I do think that the WOTC legal teams understands that mechanics can’t be copyrighted. But just the “fear” of having its products contested in court (can products still be sold while it’s fate is decided by the court?) with the risk of being part of a lengthy and probably very expensive (in USA) court proceedings will make most of the larger creators fall in line with the New OGL. Sad but true.
Products can't be sold if it's being put up to court. There has been speculation that anything Paizo might do to stray from the OGL in order to capitalize on this next dnd schism could be blocked by courts until the hype/fire dies down. Speculation of course. Literally not backed by any degree of fact or confirmation... but it's possible.
A few lawyers who specialize in licenses and contract law have actually commented on the subject matter and stated that the language of OGL v1.0a doesn't actually seem to have any language that grants WOTC any power to invalidate it. Plus there was a q&a about the OGL on the wotc website that they purged just recently that affirms this, they outright admitted that if the community is unhappy with the OGL, they can just revert to a previous version of it. Might not work for oneD&D stuff, but for 5e, 3.5e, and such that might be the way to go.
@@dicequeenDi Not to be contrary, but they have to ask for a band on the sale of contested products and be granted it by the court. So it's not always true that they can block sales.🤷 Btw not a lawyer, but I did take law classes as part of my degree.
@@G0LD3NR0D I hope so. I've heard claims that some lawyers say there is no leg to stand on, others saying it's entirely revokable. I'm not sure what to believe at the moment. I was already in the process of jumping ship to PF2e, and just now seeing that D&D was a sinking ship all long. I just hope WotC doesn't shoot Paizo down in its own speedrun to the bottom.
Guess what? If a person or corpertation expresses interest in legal action against you, you can refuse to respond to them and demand they only contact you through a lawyer. Then they can waste thousands being told how legally illiterate they are.
Intentions are not legally binding. Since the license does not say "irrevocable", it is implied BY DEFAULT that it can be revoked. All IP lawyers I have heard point at this. Does this mean they can enforce it? That's up to the law to decide, unfortunately. And who has the funds to go against Hasbro?
I'm a "Late to the party" DM on this subject. I've spent the past 4 hours stressed out of my mind for what this new as-is draft means for my table. I don't precisely know how we can finish the current 5e module without running the risk of having our own intellectual property stripped from our control. I think the word "stressed" is the lightest adjective I can think of with regards to my mental state. This is our first campaign. It's not like these are just bulk made, unplayed, meme characters that clutter a D&DBeyond account. These people are very much so real to us. WE made them within a framework that let them be ours in perpetuity, and I'm already looking for ways to port our beloved cast to a new system that would at the very least allow us to finish the story before abandoning the D&D ruleset altogether.
Are you publishing the adventure? This OGL thing has no impact on your home game, specially if it's all homebrew or you already bought third party content
you can still play and make homebrew in 5e. the entire 1.1 OGL is to hinder competitor and leech of the people that makes 3pp materials (Like Kobold Press). as long as you just play the game and do rule changes in the group your fine, and aparently if you make 3pp products and not getting paid you seem to be fine too
I'm in a similar boat; only thing to my advantage right now is that I have yet to actually start my homebrew so all *I* gotta do is rework it for the new system (PF2e) and call it good. You on the other hand have a wee bit of a fuckin problem there possibly. Like the others said you ought to be fine so long as you haven't been publishing/financially gaining from your homebrew stuff
Damn... If this continues going ahead as it does DnD is gonna keel over I feel. Homebrew has been a big staple for DnD for years and now people will be terrified to make anything in fear they will just have it all taken away! I wouldn't want that. It's what Blizzard did with Warcraft 3 Remastered after they missed out on Dota with the original. I'm so glad I started learning Pathfinder a few weeks ago because it's been great fun! Although I hear this might also affect that since it's also falling under the OGL and idk what to do about that which actually scares me honestly.
Homebrew has been a staple of D&D since its inception. From the beginning. Every rulebook from every edition (aside from Chainmail and possibly the Red Box) considered the rules to be "guidelines".
Yeah, this'll do it. This will kill DnD. They'll blame the market, the Rona, or something for it failing, but in reality, it's the Microsoft employee they brought in to help monetize their shit. I plan on taking the skeleton of the game and just flavoring it differently, and leave it there. I have a whole setting, I don't need their flavor text.
That skeleton is what the OGL 1.0a covers, and what this would cover. People were using D&D's non-trademarked mechanics under that license, and could only do so because they were allowed to by the first OGL. If you were to follow the plan you described, WotC could either demand you follow the license, or sue you. The only way to steer clear is to use no mechanic that is referred to in the SRD touched on by the license. People were already doing what you described- those are the people in WotC's crosshairs right now.
@@dicequeenDi that hasn't escaped me. The only way to stop this or take WOTC to task is to just stop buying their shit. Across the board. Bankruptcy speaks volumes. (will it happen? Probably not.)
How is this not that? I mean-- if someone jumps on D&D One day 1 and puts out a Gunslinger class, a Psion class, an Alchemist class and a Tactician class which naturally won't exist in the PHB, it would be kind of ridiculous to them say that WotC can never create any of those classes for the game or use any mechanics that are similar to the ones that the person who made those used. And unless the language in the license says that they can use anything people created, then it would be very easy for people to block a ton of pretty obvious stuff ever having official versions simply by putting out their own versions first and threatening to sue if an official version is ever made.
I'm outting myself here with this dated reference, but Marvel Imprints did this when they diverged from Malibu back in the day. They lured creators in to submit their work for consideration...and then took licensure over that content in perpetuity, with zero obligation to pay any dividends or royalties to the actual creators
I really hope WotC goes ahead with this and it kills DnD, so all of the other systems out there can have their day in the sun. Imagine the wider RPG community playing all kinds of different games, without one monolithic market leader.
The idea does put a smile on my face; my only worry is whether or not they'll use litigation to basically bankrupt their competition in extended legal battles. If they fail that, then yeah, let the whole brand go up in smoke for all I care
As an indie ttrpg designer I feel like this is a double edged sword. Whilst us weirdo nerds who are terminally online may use this as a catalyst to leave the Ampersand behind, most normies & fans of the D&D brand won't even bat an eye at these scummy practices & will be further trapped in the WOTC product ecosystem, making it even harder to convert the largest TTRPG audience to other games.
@@madadric But it's only people making over 750K a year that's paying Wizards of The Coast royalties off of their IP. Do you you want someone to use your IP, and pay nothing, or pay like a super low amount of money to you?
What WoTC is aiming for is to change the view of the game mechanics from a written text printed on paper to that of the mechanics used in a video game engine. Using this argument, they could (conceivably) find a loophole in the copyright laws that protect game engine code.
@@jonasateo Hasbro blew a LOT of money on bad acquisitions. The board had been hiding how much money they lost from the stockholders. An independent group of stockholders brought it to light so Hasbro's board decided to 'focus' on fewer IPs and cut projects. WoTC is their primary focus as it is seen as their Golden Goose, so to speak.
Seems paizo, green ronin, kobold press, and even critrole and colville will have to go to court if they dont want to accept OGL 1.1. There does seem to be room to defend the old OGL - since 10a does say "in perpetuity", you could argue 1.1 can't revoke it, but that's debate to have in courtrooms. Until a judge gives a veredict, all of the small developers that can't go to court will suffer a lot.
I was watching a stream from Roll for Combat where they had a Lawyer on interpreting the language used and things sound a LOT better than many of us have assumed; basically the lawyer said he doesn't see where they have a leg to stand on, but he also has the caveat that he's not an IP Lawyer or Copyright Lawyer, he's a contract lawyer, so he finishes most thoughts with 'it'll come down to court'
@@zacharyharwell351 I saw his in addition to The Rules Lawyer, and if not him, someone else I saw had a lawyer with some copyright experience. The straight, "Well the license says it's in perpetuity!" is weak on the face of things because other language in the 1.0 OGL does give the issue ability to update the OGL. What is much less weak of an argument is the premise of corporate expectations that Paizo, Kobold Press, Critical Role, et al. have been relying upon this whole time for some 23 years (Which is important.), and that both Hasbro and the third parties have all collectively benefitted from the open arrangement. While OneDnD might be allowed to have the open game license removed, that's only because it's a "new" product. Otherwise, the argument would go, "You had 23 years to do something about this, and at this point the work of all these third parties using your license has helped you build yourself in addition to them. This is just convoluted IP theft on your end, judgement against Hasbro incorporated." *gavel banging*
@@dicequeenDi Critical Role can if only because they're providing the source material for an Amazon original animated series which was one of their most popular on Prime. WotC comes for Critical Role and they effectively attempt to lay claim to the Gross revenue of Amazon's product. This would not end well for WotC unless they've already worked out an exception.
@@harleymitchelly5542 Exactly right. This would be like the owner of a Muffin Factory putting the recipes for their goods up on the internet to be used, for free, by everyone. Then, twenty-three years later coming back and saying nobody could use those recipes and they were going to sue anybody who did. Can't be done. My legaleze is a little rusty, but I believe this gets into Ex Post Facto-- there is so much case law against that kind of behavior it's laughable that they could even think this would work. Frankly, I would be very surprised if, when HasWotCbro brings this to court the judge doesn't just start foaming at the mouth and throw the gavel at the lawyer's head for wasting their time. It's that elementary. This is first year law stuff. (Also, yes, I know, recipes are not covered under copyright, it's just an example that came to mind.)
I'm glad I found your video on this. Given the way the past few years have been I've been trying to avoid "drama" stuff, but given that I've been enjoying running and playing 5e I've been thinking about adapting the mechanics for other genres I enjoy. This is pretty insane and have to wonder how far down the chain this goes. I expect this from a corporate entity like Hasbro, I have to wonder that those at wotc who are as much a part of the geek and gaming community as they are part of the company are cringing at the potential backlash over something like this. Just goes to show how out of touch corpos are. Maybe I'll have to poke my local game community about how they feel about other systems like HERO or Cortex, etc.
Switched to a Non OGL Game a few years ago and then stupidity switched to 5e when it came out. Now the question is Arduin / Rifts / or Conrad's Fantasy? Found this new game Dwellers that does not use the OGL and it's FREE.
@@dicequeenDi The new OGL effectively says you don't own what you're working on, not really. You're just making it and using it. Like what you'd expect from an EULA, or an End User License Agreement.
It sometimes seems like the mechanics get in their way at times. Matt running a Powered by the Apocalypse game might just be better. Or some other narrative system at least.
with how much homebrewing Mercer already does, they're halfway there anyway. Might as well take the plunge at this point and put in a few small details that technically make it "not 5e compatible" that everyone will ignore anyway, but that keep WOTC/Assbro from claiming it falls under the OGL.
@@missquake Looks like it does, but when I said I got out, I got all the way out, and found other systems that suit me better. There are a lot of options out there.
@@JoeOutside1 how does this affect you as a player at all? I'm a creator, I ain't gonna get payed for writing stuff for some obscure niche game. Guess I gotta find a different side gig.
@@missquake It's true, as a GM and player, it doesn't affect me as much--it never did, since I wrote my own supplements for the most part anyway. Hope still abounds for those wanting to make a career of it, though, with 3rd party companies like Paizo and Kobold Press putting together their own systems and licenses to replace the OGL.
Its the same trick Blizzard did with Warcraft III Reforged, adding a clausule that makes every map anyone create their property, because they're afraid of another Dota sittuation. Turns out, that backfired and no sane people would put that many effort doing custom maps like they did for the original Warcraft III. So, expect that new content on OGL will now decrease in quality, because whoever did crazy good stuff until now, will no longer let it be under OGL. And i really want people to don't put that many effort anymore on OGL content, because nobody deserves their work to be "legally stolen" from then.
This sounds like a golden opportunity to deliberately create the most horrendous, NSFW, 'ist, phobic, and 'ism content and force it on the WOTC Party. You can't steal trash.
@@llamatronian101 That sounds like something members of the WOTC Party will have to determine and verify, wasting precious resources and valuable time they could be spending on generating revenue for a dying company that has the gall to publicly state their customers are "undermonetized". Currently there are approximately 1,000 employees laboring at that miserable corporation. How many of them can be diverted to manually squashing every bug that crawls up from the cracks? And how much before it's more fire than forest? Not all publicity is good publicity. Ask Lorraine Williams.
Wait until you read the clause that states they can terminate your license and by the contract forces you to destroy the content you created, but since they have an irrevocable right to your content. "It's not stealing your copyright, it's just that you can't use your content anymore, but we can". It's legal theft.
I've been working in my own class for 5th edition on and off ever sense I started playing in 2018. I was getting so close to finishing but could not find groups to play test it. Now with this new ogl I don't even want to finish it any more. Hell I've wanted to get some friend together to do a dnd podcast but I don't want to deal the the headache of ogl1.1 if it where to take off. This has made what I found to be fun with dnd and stomped it to pieces/
5:52 Time Stamped for question asked. Yes, you cannot copyright 'rules.' You can only copyright the expression of those rules. So in other words, the ways they are written, the monsters in the books that are unique to D&D (Beholders, etc), and setting material. However you can make a game system that is similar in game play and mechanics if it is expressed differently. Its one of the ways Paizo got away with Pathfinder 1e. It was not just the OGL from those days. Honestly if as a community we wrote out a system reference document for rules similar to 5e without the same expression we could probably legally publish it online. I think having a free pdf like that would be useful for preservation of the game in the future, can't trust WotC to keep old books up.
This kind of reminds me of custom games for Starcraft. Starcraft and Warcraft 3 had incredibly vibrant custom game communities that resulted in games like DOTA becoming massive. Blizzard saw that as money lost, so for SC2, they now owned all the rights to custom games people released on SC2. Nothing nearly as big and influential ever got made and the games that were made had a fraction of the popularity of the old custom games. I won't be surprised if this kills the future popularity of D&D as people move away from making this content.
Little bit of history here: TSR (the original publishers of D&D) tried these kinds of shenanigans back in the day. They, iirc, tried to claim ownership of all TTRPGs. They were laughed out of court. Palladium (Rifts, Palladium, TMNT, etc) tried the same thing with a company that was creating products based on their system. They, too, were laughed out of court. Hasbro/WotC doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. There is precedent for them to be shooed out of the courtroom (and even mocked for attempting this). They could even face penalties-- the words With Prejudice, while rarely used, once placed upon a company trying these shenanigans is the end of their credibility and legal standing. This may even get into Ex Post Facto territory, changing the terms of a license. They can change that license for new products, absolutely, that's their right... but they cannot retroactively change the terms of previous licenses and agreements. Trying something like that would be a legal embarrassment that might get a judge foaming at the mouth for wasting their time on such First Year Law School foolishness (my Legalese is a little rusty, so it may not reach into Ex Post Facto territory). Put it like this: Big Company makes The Widget. They decide one day to place the plans for The Widget on the internet with an Open License attached to it. Anyone can use it. Twenty-three years later, Big Company turns around and decides that, no, nobody can make The Widget anymore and they will sue anyone who continues to do so without paying them royalties. Legally speaking, they cannot do that. They can't claim Trade Secrets. They cannot even claim *ownership* at that point (not in the "this is entirely mine" sense of legal ownership, which gets very fuzzy in the legal world). You see this sort of thing with Open License software from time to time. Someone makes some Open License software, slaps it up on the internet for free, and then comes back at some point and tries to claim people have to pay them for its use. Every single time the claim is thrown out. Once it's Open License, it's Open License. In the real world, one cannot just Darth Vader a legal agreement or license. This is one of three things, I think. 1: WotC is tanking Hasbro stock (fact). WotC is currently so badly managed that Hasbro is hemorrhaging money (fact) and wants to be rid of WotC ASAP. How does one do that without violating contracts? Destroy WotC, make it untenable to continue to keep them around. Get the shareholders themselves to pull the pin on that 'parting of the ways'. 2: Hasbro bought WotC specifically for MTG (fact) and D&D was added on as a condition of Hasbro purchasing WotC. Look it up if you don't believe me. MTG is not making as much money as Hasbro would like because of WotC mismanagement. Furthermore, D&D is a black hole for money. Yes, D&D brought in a billion dollars last year... but it was only between 100-150 million in profit. In the corporate world, that is a failure. Hasbro bought WotC without realizing (suits, I tell ya, every time!) that TTRPGs never, ever, ever make money. Ever. Ask any publisher how thin their profit margins are, don't take my word for it. Paizo (D&Ds biggest, most successful competitor!) has admitted they cannot even afford to hire the staff they need to keep up with production. So, this is Hasbro flailing around to try and squeeze money out of a lump of coal before they kick it to the curb. It's a desperation move. 3: Hasbro leaked this new OGL themselves so that the community could get all up in arms, and then a month or two from now they will come out with a "better" OGL that is still terrible so that they can seem like the hero. It will still be a bad OGL and people will lap it up because people are short sighted. "Golly-jeepers, Hasbro, how could I ever have doubted you! You listened to us!" while Hasbro is cutting one of their kidneys out to sell on the black market. They are doing this so they can ride in as the savior, while sinking a sword in everyone's backs. I'll throw in a 4th as well: Hasbro is going to go the GW rout. They will not attack larger creators because that takes too much money and effort, but they WILL use it to muzzle smaller creators. Why? I got nothing. Greed? Wickedness? Hate? Corporate Smugness? I dunno. It works for GW though, and Hasbro will use what ever it can to get "all the money" with as little effort as possible. Sorry for the wall of text here, but this situation is far more complicated and is (potentially) far less bleak than people seem to think. Could it spell the end of D&D? Maybe. But at that point, we start fresh with a clean slate. Your stories, your characters, your worlds... they're all yours. They're in your head. You can adapt them very easily to other systems and settings.
Since you said you don't know the difference between copyright and trademark: Copyright means you can't use (for example) Disney stories even if you change it enough that it doesn't seem like a Disney property. I couldn't tell, beat for beat, the story of Brave, even if I changed the names and look. Trademark means I couldn't make something that might be confused as official Disney property, even if it's original. So I couldn't tell the story of Dibney's Little Red Riding Hood. Using a similar font and style to Disney, because that could reasonably be confused for Disney product. They are basically copyright is the work being protected and trademark is the reputation being protected. Of course this all gets murky when you use a public domain property: For instance if you adapted The Little Mermaid. You have to make sure the story is different enough that it doesn't violate Disney copyright and the style doesn't violate trademark.
Company that loses next to no money on production of the product wants more money for the product that costs next to nothing, even though they already make an insane amount of money
As far as WotC/Hasbro stealing content published under the OGL is concerned this is them saying the quiet part out loud. Last time I saw them state such a thing so clearly was in the OGL FAQ from 2004. One of the questions of note asks "Isn't that a bit unfair?" in response to being told their content could be stolen, to which WotC replied with something that is best summarized as if you don't like it don't use the OGL. That said I would like to go on record as stating that this 1.1 situation is entirely messed up and that WotC/Hasbro have done several no-no's. This is in no way a defense of them, instead it's more a recognition of their past actions. Also as far as copyrighting mechanics go that's part of the reason why Scion 2e took so long to become a kickstarter campaign. The former holders of the property kept going "Nope, still too close to our system." I don't know how much ground CCP Games had to stand on, but I do remember stories of them being particularly difficult to work with. My prior post with the archive link errored on me, so I'll try to comment without it as a just in case. You can still google said FAQ though. The full name of it is "Open Game License: Frequently Asked Questions Version 2.0" and it went up on the now defunct Wizards site on January 26, 2004.
@@dicequeenDi Here's hoping, then. That IP is certainly old, but not dead. A Castlevania clone based in its world was made just last year. The IP itself was originally based on D&D session replays. Something like that, from what we're seeing with these new licenses, may not be happening again.
You don't need the OGL. Game mechanics cannot be copy-writed. Only specific intellectual property such as original terms, art, settings, characters, etc. can be copy-writed. Just an FYI.
Here's the deal it's really simple, and I hate to say that in a world where nothing is actually simple. Maybe not all of them but a lot of the content creators who have been using the OGL1.0a, If Wizards of the Coast actually releases anything similar to what they have proposed in the leaked document, just need a class action lawsuit. It would be based on intellectual property. Some companies get away with if you are an employee anything you create while on the job the company has intellectual property rights. People who are under those type of contracts are normally salaried, so they are considered on the job 24/7. This has been held up in court. However also held up in court are people who are not salaried and therefore only considered on the job while they're actually clocked in and the company does not have intellectual property rights to anything they make when not clocked in. The other way to go towards this is Wizards of the Coast is requiring up to a 25% Royalty on anything that you make X amount dollars on. Yet they want to turn around and use your property royalty free. As a content creator if something I had made was picked up by Wizards of the Coast and used 1st they should have to get my permission which could be assumed by the fact that I am now working under their new OGL. However, I would expect up to a 25% royalty of any product that you sell that has my product in it, and failing to do so would subjugate you to a lawsuit of lost income via use of intellectual property. Now, As discussed in this video it would be really funny if somebody were to make a game and call it dragons and dungeons flipping the name around making it not the trademark and used 75% or 80% of the mechanics that Dungeons & Dragons uses. As a separate game and almost all of the independent Resources and property is made with still function within the dragons and dungeons game just as if it were still working in the Dungeons & Dragons game And of course Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro would try to Sue these people out of existence for doing so, but that would be a very very hard lawsuit to win and all it would take is have one lawyer who can do his own law work start that company and therefore there would be almost no legal fees except the filing fees and stuff like that which unless he counter sues he would not have to pay. So, basically if I were a lawyer who was also a content creator I would just take the time to create a game name it something that would allow for us to by pass trademark on name and then make it so that the rules that I use are so similar to their game that all of the independent content could be used in my game and then that would surpass in sales and popularity Because it's basically the exact same game only I have an open gaming license and so Wizards of the coast falls to its own greed This game would become the new dungeons on dragons.
@@dicequeenDi Yeah. There's a lot of options at hand, and why I think we should get a legal round-up so to speak and actually get our collective stories straight about what, down to the letter, our problem is with the OGL. Right now a lot of the alarm ringing is because a lot of people, rightfully so given that this OGL leak is a crock and a half, are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. That's good for awareness, not so much for what I assume we want happening, consumer revolt. That'd also cover us in case Hasbro's really doing the Games Workshop rigamarole of making a big ask that's mostly fluff so they can get some inches after they "relent," and "show how sorry they are." It's the classic Big Ask strategy, and it's both devious and really easy to perform against a disorganized mob, which we all kinda are at the moment. It's a shot across the bow, but we all need to collect ourselves.
To follow up and r reinforce on your mention of "can't copyright game mechanics" section 102(b) of the American copyright act states 'in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authority extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, [...] Regardless of the form in which it is described [...]' It was written with the understanding that functional ideas aren't copyrightable. Only mechanisms (patents for machines) or creative content (copyright on specific works of fiction).
So if we want to use DND, we have to pay royalties. But if they want to use our homebrew, they don't have to pay us a thing. This is in no way legal. That is the most absurd violation of the law I've ever seen. I'm gonna homebrew the shit out of 5e. I'm going to put Jurassic Park Dilophosaurus in it and Gremlins from the 1984 movie as well. And I'll hold eye contact with WotC while I do it. No better revenge than to do the thing they hate and dare them to try and stop you. Oh yeah, and I won't buy a WotC product or service until a certain number of hiden good will stacks are earned. Yes, I will pirate books. If WotC is going to openly declare than theft is their way, they can't be surprised when robbed blind.
Mechanics can't be - but can you call them "hit points", "armor class", "saving throws", etc. The 3rd Party creators need an open standard / Creative Commons and someone to fight one battle with Hasbro.
As someone who hates copyright I'm ok with wotc stealing other copyright bast off their stuff, but what I'm not ok with is them, then copyright that same stuff and taking it out of the public's
It's just a parallel I thought about. A fakemon that did the same thing as Palafin was made and it's suspected Game Freak just yoinked it. Check it ruclips.net/video/UafCj2_PcpU/видео.html
Its basically the exact same thing blizzard did with world of War craft custom games. Specific wordings aside the concept is the same. "Whatever custom content you make, *insert company name here* owns, instead of you, the creator." Which really sucks and basically killed off alot of innovation in WOW custom games.
Odds are they'll just bribe Paizo with a really good deal and whatnot. There's nothing stopping them from offering a few good deals to the exceptions that might challenge them, and crush the rest who can't afford the legal fees. Remember, the OGL isn't the ONLY license deal they can offer, and no company is going to morally grandstand when they can get a free pass. TTRPG ain't a world of plush margins.
I can hardly see it being possible, specially because they mention that they don’t want the new OGL enabling competition like in the past. Paizo has a lot to lose, Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2e and even Starfinder are being threatened. With PF2e being the biggest alternative to a fantasy TTRPG outside WoTC’s hands, it is totally possible they are aiming to eradicate Paizo and other 3PP to land OneDND in a spot where there’s no alternative.
That would just leave Paizo free to out-compete them for product sales and give them time to WotC-proof the next Pathfinder edition. Not really an advantageous move for WotC.
The premise of doing this is the walled garden strategy. It doesn't work if there's another garden to go to though. Hasbro genuinely needs to think they can wall off the garden, which means either eradicating or acquiring Paizo entirely. I don't think even Hasbro can pull that off, and even if they somehow do, there's still the ultra-basic, "I'm just going to file the serial numbers of DnD off until I get the uncopyrightable skeleton of it and just be the new Paizo anyways," solution. All things considered, this is not the kind of move a healthy company makes. Either top CEOs are worried and are doing what the ER calls a CYA move, or this all comes down to a beancounter in accounting who has no idea what they're doing trying to accomplish something without knowing any of the context involved in even trying to attempt it.
If you buy building materials, and buy work-tools, all from the same local building marked, and you then build a small outdoor shed. Does your local building marked own that shed? NO! Can you sell the shed you made, and the local building marked doesn't own for profit? YES? This is basic capitalism (because everyone came from somewhere, relying on others work before them). It is insanity what WotC are trying to do here.
Wonder if they realize there pissing on the shoes of Disney's Knights of the Old Republic Bethesda's Skyrim and From Softwares Elden Ring all three of which use game concepts that are highly derivative of DnD and the original OGL.. I'm also hoping the open software company at large gets wind of this utter nonsense because if they're successful it puts a target on all of there backs.
I am so glad I don't play anything WotC anymore. I hope my RPG brothers and sisters can find better games like Savage Worlds, Dark Heresy, Cyberpunk RED/2020, etc. Anything better than WotC. Also very cool tabletop RPG vtuber.
@@dicequeenDi You are amazing and I've subbed! Savage Worlds is so good I even made a Soul Eater game out of it. If Pinnacle Games was WotC, they'd own my goofy anime adaptation.
"You made this?
I made this.
No...I made this."
-WOTC
I need this on the meme format yesterday
"Open Game License?" More like "Our Game, Losers!"
People been calling it the closed game license not gonna lie
I do think that the WOTC legal teams understands that mechanics can’t be copyrighted. But just the “fear” of having its products contested in court (can products still be sold while it’s fate is decided by the court?) with the risk of being part of a lengthy and probably very expensive (in USA) court proceedings will make most of the larger creators fall in line with the New OGL. Sad but true.
Products can't be sold if it's being put up to court. There has been speculation that anything Paizo might do to stray from the OGL in order to capitalize on this next dnd schism could be blocked by courts until the hype/fire dies down. Speculation of course. Literally not backed by any degree of fact or confirmation... but it's possible.
A few lawyers who specialize in licenses and contract law have actually commented on the subject matter and stated that the language of OGL v1.0a doesn't actually seem to have any language that grants WOTC any power to invalidate it. Plus there was a q&a about the OGL on the wotc website that they purged just recently that affirms this, they outright admitted that if the community is unhappy with the OGL, they can just revert to a previous version of it. Might not work for oneD&D stuff, but for 5e, 3.5e, and such that might be the way to go.
@@dicequeenDi Not to be contrary, but they have to ask for a band on the sale of contested products and be granted it by the court. So it's not always true that they can block sales.🤷
Btw not a lawyer, but I did take law classes as part of my degree.
@@G0LD3NR0D I hope so. I've heard claims that some lawyers say there is no leg to stand on, others saying it's entirely revokable. I'm not sure what to believe at the moment. I was already in the process of jumping ship to PF2e, and just now seeing that D&D was a sinking ship all long. I just hope WotC doesn't shoot Paizo down in its own speedrun to the bottom.
Guess what? If a person or corpertation expresses interest in legal action against you, you can refuse to respond to them and demand they only contact you through a lawyer. Then they can waste thousands being told how legally illiterate they are.
Over on EN World, the *author* of the original OGL, Ryan Dancey, has clarified that they *can't* revoke it.
Some lawyers say that "perpetuity" isn't enough to make it irrevocable.
@@dicequeenDi The first legal shot has already been fired across the bow. See here: ruclips.net/video/F0NG6GgmI8k/видео.html
@@dicequeenDi Also, "Well then, they're wrong now, aren't they?"
Intentions are not legally binding. Since the license does not say "irrevocable", it is implied BY DEFAULT that it can be revoked. All IP lawyers I have heard point at this.
Does this mean they can enforce it? That's up to the law to decide, unfortunately. And who has the funds to go against Hasbro?
^this
I'm a "Late to the party" DM on this subject. I've spent the past 4 hours stressed out of my mind for what this new as-is draft means for my table. I don't precisely know how we can finish the current 5e module without running the risk of having our own intellectual property stripped from our control. I think the word "stressed" is the lightest adjective I can think of with regards to my mental state.
This is our first campaign. It's not like these are just bulk made, unplayed, meme characters that clutter a D&DBeyond account. These people are very much so real to us. WE made them within a framework that let them be ours in perpetuity, and I'm already looking for ways to port our beloved cast to a new system that would at the very least allow us to finish the story before abandoning the D&D ruleset altogether.
Fuck I'm so sorry you're going through this. Honestly. It sucks to feel that whatever you create will just... belong to someone else.
Are you publishing the adventure? This OGL thing has no impact on your home game, specially if it's all homebrew or you already bought third party content
you can still play and make homebrew in 5e. the entire 1.1 OGL is to hinder competitor and leech of the people that makes 3pp materials (Like Kobold Press). as long as you just play the game and do rule changes in the group your fine, and aparently if you make 3pp products and not getting paid you seem to be fine too
I'm in a similar boat; only thing to my advantage right now is that I have yet to actually start my homebrew so all *I* gotta do is rework it for the new system (PF2e) and call it good. You on the other hand have a wee bit of a fuckin problem there possibly.
Like the others said you ought to be fine so long as you haven't been publishing/financially gaining from your homebrew stuff
Youre completely fine. It's for published content
The best thing that could possibly happen for ttrpgs is for WOTC to go hard in the paint on this one, and making everyone leave the safety of 5e.
LETS GOOOOOOOOO
Damn... If this continues going ahead as it does DnD is gonna keel over I feel. Homebrew has been a big staple for DnD for years and now people will be terrified to make anything in fear they will just have it all taken away! I wouldn't want that. It's what Blizzard did with Warcraft 3 Remastered after they missed out on Dota with the original.
I'm so glad I started learning Pathfinder a few weeks ago because it's been great fun! Although I hear this might also affect that since it's also falling under the OGL and idk what to do about that which actually scares me honestly.
Personally I think it's too big to fail. But it's definitely gonna get shaken up.
Homebrew has been a staple of D&D since its inception. From the beginning. Every rulebook from every edition (aside from Chainmail and possibly the Red Box) considered the rules to be "guidelines".
Someone needs to remind Disney that Knights of the Old Republic was built on d20 Modern and used the OGL 1.0. That'll shut this shit right down.
AYYYYYYYY AN ANGLE. I LIKE IT.
Oooh, trying to cast Summon Bigger Fish? I like it.
"There's a precedent to this..."
Dude...not even our Supreme Court gives a fuxk about precedent anymore lol
*urk* yeah. Precedent might not be enough if they have enough funds.
world economic forum: "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy"
"Correction - OUR content, comrade"
Yeah, this'll do it. This will kill DnD. They'll blame the market, the Rona, or something for it failing, but in reality, it's the Microsoft employee they brought in to help monetize their shit.
I plan on taking the skeleton of the game and just flavoring it differently, and leave it there. I have a whole setting, I don't need their flavor text.
That skeleton is what the OGL 1.0a covers, and what this would cover. People were using D&D's non-trademarked mechanics under that license, and could only do so because they were allowed to by the first OGL. If you were to follow the plan you described, WotC could either demand you follow the license, or sue you. The only way to steer clear is to use no mechanic that is referred to in the SRD touched on by the license. People were already doing what you described- those are the people in WotC's crosshairs right now.
@@BloodiedShingle I wasn't going to commercialize it. It's for personal use. I'll be damned if those morons will make me stop TTRPGs wholesale.
It's not just flavor now tbh. There's ways to challenge that the idea of classes + dice rolling might be licensable content. Really depends on courts.
@@dicequeenDi that hasn't escaped me. The only way to stop this or take WOTC to task is to just stop buying their shit. Across the board. Bankruptcy speaks volumes. (will it happen? Probably not.)
@@Thundah_Dome Ah, gotcha. I hope it goes well- I didn't want anyone stumbling headfirst into something by accident.
Haven't they learnt yet that sharing is caring?
How is this not that? I mean-- if someone jumps on D&D One day 1 and puts out a Gunslinger class, a Psion class, an Alchemist class and a Tactician class which naturally won't exist in the PHB, it would be kind of ridiculous to them say that WotC can never create any of those classes for the game or use any mechanics that are similar to the ones that the person who made those used. And unless the language in the license says that they can use anything people created, then it would be very easy for people to block a ton of pretty obvious stuff ever having official versions simply by putting out their own versions first and threatening to sue if an official version is ever made.
It's wotc. They never learn
I'm outting myself here with this dated reference, but Marvel Imprints did this when they diverged from Malibu back in the day.
They lured creators in to submit their work for consideration...and then took licensure over that content in perpetuity, with zero obligation to pay any dividends or royalties to the actual creators
How'd that work out for them?
I really hope WotC goes ahead with this and it kills DnD, so all of the other systems out there can have their day in the sun. Imagine the wider RPG community playing all kinds of different games, without one monolithic market leader.
Another videos later today about that. But I do want it all to go up in smoke.
The idea does put a smile on my face; my only worry is whether or not they'll use litigation to basically bankrupt their competition in extended legal battles. If they fail that, then yeah, let the whole brand go up in smoke for all I care
There's other games besides D&D and Pathfinder?
As an indie ttrpg designer I feel like this is a double edged sword. Whilst us weirdo nerds who are terminally online may use this as a catalyst to leave the Ampersand behind, most normies & fans of the D&D brand won't even bat an eye at these scummy practices & will be further trapped in the WOTC product ecosystem, making it even harder to convert the largest TTRPG audience to other games.
@@madadric But it's only people making over 750K a year that's paying Wizards of The Coast royalties off of their IP.
Do you you want someone to use your IP, and pay nothing, or pay like a super low amount of money to you?
What WoTC is aiming for is to change the view of the game mechanics from a written text printed on paper to that of the mechanics used in a video game engine. Using this argument, they could (conceivably) find a loophole in the copyright laws that protect game engine code.
I had not considered that... but didn't they just recently cancel a ton of video games?
Pretty much
@@jonasateo Hasbro blew a LOT of money on bad acquisitions. The board had been hiding how much money they lost from the stockholders. An independent group of stockholders brought it to light so Hasbro's board decided to 'focus' on fewer IPs and cut projects. WoTC is their primary focus as it is seen as their Golden Goose, so to speak.
Except it isn't game engine code. No judge would support such a stupid claim.
@@thunderflare59 online tabletop simulators. They contain the mechanics in their code.
Seems paizo, green ronin, kobold press, and even critrole and colville will have to go to court if they dont want to accept OGL 1.1.
There does seem to be room to defend the old OGL - since 10a does say "in perpetuity", you could argue 1.1 can't revoke it, but that's debate to have in courtrooms.
Until a judge gives a veredict, all of the small developers that can't go to court will suffer a lot.
As big of a name as they are... can they stand against fuckin 6.4b in 2021 Hasbro?
I was watching a stream from Roll for Combat where they had a Lawyer on interpreting the language used and things sound a LOT better than many of us have assumed; basically the lawyer said he doesn't see where they have a leg to stand on, but he also has the caveat that he's not an IP Lawyer or Copyright Lawyer, he's a contract lawyer, so he finishes most thoughts with 'it'll come down to court'
@@zacharyharwell351 I saw his in addition to The Rules Lawyer, and if not him, someone else I saw had a lawyer with some copyright experience.
The straight, "Well the license says it's in perpetuity!" is weak on the face of things because other language in the 1.0 OGL does give the issue ability to update the OGL. What is much less weak of an argument is the premise of corporate expectations that Paizo, Kobold Press, Critical Role, et al. have been relying upon this whole time for some 23 years (Which is important.), and that both Hasbro and the third parties have all collectively benefitted from the open arrangement. While OneDnD might be allowed to have the open game license removed, that's only because it's a "new" product. Otherwise, the argument would go, "You had 23 years to do something about this, and at this point the work of all these third parties using your license has helped you build yourself in addition to them. This is just convoluted IP theft on your end, judgement against Hasbro incorporated." *gavel banging*
@@dicequeenDi Critical Role can if only because they're providing the source material for an Amazon original animated series which was one of their most popular on Prime. WotC comes for Critical Role and they effectively attempt to lay claim to the Gross revenue of Amazon's product. This would not end well for WotC unless they've already worked out an exception.
@@harleymitchelly5542 Exactly right.
This would be like the owner of a Muffin Factory putting the recipes for their goods up on the internet to be used, for free, by everyone. Then, twenty-three years later coming back and saying nobody could use those recipes and they were going to sue anybody who did. Can't be done. My legaleze is a little rusty, but I believe this gets into Ex Post Facto-- there is so much case law against that kind of behavior it's laughable that they could even think this would work.
Frankly, I would be very surprised if, when HasWotCbro brings this to court the judge doesn't just start foaming at the mouth and throw the gavel at the lawyer's head for wasting their time. It's that elementary. This is first year law stuff.
(Also, yes, I know, recipes are not covered under copyright, it's just an example that came to mind.)
I'm glad I found your video on this. Given the way the past few years have been I've been trying to avoid "drama" stuff, but given that I've been enjoying running and playing 5e I've been thinking about adapting the mechanics for other genres I enjoy. This is pretty insane and have to wonder how far down the chain this goes. I expect this from a corporate entity like Hasbro, I have to wonder that those at wotc who are as much a part of the geek and gaming community as they are part of the company are cringing at the potential backlash over something like this. Just goes to show how out of touch corpos are. Maybe I'll have to poke my local game community about how they feel about other systems like HERO or Cortex, etc.
I'm sorry but the next few vids coming out are gonna be the same: kinda dramatic and REALLY venty. I made a buncha these to let out steam
Switched to a Non OGL Game a few years ago and then stupidity switched to 5e when it came out. Now the question is Arduin / Rifts / or Conrad's Fantasy? Found this new game Dwellers that does not use the OGL and it's FREE.
AYYYYYY GOOD ON YOU!
The best example of what it's doing is becoming a EULA.
What do you mean?
@@dicequeenDi The new OGL effectively says you don't own what you're working on, not really. You're just making it and using it. Like what you'd expect from an EULA, or an End User License Agreement.
Huh! Interesting! Thank you for teaching me this!
I bet Critical Role will come out with their own game.
Not like they don't have talented designers at their beck and call
well they are happily in bed with WoTC. Also the fact that their core setting is now owned by WoTC.
It sometimes seems like the mechanics get in their way at times. Matt running a Powered by the Apocalypse game might just be better. Or some other narrative system at least.
with how much homebrewing Mercer already does, they're halfway there anyway. Might as well take the plunge at this point and put in a few small details that technically make it "not 5e compatible" that everyone will ignore anyway, but that keep WOTC/Assbro from claiming it falls under the OGL.
This whole situation makes me glad I decided 5th edition wasn't for me, so I got out early.
You're safe now.
Doesnt this affect 3.5 too?
@@missquake Looks like it does, but when I said I got out, I got all the way out, and found other systems that suit me better. There are a lot of options out there.
@@JoeOutside1 how does this affect you as a player at all? I'm a creator, I ain't gonna get payed for writing stuff for some obscure niche game. Guess I gotta find a different side gig.
@@missquake It's true, as a GM and player, it doesn't affect me as much--it never did, since I wrote my own supplements for the most part anyway. Hope still abounds for those wanting to make a career of it, though, with 3rd party companies like Paizo and Kobold Press putting together their own systems and licenses to replace the OGL.
Its the same trick Blizzard did with Warcraft III Reforged, adding a clausule that makes every map anyone create their property, because they're afraid of another Dota sittuation. Turns out, that backfired and no sane people would put that many effort doing custom maps like they did for the original Warcraft III. So, expect that new content on OGL will now decrease in quality, because whoever did crazy good stuff until now, will no longer let it be under OGL. And i really want people to don't put that many effort anymore on OGL content, because nobody deserves their work to be "legally stolen" from then.
Ended up killing their own thing and now everyone simps on Dota. I getcha
They probably understand it, but they bet on SLAP (bullying)
This sounds like a golden opportunity to deliberately create the most horrendous, NSFW, 'ist, phobic, and 'ism content and force it on the WOTC Party.
You can't steal trash.
HAHAHAH I LOVE THIS RESPONSE. LETS GO.
No, WotC also added a clause preventing that. They can revoke the OGL 1.1 on bigoted content. Or kind of on any content they want really.
@@llamatronian101 That sounds like something members of the WOTC Party will have to determine and verify, wasting precious resources and valuable time they could be spending on generating revenue for a dying company that has the gall to publicly state their customers are "undermonetized".
Currently there are approximately 1,000 employees laboring at that miserable corporation. How many of them can be diverted to manually squashing every bug that crawls up from the cracks? And how much before it's more fire than forest?
Not all publicity is good publicity. Ask Lorraine Williams.
Wait until you read the clause that states they can terminate your license and by the contract forces you to destroy the content you created, but since they have an irrevocable right to your content. "It's not stealing your copyright, it's just that you can't use your content anymore, but we can". It's legal theft.
I hate to say this, but this last few days have been a shitty few days to be a fan of D&D. It feels.. apocalyptic.
Sorry. Come sit by the bonfire. I'm roasting it high.
WOTC knows they can't copyright mechanics and systems, they have literally lost that court case before.
Wasn't that Monolopoly? Or is there a story I'm missing
@@dicequeenDi Monopoly was one of them yea, not the first time Hasbro tried that nonsense.
@@TheRedneckGamer1979 Scrabble as well.
@@SoulSoundMuisc Yea that one was a way more recent court decision steming from a case against the people who made words with friends right?
You will own nothing and be HAPPY.
I dont think the corpos realize that the community makes dnd, not the other way around. This could really really blow up in their face
They basically pulled a Warcraft 3 Reforged.
Fuck. You're right.
I've been working in my own class for 5th edition on and off ever sense I started playing in 2018. I was getting so close to finishing but could not find groups to play test it. Now with this new ogl I don't even want to finish it any more. Hell I've wanted to get some friend together to do a dnd podcast but I don't want to deal the the headache of ogl1.1 if it where to take off. This has made what I found to be fun with dnd and stomped it to pieces/
new OGL 1.1 is Your stuff is are stuff and if you try to sell your stuff we will sue
What's yours is mine and what's mine is also mine.
I say, do it.
Let WotC push their playerbase to OSR and the competition.
Ngl but it's entirely possible OSR games can be counted as derivatives and can be targeted by the OGL revision
5:52
Time Stamped for question asked. Yes, you cannot copyright 'rules.' You can only copyright the expression of those rules. So in other words, the ways they are written, the monsters in the books that are unique to D&D (Beholders, etc), and setting material. However you can make a game system that is similar in game play and mechanics if it is expressed differently. Its one of the ways Paizo got away with Pathfinder 1e. It was not just the OGL from those days. Honestly if as a community we wrote out a system reference document for rules similar to 5e without the same expression we could probably legally publish it online. I think having a free pdf like that would be useful for preservation of the game in the future, can't trust WotC to keep old books up.
This kind of reminds me of custom games for Starcraft. Starcraft and Warcraft 3 had incredibly vibrant custom game communities that resulted in games like DOTA becoming massive. Blizzard saw that as money lost, so for SC2, they now owned all the rights to custom games people released on SC2. Nothing nearly as big and influential ever got made and the games that were made had a fraction of the popularity of the old custom games. I won't be surprised if this kills the future popularity of D&D as people move away from making this content.
Little bit of history here:
TSR (the original publishers of D&D) tried these kinds of shenanigans back in the day. They, iirc, tried to claim ownership of all TTRPGs. They were laughed out of court.
Palladium (Rifts, Palladium, TMNT, etc) tried the same thing with a company that was creating products based on their system. They, too, were laughed out of court.
Hasbro/WotC doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. There is precedent for them to be shooed out of the courtroom (and even mocked for attempting this). They could even face penalties-- the words With Prejudice, while rarely used, once placed upon a company trying these shenanigans is the end of their credibility and legal standing.
This may even get into Ex Post Facto territory, changing the terms of a license. They can change that license for new products, absolutely, that's their right... but they cannot retroactively change the terms of previous licenses and agreements. Trying something like that would be a legal embarrassment that might get a judge foaming at the mouth for wasting their time on such First Year Law School foolishness (my Legalese is a little rusty, so it may not reach into Ex Post Facto territory).
Put it like this:
Big Company makes The Widget. They decide one day to place the plans for The Widget on the internet with an Open License attached to it. Anyone can use it. Twenty-three years later, Big Company turns around and decides that, no, nobody can make The Widget anymore and they will sue anyone who continues to do so without paying them royalties. Legally speaking, they cannot do that. They can't claim Trade Secrets. They cannot even claim *ownership* at that point (not in the "this is entirely mine" sense of legal ownership, which gets very fuzzy in the legal world).
You see this sort of thing with Open License software from time to time. Someone makes some Open License software, slaps it up on the internet for free, and then comes back at some point and tries to claim people have to pay them for its use. Every single time the claim is thrown out. Once it's Open License, it's Open License. In the real world, one cannot just Darth Vader a legal agreement or license.
This is one of three things, I think.
1: WotC is tanking Hasbro stock (fact). WotC is currently so badly managed that Hasbro is hemorrhaging money (fact) and wants to be rid of WotC ASAP. How does one do that without violating contracts? Destroy WotC, make it untenable to continue to keep them around. Get the shareholders themselves to pull the pin on that 'parting of the ways'.
2: Hasbro bought WotC specifically for MTG (fact) and D&D was added on as a condition of Hasbro purchasing WotC. Look it up if you don't believe me. MTG is not making as much money as Hasbro would like because of WotC mismanagement. Furthermore, D&D is a black hole for money. Yes, D&D brought in a billion dollars last year... but it was only between 100-150 million in profit. In the corporate world, that is a failure. Hasbro bought WotC without realizing (suits, I tell ya, every time!) that TTRPGs never, ever, ever make money. Ever. Ask any publisher how thin their profit margins are, don't take my word for it. Paizo (D&Ds biggest, most successful competitor!) has admitted they cannot even afford to hire the staff they need to keep up with production. So, this is Hasbro flailing around to try and squeeze money out of a lump of coal before they kick it to the curb. It's a desperation move.
3: Hasbro leaked this new OGL themselves so that the community could get all up in arms, and then a month or two from now they will come out with a "better" OGL that is still terrible so that they can seem like the hero. It will still be a bad OGL and people will lap it up because people are short sighted. "Golly-jeepers, Hasbro, how could I ever have doubted you! You listened to us!" while Hasbro is cutting one of their kidneys out to sell on the black market. They are doing this so they can ride in as the savior, while sinking a sword in everyone's backs.
I'll throw in a 4th as well: Hasbro is going to go the GW rout. They will not attack larger creators because that takes too much money and effort, but they WILL use it to muzzle smaller creators. Why? I got nothing. Greed? Wickedness? Hate? Corporate Smugness? I dunno. It works for GW though, and Hasbro will use what ever it can to get "all the money" with as little effort as possible.
Sorry for the wall of text here, but this situation is far more complicated and is (potentially) far less bleak than people seem to think. Could it spell the end of D&D? Maybe. But at that point, we start fresh with a clean slate. Your stories, your characters, your worlds... they're all yours. They're in your head. You can adapt them very easily to other systems and settings.
Here's hoping it's as you say: not as bleak as it is. Here's hoping.
Since you said you don't know the difference between copyright and trademark:
Copyright means you can't use (for example) Disney stories even if you change it enough that it doesn't seem like a Disney property. I couldn't tell, beat for beat, the story of Brave, even if I changed the names and look.
Trademark means I couldn't make something that might be confused as official Disney property, even if it's original. So I couldn't tell the story of Dibney's Little Red Riding Hood. Using a similar font and style to Disney, because that could reasonably be confused for Disney product.
They are basically copyright is the work being protected and trademark is the reputation being protected.
Of course this all gets murky when you use a public domain property: For instance if you adapted The Little Mermaid. You have to make sure the story is different enough that it doesn't violate Disney copyright and the style doesn't violate trademark.
copyright is the work, trademark is reputation. GOTCHA. thank you for this! i'm always here to learn more! hella!
Thank the fucking God that i didn't give wotc a single fucking cent in my 19 years of playing dnd
Company that loses next to no money on production of the product wants more money for the product that costs next to nothing, even though they already make an insane amount of money
As far as WotC/Hasbro stealing content published under the OGL is concerned this is them saying the quiet part out loud. Last time I saw them state such a thing so clearly was in the OGL FAQ from 2004. One of the questions of note asks "Isn't that a bit unfair?" in response to being told their content could be stolen, to which WotC replied with something that is best summarized as if you don't like it don't use the OGL. That said I would like to go on record as stating that this 1.1 situation is entirely messed up and that WotC/Hasbro have done several no-no's. This is in no way a defense of them, instead it's more a recognition of their past actions.
Also as far as copyrighting mechanics go that's part of the reason why Scion 2e took so long to become a kickstarter campaign. The former holders of the property kept going "Nope, still too close to our system." I don't know how much ground CCP Games had to stand on, but I do remember stories of them being particularly difficult to work with.
My prior post with the archive link errored on me, so I'll try to comment without it as a just in case. You can still google said FAQ though. The full name of it is "Open Game License: Frequently Asked Questions Version 2.0" and it went up on the now defunct Wizards site on January 26, 2004.
talk about crowd sourcing your product
It's genius! All you need is a lack of morals!
Sooo.... I wonder what's happening to Record of Lodoss War?
It's... pretty old.... maybe nothing...??
@@dicequeenDi Here's hoping, then. That IP is certainly old, but not dead. A Castlevania clone based in its world was made just last year. The IP itself was originally based on D&D session replays.
Something like that, from what we're seeing with these new licenses, may not be happening again.
........ it is douche move, but there were signs everywhere considering WotC hate towards their buyers.
Yeahhhhhhhh it's pretty clear
Of all the sections of OGL 1.1, the section allowing them to essentially steal any creator's work without any compensation is the most infuriating.
You don't need the OGL. Game mechanics cannot be copy-writed. Only specific intellectual property such as original terms, art, settings, characters, etc. can be copy-writed. Just an FYI.
You don't. I get it. But also Hasbro does possibly have the money and lawyers to do something
Here's the deal it's really simple, and I hate to say that in a world where nothing is actually simple. Maybe not all of them but a lot of the content creators who have been using the OGL1.0a, If Wizards of the Coast actually releases anything similar to what they have proposed in the leaked document, just need a class action lawsuit. It would be based on intellectual property. Some companies get away with if you are an employee anything you create while on the job the company has intellectual property rights. People who are under those type of contracts are normally salaried, so they are considered on the job 24/7. This has been held up in court. However also held up in court are people who are not salaried and therefore only considered on the job while they're actually clocked in and the company does not have intellectual property rights to anything they make when not clocked in. The other way to go towards this is Wizards of the Coast is requiring up to a 25% Royalty on anything that you make X amount dollars on. Yet they want to turn around and use your property royalty free. As a content creator if something I had made was picked up by Wizards of the Coast and used 1st they should have to get my permission which could be assumed by the fact that I am now working under their new OGL. However, I would expect up to a 25% royalty of any product that you sell that has my product in it, and failing to do so would subjugate you to a lawsuit of lost income via use of intellectual property.
Now, As discussed in this video it would be really funny if somebody were to make a game and call it dragons and dungeons flipping the name around making it not the trademark and used 75% or 80% of the mechanics that Dungeons & Dragons uses. As a separate game and almost all of the independent Resources and property is made with still function within the dragons and dungeons game just as if it were still working in the Dungeons & Dragons game And of course Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro would try to Sue these people out of existence for doing so, but that would be a very very hard lawsuit to win and all it would take is have one lawyer who can do his own law work start that company and therefore there would be almost no legal fees except the filing fees and stuff like that which unless he counter sues he would not have to pay.
So, basically if I were a lawyer who was also a content creator I would just take the time to create a game name it something that would allow for us to by pass trademark on name and then make it so that the rules that I use are so similar to their game that all of the independent content could be used in my game and then that would surpass in sales and popularity Because it's basically the exact same game only I have an open gaming license and so Wizards of the coast falls to its own greed This game would become the new dungeons on dragons.
Ohhhhhh shit a class action lawsuit! Haven't considered that!
@@dicequeenDi Yeah. There's a lot of options at hand, and why I think we should get a legal round-up so to speak and actually get our collective stories straight about what, down to the letter, our problem is with the OGL. Right now a lot of the alarm ringing is because a lot of people, rightfully so given that this OGL leak is a crock and a half, are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. That's good for awareness, not so much for what I assume we want happening, consumer revolt.
That'd also cover us in case Hasbro's really doing the Games Workshop rigamarole of making a big ask that's mostly fluff so they can get some inches after they "relent," and "show how sorry they are." It's the classic Big Ask strategy, and it's both devious and really easy to perform against a disorganized mob, which we all kinda are at the moment. It's a shot across the bow, but we all need to collect ourselves.
To follow up and r reinforce on your mention of "can't copyright game mechanics" section 102(b) of the American copyright act states 'in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authority extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, [...] Regardless of the form in which it is described [...]' It was written with the understanding that functional ideas aren't copyrightable. Only mechanisms (patents for machines) or creative content (copyright on specific works of fiction).
Thank you immensely for this peace of mind.
So if we want to use DND, we have to pay royalties. But if they want to use our homebrew, they don't have to pay us a thing.
This is in no way legal. That is the most absurd violation of the law I've ever seen. I'm gonna homebrew the shit out of 5e. I'm going to put Jurassic Park Dilophosaurus in it and Gremlins from the 1984 movie as well. And I'll hold eye contact with WotC while I do it. No better revenge than to do the thing they hate and dare them to try and stop you. Oh yeah, and I won't buy a WotC product or service until a certain number of hiden good will stacks are earned. Yes, I will pirate books. If WotC is going to openly declare than theft is their way, they can't be surprised when robbed blind.
Mechanics can't be - but can you call them "hit points", "armor class", "saving throws", etc. The 3rd Party creators need an open standard / Creative Commons and someone to fight one battle with Hasbro.
A comment for the algorithm.
A thankful for response in kind
As someone who hates copyright I'm ok with wotc stealing other copyright bast off their stuff, but what I'm not ok with is them, then copyright that same stuff and taking it out of the public's
What's yours is mine! - Wotc
the double standard of all this really shows that wotc only see their fans as cash cows
I've been saying more like... they treat us like dried oranges: still trying to squeeze out more juice
I'm confused on the Palafin thing because this is the first time I'm hearing about it and Palafin isn't owned by WOTC it's owned by Game freak.
It's just a parallel I thought about. A fakemon that did the same thing as Palafin was made and it's suspected Game Freak just yoinked it.
Check it ruclips.net/video/UafCj2_PcpU/видео.html
@@dicequeenDi hmm I wouldn't put it past them. The designs are different enough but still very similar. Definitely inspired by fakemon if not stolen.
Its basically the exact same thing blizzard did with world of War craft custom games.
Specific wordings aside the concept is the same. "Whatever custom content you make, *insert company name here* owns, instead of you, the creator."
Which really sucks and basically killed off alot of innovation in WOW custom games.
Odds are they'll just bribe Paizo with a really good deal and whatnot. There's nothing stopping them from offering a few good deals to the exceptions that might challenge them, and crush the rest who can't afford the legal fees.
Remember, the OGL isn't the ONLY license deal they can offer, and no company is going to morally grandstand when they can get a free pass. TTRPG ain't a world of plush margins.
Ngl that's a really strong point I hadn't considered. Fuck.
I can hardly see it being possible, specially because they mention that they don’t want the new OGL enabling competition like in the past.
Paizo has a lot to lose, Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2e and even Starfinder are being threatened. With PF2e being the biggest alternative to a fantasy TTRPG outside WoTC’s hands, it is totally possible they are aiming to eradicate Paizo and other 3PP to land OneDND in a spot where there’s no alternative.
That would just leave Paizo free to out-compete them for product sales and give them time to WotC-proof the next Pathfinder edition. Not really an advantageous move for WotC.
The premise of doing this is the walled garden strategy. It doesn't work if there's another garden to go to though. Hasbro genuinely needs to think they can wall off the garden, which means either eradicating or acquiring Paizo entirely.
I don't think even Hasbro can pull that off, and even if they somehow do, there's still the ultra-basic, "I'm just going to file the serial numbers of DnD off until I get the uncopyrightable skeleton of it and just be the new Paizo anyways," solution. All things considered, this is not the kind of move a healthy company makes. Either top CEOs are worried and are doing what the ER calls a CYA move, or this all comes down to a beancounter in accounting who has no idea what they're doing trying to accomplish something without knowing any of the context involved in even trying to attempt it.
WoTC is trying to pull a Bethesda and force players to pay them for player made homebrew/mods.
If you buy building materials, and buy work-tools, all from the same local building marked, and you then build a small outdoor shed. Does your local building marked own that shed?
NO!
Can you sell the shed you made, and the local building marked doesn't own for profit?
YES?
This is basic capitalism (because everyone came from somewhere, relying on others work before them).
It is insanity what WotC are trying to do here.
Wonder if they realize there pissing on the shoes of Disney's Knights of the Old Republic Bethesda's Skyrim and From Softwares Elden Ring all three of which use game concepts that are highly derivative of DnD and the original OGL.. I'm also hoping the open software company at large gets wind of this utter nonsense because if they're successful it puts a target on all of there backs.
After year Games Workshop and WoTC just keeps dropping lower.
Soulless corps in charge if games ran by passionate folk
I am so glad I don't play anything WotC anymore. I hope my RPG brothers and sisters can find better games like Savage Worlds, Dark Heresy, Cyberpunk RED/2020, etc. Anything better than WotC. Also very cool tabletop RPG vtuber.
AYYY SAVAGE WORLDS. GOOD TASTE GOOD TASTE. And thanks! Trpgs are my specialty
@@dicequeenDi You are amazing and I've subbed! Savage Worlds is so good I even made a Soul Eater game out of it. If Pinnacle Games was WotC, they'd own my goofy anime adaptation.
Why do you sound like the old Pikamee?
THANK YOU.