This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Big Developments in the ORC License  (Read 7967 times)

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #165 on: January 22, 2023, 07:02:30 PM »
The provisions for product identity can be useful if you want to distinguish between genericized content and content specific to your campaign setting. With CC you can't do that because it covers the entirety of the text and the entirety of any derivative text. You give up your right to make a profit and have to rely on the charity of customers or patreon. The OGL has been used much more widely than CC ever has before on products intended to make profit, so trying to replace OGL with CC will open publishers to all sorts of unforeseen issues.

You're WRONG! CC does allow for parts of a work to not be placed under it, you just need to specify WHAT isn't covered by the license. I have provided elsewhere both a lawyer's explanation and the Creative Commons OWN wiki where this is explained.

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-does-some-rights-reserved-mean

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#may-i-apply-a-cc-license-to-my-work-if-it-incorporates-material-used-under-fair-use-or-another-exception-or-limitation-to-copyright

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Specify_precisely_what_it_is_you_are_licensing.

Let's say I am WotC, I have an SRD, I don't want to place the WHOLE of it under CC By, how do I do it?

By specifying which parts are and aren't under the CC By license, just like they did. And it's a single work with no images etc.

You can also notify that the art (in whole or in part) isn't under the license and that it's copyright by whoever used with permission.

Edited to add:

In a derivative work I can specify that ONLY the mechanics from WotC's SRD ARE under the license.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2023, 07:04:48 PM by GeekyBugle »
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 2922
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #166 on: January 23, 2023, 10:46:59 AM »
I guess I stand corrected then.

Anyway, stuff like classes, magic systems and planes are gonna require more effort to scrub the WotC IP and avoid litigation. This is also an excellent opportunity for introspection: why do things work the way they do? Should it be changed and, if so, how much? What is the goal?

With something like magic systems, I don't think we need to retain the arcane/divine/psionic split in its original mechanistic form. I think it would be useful to adopt a Spheres of Power style toolkit where you can replicate the functionality of the old classes while allowing for easy modifications to suit different settings. After seeing its effects for decades, I don't think the one-size-fits-all approach is a good approach.

With stuff like the planes, I think you need to ask yourself: what practical purpose do the planes serve? If you're just adding them as an explanation for where wizards draw evocations from and don't actually intend for them to be adventuring locations, then maybe you should rethink why you're including them.

As I've said before, I don't think I need more than a handful of core planes. The mortal plane, the heavens, the underworld (and maybe a further hell below that), and the primordial chaos surrounding it. You can add more if you want to, but I think most ideas you could come up with would equally work as sub-planes of those ones.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #167 on: January 23, 2023, 11:10:19 AM »
I guess I stand corrected then.

Anyway, stuff like classes, magic systems and planes are gonna require more effort to scrub the WotC IP and avoid litigation. This is also an excellent opportunity for introspection: why do things work the way they do? Should it be changed and, if so, how much? What is the goal?

With something like magic systems, I don't think we need to retain the arcane/divine/psionic split in its original mechanistic form. I think it would be useful to adopt a Spheres of Power style toolkit where you can replicate the functionality of the old classes while allowing for easy modifications to suit different settings. After seeing its effects for decades, I don't think the one-size-fits-all approach is a good approach.

With stuff like the planes, I think you need to ask yourself: what practical purpose do the planes serve? If you're just adding them as an explanation for where wizards draw evocations from and don't actually intend for them to be adventuring locations, then maybe you should rethink why you're including them.

As I've said before, I don't think I need more than a handful of core planes. The mortal plane, the heavens, the underworld (and maybe a further hell below that), and the primordial chaos surrounding it. You can add more if you want to, but I think most ideas you could come up with would equally work as sub-planes of those ones.

Well yes, you don't HAVE to change the name by force of everything (except the trademarked shit that needs a lot more changed than that anyway), but you need to make changes so it's a different thing with the same name that works slighthly different but not different enough that people can't grok it quickly. Otherwise you're better off starting from scratch.

Not the first time you mention the spheres of power, it's from the stuff you shared in the Guilded server?

Agreed, don't include shit just to include it, it has to have purpose for the game.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 2922
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #168 on: January 23, 2023, 12:01:31 PM »
Not the first time you mention the spheres of power, it's from the stuff you shared in the Guilded server?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/SpheresOfPower


GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #169 on: January 23, 2023, 12:02:06 PM »
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

FingerRod

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • F
  • Posts: 449
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #170 on: January 23, 2023, 04:49:24 PM »
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw…I’m 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to…given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #171 on: January 23, 2023, 05:09:57 PM »
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw…I’m 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to…given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.
One can support a movement for an alternative to WotC’s garbage license in the name of maintaining a healthy RPG industry without actually needing to use the resulting license.

As a more real world example; I don’t need a kid in school to support an effort to add a classical arts program to the school. Getting kids more exposure to real art is a net plus for society even if I personally will not benefit from the program.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12577
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #172 on: January 23, 2023, 06:02:07 PM »
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw…I’m 99.9% sure you lurk here)

Surely a respectable University academic wouldn't have anything to do with this hive of scum & villainy?!  :o

FingerRod

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • F
  • Posts: 449
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #173 on: January 23, 2023, 08:08:32 PM »
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw…I’m 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to…given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.
One can support a movement for an alternative to WotC’s garbage license in the name of maintaining a healthy RPG industry without actually needing to use the resulting license.

As a more real world example; I don’t need a kid in school to support an effort to add a classical arts program to the school. Getting kids more exposure to real art is a net plus for society even if I personally will not benefit from the program.

I guess that is where you and I see it different. You believe the path to a healthy RPG industry involves the ORC license. I believe the path is no license at all.

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14650
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #174 on: January 23, 2023, 08:34:47 PM »
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw…I’m 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC.

Does ORC even exist yet? 1500 might have expressed interest, but until the ORC gets published publicly and debated publicly, I can't imagine anyone using it.

Also, for the ORC to be able to support 1500 publishers, it would need a RPG attached that drew a huge chunk of 5e fans away to play the new ORC RPG.

Because if the ORC just produces a Not-5e that 1500 publishers can use to sell 5e/6e compatible products around the WotC OGL, then I'm betting on WotC going on the legal offense.


I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

An OGL is an easy(ish) to read security blanket, whereas Fair Use laws are more complex and require more bravery to use because litigious companies love to exploit a judges' lack of understanding of where copyright ends and Fair Use begins.

My prediction still stands. When 6e launches, we'll see hundreds of subsidiaries who will reskin their stale 3e/4e/5e era OGL products for 6e, perhaps with a fresh coat of paint.

FingerRod

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • F
  • Posts: 449
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #175 on: January 23, 2023, 09:03:08 PM »
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw…I’m 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC.

Does ORC even exist yet? 1500 might have expressed interest, but until the ORC gets published publicly and debated publicly, I can't imagine anyone using it.

Also, for the ORC to be able to support 1500 publishers, it would need a RPG attached that drew a huge chunk of 5e fans away to play the new ORC RPG.

Because if the ORC just produces a Not-5e that 1500 publishers can use to sell 5e/6e compatible products around the WotC OGL, then I'm betting on WotC going on the legal offense.


I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.

An OGL is an easy(ish) to read security blanket, whereas Fair Use laws are more complex and require more bravery to use because litigious companies love to exploit a judges' lack of understanding of where copyright ends and Fair Use begins.

My prediction still stands. When 6e launches, we'll see hundreds of subsidiaries who will reskin their stale 3e/4e/5e era OGL products for 6e, perhaps with a fresh coat of paint.

You’ve been all over this and I even agree with your thread that put so many panties in a bind.

I don’t believe it requires bravery. I believe it requires creativity. If Hasbro were to go to court and lose because a mom and pop publisher released a RPG, that dared to use Strength and Constitution, it would all come crashing down. I don’t think a company that spent over one hundred million on D&DBeyond and 4 billion on eOne will risk that over small-time publisher Stan who creates a unique RPG.

I do agree that several will bend the knee. Those who are predicting the end of WotC are mistaken. Unfortunately.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #176 on: January 23, 2023, 09:14:53 PM »
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw…I’m 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to…given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.
One can support a movement for an alternative to WotC’s garbage license in the name of maintaining a healthy RPG industry without actually needing to use the resulting license.

As a more real world example; I don’t need a kid in school to support an effort to add a classical arts program to the school. Getting kids more exposure to real art is a net plus for society even if I personally will not benefit from the program.

I guess that is where you and I see it different. You believe the path to a healthy RPG industry involves the ORC license. I believe the path is no license at all.
Question: Are you looking at the OGL as a content user or a content creator?

I'm looking at it from the creator side and specifically a creator who wants others to feel safe using my system to make their own commercial products (adventures, new monsters, region guides, etc.).

The original OGL was a pretty easy to grok document that laid out what could and couldn't get you sued and not just for copyright, but potential trademark violations and helping people steer clear of things like CC's "No Endorsements" clause in slightly less legalese than a typical license.

My actual use of the ORC will depend on its specific provisions, but if it doesn't do what I want I'll need a lawyer to make something that does because I think having something clear for non-lawyers will be a benefit in getting others who want to make and sell supplements to adopt my system and make additional content for it.

Anon Adderlan

  • Shit Just Got Emu!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1488
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #177 on: January 24, 2023, 06:25:02 AM »
I said that the EFF MIGHT be convinced to help fight Hasbro yes, but I don't think they'll be willing to pay for everything.

They will if it threatens the credibility of open source licenses.

You can trademark names. 
For example Beholder, Gauth, Carrion Crawler,  Displacer Beast, Githyanki, Githzerai, Mind Flayer (Illithid), Umber Hulk, Slaad, Yuan-Ti are trademarks.

Fun fact: None of these are registered Trademarks of #WotC.

Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

Hard to tell as many cases are settled out of court with NDAs. What I do know is #WotC sued a dude for making Rust Monster plushies, despite declaring the monster OGC and stealing borrowing its design from Japanese toys.

Absolutely hilarious on other forums how many are pro morality clause.

And are willing to argue that you must be a bigot if you have a problem with one.

Comedy gold.
What hive of scum and villainy are you seeing this at? At TPB the response to the morality clause seems to be a fear that WOTC will somehow get bought out by NuTSR like folks and come after the gays. I didn’t think there was a worse place for Wokeness than TBP, and even they are getting some willies about that clause.

Yeah I'm not seeing anyone pro-morality clause anywhere, much to my surprise. Perhaps the usual suspects have finally cotten on to the fact that this sort of thing can (and will) be used against them too. However I suspect they'd be all in favor of it if they were in charge of determining violations.

FingerRod

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • F
  • Posts: 449
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #178 on: January 24, 2023, 07:51:39 PM »
According to a graphic on Professor DM (hi, btw…I’m 99.9% sure you lurk here), 1500 publishers have joined up on ORC. Which begs the question I keep going back to…given the size of this industry, that many publishers for a still small hobby, do we need more material the ORC license would presumably make open?

Using LotFP as an example, only the rule book uses the license. The adventures themselves do not. If it is about creating material you can do that today, with or without 1.0a and certainly not a third party consortium version.

I know this is just one aspect of it. I guess I am surprised there are not more people rejecting the idea we need an open license.
One can support a movement for an alternative to WotC’s garbage license in the name of maintaining a healthy RPG industry without actually needing to use the resulting license.

As a more real world example; I don’t need a kid in school to support an effort to add a classical arts program to the school. Getting kids more exposure to real art is a net plus for society even if I personally will not benefit from the program.

I guess that is where you and I see it different. You believe the path to a healthy RPG industry involves the ORC license. I believe the path is no license at all.
Question: Are you looking at the OGL as a content user or a content creator?

I'm looking at it from the creator side and specifically a creator who wants others to feel safe using my system to make their own commercial products (adventures, new monsters, region guides, etc.).

The original OGL was a pretty easy to grok document that laid out what could and couldn't get you sued and not just for copyright, but potential trademark violations and helping people steer clear of things like CC's "No Endorsements" clause in slightly less legalese than a typical license.

My actual use of the ORC will depend on its specific provisions, but if it doesn't do what I want I'll need a lawyer to make something that does because I think having something clear for non-lawyers will be a benefit in getting others who want to make and sell supplements to adopt my system and make additional content for it.

That is a really good question. I had to think about it for a moment. I think I am looking at it a little from both sides, but mainly from the perspective of creators. If the goal is to allow others to creat content and feel safe, then I just don’t see the ORC as needed.

See here as an example: http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/3rd-party-support

If the thought (not yours but in general) is ORC will become hugely popular, and people will not be creating for WotC and that is good because fuck WotC, then meh.

I think most of the ORC hoopla is virtue signalling. For example, Monte Cook Games has virtue signaled their support of ORC. Meanwhile, their own ‘open’ license, not even a year old yet, is anything but open, complete with morality clause.

Good luck with your game, btw. Make sure you let us know when it drops. I’ll certainly pick up a copy.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #179 on: January 25, 2023, 12:09:22 AM »
That is a really good question. I had to think about it for a moment. I think I am looking at it a little from both sides, but mainly from the perspective of creators. If the goal is to allow others to creat content and feel safe, then I just don’t see the ORC as needed.

See here as an example: http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/3rd-party-support

If the thought (not yours but in general) is ORC will become hugely popular, and people will not be creating for WotC and that is good because fuck WotC, then meh.

I think most of the ORC hoopla is virtue signalling. For example, Monte Cook Games has virtue signaled their support of ORC. Meanwhile, their own ‘open’ license, not even a year old yet, is anything but open, complete with morality clause.

Good luck with your game, btw. Make sure you let us know when it drops. I’ll certainly pick up a copy.
And I would say in reply, that's actually a really good license framework for what I want to do. About the only thing I would add that I think has value to the layman user would be a more concrete expression of what is and isn't considered "fair use"... not that someone couldn't in theory use anything and claim fair use, but rather "these are absolutely things I won't come after you for and its spelled out clearly in the simple license specifically so you don't have to have any doubts."

For example, depending on the company you're making a compatible adventure someone might only feel safe listing the monsters in an encounter as "Five Orcs (HP 7, 5, 6, 6, 8 ), see DMG p. XXX" or that an NPC is a "CG Fighter 10" because that way you're using basically none of their content in expressing the encounter and it minimizes the risk of someone as lawsuit happy as They Sue Regularly.

By contrast, I'd want to clarify for those wanting to make compatible adventures; "all monster stat blocks found in the Player's and GM's Guides may be reproduced in full in your works" and "You may include the full statistics of any NPCs and pre-generated PCs created using the rules for Ruins & Realms in your work."

In the same vein... "If you create a new subspecies for a species that specifically allows you to build a wide array of subspecies (ex. Beastmen, Eldritch or Mutants) or create a new trap, hazard, affliction, vehicle, structure or magic item using the rules systems in Ruins & Realms, you may include the full text of the selected traits in your description of the subspecies or other item in your work." (to clarify... Beastmen is a catchall for a wide variety of beast/human hybrids created by biomancers in a prior age. The creation rules involve picking two or more traits from a list of options with several example species and which of the traits they have also being listed, but is far from exhaustive. If your work required a different type of beastman and wanted it to be available for players, I consider it fair use to write out the full text of each selected trait instead of just listing the traits, because the former is going to be more useful to potential players due to less need to cross-reference).

Similarly, I'd probably include something to the effect of "You may reference any of the racial and setting lore from the Player's and GM's Guides in your works provided you do not duplicate it in full nor make any changes to the depictions of existing named characters (ex. killing off a particular named NPC as part of your adventure or turning a character depicted heroically into a villain) or locations within the setting (ex. destroying a settlement in the default setting area). You may set your work elsewhere in the default setting that has not been depicted (its a huge world and the default setting only a small part of it) and what you do with your original characters and locations is for you to decide. If you decide your work requires major changes to the default setting's cosmology (ex. a benevolent demon, playable necromancers), please note in your product that your work does not take place in the default setting, but its own world."

It's not so much "these are the only things you can employ under fair use" as it is "the copyright holder unquestionably considers these elements to be fair use and thinks using things like full monster stat blocks will make your product look better (and thereby draw more positive attention to the system as a whole)."
« Last Edit: January 25, 2023, 12:18:34 AM by Chris24601 »