Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2023 17:18:23 GMT -6
I'm still clutching to ability scores: S,I,W,D,C,Ch! Is the set of scores the most widely dispersed sextuple in history? Maybe someone will come along and eat Hasbro.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 11, 2023 17:19:53 GMT -6
I get that ideas and game mechanics (as defined by the 1909 and amended in 1976 Copyright Act) are not copyright. What is copyright is the remaining fiction. Simplistically, I could classify all the content in the 3LBBs as either game mechanics (aka "CRUNCH") or fiction (aka "FLUFF"). The CRUNCH is not copyright, and the FLUFF is copyright. The issue for the close clones is, i think, that the 3LBBs are actually pretty lite on for CRUNCH. A substantial portion of the sections I've looked at line by line (first part of M&M) are arguably FLUFF. Sure, I could re-write all the fluff in my own words, but the more of that there is in my game, the more it begins to look like a derivative. If a close retroclone was very largely of that flavour (what many the close retroclones were aiming for), it might be in trouble. Yep, I agree with Jesse that a court fight is not where most micro-publishers want to go to quibble over the intricate details of which text is or isn't crunch or fluff  |
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 11, 2023 18:27:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 11, 2023 20:52:45 GMT -6
Mmm. Thanks Chicagowiz. I have half a mind to reach out for some specific advise. Prolly, he has bigger fish to fry... let me think about that. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 11, 2023 20:57:32 GMT -6
Paizo is doing a new open OGL with the lawyer who did the legal work on the original OGL 1.0. I'm guessing he's not feeling that confident about winning against Hasbro if that's the case. tenkar's vid youtu.be/_xXTR2HOxjs |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 11, 2023 22:40:18 GMT -6
Hey good to hear from you. I still recommend the hell out of the Swords & Wizardry Quick Start as a way to get up to speed quickly with refereeing D&D in general. Thank you, that's really kind. I'm thinking, in light of all this, of genericizing the Quick Start into an OD&D-esque style of game, while referring folks back to a list of rules for specifics. Cool! Why go with a published example as opposed to a more general/generic approach? Is it to drive sales or a different reason? Two reasons 1) When I do sell to stores it helps to have a rule book to go along with it. And trying to do it with the retro-clone wasn't cost-effective. Like in I would taken a bath trying to order multiple copies. 2) I didn't stop developing what I did with the Majestic Wilderlands and want to share then. I think they turned into a nifty set of rules that people may find useful. Well, there is that. TBH, I think that this is going to end up in court and hopefully some clarity emerges. I listened to Ryan Dancey and there is a chance the case could be done quickly and cheaply because there only one question at stake. Whether Wizards can de-authorize the license or not. If the license is authorized then the party involved is clear of copyright infringment. But... here the kicker. I realized that I been hearing from dozens of pissed off attorney with some IP experiences. I don't know. I think this could be something new and can only happen in the era of the Internet. How is the best New York law firm going to compete with hundreds if not thousands of personally angry attorneys out for blood? Especially when it may not be complicated at all. Does Wizards have the right to de-authorize their license or not? |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 11, 2023 22:48:12 GMT -6
Matt Finch streamed his video 3 hours ago, I was a bit late. Watching it now. The title is "Moving the OSR Forward into the post-OGL Era" youtu.be/7HMtk9SAjUI |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 12, 2023 7:38:29 GMT -6
Matt Finch streamed his video 3 hours ago, I was a bit late. Watching it now. The title is "Moving the OSR Forward into the post-OGL Era" youtu.be/7HMtk9SAjUIOne interesting remark I heard is that Piazo is re-working their OGL (I think they call it a Compatibility License). Since Pathfinder was built on D&D 3.5, I'm guessing their SRD/OGL would be pretty close to the WotC SRD/OGL. Something for me to look at more closely tomorrow. The other thing I heard is: there's no huge rush. A bunch of companies and individuals are coming out with solutions. So it's time to take a look around and see what comes up. Seems to me like it's gonna be OSR 2.0 baby  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 12, 2023 7:57:32 GMT -6
Seems to me like it's gonna be OSR 2.0 baby The best is yet to come. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 12, 2023 16:50:33 GMT -6
Paizo is doing a new open OGL with the lawyer who did the legal work on the original OGL 1.0. I'm guessing he's not feeling that confident about winning against Hasbro if that's the case. What did you mean in the 2nd sentence? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 12, 2023 17:21:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jan 12, 2023 17:41:05 GMT -6
Wow! A potentially brilliant maneuver. This attack may affect everyone in the hobby, more or less, but the cross hairs are squarely on Paizo.
I sure hope Azora Law is a reputable company or Paizo could really get their --- handed to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 12, 2023 17:50:26 GMT -6
Yeah, it is looking like far and away the best option I'm seeing so far.
Especially loving that:
“The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).”
Now I'm just holding out to see how early-D&D-like the ORC-IP will be...
edit: seems like that won't happen:
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 12, 2023 18:39:30 GMT -6
Paizo is doing a new open OGL with the lawyer who did the legal work on the original OGL 1.0. I'm guessing he's not feeling that confident about winning against Hasbro if that's the case. What did you mean in the 2nd sentence? The Lawyer who worked with Dancey to create the original OGL is the head of the law firm working to create Paizo's new ORC license (and the IP firm for Paizo and other RPG companies) My point is that if this lawyer felt that OGL 1.0 was going to prevail in a court of law without much expenditure of $, time and energy to defend it from HASBRO, he would not be working on a new one to supercede it. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 12, 2023 19:12:38 GMT -6
So, I never really looked very closely at the OGL. I had no practical reason to. But my understanding of the matter is that publishers adopted it as a legal safety net. It allowed them to utilize the 3.5 SRD with minimal concern about using WotC's IP as long as they abided by its terms and limitations. This was the loophole that led to the publication of OSRIC, whose expressed purpose was to be a vessel of compatibility with 1e AD&D and in turn be an avenue for others to publish supplements under its banner. The caveat was that such supplements and variants would also have to include the OGL. In this way, the license was self-perpetuating. For example, since Swords & Wizardry adopted the OGL and wanted to promote creating content for and through S&W, they used the OGL as a means for others to do so. They just had to include the OGL in their material. As a result, we now have countless variants and restatements of that rule set alone, not to mention supplements, all under the OGL.
At this point, if WotC revokes the OGL, I'm not sure that I see a practical reason for a small publisher to adopt a license at all. Isn't it in all intents and purposes just granting permission for others to use your work in producing supporting material? Couldn't this be achieved in a simpler way?
Obviously, this assumes you intend to scrub your works of all SRD content.
If a small publisher is instead worried about protecting their own IP, doesn't a statement of copyright suffice?
In my opinion, the bigger problem of the OGL being revoked is that we may be saying goodbye to any true emulations of the earliest rulesets. The best we will be able to achieve is a near-clone in expression. And that will depend on how each publisher proceeds with rewriting their content. Cross compatibility could become an issue if everyone starts using different terms and modified mechanics. This would be particularly problematic if WotC decides to pull the pdf's again. The original game may become lost in its true form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2023 20:10:15 GMT -6
I just updated Dice or Die with "hits" for hp, armor for AC and an underscore preceding each monster; e.g. _Githyanki.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 12, 2023 20:16:23 GMT -6
The Lawyer who worked with Dancey to create the original OGL is the head of the law firm working to create Paizo's new ORC license (and the IP firm for Paizo and other RPG companies) My point is that if this lawyer felt that OGL 1.0 was going to prevail in a court of law without much expenditure of $, time and energy to defend it from HASBRO, he would not be working on a new one to supercede it. Thanks jeffb. Well, one consideration is that lawyers are just doing work for hire. If someone wants to pay them to do the same work over again, sure, why not? But I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Everyone recognises that WotC is now suggesting that the OGL is not as bullet proof as people thought; they hired some expensive lawyers who pointed out a few loop holes in it. WotC itself is unlikely to "fix" these loop holes (frex with a 1.0b), so that job falls to someone else. Looks like it is Piazo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2023 20:42:22 GMT -6
And for good measure, I changed intelligence to intellect, dexterity to agility, and constitution to fortitude - liberating; I always wanted to make these changes! I also put a "." in front of each of the spells that I reference; e.g., ".tensor’s floating disk" Hopefully it won't come to this for people with a lot more at stake.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jan 13, 2023 8:49:13 GMT -6
I just updated Dice or Die with ... an underscore preceding each monster; e.g. _Githyanki. I also put a "." in front of each of the spells that I reference; e.g., ".tensor’s floating disk"... Is it really that simple??  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2023 9:34:32 GMT -6
I don't know but I did it anyway and a great weight was lifted off my character sheet!
|
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jan 13, 2023 15:17:21 GMT -6
There are other tabletop roleplaying game systems that have Open Games Licenses. I think Chaosium's Basic Role Playing and Traveller both qualify as "old school" gaming. ... Mongoose PublishingThe Traveller roleplaying game has an OGL! www.traveller-srd.com/There have been a few incarnations of Far Future Enterprises' Traveller RPG released under the OGL. You already mention (1) MGT and MGT 2E. Here's two more: (2) In 2006 QLI/RPGRealms Publishing created Traveller D20 (aka T20), which used D&D 3E's D20 system. It was set in Milieu 990, somewhat before Classic Traveller (CT), which is set in Milieu 1100. DTRPG has the corebook in PDF for $20. But for $35 you can buy a CDROM from FFE with all the T20 books. (So then, why does Amazon and the have the HC of this for $500?!) (3) There was a fan-made, 6-page conversion of CT to FUDGE RPG. And FUDGE is OGL'd. If you know of any others, post them here! A few more OGL games I remember: * The Star Wars RPG popularized West End Games's D6 System, but there were lots of other games that used it. In 2010, before WEG went bankrupt, owner Eric Gibson OGL'd the D6 System. You can find the Open D6 SRD online. * Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds, a superhero RPG. * White Wolf's Silver Age Sentnels, another super hero RPG. There are actually two versions of this game: one uses the Tri-Stat system, the other uses the D20 system. * Spycraft, an espionage RPG, like TSR's Top Secret. * In February 2002, Wizards of the Coast released a D20 version of Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu, written by Monte Cook, senior designer of D&D 3E. I GM'd this for a while back in 2002-2003. I see someone's selling a used HC on Amazon now for $58, and another on eBay for $30. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 14, 2023 3:16:24 GMT -6
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Jan 14, 2023 8:04:16 GMT -6
jeffb What did you mean in the 2nd sentence? The Lawyer who worked with Dancey to create the original OGL is the head of the law firm working to create Paizo's new ORC license (and the IP firm for Paizo and other RPG companies) My point is that if this lawyer felt that OGL 1.0 was going to prevail in a court of law without much expenditure of $, time and energy to defend it from HASBRO, he would not be working on a new one to supercede it. I daresay you're missing the point of Paizo's move. It's not about the legal security of their games; it's about marketing. By offering this new ORC license (if it takes off), they'll be the company that stepped in and did the right thing by sticking up for all the small publishers, which will generate a lot of consumer goodwill for them. ORC won't just keep their own games legally safe from WotC's grubby hands; it will also do the same for any other publishers who wish to adopt it. The fact that creating a new license is almost certainly far cheaper than potentially fighting it out in court (and U.S. courts being what they are, there would be no guarantee of a victory even if Paizo was in the right) was assumably a factor to consider, but the real importance of ORC is that it provides an umbrella of safety to many other creators. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 14, 2023 9:41:14 GMT -6
I daresay you're missing the point of Paizo's move. It's not about the legal security of their games; it's about marketing. By offering this new ORC license (if it takes off), they'll be the company that stepped in and did the right thing by sticking up for all the small publishers, which will generate a lot of consumer goodwill for them. ORC won't just keep their own games legally safe from WotC's grubby hands; it will also do the same for any other publishers who wish to adopt it. The fact that creating a new license is almost certainly far cheaper than potentially fighting it out in court (and U.S. courts being what they are, there would be no guarantee of a victory even if Paizo was in the right) was assumably a factor to consider, but the real importance of ORC is that it provides an umbrella of safety to many other creators. I agree fully with what you are saying about Paizo using the situation for marketing exposure and positioning should they find themselves in a legal battle. What I question is whether dropping the OGL and creating a new license really offers Paizo any legal protection. It may protect others who choose to use the Pathfinder SRD. Even this is questionable if WotC decides to revoke the original OGL and start taking people to court over IP who do not adopt the new OGL. On the other hand, third party publishers may be unwittingly exposing themselves to a lawsuit by dropping the OGL (the original terms of agreement) without expunging material from the 3.5 SRD, where WotC does not revoke the OGL 1.0. Paizo may be forcing Hasbro's hand in this matter because both SRD's and consequential licenses will be based on 3.5e. Personally. if I was a third party publisher I'd be steering clear of this potential rat nest. edit: Paizo has publicly stated that they are willing to go to court to show that WotC does not have the authority to revoke the OGL 1.0. Yet, their very action of pre-emptively creating a new license weakens their legal argument and conviction on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Jan 14, 2023 9:59:09 GMT -6
jeffb What did you mean in the 2nd sentence? The Lawyer who worked with Dancey to create the original OGL is the head of the law firm working to create Paizo's new ORC license (and the IP firm for Paizo and other RPG companies) My point is that if this lawyer felt that OGL 1.0 was going to prevail in a court of law without much expenditure of $, time and energy to defend it from HASBRO, he would not be working on a new one to supercede it. Always have a backup plan. Their business depends on it. -Mike |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 14, 2023 13:36:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 14, 2023 13:41:36 GMT -6
I noticed several posts in this thread got pretty far off track. We have other threads already dedicated to hashing out the OGL nightmare Hasbro has created. odd74.proboards.com/thread/15699/hasbro-discussMaybe the mods can move those posts to that thread? This one should be for posting other OGL's you may know of? Discussing the merits of them would still be on topic as well. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 14, 2023 17:43:01 GMT -6
Yet, their very action of pre-emptively creating a new license weakens their legal argument and conviction on the matter. I can see this argument if it turns out Piazo attempts to create a D&D-like SRD under the ORC license. So far, I haven't heard that Piazo is explicitly proposing this. (someone will correct me I'm sure, but) what I've read is they're saying they'll create an open game license framework, under which they and any other third-parties can release whatever SRDs they like. Piazo says that Pathfinder 2 doesn't depend on the D&D SRD so, presumably, they believe their own SRD will be clear of WotC's IP. I haven't looked closely at PF2, but I will be very interested to see what ends up in their SRD. If a third party wants to continue to publish a so-called "close retro clone" of OD&D, then (assuming the OGL 1.0a and therefore the D&D 3.5 SRD are sunk) that third party's next product would have to be built either a) on its own independent legal merits, or b) on a suitable SRD that someone else has already released (under the ORC or some other license), or c) on a new, purpose built SRD (under the ORC or some other license). My sense is that ORC intends for a lot of option Bs and Cs to start happening. So... more SRDs, with one ORC across them all. Is this a desirable outcome for our hobby? Is it better or worse or indifferent outcome compared to more SRDs each under its own license? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 14, 2023 19:23:32 GMT -6
Yet, their very action of pre-emptively creating a new license weakens their legal argument and conviction on the matter. I can see this argument if it turns out Piazo attempts to create a D&D-like SRD under the ORC license. So far, I haven't heard that Piazo is explicitly proposing this. (someone will correct me I'm sure, but) what I've read is they're saying they'll create an open game license framework, under which they and any other third-parties can release whatever SRDs they like. Piazo says that Pathfinder 2 doesn't depend on the D&D SRD so, presumably, they believe their own SRD will be clear of WotC's IP. I haven't looked closely at PF2, but I will be very interested to see what ends up in their SRD. If a third party wants to continue to publish a so-called "close retro clone" of OD&D, then (assuming the OGL 1.0a and therefore the D&D 3.5 SRD are sunk) that third party's next product would have to be built either a) on its own independent legal merits, or b) on a suitable SRD that someone else has already released (under the ORC or some other license), or c) on a new, purpose built SRD (under the ORC or some other license). My sense is that ORC intends for a lot of option Bs and Cs to start happening. So... more SRDs, with one ORC across them all. Is this a desirable outcome for our hobby? Is it better or worse or indifferent outcome compared to more SRDs each under its own license? I'd like to respond further, but it seems this line of discussion is not welcome in this thread. I will still point out that Pathfinder 2e was written/published under the OGL. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 15, 2023 5:16:44 GMT -6
So... more SRDs, with one ORC across them all. Is this a desirable outcome for our hobby? Is it better or worse or indifferent outcome compared to more SRDs each under its own license? I think it's similar to the state of play now - a lot of OGL 1.0a games have a long list of different SRDs in the back, and many systems are a long way from the SRDs they are based on. So I don't think this element by itself would do much to change the scene. It might be an idea to keep updating the first post with the links, otherwise it gets tricky keeping track. |
|
