Sounds hauntingly familiar - we were getting bored of the 5E due to lack of depth, glacial release of anaemic content and horrible GM toolkit years before... but it was the reprint of "same mechanics but even more dumbed down" and expectation that people will buy it all again that really turned us off.
As to the future... it really depends on how far WotC/Hasbro wants to push this, and given that a lot of the people making the decisions don't appear to actually understand what D&D is or why it is presently popular, I struggle to be optimistic.
If they go the less-horrible-PR route of insisting that OGL 1.0a cannot be used for 6th Edition (or whatever they want to call it), then the fact that it almost identical to 5th Edition still puts anyone trying to work on 5E material under 1.0a at risk. It'll still hurt the industry as it will push third parties away from the D&D brand - including those they outsource to to write their adventures - and a lot of people have products too far in production to back out before 1.1 kicks in.
If they go the nuclear option of trying to revoke the OGL 1.0a, there's going to be a legal battle, as it basically nukes every product derived from 3.5 onwards, including Pathfinder 2 - the OGL 1.0a is just inside the cover for a reason. From what I can glean from a few hours of reading/watching lawyers debate it, there's a case either way and the result is basically going to be a drawn out and expensive legal suit, whose legal outcome is up in the air, and quashes the industry while it is in progress.
Either way, it stinks for WotC/Hasbro PR even more than their antics around 4th Edition, but apparently that lesson has been forgotten. And which sucks as the people actually making the game seem to genuinely love the hobby.
If they go nuclear it will be because they are certain that there will never be a single argument given in any court ever due to the fact that any litigant that goes against them will go bankrupt or walk away under the weight of exorbitant legal costs long before even half of the motions are ruled on.
Looking at the way WOTC/Hasbro has been doing to the MTG game its no surprise that this was going to happen. WOTC has been off its medication for a while. Maybe its time for everyone to switch back to Pathfinder 1E and all 3rd party content creators do the same. Let WOTC implode.
IF WotC/Hasbro go the nuclear option, and their effort to revoke OGL 1.0a is upheld, then my understanding is that:
The risk to Paizo to sell anything once OGL 1.1 drops is ridiculous - Pathfinder 1 or 2. Even if they fight it, the court case would likely take years, and if they want to keep the lights on they need to sell products.
To my understanding, the only 'safe' option is to move completely away from anything D&D derived, such as Savage Worlds. But that is a lot of work, and my guess is that Hasbro/WotC management are banking on players being too lazy/complacent to do so, and publishers not having the cash to fund the change.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is Disney using the OGL?Knights of the Old Republic uses d20 modern.
And yeah, I don’t expect miracles from that quarter, but the threat that Disney’s legal team might be having a slow week and decide to litigate Hasbro (one of their toy competitors) into insolvency might keep the most egregious actions Hasbro could take off the table, like trying to forbid sale of anything using OGL.
I’d rather that crap not be tried in the first place, even over “tried but did not succeed in court.”
To be pedantic, Knights of the Old Republic uses the d20 Star Wars system, of which there were three different "editions," an original, Revised, and Saga. The problem with going this route is that those games were actually published by WotC - so that further muddles things involving those RPGs and computer game versions. Basically I'm not sure they actually used the OGL in any meaningful way instead of just doing normal licensing agreements.
Although the thought of Hasbro telling Disney they need to see all their financials for each year over a two decade old computer game is kind of hilarious.
I saw an interesting post from Michael Sayre about PF2 and the OGL (it was made 9 months ago so not a comment on the leak).
Hasbro has essentially unlimited money to spend on lawyers, so it's unclear what they will try, but if they actually went to court to argue that they own things like "Goblin" and "Fighter" and "Dexterity" they will likely not be pleased with the results. After all, I believe TSR had to argue in court against the Tolkien estate that "in fact, Elves and Dwarves and magic rings are things that exist in Norse mythology and other folklore" and were largely successful (though that is how we ended up with Halflings, Treants, and Balors since the Tolkien names for those things were nowhere near the public domain at the time.)"
The fact that they can't own "you pretend to be a fictional person who has statistics" and "these statistics relate to random happenings governed by dice" and "you can be an elf paladin" delineating the exact boundaries here things probably isn't worth WotC's time. Particularly when they're already likely to create a separate sub-license with the big fish. They're not coming after Critical Role's money so much as they want to make sure they're getting a piece of the next multimedia phenomenon like Critical Role.
I saw an interesting post from Michael Sayre about PF2 and the OGL (it was made 9 months ago so not a comment on the leak)....
Now that is interesting.
If Pathfinder 2 can be legally published without the OGL due to significant differences as a game (), then while it means taking PF1 products off the store (and likely Starfinder), they could potentially continue to sell and produce products for PF2, without getting plundered by Hasbro.
It also means that if Paizo were inclined*, they could replace the OGL text with a pathfinder game license and allow third parties to continue to develop products for PF2, completely independent of the WotC shenanigans.
*Given Paizo is a company made up of and run by people with a deep love and respect for the hobby, my guess would be on them being so inclined. But legal matters are tricky, so I wouldn't begrudge them moving cautiously in these times.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should hope so. I still use PF1 for my own projects. Doesn't take much to convert older stuff, even if conversion is required.
I'd honestly love seeing PF1 revisited and continued, but dreams and reality aren't the same, lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To my understanding, the only 'safe' option is to move completely away from anything D&D derived, such as Savage Worlds. But that is a lot of work, and my guess is that Hasbro/WotC management are banking on players being too lazy/complacent to do so, and publishers not having the cash to fund the change.
Savage Worlds does not operate under an open license, which is why, after looking at their material and thinking it was really very good, I chose to discount them as a possibility.
I will only go open. If Paizo decides to fight it, I'll go Paizo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They really want to burn the bridge they are standing on, I'm having the feeling that some boomer exec who doesn't understand the hobby came down on Wizards and told them to shift things up and get rid of that Paizo thing, this will be a fun catastrophe to watch.
Apparently there have been some recent imports of executives to both Wizards and Hasbro who bought their first suits working for microsoft.
That kind of thing could explain this cultural shift, imo.
By the way (if you’re in the mood for providing free legal opinion) am I understanding correctly that even if this “deauthorising” manoeuvre is accepted without challenge it wouldn’t affect anything released prior to the change?
It would mean that even if you couldn’t publish anything going forward under 1.0a - anything published when the license was “authorised” would be a totally legal publication, right? And provided you never released anything under 1.1 you wouldn’t face any reporting/royalty claims under the new license?
Bonus points if you speculate on how reprints would be treated ;)
I completely forgot, but Knights of the Old Republic/Knights of the Old Republic II were developed using the OGL. If the leaked material is to be believed and Wizards of the Coast does go forward with 1.1, they're asserting that they have the right to make their own d20 Knights of the Old Republic RPG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of any other way that contract and licensing laws would work.
If the government revokes my driver's license today, the police can't fine me for driving yesterday.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of any other way that contract and licensing laws would work.
If the government revokes my driver's license today, the police can't fine me for driving yesterday.
Theres plenty of people claiming that old stock would suddenly be unsellable. (Ie that paizo would need to pull the PF2 Core Rulebook)
I dont think thats right, but american law often doesnt make sense to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, as amusing as that would be, it's almost certain that KotOR had a separate agreement with WotC, as at the time Wizards held the RPG license for Star Wars. I doubt their agreement had any reliance on the OGL.
Second, they're not trying to fine you for driving yesterday, but the fear is that they'll try to stop people from continuing to sell more copies of stuff previously published under the OGL.
A lot of people are panicking though over something that is really really gonna go poorly for WotC in court, and probably wasn't their actual intention. It was likely meant to be a poison pill clause like the GSL but phrased differently. Or someone with no concept of caselaw on open source licensing thought they could get away with it and is probably getting an education right now in between the leak and the official release (which is supposed to be on the 13th according to the leak)
I mean, technically, they're asserting the rights to make RPGs of any IP that's ever been made compatible with D&D, or will be, post OGL. Previously printed content is supposed to be protected, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's otherwise so long as it gets another printing or release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, as amusing as that would be, it's almost certain that KotOR had a separate agreement with WotC, as at the time Wizards held the RPG license for Star Wars. I doubt their agreement had any reliance on the OGL.
Second, they're not trying to fine you for driving yesterday, but the fear is that they'll try to stop people from continuing to sell more copies of stuff previously published under the OGL.
A lot of people are panicking though over something that is really really gonna go poorly for WotC in court, and probably wasn't their actual intention. It was likely meant to be a poison pill clause like the GSL but phrased differently. Or someone with no concept of caselaw on open source licensing thought they could get away with it and is probably getting an education right now in between the leak and the official release (which is supposed to be on the 13th according to the leak)
The fault in your position is assuming it will ever be argued in any court of law. Nuclear Lawfare is conducted by companies that know they stand little chance of winning a case decided in a court by a judge, but use their financial position to wear down the opposition so much they either go bankrupt or must walk away from litigation due to the extreme cost of legal services before the case is EVER argued in a court.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been a while since I've posted! However, as someone who still plays PF1, with a mix of Castles and Crusades and 5e (mostly Eberron), all of which are dependent on the 1.0a OGL, I'd like to chime in and give my 2 copper pieces...
First, listen. People talking s#i%! about 5e players/fans/whatever - a simple reddit, twitter or D&D Beyond forum search would have you know that in fact, 5e players and OneD&D playtesters alike are NOT at all happy with the OGL changes. Many 5e players, myself included, like the 3pp support, and many (myself not included), only plays 5e through 3pp content. Many are expressing sympathies for creators and publishers that depend on the OGL, Pathfinder included.
For the past 3 days, #OneDnD is almost 100% negative towards WotC and Hasbro. #OpenDnD is trending. The D&D Beyond discord is actively silencing any discourse regarding the 1.1 leak. It's a total PR s#!tstorm.
I know PF and 5e fanbases have rivalries. But this is not the time to accentuate those rivalries. Many 5e players still love Paizo and PF (I know I still do, even though I don't play as much anymore).
I any case, let's turn our hatred towards Hasbro!
Second, they're not trying to fine you for driving yesterday, but the fear is that they'll try to stop people from continuing to sell more copies of stuff previously published under the OGL.
See, that's the thing. Forcing publishers to pull books or pay royalties for books that have already been published and printed under a valid license is like fining someone for driving while they were doing so under a valid driver's license.
At least that is how I would see it.
And yes, Xyxox, we are aware that getting a ruling in court is not the game plan. That isn't the point of this discussion. We are just theorycrafting here.
First, as amusing as that would be, it's almost certain that KotOR had a separate agreement with WotC, as at the time Wizards held the RPG license for Star Wars. I doubt their agreement had any reliance on the OGL.
Well, they definitely didn't sign a separate agreement with the BBC, because the 1.0a OGL is reprinted in Doctors & Daleks. So they are asserting they have the right to put Dr. Who in 6th edition. which is equally as amusing.
I can't help but notice you're eagerly carrying a lot of water for a Fortune 500 corporation in this thread, by the way. I hope you get something out of it. Maybe a tote bag?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
What truly amazes me is that this is round 3 of this crap. First was TSR, whose draconian 3pp policies led to the nickname "They Sue Regularly" and the eventual creation of the OGL in the first place under WotC. 3x exploded under that.
They then tried to kill the OGL for 4e with the GSL, and instead the lack of 3pp attention hindered 4e's prospects and boosted Paizo and Pathfinder to outperform them.
They bring it back for 5 and what happens? 5e does gangbusters.
Now here's round three of this mess, and just like with the TSR grognard gripes and 4e's naysayers, the exact same thing is happening. How the hell have they not learned this lesson?
And yes, Xyxox, we are aware that getting a ruling in court is not the game plan. That isn't the point of this discussion. We are just theorycrafting here.
This is why I keep pushing the financial side. The community raised over $11 million for Critical Role to produce cartoons about their first campaign on YouTube for goodness sake. That much money could put this to rest forever and insure the OGL 1.0a lives forever! Crowdfunding it could take down any attempt of WotC/Hasbro to kill it FOREVER!
The thing is, the funding has to start NOW!
Somebody needs to get with Ryan Dancey and the Open Games Foundation and get the ball rolling. I don't have such connections, but all I know is the money has to start being collected NOW!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's how I see it:
Can WoTC do this? No, probably not, it's on very shaky ground.
Should they do this? No, this is a terrible idea that will wreck their IP's standing.
Is it right to do this? God no, they have no moral standing in doing this.
Will they do this? Well it's a terrible business decision, legally a gray area, it will trash what little good will they have left after a year of substandard books and some high profile scandals in the gaming industry. So yeah, this is absolutely going to happen because the people who run Hasbro are greedy jerks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they underestimate the fan base, especially where the loyalties really lie.I'm not so sure. Folk posting on this forum were already skewed against WotC, as evidenced in the 'Do you also play D&D?' thread, where everyone shat on 5e.
Most people who started roleplaying since 5e hit its stride, and who - in all likelihood - play nothing but D&D5e, won't care one whit what happens to Paizo or other smaller 3P creators.
I doubt the majority of those players are even aware of what is happening right now with the OGL.
As someone on the EN World forums said, WotC will get maybe a month of moaning online, then it'll be back to business as usual.
Obviously that doesn't account for any other predatory practices that are still in the pipeline for 2023 and beyond.
Most casual rpg gamers don’t care about what is happening and keep playing whatever edition of D&D or whatever rpg of choice is at the table.
As you say after a month it will die down and business as usual.
That being said not a fan of what Hasbro is doing.
Most DMs are not going to quit running D&D and switch over to another rpg imo. Especially if they invested a certain amount of money into their current collection.
Same thing with many players if they like something they stick with it. I hike simply not being interested in what Hasbro is doing. It’s why it’s so hard at least in my area to run or play anything but 5E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately. 5e is running on momentum; few want to play anything else due to its simplicity and versatility, unless they were already exposed to other systems. No one wants to fork over the cash for new books, learn a new system, and then find out nobody else in their group wants to play.
If I were being realistic about this rather than hopeful, I'd say that WotC will largely go uncontested. They don't have the ground to stand on, but they do have a pile of money. They'll likely force their 3pp competitors and contributors to jump ship from D&D compatibility.
We may see new systems spring up, or Paizo going saint-mode and creating their own 2e OGL in order to lure in those creators, but this move will probably work well for WotC and may sink a bunch of 3rd party publishers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before people get too panicky, it might be good to remember that business don't like spending money. Yes, Hasbro could spend a lot of money on really expensive lawyers and ultimately kill all of the OGL businesses out there, but would that increased share make up for the money they had to spend to do it? Maybe not, and if they are only something like 50% likely to win.
As to the idea of pulling materials, well I do remember a rather (in)famous case where WotC had a publisher pull all the copies off the shelves and pulp them for violating the d20 license (a separate but related license from the OGL). Could that happen if they could convince a judge to declare the 1.0a license to be "unauthorized" and thus no longer valid. Possibly, but those would probably be "grandfathered" in, but all electronic and any new publications would probably need to be pulled.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will they do this? Well it's a terrible business decision, legally a gray area, it will trash what little good will they have left after a year of substandard books and some high profile scandals in the gaming industry. So yeah, this is absolutely going to happen because the people who run Hasbro are greedy jerks.
You think?
The managers of WOTC believe they have an opportunity to transform their business from being a content publisher with some effective and well-established competitors, to being the operators of a subscription based, microtransaction funded, closed platform with no competitors.
They want online tools to be the future of most of the players in this hobby, and they see a way to dominate that platform, and take most or all of the value within it, at the least effort/ cost to them.
They want to be the Amazon/ Spotify/ Google/ of this market. They are quite prepared to upset existing players and creators, and bankrupt existing competitors, in achieving this.
It's not personal - it's business. It's been attempted twice before (TSR and 4E) because it makes sense to try, and it could succeed. And now they think they have the dominant player base and online technologies to have a better chance than before.
Do I like this? Absolutely not. But they are not fools. This makes sense from their perspective and they will do deals/ invest legal fees/ spin PR/ lie and deceive to make this happen. We need to understand their objective and motivations clearly, in order to try to achieve ours.
The 5ed SRD with OGL 1.0a is still live on Wizard's site. When this vanishes/changes, that will let you know when things are starting to happen.
https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/systems-reference-document
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder this will effect the SRD that are on-line. Will they pulled from the Interent. Does this include Pathfinder First Edition and 5TH EDITION SRD?
Can anyone at Paizo or on the forum list reply?
I'm not concerned as the rumor mill turns and talk on Twitter and other social media sites say a newer OGL will be produced out the dominion of of WotC. This has happened before and will happen again. It's only a matter of time, money and company. Castles and Crusades has its own OGL and their material seems quite good. Someone may need to go back and redesign the wheel or write up your work in OSR format. My concern is that it doesn't effect Paizo or their first edition books. And If their game was conceived under a different licensing guidelines.
If they want to create a new license [which shouldn't be called an OGL, because it ain't open] that's one thing. Rock on I guess.
If they can somehow find a way to force 1.1 to be applied to 5th edition content, whatever. There's probably some legal room to maneuver there.
But to try to overrule 3rd edition's Open Gaming Status, and suddenly claim exclusive control over that OGL content and content derived from it?
I can't imagine a legitimate court in the country that would honor that lol.
Glad you mentioned that last part. Look at who dominates the Supreme Court. Whatever else they have wrong with them, one thing is clear: They are very pro-BIG-business.
Most likely it's whoever in charge of WotC wanting to impress their bosses in Hasbro. This happens a lot in game studios where a studio head will be in a meeting with the big boss (like EA) and the big boss starts singing the praises of one branch who brought in x money with microtransactions and live services, them goes to the other studio head "so what have you guys got coming up" and the guy who heads a studio known for epic single player RPGs then comes up with Anthem on the spotThis sounds exactly what happened when corporate busy bodies who know nothing of the industry decide they want to increase profits.
I hope this fails.
That 1980s cartoon had way more DND feels than this generic movie. They should bring back it.
Or Record of the Locosss which was a DND campaign.
what is that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I'd be willing to back a “Free the golem from the oggle monster" crowfund campaign so paizo can concentrate on publishing a pf 2.Free update stripped of the last remaining d&disms and under a paizo specific open license.
As a side benefit maybe the onerous section 15 requirements can be streamlined for third parties.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hasbro has proven to be an unreliable steward of the OGL and honestly it is a bit of a clunky license anyway is why I'd prefer to jump to a pgl of some sort.
But yeah 1.0a needs to be protected even if just to maintain the decades of works created under it.
|
|
First, as amusing as that would be, it's almost certain that KotOR had a separate agreement with WotC, as at the time Wizards held the RPG license for Star Wars. I doubt their agreement had any reliance on the OGL.Well, they definitely didn't sign a separate agreement with the BBC, because the 1.0a OGL is reprinted in Doctors & Daleks. So they are asserting they have the right to put Dr. Who in 6th edition. which is equally as amusing.
I can't help but notice you're eagerly carrying a lot of water for a Fortune 500 corporation in this thread, by the way. I hope you get something out of it. Maybe a tote bag?
lol, have you actually read my other comments in this therad? Or are you basing it off of that one comment. There's a lot of people terrified here, particularly of "nuclear lawfare" but that's not how the court system works. Hasbro is a "big" company but they are barely fortune 500 (they were 494 in 2021 and I don't think they got on it at all last year). Burying Paizo & Others in legal fees isn't going to work in this sort of case. There's no need for discovery and the only expert Paizo would need to testify is Ryan Dancey and I doubt he'll charge for his testimony considering he'll probably be a co-complainant. This is such a slam dunk in Paizo's favor that it can only have been a mistake on Hasbro's lawyer's part or pure incompetence.
what is that?Most likely it's whoever in charge of WotC wanting to impress their bosses in Hasbro. This happens a lot in game studios where a studio head will be in a meeting with the big boss (like EA) and the big boss starts singing the praises of one branch who brought in x money with microtransactions and live services, them goes to the other studio head "so what have you guys got coming up" and the guy who heads a studio known for epic single player RPGs then comes up with Anthem on the spotThis sounds exactly what happened when corporate busy bodies who know nothing of the industry decide they want to increase profits.
I hope this fails.
That 1980s cartoon had way more DND feels than this generic movie. They should bring back it.
Or Record of the Locosss which was a DND campaign.
Record of Lodoss war is a Japanese multi-media franchise that started out as a Replay [textualized retelling of a roleplaying game session/campaign, there's actually a market for it] of a Basic+Expert DND campaign.
It eventually spawned the premier fantasy roleplaying game in Japan, Sword World. Which runs on a 2d6 system.
Oh no, I know what record of lodoss war is, I watch it annually. I thought record of the locoss was some kind of fan project.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a quote from the Basic Fantasy RPG site outlining what Chris Gonnerman is planning to do about the OGL in relation to his (awesome) product line;
It doesn't matter whether Hasbro releases their new license or not. It doesn't matter whether it stands up in court or not. Their attempt to invalidate the license we've always depended on and then to effectively steal what we've created demonstrates that they are an existential threat to our game.
So, what do we do?
We excise the OGL.
To do that, though, we need to identify the SRD bits that are spread through the rulebook. When I created the game, I (and everyone else creating retro-clones at the time) believed that it was important to be able to show that we actually used the SRD. There are bits of SRD text scattered around the rulebook, and honestly I'm not entirely sure where they all are (though I do know many spells and monster descriptions are affected).
I need help to find them all. That's where you guys come in.
Here's the plan going forward: First, so long as the new OGL has not been officially released, Basic Fantasy RPG products will remain available for sale on all current platforms as well as available for download from this site. If the new OGL is released, I may be forced to withdraw all of that material, including at least temporarily hiding the Workshop since it's full of "infringing" materials.
Work on current projects is suspended, with the exception of the Mysterious Island contest and the #Dungeon23 #CommunityEdition. There's no SRD involvement with either of those, nor has the OGL been officially applied to them, and I don't want to interfere with either of them. There's no point letting Hasbro ruin our fun. But projects currently being prepared for public release are on hold right now. I know this hits a few of you harder than others, and I'm very sorry about that, but trust me when I say that it's temporary.
Now, about cleaning up the Core Rules. Unlike all other Basic Fantasy Project publications, the Core Rules legally belong to me. All contributors were asked to submit material only with intent to transfer copyright to me, and thus I hold the copyright to all of it that did not come from the listed sources in the OGL text at the back. The Castles & Crusades monster document referenced will need to be excised as well as the SRD, but that should be a relatively small problem. There are also a few monsters that came from the original Field Guide and thus fall under its license which we will have to deal with.
This leads to a point I need to address: Other Basic Fantasy Project publications are covered by the copyright of their original authors, who released them under the OGL. Technically, I should contact each and every creator listed in any of those books and get their approval to relicense the materials under my new open license (see below) but that might be hard as many of them moved on after initially adopting BFRPG. Some created their own games, some switched to newer OSR games, some just drifted into the aether. Some stayed on here, and those at least I can get approval from.
The alternative is to assume that they agreed to release their materials under a license I chose, and that they tacitly gave their approval for me to relicense them. Legally this is pretty iffy, but on a practical basis any damages they might claim for materials given away for free for so long should be pretty low. It's a chance I might take.
To be clear here: If you are a contributor to anything published under the umbrella of the Basic Fantasy Project other than the core rules, I am asking your permission to relicense your materials. I need you to contact me directly via email at solomoriah@basicfantasy.org and identify yourself by the name or names used where your materials were published, and officially grant me this permission.
The license: I'm proposing a change to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. I do not have the legal chops to create my own license, and I suffer from a newly-formed lack of trust in people who are creating new licenses now. The CC licenses have been around a while and cover a very broad variety of things already. I do plan to include a specific exemption covering the name, with a license similar to my current Product Identity License (probably called a Branding License). Or, I may seek trademark protection, but I need to study more on that.
Also, one thing we don't have to worry about is art. I've always maintained a separate arrangement with artists, who are asked to grant to me personally a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use their artwork in Basic Fantasy Project works. The only exception is diagrams (including maps or floorplans) which are required to use the game; if I find any I did not create in the Core Rules I may have to relicense them (with permission of the artist, of course) or get them redrawn. I don't expect this to be a problem.
This starts NOW. I'm going to accept comments on this through January 13th (the day the "new OGL" was supposed to go into effect). Anyone wishing to help find the SRD text may go ahead and start; even if the choice of license is changed, we still need to know where the SRD is hiding in there in order to remove it. Please go visit the original Core Rules thread and post whatever you find there; I'll upload a copy of the C&C document (as soon as I find it) to help with this process. If you have comments on the process itself or questions or suggestions about the license, post them here, but practical comments should go in that thread.
https://www.basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4596
I imagine Paizo are already doing something similar, albeit on a much grander scale.
lol, have you actually read my other comments in this therad? Or are you basing it off of that one comment. There's a lot of people terrified here, particularly of "nuclear lawfare" but that's not how the court system works. Hasbro is a "big" company but they are barely fortune 500 (they were 494 in 2021 and I don't think they got on it at all last year). Burying Paizo & Others in legal fees isn't going to work in this sort of case. There's no need for discovery and the only expert Paizo would need to testify is Ryan Dancey and I doubt he'll charge for his testimony considering he'll probably be a co-complainant. This is such a slam dunk in Paizo's favor that it can only have been a mistake on Hasbro's lawyer's part or pure incompetence.
I think there is a small chance WotC/Hasbro will actually go Nuclear Lawfare. Nuclear Lawfare carries a risk of mutually assured destruction. There is still a chance this is what they intend.
We only got a small portion of the alleged 9000 words in OGL 1.1. To me, assuming the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer, WotC/Hasbro's intention is to use OGL 1.1 as the licensing mechanism for every product moving forward and that one line is to make clear that OGL 1.0a is NOT an authorized license with regards to anything released under OGL 1.1. Furthermore it allows WotC to re-release everything in 5E under OGL 1.1 because OGL 1.1 will be an authorized license with regards to OGL 1.0a. This will create a grey area of further releasing anything new that uses the 5E material under OGL 1.0a, and that may be where they intend litigation if it happens.
Calling it "Open" is a red herring, too. They want to convince people to use it because it heavily favors WotC/Hasbro. They know it is nowhere near meeting the term "Open". What it does is put a stake into the OGL's heart insuring that you will NEVER see a more open version than OGL 1.0a to cover WotC/Hasbro intellectual property since they own the copyright on that license and the gamble is that people will prefer the new rules over the old rules.
That said, we have no clue what WotC/Hasbro actually has in mind at this point and the current drama and fear may actually work to WotC/Hasbro's advantage. We've already seen Kickstarters canceled and products that were set to release being put on hold indefinitely.
Perhaps destroying confidence in OGL 1.0a will accomplish what WotC/Hasbro would like to have happen without a single Cease and Desist being issued in an actual Nuclear Lawfare scenario.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
“One DnD”. One game to rule them all and in the darkness bind them. To assert total and utter, final control, to find the outliers and scurriers having weird strange unkempt fun and to diminish them, co-opt them, steal them and claim their creativity to be diluted, watered down, de-idea’d and rechurned out as Splogg. There can be only One.
Evil, hackneyed, mustachio twirling stuff. Because when capitalism hits fun, owners, big owners, squeeze and destroy the little owners, and all the consumers are debased by the whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“One DnD”. One game to rule them all and in the darkness bind them. To assert total and utter, final control, to find the outliers and scurriers having weird strange unkempt fun and to diminish them, co-opt them, steal them and claim their creativity to be diluted, watered down, de-idea’d and rechurned out as Splogg. There can be only One.
Evil, hackneyed, mustachio twirling stuff. Because when capitalism hits fun, owners, big owners, squeeze and destroy the little owners, and all the consumers are debased by the whole.
D&Done