D&D OGL 1.1

[Darth Fluffy 302]

Yeah, the ORCs are the good guys here.

Hasbro, Home of the Waffle.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

My take on the walking back draft OGL 1.1 :

15 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Hasbro, through their WotC property, cannot legally revoke the OGL. It is no longer theirs, it is the community's. The framework it provides is no longer theirs, it is the communities. They own specific copyrightable properties within that framework, just as the other players do. They cannot retroactively decide, "Hey, we want royalties", that was made clear at the outset, decades ago.

 

They can claim it does not apply to new properties going forward. They've already done that in some releases. If they want to leave the OGL framework, sure, don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. They don't get to torch the building as they are leaving.

 

Somewhere, some manager at Hasbro is getting his ass chewed. Hasbro is good at monetizing their properties. They must recognize that good will is a key component of the process. Not only did they step on their d*k with the draft OGL 1.1, but the 'retraction' fails to withdraw properly and attempts to justify what was done - effectively broadcasting insincerity. It may have been intended to further placate the offended masses, but only if the writer was particularly inept. My guess it is it was thought necessary to placate internal readers, upper managers who might take issue with the overall clumsiness of the draft OGL 1.1. If so, there are better ways of handling internal communication. Hence, the ass chewing. "Don't air out our laundry in front of the building."

Ultimately, Paizo's course is wise. You can go broke being right in court. I've had personal experience with this with. Sometimes, you've got to take the loss and just walk away. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Darth Fluffy
fix typo

[mlooney 3,417]

5 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

My take on the walking back draft OGL 1.1 :

Ultimately, Piazo's course is wise. You can go broke being right in court. I've had personal experience with this with. Sometimes, you've got to take the loss and just walk away. 

Piazo doesn't have much choice as /Path|Star/finder is based on the 3.5 SRD.  If the OGL 1.0a is invalidated they are out of business when and if they create new content that isn't based on the SRD.  

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 minute ago, mlooney said:

Piazo doesn't have much choice as /Path|Star/finder is based on the 3.5 SRD.  If the OGL 1.0a is invalidated they are out of business when and if they create new content that isn't based on the SRD.  

To quote actual Sparta, "If".

Ryan Dancey, who spearheaded the original OGL at WotC and runs the Open Gaming Foundation now, says

Quote

"Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked."

One can only hope, but again, deep pockets, and court is best avoided, so ...

[mlooney 3,417]

Oh yeah, I don't think that the 1.0a OGL can be invalidated, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't have a business that depends on it not being invalidated.  

[ijuin 572]

I’m pretty sure that unilateral changes to any legally binding contract can not be made retroactive upon non-consenting parties. They can bar future products, but can not rescind permission for already-released ones.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

7 hours ago, ijuin said:

I’m pretty sure that unilateral changes to any legally binding contract can not be made retroactive upon non-consenting parties. They can bar future products, but can not rescind permission for already-released ones.

I believe this (what you said) is technically accurate.

Our legal system allows a well funded entity to produce sufficient heartache that they often get away with bovine stud feces.

While most jobs have competency requirements, being an elected or appointed official does not. That includes judges.

Paizo's take on this is a healthy alternative. Walk away while you still can.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Darth Fluffy
Clarify a point.

[mlooney 3,417]

The current "note" from WotC says that things released under the OGL 1.0a will stay under the OGL 1.0a.  This is a good sign.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 hour ago, mlooney said:

The current "note" from WotC says that things released under the OGL 1.0a will stay under the OGL 1.0a.  This is a good sign.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license

Basically, walking it back a second time. Good.

If I were Paizo and others in their shoes, I would not reverse whatever initiative I just started. The true colors were flown, if only briefly, don't trust the false flag.

[mlooney 3,417]

Well, tomorrow we see the "new" OGL.  We will see what we will see then.

[mlooney 3,417]

WotC rolled over and is playing dead.  They are not killing the OGL 1.0a AND are releasing the SRD under the CC4 license.  

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:09 PM, mlooney said:

WotC rolled over and is playing dead.  They are not killing the OGL 1.0a AND are releasing the SRD under the CC4 license.  

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons 

Not sure if this is good or bad. Keeping it open invites continued participation, but some folks already have a sour taste in their mouth and will likely continue plans to create an new framework. That should result in a further divided community, killing off a couple of decades of consolidation. It also still leaves room for future similar FOD by WotC another decade or two down the road. I wonder if a clean break would have been better.

[mlooney 3,417]

6 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It also still leaves room for future similar FOD by WotC another decade or two down the road. I wonder if a clean break would have been better.

I suspect that the next thing by WotC will be a d20 style license for the "One D&D" SRD when it comes out.  Your choice for doing D&D then will be 
1) Publish stuff from the current SRD, the 3.x SRD, and the modern SRD under the OGL 1.0a, just like as before all this started.  There are several other IPs that use the OGL 1.0a that aren't based on anything D&D.  The other products may or may not migrate to the ORC license or to the CC-By-4-Int.
2) Publish stuff from the current SRD under the Creative Common's license, which WotC can't mess with.
3) Publish the new stuff under what ever new license that WotC comes up with for it.  Like I said, I suspect it will be closer to the d20 license than anything else.
4) Publish stuff using all the rules and set in one of the WotC settings using the "Community Content" license.  That all ready has a 50% cut of your selling price going to WotC and One Bookshelf.

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

15 hours ago, mlooney said:

I suspect that the next thing by WotC will be a d20 style license for the "One D&D" SRD when it comes out.  Your choice for doing D&D then will be 
1) Publish stuff from the current SRD, the 3.x SRD, and the modern SRD under the OGL 1.0a, just like as before all this started.  There are several other IPs that use the OGL 1.0a that aren't based on anything D&D.  The other products may or may not migrate to the ORC license or to the CC-By-4-Int.
2) Publish stuff from the current SRD under the Creative Common's license, which WotC can't mess with.
3) Publish the new stuff under what ever new license that WotC comes up with for it.  Like I said, I suspect it will be closer to the d20 license than anything else.
4) Publish stuff using all the rules and set in one of the WotC settings using the "Community Content" license.  That all ready has a 50% cut of your selling price going to WotC and One Bookshelf.

Per disclaimers and ancillary verbiage, WotC already can't claw back the OGL 1.0a. That did not stop them from trying. Remember the Golden Rule, "He who has the gold write the rules." Reasonable, fair, and legal tend to bend in the presence of that rule.

[mlooney 3,417]

An amusing thing about the release under the CC4 of the SRD is that they didn't "carve out" protections for several names that they normally protect.  Beholder being high on the list.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

Curious about your take on GURPS in all of this. What I gather is it is a very stable system; it's one of the older ones, it handles many situations; more settings and much more diverse source material than any other, including base engines such as D20; it is very open to min/max abuse, thus requiring greater effort on the part of the participants and in particular the GM to keep it reasonable, the licensing (which I do not know a great deal about) appears at first glance to be restrictive; AFAIK, only Steve Jackson Games publishes GURPS material, but that may be due more to lack of interest than licensing issues.

As I see it, it basically requires a group that is very comfortable with the TTRPG gaming process, and is not a good entry level system, hence D&D having intro boxed sets will sell more. Thoughts?

[mlooney 3,417]

GURPS's licensing is indeed weird, but it also runs both ways, in that GURPS has to license a lot of things for it's books.

Licensed fictional settings

GURPS Casey and Andy (PDF) - A setting inspired by the Casey and Andy webcomic by Andy Weir.

GURPS Prime Directive
One of the incarnations of the Prime Directive role-playing game, set in the Star Trek-derived Star Fleet Universe, together with its sourcebooks:

• GURPS Prime Directive: Klingons
• GURPS Prime Directive: Romulans

GURPS Tales of the Solar Patrol (PDF) by "Lizard"

GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars
Describes a period of the history of the science fiction Traveller setting, early in its history; includes rules for generating characters for the setting, starship design, interstellar trade, exploration, and ship-to-ship combat.

Girl Genius RPG (in production) based on the Girl Genius webcomic by Studio Foglio

Vorkosigan Saga Sourcebook and Roleplaying Game
the sourcebook of Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan Saga.

Book adaptations The following fictional settings are adaptations of preceding fictional works originating in novels:

GURPS Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, a parallel world-themed setting based in a bar/space nexus that was created by Spider Robinson in his Callahan's Crosstime Saloon stories.

GURPS Conan. ISBN 1-55634-148-2.—detailing the world in which the adventures of Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian are set.

GURPS Discworld GURPS Discworld Also Phil Masters, Jonathan Woodward (2002).

Hellboy Sourcebook and Roleplaying Game. ISBN 978-1-55634-654-5., detailing the world in which the adventures of Hellboy are set.

GURPS Lensman, detailing the setting of the Lensman series, a series of science fiction novels by E. E. Smith.

GURPS New Sun, detailing the setting of The Book of the New Sun, a science fiction novel by Gene Wolfe.

GURPS Planet Krishna, detailing the setting of The Queen of Zamba, a science fiction novel by L. Sprague de Camp.

GURPS Planet of Adventure, describing a distant world populated by many varied alien and half-alien races, set in the world of the Planet of Adventure series of novels by Jack Vance.

GURPS Riverworld, a setting in the fictional world described in the novels of the Riverworld series by Philip José Farmer. This setting is an artificial planet where everyone who lived before a set date in history seems to have been resurrected.

GURPS Uplift, based on the fictional universe envisioned by David Brin in his Uplift Universe series, where biological uplift of animals has become common.

GURPS War Against the Chtorr, describing additional rules and a game setting based on the War Against the Chtorr science fiction novel series by David Gerrold, which depicts an Earth invaded by an alien ecology.

GURPS Wild Cards, detailing the setting of the science fiction/superhero shared universe Wild Cards[78] Sasha Miller and Ben W. Miller (1989).

GURPS Witch World. ISBN 1-55634-143-1.—a setting based on the series of Witch World novels by Andre Norton. Included are a bestiary of Witch World creatures, details on the non-human races, a history and geography of the planet, and a color-based system of magic.

Video game adaptations

GURPS Alpha Centauri, detailing the setting of the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri computer game.

GURPS Myth, detailing the setting of the Myth computer game.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

I have (I believe I still have, haven't seen it for years) GURPS Conan, Planet Krishna, I think I have Uplift and River World. All 3rd ed, not sure if that breaks them.

I also have (same deal, I don't know where) Flinx and Pip (Alan Dean Foster), and a For Love of Mother Not solo adventure, and a Beliet solo adventure for Conan.

I've seen the War Against the Chtorr book in the store, but was never a fan of the books. It would probably work better as a role playing setting than it did as a novel.

Let us not forget GURPS Bunnies and Burrows, a revival of Bunnies and Burrows, which was based on Watership Down.

It is a very flexible system, but more than average work. I think it has great support, and some people really get into it for the flexibility, but I've always had trouble finding players for anything not D&D.

My impression of Wild Cards is that is where it begins breaking. The supers level of point value invites abusing the system, I would imagine that real games require meta-rules just to work.

 

[mlooney 3,417]

9 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The supers level of point value invites abusing the system, I would imagine that real games require meta-rules just to work.

If you are going to play Super Hero games, I suggest Hero System.  It's made for it.

[mlooney 3,417]

One side effect of the OGL screw-up by WotC is that they seemed to have stop or maybe just slowed the releases of One-D&D play test drops.  We are way past time for the 4th one.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

That is curious. Like at some level the hierarchy is rethinking the future migration of their property.

In an actually, but not obviously, related side issue, John Deere is caving in on repairability, but the motivation is to forestall legislation that would kick their legs out from under them.

Two year old used Macintoshes are bricks because of remotely enforced security that prevents the new owner from  resetting the machine. Microsoft wants you to have this as well; it's a precursor to running Windows 11.

The world is inundated in trash, and we are too stupid to forestall it. We deserve our future.

 

[mlooney 3,417]

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Two year old used Macintoshes are bricks because of remotely enforced security that prevents the new owner from  resetting the machine. Microsoft wants you to have this as well; it's a precursor to running Windows 11.

All of this is one reason I run Linux when ever possible.