| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but people can just use OGL 1.0 still. What does 1.1 give them that would cause them to use it instead?Depending on the scope of changes, the OGL will be stuck referencing the SRD.
They may put out a new, non-OGL 1.0 SRD-equivalent that requires one to use the “new improved” license.
It would be deemed “closed content” for purposes of the OGL but usable under the new license.
Can you break that down? I'm having trouble understanding what that means in practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But anyone can use v 1.0 to fork 5th edition, just like Pathfinder forked 3.5.
Correct. The update will not ruin any 5e spinoffs. But it will prevent any 6e spinoffs, much like 4e's license.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you break that down? I'm having trouble understanding what that means in practice....but people can just use OGL 1.0 still. What does 1.1 give them that would cause them to use it instead?Depending on the scope of changes, the OGL will be stuck referencing the SRD.
They may put out a new, non-OGL 1.0 SRD-equivalent that requires one to use the “new improved” license.
It would be deemed “closed content” for purposes of the OGL but usable under the new license.
The OGL is an irrevocable license that lets you publish with the relative safety that you won’t get sued - the key limitation being that you can only use “open content”.
The starting building block for open content was the SRD (System Reference Document) so for example the 3.5 Players handbook was deemed “closed content” - you cant reference anything in there under the OGL unless it’s also in the SRD. That’s why Pathfinder had to invent its own experience point scale - the one in the PH isn’t in the SRD, so it isn’t open content.
So what I meant above was that if 6E introduces some new concept like a “class focus” or something, they might put it in a new document, label it closed content for the purposes of the OGL and then allow you to use it if you utilise the new and improved version.
Someone trying to stick with the OGL would need to find creative wording (maybe they’d use class specialisation to replicate the mechanic) or risk a cease and desist order as class focus being closed content, the OGL would provide no protection.
Does that make more sense?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But anyone can use v 1.0 to fork 5th edition, just like Pathfinder forked 3.5.Correct. The update will not ruin any 5e spinoffs. But it will prevent any 6e spinoffs, much like 4e's license.
You can still make a 6E spinoff under the OGL (just like they made 4E ones, 0E clones, 2E…).
But you need to be pretty careful with terminology.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you break that down? I'm having trouble understanding what that means in practice....but people can just use OGL 1.0 still. What does 1.1 give them that would cause them to use it instead?Depending on the scope of changes, the OGL will be stuck referencing the SRD.
They may put out a new, non-OGL 1.0 SRD-equivalent that requires one to use the “new improved” license.
It would be deemed “closed content” for purposes of the OGL but usable under the new license.
The OGL is an irrevocable license that lets you publish with the relative safety that you won’t get sued - the key limitation being that you can only use “open content”.
The starting building block for open content was the SRD (System Reference Document) so for example the 3.5 Players handbook was deemed “closed content” - you cant reference anything in there under the OGL unless it’s also in the SRD. That’s why Pathfinder had to invent its own experience point scale - the one in the PH isn’t in the SRD, so it isn’t open content.
So what I meant above was that if 6E introduces some new concept like a “class focus” or something, they might put it in a new document, label it closed content for the purposes of the OGL and then allow you to use it if you utilise the new and improved version.
Someone trying to stick with the OGL would need to find creative wording (maybe they’d use class specialisation to replicate the mechanic) or risk a cease and desist order as class focus being closed content, the OGL would provide no protection.
Does that make more sense?
It does. Thank You.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can still make a 6E spinoff under the OGL (just like they made 4E ones, 0E clones, 2E…).
But you need to be pretty careful with terminology.
Sure, as long as you pay them their cut.
But you need to be pretty careful with terminology.
You can't just rename feats and rephrase vocabulary and call it "an independent product". Regardless, you're missing the point, but a bunch of 5e creators have gotten it loud and clear, and they're pretty mad about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, as long as you pay them their cut.You can still make a 6E spinoff under the OGL (just like they made 4E ones, 0E clones, 2E…).
But you need to be pretty careful with terminology.
You honestly dont need to.
WotC sent a number of cease and desists to various of the OSRIC publishers - they claimed the OGL doesnt give you the right to reproduce their games. They didnt pursue it then and they wont this time either (not that I expect anyone to try and make a 6E clone. But you can.)
"Wotc said..." doesnt have a lot of weight in IP law.
People think "3.5 was an OGL game, 4E wasnt" but its not that simple. The OGL is a system agnostic license, which is why its been used to produce even games not based on D&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is WotC trying to make the new OGL retroactive?
This is the nub. They probably can’t technically do it, but who’s going to fight them legally?
And if all the big players accept WotC’s terms, that in itself becomes evidence that they’re “right”.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is WotC trying to make the new OGL retroactive?This is the nub. They probably can’t technically do it, but who’s going to fight them legally?
Actually, I could see this provoking a big fight that Hasbro can't actually win.
And if all the big players accept WotC’s terms, that in itself becomes evidence that they’re “right”.
Actually, the "big players" are the very people who could fight back against this overreach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is WotC trying to make the new OGL retroactive?This is the nub. They probably can’t technically do it, but who’s going to fight them legally?Actually, I could see this provoking a big fight that Hasbro can't actually win.
And if all the big players accept WotC’s terms, that in itself becomes evidence that they’re “right”.Actually, the "big players" are the very people who could fight back against this overreach.
They could, but theyre unlikely to.
If it becomes a protracted and hence costly legal fight a compromise is going to be pretty appealing to a 3rd party who currently earn a lot from D&D IP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I could see this provoking a big fight that Hasbro can't actually win.
It will hinge on what WotC "meant" when they said "you can use any version of the license".
The language theyre using now is to "clarify" what they, in fact meant.
IP fights like that are going to come down to $ just as often as legal argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting thing I noticed about the new OGL is that you won't be able to make any kind of website anymore that uses “One D&D” content. Only printed content and “static” digital content, such as PDFs and e-books. That rules out websites, character generator apps, even fillable character sheets and so on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Juicy leaks overnight... and the freaky thing is, the leakers (who I have complete confidence and trust in) have it on good authority that what they've been shown/discovered is rock solid and real language floating around HASBRO/WotC internal... I don't want to dig into it too much here as the topic is already quite divisive but suffice it to say that unless some truly elaborate hoax is being played on EXTREMELY well-informed leaders in this market then there will either be truly seismic waves made as a consequence of it or HASBRO/WotC is going to have to backpedal harder than I think they're functionally able to.
Interesting times ahead....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gizmodo seems to have got their hands on a draft of the new "OGL". Here's their rather depressing rundown.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It got worse, lmao
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It got worse, lmao
Will WotC try to go after Paizo? Can they prevail?
I wonder what kind of deal Wizards will offer Matt Mercer?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gizmodo seems to have got their hands on a draft of the new "OGL". Here's their rather depressing rundown.
I just...can't. How is WotC stupid enough to do this AGAIN?
If I were Paizo I'd be throwing a giant party. It's not often that the market leader completely implodes not once, but twice, in the span of fifteen years. And in the same exact way both times!
It genuinely boggles the mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will WotC try to go after Paizo?
I doubt it, but at this point really nothing can be ruled out. WotC no longer appears to be a rational actor.
Can they prevail?
Not in any sane world.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leon isn't wrong at all, it did get worse, way, WAY worse, like... satirically bad to the point where I'm starting to wonder if there is an effort inside HASBRO to find leaks by way of showing suspects slightly different versions of a fake OGL document that are SOOOO bad that they'd practically have to be leaked out given how catastrophically awful the greater detail the new leak from this morning is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gizmodo seems to have got their hands on a draft of the new "OGL". Here's their rather depressing rundown.If I were Paizo I'd be throwing a giant party. It's not often that the market leader completely implodes not once, but twice, in the span of fifteen years. And in the same exact way both times!
Not so fast.
Does this also invalidate the OGL that Paizo used the first version of the OGL that was used for Pathfinder 1st?Why am I now looking at non-d20 game systems?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does this also invalidate the OGL that Paizo used the first version of the OGL that was used for Pathfinder 1st?
No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this also invalidate the OGL that Paizo used the first version of the OGL that was used for Pathfinder 1st?No.
I'm not so confident.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
https://web.archive.org/web/20040307094152/http://www.wizards.com/def ault.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f
Q: Can’t Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn’t like?
A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there’s no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're WAY too optimistic TOZ...
There is a very good reason you have to go to the web archives to find that FAQ and I guarantee that it revolves around the fact that they no longer hold the same position.
The leaked text FLAT OUT states that the former OGLs is no longer valid and cannot be used, that is their current stance on the matter and they are the only player in the market that has the money for lawyers to harass, sue, issue C&Ds, and cause indefinite legal delays to objections that makes all the difference. Filing legal motions against those trying to use the current OGL will functionally stop them from being able to publish, release, or make money off their operations until the suits are resolved, a prospect that would take months or years down the road which is enough to bankrupt basically anyone else in the market.
It's like class warfare, they are the ONLY members of the upper class and they have the money to bully everyone under them and delay legal action in either direction while steaming ahead, meanwhile the targets of their efforts end up going out of business because they are essentially living paycheck to paycheck compared to the near bottomless money hole HASBRO has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why am I now looking at non-d20 game systems?
So, ... where do we go from here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is Pathfinder 2e even dependent on the OGL from 3.0 or 3.5?
Paizo has rewritten just about everything, renamed and redesigned monsters, spells, items, classes, and abilities that are not in the public domain.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The leak might be real, but it's still at best a current draft. Until something is formally released, this is simply a stance they're floating internally - it could very well have layers of business and legal review, revision and reversals.
In fact, it could be intentionally leaked to gauge reaction and adjusted or abandoned based on that. It may be close to what's released eventually, but it may be nothing more than black squiggles on paper. But since WOTC is certainly paying attention to what public reaction is, the more vocal and public reaction is, the better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it time to spawn some new threads?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is Pathfinder 2e even dependent on the OGL from 3.0 or 3.5?
Yes, at least in its current state. How hard it would be to remedy, however, I don't pretend to know. I'm not sure anyone really knows unless/until it winds up in court.
As to whether WotC can "revoke" older versions of the OGL: IANAL, but from what I've seen it isn't settled law, so they might try to throw money at the problem until everyone has to cave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're WAY too optimistic TOZ...I just don't give a s%+#.
Really? Because if the worst-case pans out, Paizo will not be able to continue publishing pathfinder material, at least in the short term.
I'm not saying that's a likely outcome, but it doesn't appear impossible at this point, either. It certainly seems to be what WotC is hinting at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that Troll Lord, at least, is not having it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nor is Basic Fantasy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess who's back in the MFing house?
Heya folks. This is a kerfuffle isnt it? Not sure how OGL 1.1 is going to shake out. My suspicion is that WotC wants everybody using their new 3DVTT like folks use Apple app store. Not sure how it will work. Im hoping the third party market comes together and makes their own OGL and thus history repeats itself for WotC. Though, it could go a lot of ways.
As for D&D One, not been super interested in 5E so far. Its fine, but its not nearly dedicated to character options as I would like (hey im a 3E/PF1 guy after all!) So, a GM really needs to sell me on a 5E game. Otherwise, ill be pretty bored. Dont know too many people who love or hate 5E, seems to be everyone's second favorite RPG system.
D&D One isnt doing much so far (via playtest) to change the above. Why mess with success right? I was interested in a set of anniversary core rule books because that seems like a cool milestone and collectors item. Also, I never bought any core 5E anyways. With OGL explosion buying any D&D One stuff is all on hold now. I mean, how cant it be?
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is Pathfinder 2e even dependent on the OGL from 3.0 or 3.5?
Yes, at least in its current state. How hard it would be to remedy, however, I don't pretend to know. I'm not sure anyone really knows unless/until it winds up in court.
As to whether WotC can "revoke" older versions of the OGL: IANAL, but from what I've seen it isn't settled law, so they might try to throw money at the problem until everyone has to cave.
It turns out the usefulness of OGL1.0(a) in 2e was discussed 10 months back on Reddit about how it was kept to make things easier for 3pp publishers.
riddit- pathfinder2e - 3rd party products| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is Pathfinder 2e even dependent on the OGL from 3.0 or 3.5?
Yes, at least in its current state. How hard it would be to remedy, however, I don't pretend to know. I'm not sure anyone really knows unless/until it winds up in court.
As to whether WotC can "revoke" older versions of the OGL: IANAL, but from what I've seen it isn't settled law, so they might try to throw money at the problem until everyone has to cave.
It turns out the usefulness of OGL1.0(a) in 2e was discussed 10 months back on Reddit about how it was kept to make things easier for 3pp publishers.
riddit- pathfinder2e - 3rd party products
Very interesting; thank you!
So it seems that, if worse comes to worst, Paizo could do a "sanitation" pass with (relatively) low effort and largely go on as normal, but that it wouldn't be instant or cheap. I also wonder if in that case it might not be best to make a clean break and move to Pathfinder 3E sooner than expected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The time of the ORC has arrived!
Paizo build their reputation by capitalizing on Wizard's mistakes. That tradition continues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I am hearing from one of my friends that this "One D&D" subscription is going to be something like $30/month
can anyone confirm this, cause that seems like they want it to fail
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I am hearing from one of my friends that this "One D&D" subscription is going to be something like $30/month
can anyone confirm this, cause that seems like they want it to fail
There was a leak purporting to be: “here’s what Hasbro told Wizards of the Coast to do” and the price increase to $30 was on that list.
It didn’t come with sources and it’s not directly from anyone who have been breaking stories in the last few weeks.
So the jury is out, I guess as to whether to believe it or not. I’m skeptical, but that’s my default in the middle of fast moving crises.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that there are already a ton of other platforms to play on-line with, $30/month just seems like an unrealistic expectation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I am hearing from one of my friends that this "One D&D" subscription is going to be something like $30/month
can anyone confirm this, cause that seems like they want it to fail
There was a leak purporting to be: “here’s what Hasbro told Wizards of the Coast to do” and the price increase to $30 was on that list.
It didn’t come with sources and it’s not directly from anyone who have been breaking stories in the last few weeks.
So the jury is out, I guess as to whether to believe it or not. I’m skeptical, but that’s my default in the middle of fast moving crises.
It's real. You'll find out tomorrow.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, we're really not giving Habro the credit it deserves. They've accomplished something long thought impossible.
After YEARS of folks trying to get D&D 5E players to try other RPG systems, Wizards did it in the span of a week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's real. You'll find out tomorrow.So I am hearing from one of my friends that this "One D&D" subscription is going to be something like $30/month
can anyone confirm this, cause that seems like they want it to fail
There was a leak purporting to be: “here’s what Hasbro told Wizards of the Coast to do” and the price increase to $30 was on that list.
It didn’t come with sources and it’s not directly from anyone who have been breaking stories in the last few weeks.
So the jury is out, I guess as to whether to believe it or not. I’m skeptical, but that’s my default in the middle of fast moving crises.
It may well be. Theres just been lots of not-real things floating around too so Im skeptical.
About a week ago there were people convinced that 1.1 was a bluff to make the "real" 2.0 look better.
That seems way beyond WotC's ability to think of, let alone execute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that there are already a ton of other platforms to play on-line with, $30/month just seems like an unrealistic expectation.
Under the new world order wotc had planned, none of them would have been allowed to utilise 6E content (or indeed any E content on the strongest interpretation).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, Wotc does not care what you put in those surveys.
Given that WotC is shifting away from physical media, I'm not surprised.
(The "simplified" rules, for the AI-Dungeon Masters, is they way they want to go anyway.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Twitter D&D Beyond has issued a non-denial denial about the AI-DM thing.
They said it's not true that you'll have to pay 30$ to play D&D. Which is true, the leak that came out was they were going to have a tiered pricing structure.