that there are better options out there.
I think the really big fix here is not so much undoing OGL 1.1, but undoing the dominant position of the D&D trademark itself; prospective players need to have heard of Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and all the others. But that's hard to do, with D&D's long and rich history, and a single name is much more memorable than a long list of alternatives.
Does that mean they also won't switch to a new edition of D&D?
My biggest concern, though, is for new players. The ones who aren't even invested in the D&D ruleset yet. They don't know the rules, they don't know what roleplaying even is, but they've heard of D&D, and that's what they want to play, unaware that there are better options out there.
I think the really big fix here is not so much undoing OGL 1.1, but undoing the dominant position of the D&D trademark itself; prospective players need to have heard of Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and all the others. But that's hard to do, with D&D's long and rich history, and a single name is much more memorable than a long list of alternatives.
> I think the really big fix here is not so much undoing OGL 1.1, but undoing the dominant position of the D&D trademark itself; prospective players need to have heard of Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and all the others. But that's hard to do, with D&D's long and rich history, and a single name is much more memorable than a long list of alternatives.
Fully agreed! If there are such things as Mac or Linux evangelists, why can't there be Call of Cthulhu ones? Evangelizing games is far easier than doing so for computers. People are willing to learn new games. It's all some people ever seem to do, learning and collecting new games!
Fully agreed! If there are such things as Mac or Linux evangelists, why can't there be Call of Cthulhu ones? Evangelizing games is far easier than doing so for computers. People are willing to learn new games. It's all some people ever seem to do, learning and collecting new games!
That's disappointing to hear, especially since many RPGs out there are both more fun and simpler than D&D.
I suspect you are right, and it's depressing.
I do think it's a bit easier to escape this trap, because an inventive game master can convince their group of friends to play something else, and this is easier than getting someone to switch from Windows. It's simply teaching them a new game!
I do think it's a bit easier to escape this trap, because an inventive game master can convince their group of friends to play something else, and this is easier than getting someone to switch from Windows. It's simply teaching them a new game!
Some friends of mine started their own RPG decades ago. They have built up long branches of history/lore, star charts, a dozen or so species, several factions disputing territory, weapons, vehicles, armor classes, dozens of attributes per character, mysterious artifacts, magic, etc. and art to go along with most of it.
It's the only RPG I have played more than a handful of times. RPGs are a labor of love, friendship, and fun: no more, no less.
It's the only RPG I have played more than a handful of times. RPGs are a labor of love, friendship, and fun: no more, no less.
I love your reply, and fully agreed!
I do understand that kind of involvement in the hobby is not for everyone. I'm not obtuse, I understand the appeal of ready-made fantasy worlds and adventures. But still...
I do understand that kind of involvement in the hobby is not for everyone. I'm not obtuse, I understand the appeal of ready-made fantasy worlds and adventures. But still...
This letter is proof they are not putting up with it. Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap?
> You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination
Obviously you need rulebooks, campaign modules, etc. This is the stuff that is under license from WotC.
> You only needed some friends, dice and an imagination
Obviously you need rulebooks, campaign modules, etc. This is the stuff that is under license from WotC.
Sorry, my rant was semi-related: I mean the upcoming digital D&D app that Wizards of the Coast expects players to use. Isn't it crazy that they expect to sell you DLC for online avatars for a game that happens in your imagination?
> Obviously you need rulebooks
Yes.
> campaign modules
Unlike the rulebook, these are nice but not mandatory. And if you're crafty, you can derive inspiration from other fantasy worlds, books, novels and movies. I do understand not everybody is creative enough or wants to spend time doing this though; I also understand some people value a "shared world" they can discuss with other players beyond their group.
> Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap?
At some point, yes. I mean, there are plenty of other awesome RPGs to play, right? You are not locked-in to D&D in the same sense many people are locked-in to Windows.
> Obviously you need rulebooks
Yes.
> campaign modules
Unlike the rulebook, these are nice but not mandatory. And if you're crafty, you can derive inspiration from other fantasy worlds, books, novels and movies. I do understand not everybody is creative enough or wants to spend time doing this though; I also understand some people value a "shared world" they can discuss with other players beyond their group.
> Or do you mean they should just stop playing DnD when WotC pulls this crap?
At some point, yes. I mean, there are plenty of other awesome RPGs to play, right? You are not locked-in to D&D in the same sense many people are locked-in to Windows.
More than D&D itself, and its players, the new "OGL" creates tremendous hurdles for the 3rd party, admittedly a little cottage, industry that bloomed around OGL.
I'm absolutely fine without D&D, but Hasbro is going against makers of Pathfinder, my preferred dungeon crawler RPG.
I'm absolutely fine without D&D, but Hasbro is going against makers of Pathfinder, my preferred dungeon crawler RPG.
I agree with the broad thrust of your argument, but I cannot emphasize enough how useful DnDBeyond is for character creation, rule/item lookups, shared campaign content, etc. Sure, you don't _need_ it, but it makes the experience so much easier and more pleasant, allowing you to spend your time on the bits of the hobby you actually enjoy rather than trawling through reference books (if trawling through reference books _is_ the bit that you enjoy, you are free to keep doing that :) )
It's not useful _enough_ to make me want to keep using it in this new climate, but still - don't undermine your (very correct!) argument by under-valuing the non-DLC aspects of RPG apps.
It's not useful _enough_ to make me want to keep using it in this new climate, but still - don't undermine your (very correct!) argument by under-valuing the non-DLC aspects of RPG apps.
> For a game that happens inside your head, and that most people choose to play to do something other than staring at a screen? Has the world gone crazy?
I think the thing that happened is that D&D transitioned from being a game to a lifestyle brand. It's not actually about playing a game anymore, it's about collecting books and buying swag and watching Youtube shows.
I think the thing that happened is that D&D transitioned from being a game to a lifestyle brand. It's not actually about playing a game anymore, it's about collecting books and buying swag and watching Youtube shows.
[deleted]
IANAL, but I would love the opinion of anyone more qualified on this: Suppose I am one of the "Expert Tier" companies and I'm making a lot of money off of using OGL 1.0 licensed works in conjunction with my own.
The OGL[0] says Wizards can authorize new versions of the license, but it doesn't define "authorized" and it doesn't say anywhere they can deauthorize old ones. It also says that the terms of the license are perpetual.
If I saw WOTC was going to make a change like this, obviously I'd retain counsel, but why wouldn't I take a position something like:
1) We don't believe that Wizards can arbitrarily bind us to the terms of any new license just because they have "authorized" it.
2) We will only release content that uses OGL 1.0a licensed works and never anything using 1.1 or any other version.
3) If Wizards doesn't like it, they can sue us and try to enforce their license. It'll be on them to prove the license binds us, and they'll look like assholes in front of their community of players.
When my option is "give up all my corporate secrets and also lose 25% of my money" or this, why shouldn't I do this?
[0] https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
Edit: Another source I found that seems to suggest this might be an option, to an extent - or that there might be other ways to challenge this decision: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
The OGL[0] says Wizards can authorize new versions of the license, but it doesn't define "authorized" and it doesn't say anywhere they can deauthorize old ones. It also says that the terms of the license are perpetual.
If I saw WOTC was going to make a change like this, obviously I'd retain counsel, but why wouldn't I take a position something like:
1) We don't believe that Wizards can arbitrarily bind us to the terms of any new license just because they have "authorized" it.
2) We will only release content that uses OGL 1.0a licensed works and never anything using 1.1 or any other version.
3) If Wizards doesn't like it, they can sue us and try to enforce their license. It'll be on them to prove the license binds us, and they'll look like assholes in front of their community of players.
When my option is "give up all my corporate secrets and also lose 25% of my money" or this, why shouldn't I do this?
[0] https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
Edit: Another source I found that seems to suggest this might be an option, to an extent - or that there might be other ways to challenge this decision: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
There was a good thread recently where a lawyer helps distinguish "perpetual" and "irrevocable", which us laypeople tend to confuse.
Basically the license is perpetual in that there's no default expiry; but it is NOT irrevocable. Consequences of license being revoked would then depend on details, jurisdiction, law,precedent,court, potentially past vs future work, and whether you're feeling lucky, punk :-/
Basically the license is perpetual in that there's no default expiry; but it is NOT irrevocable. Consequences of license being revoked would then depend on details, jurisdiction, law,precedent,court, potentially past vs future work, and whether you're feeling lucky, punk :-/
> There was a good thread recently where a lawyer helps distinguish "perpetual" and "irrevocable", which us laypeople tend to confuse.
Gosh, why does it have to be this way? It's even harder for non-native speakers to read legal documents "correctly", i.e. the way courts would interpret them. I understand that contracts and laws need precise language, but, in contrast to, say, mathematics, reading legal documents is such an important activity that we cannot ignore the needs of laypeople – they have to follow contracts and laws, too, after all. And I don't think it's plausible that clashes between general use of words and legalese are unavoidable, especially as contracts don't seem to be optimized for brevity.
And in general, us laypeople should vehemently demand contracts and laws to be optimized for easy reading. Imagine what good a precedent could do, where a complete EULAs was judged void, because they were to hard to read/understand/interpret.
Gosh, why does it have to be this way? It's even harder for non-native speakers to read legal documents "correctly", i.e. the way courts would interpret them. I understand that contracts and laws need precise language, but, in contrast to, say, mathematics, reading legal documents is such an important activity that we cannot ignore the needs of laypeople – they have to follow contracts and laws, too, after all. And I don't think it's plausible that clashes between general use of words and legalese are unavoidable, especially as contracts don't seem to be optimized for brevity.
And in general, us laypeople should vehemently demand contracts and laws to be optimized for easy reading. Imagine what good a precedent could do, where a complete EULAs was judged void, because they were to hard to read/understand/interpret.
The issue is that law, especially contract law, very often turns on the minutiae of what specifically was intended by a given statement in text. That's why contracts have pages and pages of definitions that seem obvious, and why courts assign special meanings to terms like "irrevocable".
That is to say, at some point in the past, some court case probably turned on proving that "irrevocable" was supposed to mean something different than "perpetual," and so now the standard is to assume that's what it means, unless the contract explicitly says something different. What if I want a contract that I can't choose to take back, but which doesn't last forever?
It's a problem of trying to force precision on a language that is inherently imprecise, topped off with concepts that are actually hard to understand.
That is to say, at some point in the past, some court case probably turned on proving that "irrevocable" was supposed to mean something different than "perpetual," and so now the standard is to assume that's what it means, unless the contract explicitly says something different. What if I want a contract that I can't choose to take back, but which doesn't last forever?
It's a problem of trying to force precision on a language that is inherently imprecise, topped off with concepts that are actually hard to understand.
I agree with you 100 %.
The one thing we as lay people can do to protect ourselves though is to be humble, I.e. Not assume that we are experts and know what the rules are, or that words mean more than they do. It's a little like programming and requires literal frame of mind that doesn't run away. "Perpetual" is a time dimension and doesn't have a "no take backsies" dimension but our mind puts it there :). I see it all the time where people undertake actions or share advice or give instructions based solely on their intuitive sense on how law "should work" or "what makes sense" (while being blissfully unaware of this bias and assumption).
As a personal example I went through a difficult divorce a decade ago. I read up on family law and talked to a lawyer. The divorce was made that much more difficult by my senior family members incessantly and continuously insisting upon things that were catastrophically wrong, but made perfect intuitive common sense to them (e.g. My dad spent 6 months telling me that my wife did not have any rights on the apartment that was in my name and I paid for. But it was marital home and in our jurisdiction she 100% totally absolutely had legal claim upon it. And million things like that).
The one thing we as lay people can do to protect ourselves though is to be humble, I.e. Not assume that we are experts and know what the rules are, or that words mean more than they do. It's a little like programming and requires literal frame of mind that doesn't run away. "Perpetual" is a time dimension and doesn't have a "no take backsies" dimension but our mind puts it there :). I see it all the time where people undertake actions or share advice or give instructions based solely on their intuitive sense on how law "should work" or "what makes sense" (while being blissfully unaware of this bias and assumption).
As a personal example I went through a difficult divorce a decade ago. I read up on family law and talked to a lawyer. The divorce was made that much more difficult by my senior family members incessantly and continuously insisting upon things that were catastrophically wrong, but made perfect intuitive common sense to them (e.g. My dad spent 6 months telling me that my wife did not have any rights on the apartment that was in my name and I paid for. But it was marital home and in our jurisdiction she 100% totally absolutely had legal claim upon it. And million things like that).
The next question of interest to HN then, is whether or not the MIT license is revocable? (The MIT license never says the word "irrevocable".)
Very interesting distinction, thank you.
The risk that if Wizards moves forward with undertaking #3, that they can remain big and assholey for longer than you can remain solvent.
(Giving up 25% of your revenue is obviously an enormous blow, but seems possible to be in a position where you think you can just about squeeze by long enough to pivot if you suck it up and take their terms as you try to move away from doing any new 1.1-related works.)
(Giving up 25% of your revenue is obviously an enormous blow, but seems possible to be in a position where you think you can just about squeeze by long enough to pivot if you suck it up and take their terms as you try to move away from doing any new 1.1-related works.)
> The risk that if Wizards moves forward with undertaking #3, that they can remain big and assholey for longer than you can remain solvent.
To be fair, Hasbro seems to pull this every other major D&D version since introducing the OGL with 3rd edition, so we should expect Two D&D to be a return to more open licensing after the inevitable debacle of One D&D.
Sucks to be one of the companies that exists solely around the ecosystem of the 5e wave of “Hasbro is trying to encourage third party support rather than squeezing producers”, or one of the ones that survived the 4e squeeze because Hasbro didn’t try to squeeze pure legacy use.
To be fair, Hasbro seems to pull this every other major D&D version since introducing the OGL with 3rd edition, so we should expect Two D&D to be a return to more open licensing after the inevitable debacle of One D&D.
Sucks to be one of the companies that exists solely around the ecosystem of the 5e wave of “Hasbro is trying to encourage third party support rather than squeezing producers”, or one of the ones that survived the 4e squeeze because Hasbro didn’t try to squeeze pure legacy use.
I would assume (IANAL!) that it would work similarly to software license upgrades. The IP created and licensed under version 1.0 would still be under version 1.0, and only IP created after 1.1 is released is affected, and then there must be some action on part of the small games company to agree to it.
I suspect it depends of course on the exact terms of license and what users of version 1.0 agreed to in terms of future binding.
Might be an interesting case with more than a little relevance for (US) software licenses
I suspect it depends of course on the exact terms of license and what users of version 1.0 agreed to in terms of future binding.
Might be an interesting case with more than a little relevance for (US) software licenses
Wizards seems to think this will explicitly not be the case, and they can effectively force everyone to abide by the terms of a new license just by making one. Which maybe they can! But it seems like the right move might be to force them to try it.
Yes. Unless you are the plaintiff ... :-(
I wonder what constitutes a new game for purposes of the contract. Could I release "Circvmventia: Qvest of the Changeling" and then when you hit 600k modify the game art and character names and release "Circvmventia: Changeling Reborne," etc. I imagine they'd just modify the license again to get more control but it could buy time.
[deleted]
Are u kidding me? Again? Are we fighting against the same company again? We never learned anything. They had the article where they can change anything at any time, that was always a red flag, and was from the first day.
As gm it is a shame that someone uses that licence all those years. Paizo made a rewrite and I think was the only company that saw that coming decades ago. But many mainstream groups used the content and the rights that the licence gave to push their projects and made a fortune (and wizards used that to push again the game), and now they are saying: no more. Well, bad luck for you.
Use a real open licence, even a CC-BY-SA-NC if you wants, not a licence with a backdoor from the owner!
My god, the community is fighting a battle for less than 20 companies affected because they wanted to use a stupid licence.
OGL 1.1 is bad as 1.0 was, it is the same shit, now with a royalty and just because of that, they are all like crazies. Was always as bad as now.
As gm it is a shame that someone uses that licence all those years. Paizo made a rewrite and I think was the only company that saw that coming decades ago. But many mainstream groups used the content and the rights that the licence gave to push their projects and made a fortune (and wizards used that to push again the game), and now they are saying: no more. Well, bad luck for you.
Use a real open licence, even a CC-BY-SA-NC if you wants, not a licence with a backdoor from the owner!
My god, the community is fighting a battle for less than 20 companies affected because they wanted to use a stupid licence.
OGL 1.1 is bad as 1.0 was, it is the same shit, now with a royalty and just because of that, they are all like crazies. Was always as bad as now.
[deleted]
Dungeons and Dragons’ new license tightens its grip on competition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 - Jan 2023 (203 comments)