Hasbro have made fools of themselves with their attempt to explain away the OGL1.1, and I tell you the best way to punish them here.
But a lot of people are cheering the new OpenRPG / #ORC license, and I'm here to tell you there's a good chance it's hiding a trap.
#opendnd #OSR #OGL #WotC
Hardly anyone will see this coming. And many will support it because, of course.
Two of my players have reported that over on other fora Pathfinder is being pushed hard.
I'm in wait and see mode for the ORC license.
I know the features of the license I want to use so others can produce commercial content for my system (I'm a rising tide raises all boats sorta guy... people making good third party content will drive interest in my core system and everyone wins*).
If ORC is released before my system is ready to launch and it provides those features without any poison pills it might be what I choose to do so.
If it doesn't or has a poison pill (a woke** "morality" clause given the Christian morality of my setting would probably be such a pill), then I'll be paying a lawyer friend of mine to write up the "Free Systems License" for me (and others will be welcome to use).
* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.
** The best description of woke/cultural Marxist ideology is "a religion with many paths to damnation, but none to redemption." Thus, they engage in a holy war against all opposing religions and moral systems.
Certainly if ORC has a morality clause, it won't be an open licence.
Details always matter.
Quote from: S'mon on January 15, 2023, 03:09:50 AM
Certainly if ORC has a morality clause, it won't be an open licence.
Indeed. It would also require some officer determined by the license to judge infractions, which would in turn require a reporting structure and pretty soon it's not a license... it's the rpg equivalent of the Comics Code Authority.
The primary reason I am hopeful that ORC will be essentially a 1.0b (i.e. 1.0a with irrevocable and "not deauthorizable" added) is that it's in Paizo's best interests to do it that way.
A woke clause gets them some short term virtue points from the wokies, but others will see through it and build their own licenses or use none at all.
An OGL1.0b style ORC though cements them as the "moral paragon" counter to WotC and allows them to set the standard as the leading voice on any shared SRD that develops... essentially gaining the network effect that WotC previously enjoyed... and through that a much larger audience to ply with their woke ideologies than if they just virtue signaled with the ORC directly.
Quote from: S'mon on January 15, 2023, 03:09:50 AM
Certainly if ORC has a morality clause, it won't be an open licence.
Have I misunderstood what the license is meant to do?
I'd assume it may have a morality clause, so that the licensor is allowed to inhibit production by the licensee.
Thus in Chris24601's case, he releases a system under ORC that allow others to use it, but as he's the licensor he can decide whether his Christian setting is reasonable or not. If someone else uses his system to create something he considers blasphemous then he can invoke that clause to stop that person from using his system!?
Chris24601 wrote:
"* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties."
Could you expand on this. I am thinking about licensing as I scrub OGL content from my stuff. If you put a statement in the licensing section that says,"All proper nouns, names, story lines, art, and trade dress are copyright My Name 2023. All game mechanic text is CC 4.0 BY AT"
Does this not have the same effect as separating content into Open Content and Product Identity? If not how so?
Quote from: ponta1010 on January 15, 2023, 04:58:56 AM
Quote from: S'mon on January 15, 2023, 03:09:50 AM
Certainly if ORC has a morality clause, it won't be an open licence.
Have I misunderstood what the license is meant to do?
I'd assume it may have a morality clause, so that the licensor is allowed to inhibit production by the licensee.
Thus in Chris24601's case, he releases a system under ORC that allow others to use it, but as he's the licensor he can decide whether his Christian setting is reasonable or not. If someone else uses his system to create something he considers blasphemous then he can invoke that clause to stop that person from using his system!?
Actually, I DON'T want a morality clause. My concern is that Christian values are generally antithetical to Woke "morality" and therefore the arbiters of ORC could cancel my use of their license.
As for my own system, if people want to make some blasphemous tome they won't be able to use my logos and, with the license I want, the proper names (basically trademarkable items) of places and people in my books, nor the artwork. There's no danger to me of someone confusing their work with mine unless they're infringing on things none of these licenses cover anyway.
That said too, if any content creator reaches out to me because they share my vision for a superversive game setting, I'm looking for partners and my licensing terms for use of my logos, trademarks and trade dress are non-monetary (but also not open and 100% separate from the open license I want).
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 15, 2023, 03:25:24 AM
Details always matter.
In an investigation they certainly do Mr. Reacher.
I mean, I don't think anyone doesn't realize it could be a trap, but at the moment it still sounds good, so people are willing to give basically anyone that isn't WotC a chance to do the right thing.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 03:05:30 AM* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.
Yeah... In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:45:46 AM
I mean, I don't think anyone doesn't realize it could be a trap, but at the moment it still sounds good, so people are willing to give basically anyone that isn't WotC a chance to do the right thing.
WOTC could pull the license for whatever reason by issuing a DMCA strike against the creator thereby forcing them to destroy a product.
AFAIK WOTC has only pulled the license once and that was for Fast Forward Entertainment.
Making the ORC license as language neutral as possible is the key to worldwide acceptability. Letting the individual publisher make their own Virtue Signaling or Flag Burning statements and the market will sort out the rest.
The whole purpose of an open license is to insure people that they won't be sued if they create 3rd party content for a game. But the only company that has a history of being sue-happy is WotC.
Any Open Gaming License that doesn't use Hasbro owned property is pointless as it is protecting people from an outcome that was never going to happen.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 03:05:30 AM* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.
Yeah... In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.
The big one for me is the CC's are "non-sublicensable" meaning if a third party came up with, say, a "Boiling Sea" setting and wanted to allow others to make adventures for it, they can't include any of my material in their own license grant... adding an extra layer of complexity (they have to also include my license in addition to the Boiling Sea license) and possible unintended copyright infringement for someone who just wanted to make a cool adventure for the "Boiling Sea" setting.
I'll admit I also don't particularly mind the "cannot indicate compatibility" clause of the OGL1.0a... or at least a variation on it (particularly in association with a secondary license). In my aforementioned example of someone wanting to publish some blasphemous tome using my system, having a clause restricting compatibility notices to say, 12pt plain text, makes me more comfortable and, as stated, my terms for using the actual logo to indicate compatibility are easy and non-monetary (don't crap on my setting/values, basically).
While I know you don't have to use the Share-Alike version, I wonder how many of those I see pushing it here understand how detrimental it is to building the sort of mutually profitable ecosystem the OGL fostered? Specifically, if I released under SA, then anyone who used my material would have to release anything they created as SA... basically meaning they have to let anyone take the work they produced and use it without compensation if they used my SA work as a part of it.
That's uncomfortably close to WotC's "all your content belongs to us, but you can keep using it" portion of the OGL1.1 and requires a much greater understanding of potential pitfalls than most people have, making it more of a cooling effect on those motivated enough to try and make some money off their creative efforts.
A bespoke license or at least one tailored to the specifics and peculiarities of the industry you're using it in seems far better than just grabbing a license from CC and saying "it's good enough if you squint."
Quote from: ponta1010 on January 15, 2023, 04:58:56 AM
Quote from: S'mon on January 15, 2023, 03:09:50 AM
Certainly if ORC has a morality clause, it won't be an open licence.
Have I misunderstood what the license is meant to do?
I'd assume it may have a morality clause, so that the licensor is allowed to inhibit production by the licensee.
Thus in Chris24601's case, he releases a system under ORC that allow others to use it, but as he's the licensor he can decide whether his Christian setting is reasonable or not. If someone else uses his system to create something he considers blasphemous then he can invoke that clause to stop that person from using his system!?
That's NOT an open license then.
Quote from: swzl on January 15, 2023, 08:35:10 AM
Chris24601 wrote:
"* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties."
Could you expand on this. I am thinking about licensing as I scrub OGL content from my stuff. If you put a statement in the licensing section that says,"All proper nouns, names, story lines, art, and trade dress are copyright My Name 2023. All game mechanic text is CC 4.0 BY AT"
Does this not have the same effect as separating content into Open Content and Product Identity? If not how so?
It does, per CC's own wiki:
"Specify precisely what it is you are licensing.
Any given work has multiple elements; e.g., text, images, music. Make sure to clearly mark or indicate in a notice which of those are covered by the license."
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees#Considerations_for_licensors)
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 03:05:30 AM* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.
Yeah... In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...
I'm sorry, WHAT!?
It's not a trap, but a savvy move by #Paizo to make sales.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.
Such as?
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AM
The big one for me is the CC's are "non-sublicensable" meaning if a third party came up with, say, a "Boiling Sea" setting and wanted to allow others to make adventures for it, they can't include any of my material in their own license grant... adding an extra layer of complexity (they have to also include my license in addition to the Boiling Sea license) and possible unintended copyright infringement for someone who just wanted to make a cool adventure for the "Boiling Sea" setting.
Despite use of the term the OGL didn't allow for 'sublicensing' either. All rights were granted by and between contributors. Under the CC a third party can include any of your material simply by attributing you, which they'd have to do with the OGL by including declarations of what you consider to be Open Game Content and Product Identity anyway.
The OGL is far more confounding in that it's actually two separate licenses in one.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AMI'll admit I also don't particularly mind the "cannot indicate compatibility" clause of the OGL1.0a... or at least a variation on it (particularly in association with a secondary license).
Good, because this was the primary purpose of the OGL. Taking your
right to claim compatibility away was fundamental to building the #D20 ecosystem.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AMif I released under SA, then anyone who used my material would have to release anything they created as SA... basically meaning they have to let anyone take the work they produced and use it without compensation if they used my SA work as a part of it.
No shit. But the only requirement which exists throughout is attribution. Have you actually read the licenses? (https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/)
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 15, 2023, 10:32:51 AM
The whole purpose of an open license is to insure people that they won't be sued if they create 3rd party content for a game. But the only company that has a history of being sue-happy is WotC.
Any Open Gaming License that doesn't use Hasbro owned property is pointless as it is protecting people from an outcome that was never going to happen.
How does WOTC have a history of being sue happy? TSR did, but not WOTC. They've sued very few, and usually only when they were sued first.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 03:05:30 AM* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.
Yeah... In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...
I'm sorry, WHAT!?
We've had this conversation plenty of times. Not everyone is required to agree with your assessments about the CC nor with your opinion that that no one should be entitled to intellectual property rights.
Frankly, the CC was established by people every bit as left wing as Paizo are. One even ran for President as a Democrat and wants to abolish both the electoral college system (so the big blue cities can rule the vast rural red countryside forever), the ability of private citizens to contribute to political candidates (so the leftwing corporate media alone determine who gets any coverage) and for an Article V convention where activists can just strip out the whole Bill of Rights in the name of whatever brand of leftwing politics they favor.
They're the type of utopian socialists who believe if everyone just gave everything away the world would be a paradise, except every time that's tried it turns into a hellhole. Why should I support their licenses any more than I should ORC or the OGL?
Answer: the utility of their particular license to my purposes. Elsewise, I should pursue my own bespoke license that can accomplish my purposes.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 03:05:30 AM* I don't find the CC-licenses particularly useful for my purposes as they're much more about pure copyleft and less about building a mutually profitable relationship with third parties.
Yeah... In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...
I'm sorry, WHAT!?
We've had this conversation plenty of times. Not everyone is required to agree with your assessments about the CC nor with your opinion that that no one should be entitled to intellectual property rights.
Frankly, the CC was established by people every bit as left wing as Paizo are. One even ran for President as a Democrat and wants to abolish both the electoral college system (so the big blue cities can rule the vast rural red countryside forever), the ability of private citizens to contribute to political candidates (so the leftwing corporate media alone determine who gets any coverage) and for an Article V convention where activists can just strip out the whole Bill of Rights in the name of whatever brand of leftwing politics they favor.
They're the type of utopian socialists who believe if everyone just gave everything away the world would be a paradise, except every time that's tried it turns into a hellhole. Why should I support their licenses any more than I should ORC or the OGL?
Answer: the utility of their particular license to my purposes. Elsewise, I should pursue my own bespoke license that can accomplish my purposes.
Indeed we have, which is why I'm not answering to you. You might have noticed that small detail. I'm answering to SOMEONE ELSE.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...
I'm sorry, WHAT!?
*facepalm*
That's not my argument. My argument is that there's this sort of reflexive... reflex... among some people to, whenever the subject of licensing comes up, for people to quickly suggest "Use a CC license!". Sometimes going so far as to pressure people into using them as opposed to some other form of license. Even in situations where a CC license is not the ideal sort of license for the situation in question. There's a... lets say
cult of ideology that pushes CC licenses.
I mean, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't use the licenses right, but the fact that people are pushed to use licenses that aren't really what they should be using and aren't properly explained to them is part of the problem. Yes, people should educate themselves better before using licenses - but also, CC licenses aren't perfect, aren't always the best solution, and certainly aren't a goal unto themselves like some people seem to treat them.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 15, 2023, 12:12:43 PM
It's not a trap, but a savvy move by #Paizo to make sales.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
In my experience, the CC licenses only barely/kinda/not really work for a lot of the stuff they're used for already. There's actually a lot of stuff either published under a CC license or using CC-licensed content that really don't do it right, but often times people just kind of ignore it.
Such as?
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AM
The big one for me is the CC's are "non-sublicensable" meaning if a third party came up with, say, a "Boiling Sea" setting and wanted to allow others to make adventures for it, they can't include any of my material in their own license grant... adding an extra layer of complexity (they have to also include my license in addition to the Boiling Sea license) and possible unintended copyright infringement for someone who just wanted to make a cool adventure for the "Boiling Sea" setting.
Despite use of the term the OGL didn't allow for 'sublicensing' either. All rights were granted by and between contributors. Under the CC a third party can include any of your material simply by attributing you, which they'd have to do with the OGL by including declarations of what you consider to be Open Game Content and Product Identity anyway.
The OGL is far more confounding in that it's actually two separate licenses in one.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AMI'll admit I also don't particularly mind the "cannot indicate compatibility" clause of the OGL1.0a... or at least a variation on it (particularly in association with a secondary license).
Good, because this was the primary purpose of the OGL. Taking your right to claim compatibility away was fundamental to building the #D20 ecosystem.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AMif I released under SA, then anyone who used my material would have to release anything they created as SA... basically meaning they have to let anyone take the work they produced and use it without compensation if they used my SA work as a part of it.
No shit. But the only requirement which exists throughout is attribution. Have you actually read the licenses? (https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/)
As for the last part not really, any derivative work has to be released under the same license, but not all of my work has to be released under it, because it allows for specifying which parts of a work ARE under the license. So my IP is safe because I declare it not under the license.
Whatever else I put under it I DON'T want Wankers on the Beach to come take it and close it.
It's the difference between the GNU license and the FreeBSD one. The first requires the code to remain open, the second doesn't. Along comes Crapple, takes the code, lots of community contributions and then puff, closses it leaving only a stump behind, lo and behold! OS X is born!
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 12:51:47 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...
I'm sorry, WHAT!?
*facepalm*
That's not my argument. My argument is that there's this sort of reflexive... reflex... among some people to, whenever the subject of licensing comes up, for people to quickly suggest "Use a CC license!". Sometimes going so far as to pressure people into using them as opposed to some other form of license. Even in situations where a CC license is not the ideal sort of license for the situation in question. There's a... lets say cult of ideology that pushes CC licenses.
I mean, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't use the licenses right, but the fact that people are pushed to use licenses that aren't really what they should be using and aren't properly explained to them is part of the problem. Yes, people should educate themselves better before using licenses - but also, CC licenses aren't perfect, aren't always the best solution, and certainly aren't a goal unto themselves like some people seem to treat them.
Dude, you can use whatever license you want, IDGAFF, but I have made my research, so don't say that you can't do X when I know that you totally can't.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 12:56:01 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 12:51:47 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...
I'm sorry, WHAT!?
*facepalm*
That's not my argument. My argument is that there's this sort of reflexive... reflex... among some people to, whenever the subject of licensing comes up, for people to quickly suggest "Use a CC license!". Sometimes going so far as to pressure people into using them as opposed to some other form of license. Even in situations where a CC license is not the ideal sort of license for the situation in question. There's a... lets say cult of ideology that pushes CC licenses.
I mean, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't use the licenses right, but the fact that people are pushed to use licenses that aren't really what they should be using and aren't properly explained to them is part of the problem. Yes, people should educate themselves better before using licenses - but also, CC licenses aren't perfect, aren't always the best solution, and certainly aren't a goal unto themselves like some people seem to treat them.
Dude, you can use whatever license you want, IDGAFF, but I have made my research, so don't say that you can't do X when I know that you totally can't.
I... never said a person couldn't do something.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 12:57:26 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 12:56:01 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 12:51:47 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 11:52:29 AM
People don't bother reading the wiki and therefore they don't use the license properly, ergo the license doesn't work...
I'm sorry, WHAT!?
*facepalm*
That's not my argument. My argument is that there's this sort of reflexive... reflex... among some people to, whenever the subject of licensing comes up, for people to quickly suggest "Use a CC license!". Sometimes going so far as to pressure people into using them as opposed to some other form of license. Even in situations where a CC license is not the ideal sort of license for the situation in question. There's a... lets say cult of ideology that pushes CC licenses.
I mean, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't use the licenses right, but the fact that people are pushed to use licenses that aren't really what they should be using and aren't properly explained to them is part of the problem. Yes, people should educate themselves better before using licenses - but also, CC licenses aren't perfect, aren't always the best solution, and certainly aren't a goal unto themselves like some people seem to treat them.
Dude, you can use whatever license you want, IDGAFF, but I have made my research, so don't say that you can't do X when I know that you totally can't.
I... never said a person couldn't do something.
That's a fine distinction, yes, you didn't say A PERSON couldn't do something, but you did say the licenses kinda doesn't work.
So, again, they do work for what they are intended IF you bother to read BEFORE using them.
Saying the licenses don't work is the same as saying you can't separate IP from open content in a way, and you totally can.
But again, you use whatever license you want boo, you can even use the not open OGL2.0 and I won't give a damn.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:03:34 PM
That's a fine distinction, yes, you didn't say A PERSON couldn't do something, but you did say the licenses kinda doesn't work.
I didn't say they don't work. I said they don't work
for everything. Hell, if you get right down to it, I didn't even say they
don't work, I said they "barely/kinda/not really" work for "a lot of the stuff they're used for already".
Now, that's about the mildest criticism I think I could possibility express and still have it even be considered a criticism, and it wasn't targeted at any specific person or thing, so I don't have a clue why you're being so hostile to me over it.
For me no matter the license it's the huge assumption on the part of players and DMs that many will make the switch simply to stick it to Wotc and D&D in large amounts.
Yes I know subscribers left Beyond except gamers are both notoriously cheap and resistant to change.
Sorry but if I'm running 5E or another rpg and you hate what Wotc has done then fine. You want to switch to P2E or something else. Then the players who want to change are buying the core, bestiary and screen with their own money and give it to me free of charge. Or you can keep posting the current rpg or find another table. Sorry I don't have the money 100+$ for a new rpg or the will to learn a new rpg.
Same thing as a player. You want to switch to PF2E you can buy me and the other players the new core book as I ain't. If not I leave and find a new table.
Too many choices made by emotion and not enough clear thinking. Same thing with selling 5E products. You're mad at Wotc for what they did get you want to sell me your books only 5-10$ cheaper. Yeah no I will buy it from Amazon.
Quote from: Abraxus on January 15, 2023, 01:16:10 PM
For me no matter the license it's the huge assumption on the part of players and DMs that many will make the switch simply to stick it to Wotc and D&D in large amounts.
Yes I know subscribers left Beyond except gamers are both notoriously cheap and resistant to change.
Sorry but if I'm running 5E or another rpg and you hate what Wotc has done then fine. You want to switch to P2E or something else. Then the players who want to change are buying the core, bestiary and screen with their own money and give it to me free of charge. Or you can keep posting the current rpg or find another table. Sorry I don't have the money 100+$ for a new rpg or the will to learn a new rpg.
Same thing as a player. You want to switch to PF2E you can buy me and the other players the new core book as I ain't. If not I leave and find a new table.
Too many choices made by emotion and not enough clear thinking. Same thing with selling 5E products. You're mad at Wotc for what they did get you want to sell me your books only 5-10$ cheaper. Yeah no I will buy it from Amazon.
Look, realistically, nobody but the most rah-rah OSR optimists thinks that this is going to be some death knell for WotC and D&D vanishes in the next year or two and the gaming community blooms into a utopia of indie RPG players... We know that a lot of players aren't going to switch, we know some GMs won't switch, yadda yadda.
But on the other hand, "lawl, everyone is a sheepish cheap bastard, you can't change anything, nobody will ever leave the WotC garden" is... not a lot better.
While obviously it's a lot more complicated than this, you can sort of broadly put gamers into two categories:
- The "I play <brand>!" gamers. To these players, the hobby IS the game they play. Most of these players are D&D players, but there are some exceptions - there used to be a lot of World of Darkness players like this, for example. There are probably some Pathfinder players like this. I know there are a haaaandful of Shadowrun players like this, and so on. But yes, we can concede these are mostly D&D players right now.
- The "I play RPGs!" type of gamers. These gamers may have a strong preference for a single game, and again, I'll concede that it's probably D&D for a lot of them, but for these people, they already have other options.
The first group? Yeah. Realistically, we were neeeever going to get more than a tiny handful of them to switch away from D&D. We're not really talking about those people to begin with. We're talking about the second group. The million dollar question, of course, is what the ratio of the two groups is.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 01:29:22 PM
Quote from: Abraxus on January 15, 2023, 01:16:10 PM
For me no matter the license it's the huge assumption on the part of players and DMs that many will make the switch simply to stick it to Wotc and D&D in large amounts.
Yes I know subscribers left Beyond except gamers are both notoriously cheap and resistant to change.
Sorry but if I'm running 5E or another rpg and you hate what Wotc has done then fine. You want to switch to P2E or something else. Then the players who want to change are buying the core, bestiary and screen with their own money and give it to me free of charge. Or you can keep posting the current rpg or find another table. Sorry I don't have the money 100+$ for a new rpg or the will to learn a new rpg.
Same thing as a player. You want to switch to PF2E you can buy me and the other players the new core book as I ain't. If not I leave and find a new table.
Too many choices made by emotion and not enough clear thinking. Same thing with selling 5E products. You're mad at Wotc for what they did get you want to sell me your books only 5-10$ cheaper. Yeah no I will buy it from Amazon.
Look, realistically, nobody but the most rah-rah OSR optimists thinks that this is going to be some death knell for WotC and D&D vanishes in the next year or two and the gaming community blooms into a utopia of indie RPG players... We know that a lot of players aren't going to switch, we know some GMs won't switch, yadda yadda.
But on the other hand, "lawl, everyone is a sheepish cheap bastard, you can't change anything, nobody will ever leave the WotC garden" is... not a lot better.
While obviously it's a lot more complicated than this, you can sort of broadly put gamers into two categories:
- The "I play <brand>!" gamers. To these players, the hobby IS the game they play. Most of these players are D&D players, but there are some exceptions - there used to be a lot of World of Darkness players like this, for example. There are probably some Pathfinder players like this. I know there are a haaaandful of Shadowrun players like this, and so on. But yes, we can concede these are mostly D&D players right now.
- The "I play RPGs!" type of gamers. These gamers may have a strong preference for a single game, and again, I'll concede that it's probably D&D for a lot of them, but for these people, they already have other options.
The first group? Yeah. Realistically, we were neeeever going to get more than a tiny handful of them to switch away from D&D. We're not really talking about those people to begin with. We're talking about the second group. The million dollar question, of course, is what the ratio of the two groups is.
Agreed, in the broadest of senses, I only see ONE way where WotC kills D&D as a TTRPG:
Those of us who think they ARE pivoting away from that market to go after the mobile game/MMO market are correct and in 5-10 years they're no longer publishing books and everything is online on their walled garden where they can milk you the player for that new +1 sword for ONLY 12.99 US and those extra saves for ONLY 2.99 each (use it and loose it).
IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct then yes you'll see many of those (I Play Brand!) who don't want to play a video game but a TTRPG leave D&D, else I don't see that hapening anytime soon if ever.
In any case WotC's decision to kill the OGL IS a good thing for the hobby, without it they can't prevent ANYONE from writting an adventure and putting on it it's D&D (edition) compatible. So, your garden variety shitlord could theoretically write one that checks all the right boxes, with racial and sex trait/attribute modifiers, slavery, capitalism, only two genders, etc. And market it as 6e compatible, because Fuck WotC.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 01:11:46 PM
Now, that's about the mildest criticism I think I could possibility express and still have it even be considered a criticism, and it wasn't targeted at any specific person or thing, so I don't have a clue why you're being so hostile to me over it.
He's hostile because, as I mentioned about previous conversations with him, Geeky doesn't believe anyone should have the right to any intellectual property. Pushing others to adopt a CC license is a way to get people to sign away their intellectual property rights.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 01:11:46 PM
Now, that's about the mildest criticism I think I could possibility express and still have it even be considered a criticism, and it wasn't targeted at any specific person or thing, so I don't have a clue why you're being so hostile to me over it.
He's hostile because, as I mentioned about previous conversations with him, Geeky doesn't believe anyone should have the right to any intellectual property. Pushing others to adopt a CC license is a way to get people to sign away their intellectual property rights.
Nice strawman you got going there my dude.
That can be proven false by reading our interactions where I explicity say that it does allow for the enumeration of stuff not under the license.
Furthermore, on several occasions when a thread has gone into the copyright issue I have been ALWAYS onb the side of it should exist, and those who are against it have pushed me to the extreme of it shouldn't end ever.
Any more lies about me and my possitions you want to tell?
Edited to add:While you were busy writting lies about me I posted this:
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-s-the-optimal-open-license/#new (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-s-the-optimal-open-license/#new)
Good video and warning. I'm sure Paizo is thrilled with the blue-haired sjdubs migrating to P2. But that means they'll continue to gatekeep any "bad-wrong traditional" gaming. With wokosium...er chaosium being on board with it and DCC....kinda seals the shifting of all the woke gatekeepers to paizo
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on January 15, 2023, 02:03:12 PM
Good video and warning. I'm sure Paizo is thrilled with the blue-haired sjdubs migrating to P2. But that means they'll continue to gatekeep any "bad-wrong traditional" gaming. With wokosium...er chaosium being on board with it and DCC....kinda seals the shifting of all the woke gatekeepers to paizo
(Insert video of Bernie saying "And that's a good thing!" here)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:39:21 PM
IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct
Ya know...
10 years ago I would have said you were batshit insane if you suggested that.
5 years ago I would have said it was unlikely.
2 years ago I would have said I hoped it didn't happen.
At this point? I think it's more likely than not, and probably in the next two-five years.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:39:21 PM
IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct
Ya know...
10 years ago I would have said you were batshit insane if you suggested that.
5 years ago I would have said it was unlikely.
2 years ago I would have said I hoped it didn't happen.
At this point? I think it's more likely than not, and probably in the next two-five years.
The first clues was hiring the Micro$oft executives, then the announcement of their "VTT", then the OGL fiasco.
Yeah, I might be wrong but I don't think so.
The funny thing is they didn't need to anger everybody.
They just had to put 6e not on the OGL, create their walled garden and little by little push the paypigs into the mobile game thing.
Zero PR disaster and 100% proffit, because IF they manage to make a "good" game (for certain values of good) they'll end up making tons more money than with books.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:19:29 AM
The big one for me is the CC's are "non-sublicensable" meaning if a third party came up with, say, a "Boiling Sea" setting and wanted to allow others to make adventures for it, they can't include any of my material in their own license grant... adding an extra layer of complexity (they have to also include my license in addition to the Boiling Sea license) and possible unintended copyright infringement for someone who just wanted to make a cool adventure for the "Boiling Sea" setting.
Your other points about what you want out a license make quite a bit sense, but I'm not sure I understand this specific concern. Yes, with CC derivatives of derivatives need to include all the copyright notices from everything they're derived from, but is that a bad thing? It means everyone gets credit. I'm not sure there's a better solution that can implemented in an open license; it would just have to be negotiated on a per-licensee basis.
FWIW the OGL 1.0a already requires this — some OGL-covered books have a long trail of copyright notices at the back. So it's at least not worse than the OGL.
Let these large game companies duke it out. Now that Hazards-of-the-Bro has tried to cor er the market with its "We reserve the right to revoke your licence" plot, evertly game designer and publisher needs to go forward more carefully from now on.
My biggest fear was that we'd lose the OSR, with the morality clause, since older style games used the term "race".
PBS started going after OSR gamers, which might give 'Hazards, Baizuo, and any other company with an OGL, cause to thin out their competition.
I'm doubtful that there'll be a no-wrongthink provision in Paizo's license. Not because they don't want one, I bet they very much do, but because I suspect that no company is stupid enough to hand over the right to yank the license from their products to any third party. It's an obvious poison pill in any contract, no matter how loftily it may be worded.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:57:23 PM
Furthermore, on several occasions when a thread has gone into the copyright issue I have been ALWAYS onb the side of it should exist, and those who are against it have pushed me to the extreme of it shouldn't end ever.
Any more lies about me and my possitions you want to tell?
You are correct and I apologize. I should have refreshed my memory instead of foolishly relying upon it.
I had confused you for another poster in that conversation. Our disagreement in that thread was over whether or not a publisher should reduce the price of their PDFs after they'd made "enough money" that got interspersed with other posters arguing IP shouldn't exist. I remembered the disagreement with you and the anti-IP sentiments from the thread and mistakenly conflated them in my memory.
I was wrong and and I apologize. I will try my best to do better in the future.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:39:21 PM
Agreed, in the broadest of senses, I only see ONE way where WotC kills D&D as a TTRPG:
Those of us who think they ARE pivoting away from that market to go after the mobile game/MMO market are correct and in 5-10 years they're no longer publishing books and everything is online on their walled garden where they can milk you the player for that new +1 sword for ONLY 12.99 US and those extra saves for ONLY 2.99 each (use it and loose it).
IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct then yes you'll see many of those (I Play Brand!) who don't want to play a video game but a TTRPG leave D&D, else I don't see that hapening anytime soon if ever.
There is an analogy to this going on right now. Marvel Comics. Marvel is a brand, that Disney is using for other purposes than what Marvel originally was started as - comic books. Now Disney uses the stories of Marvel and its constituent characters to sell videogames, movies, and other commercial products, and their comics are dogshit, and likely a monetary loss. They're certainly not attracting more readers, in fact it's dying.
Disney doesn't care because the Marvel brand has pulled in generations of faithful consumers, and they've been mining the fuck out of it since taking over, and have almost collapsed the American comic market in the process.
Hasbro *doesn't give a fuck about D&D* specifically. It cares about the D&D Brand(tm) and the current leaders of WotC are not TTRPG enthusiasts, they're going to turn D&D into a hybrid Mobile-monetized board-game because the Brand is undermonetized. It has little to nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.
All the d20 Dickriders want to pretend this isn't the case and still crave the "D&D Legitimacy Achievement". When in reality, the OGL may well have been rendered pointless. And the ORC might likewise be just another corral for everyone to pat themselves on the back and pretend they're "okay, and carrying the D&D Torch forward."
Maybe they are. But you'll be still be standing with those that will disagree what "d20" is, and since you won't be in the official D&D Garden, the point will be *moot*.
Welcome to the Jungle, baby. May the best game, the coolest mechanics, and the best marketing win.
And it might end up being a videogame called D&D. But that's like comparing your Fantasy Heartbreaker RPG to World of Warcraft. Who cares? They're different things.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 06:49:16 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:57:23 PM
Furthermore, on several occasions when a thread has gone into the copyright issue I have been ALWAYS onb the side of it should exist, and those who are against it have pushed me to the extreme of it shouldn't end ever.
Any more lies about me and my possitions you want to tell?
You are correct and I apologize. I should have refreshed my memory instead of foolishly relying upon it.
I had confused you for another poster in that conversation. Our disagreement in that thread was over whether or not a publisher should reduce the price of their PDFs after they'd made "enough money" that got interspersed with other posters arguing IP shouldn't exist. I remembered the disagreement with you and the anti-IP sentiments from the thread and mistakenly conflated them in my memory.
I was wrong and and I apologize. I will try my best to do better in the future.
No poblem, I still think the PDFs are overpriced in many cases :P
Quote from: tenbones on January 15, 2023, 07:08:09 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 01:39:21 PM
Agreed, in the broadest of senses, I only see ONE way where WotC kills D&D as a TTRPG:
Those of us who think they ARE pivoting away from that market to go after the mobile game/MMO market are correct and in 5-10 years they're no longer publishing books and everything is online on their walled garden where they can milk you the player for that new +1 sword for ONLY 12.99 US and those extra saves for ONLY 2.99 each (use it and loose it).
IF (and that's a big if) this assumption is correct then yes you'll see many of those (I Play Brand!) who don't want to play a video game but a TTRPG leave D&D, else I don't see that hapening anytime soon if ever.
There is an analogy to this going on right now. Marvel Comics. Marvel is a brand, that Disney is using for other purposes than what Marvel originally was started as - comic books. Now Disney uses the stories of Marvel and its constituent characters to sell videogames, movies, and other commercial products, and their comics are dogshit, and likely a monetary loss. They're certainly not attracting more readers, in fact it's dying.
Disney doesn't care because the Marvel brand has pulled in generations of faithful consumers, and they've been mining the fuck out of it since taking over, and have almost collapsed the American comic market in the process.
Hasbro *doesn't give a fuck about D&D* specifically. It cares about the D&D Brand(tm) and the current leaders of WotC are not TTRPG enthusiasts, they're going to turn D&D into a hybrid Mobile-monetized board-game because the Brand is undermonetized. It has little to nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.
All the d20 Dickriders want to pretend this isn't the case and still crave the "D&D Legitimacy Achievement". When in reality, the OGL may well have been rendered pointless. And the ORC might likewise be just another corral for everyone to pat themselves on the back and pretend they're "okay, and carrying the D&D Torch forward."
Maybe they are. But you'll be still be standing with those that will disagree what "d20" is, and since you won't be in the official D&D Garden, the point will be *moot*.
Welcome to the Jungle, baby. May the best game, the coolest mechanics, and the best marketing win.
And it might end up being a videogame called D&D. But that's like comparing your Fantasy Heartbreaker RPG to World of Warcraft. Who cares? They're different things.
1000% agreed, I would still like to be a way to signal compatibility with other games WITHOUT listing them all, the OSR branding did that until they started mixing retroclones of other systems.
So maybe the industry needs a few "new" systems, so you can put "Powered by (Insert system name here)" {Don't really like the Powered by because it feels like PbtA} or something like that so the buyer KNOWS your game is compatible with mine at a glance.
Quote from: Valatar on January 15, 2023, 06:29:50 PM
I'm doubtful that there'll be a no-wrongthink provision in Paizo's license. Not because they don't want one, I bet they very much do, but because I suspect that no company is stupid enough to hand over the right to yank the license from their products to any third party. It's an obvious poison pill in any contract, no matter how loftily it may be worded.
I agree. No disinterested 3rd party would agree to administer a license with a morality clause because they wound not be able to adjudicate it and would face being sued if they tried. At most it will be comply with the laws of whatever country is specified.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 07:35:04 PM
So maybe the industry needs a few "new" systems, so you can put "Powered by (Insert system name here)" {Don't really like the Powered by because it feels like PbtA} or something like that so the buyer KNOWS your game is compatible with mine at a glance.
It's not just Apocalypse World. I think the "Powered by GURPS" line might even predate Apocalypse World.
http://www.sjgames.com/poweredbygurps/
Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2023, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 07:35:04 PM
So maybe the industry needs a few "new" systems, so you can put "Powered by (Insert system name here)" {Don't really like the Powered by because it feels like PbtA} or something like that so the buyer KNOWS your game is compatible with mine at a glance.
It's not just Apocalypse World. I think the "Powered by GURPS" line might even predate Apocalypse World.
http://www.sjgames.com/poweredbygurps/
Oh, goodie, that changes things, then I don't have an issue with the Powered by thingy.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 07:35:04 PM
1000% agreed, I would still like to be a way to signal compatibility with other games WITHOUT listing them all, the OSR branding did that until they started mixing retroclones of other systems.
So maybe the industry needs a few "new" systems, so you can put "Powered by (Insert system name here)" {Don't really like the Powered by because it feels like PbtA} or something like that so the buyer KNOWS your game is compatible with mine at a glance.
Right. It might be that *MY* game doesn't do as well as yours, and that means I can spend time and effort potentially losing money, but because we like one another, I can say "Hey Geeky, love your game and your mechanics - can we work something out?". We can make our own arrangement and you can create your own license etc. This is exactly what's happening with Pathfinder and Savage Worlds. It can happen elsewhere too. And everyone wins.
We don't *need* D&D.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 07:35:04 PM
1000% agreed, I would still like to be a way to signal compatibility with other games WITHOUT listing them all, the OSR branding did that until they started mixing retroclones of other systems.
I think most D&D and OSR games are pretty compatible if you include ascending and descending AC. The differences when it comes to modules are trivial although it would be nice to have a rosetta stone statblock everyone used to ensure compatibility.
I don't trust Paizo, but I'll read their license when they launch it. I fully expect they'll go the morality clause route, both as CYA and virtue signalling.
I'm more interested in what Troll Lords will be offering.
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 16, 2023, 12:38:44 AM
I don't trust Paizo, but I'll read their license when they launch it. I fully expect they'll go the morality clause route, both as CYA and virtue signalling.
By contrast, I fully expect Paizo to not have a morality clause because it is in their best interests to...
A) appear to be as different from Hasbro as possible. Releasing an ORC that is just a 1.0a with "irrevocable" and "cannot be deauthorized" added wins them universal acclaim within the entire hobby and once again sets them up to be the central fixture of the hobby like they were in the D&D 4e era making it all the easier to push the woke agenda to a much broader audience.
B) not allow anyone other than themselves to be able to employ a morality clause, lest the woke "progress" past where even Paizo is able to follow and they get cancelled from the very license they created. Making a third party law firm the arbiter means they can't guarantee they won't be hit eventually. They wouldn't want that degree of risk.
It is important to note that this is not a position taken with the expectation of altruism by Paizo. Rather it is based on what is most in line with their cynical self-interests.
Virtue signaling is all well and good, but only when it doesn't actually affect their bottom line. They are nothing if not hypocrites.
Quote from: S'mon on January 15, 2023, 03:09:50 AM
Certainly if ORC has a morality clause, it won't be an open licence.
Yup, the major licenses used in open source world have all refused to put in any type of morality clause. And if they tried to pitch one with such a clause to one of the major open source non-profit to run it, they will not handle it.
Not just this specific issue but the runup to a new license (or version) is always fraught with drama. Either they fuck up or they don't. Even if they don't there will be folks complaining as their pet peeve is not included. Not just what being talked about here, whether it open enough, whether it should require any original game mechanics that are included to be open as well not just those based on the content being used. And so on.
This is a typical article on the subject
https://www.zdnet.com/article/you-cant-open-source-license-morality/
If ORC contains a morality clause then those behind it will quickly find out that the major open source non-profits will not support them.
In addition if the new license contains the clauses in the OGL that limit our normal rights in regards to copyrighted content "product identity" (i.e. citing compatibility, etc.) then they will also find it rough dealing with the open source foundations.
Quote from: estar on January 16, 2023, 07:31:28 AM
In addition if the new license contains the clauses in the OGL that limit our normal rights in regards to copyrighted content "product identity" (i.e. citing compatibility, etc.) then they will also find it rough dealing with the open source foundations.
Funny thing though, according to Geeky and the others pushing for use of Creative Commons licenses you absolutely CAN exclude Product Identity (or anything you want really) while using an Open License just by including a notice that those elements are not covered by the CC-by-A and CC-by-SA license.
Similarly, depending on the interpretation of "cannot assert or imply connection with" in Section 2(a)(6) of the CC-by-A and CC-by-SA says;
No Endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).That sounds an awful lot like the OGL1.0a's "can't indicate compatibility with the Licensor's product" to me... i.e. a random Licensee shouldn't be able use your system to write "the pedo's guide to grooming" and include "a supplement compatible with [Your System Here]" in two inch high letters on their cover and leave it to you to explain to laypeople how "a supplement compatible with" isn't actually a legal claim of a connection to your product.
In other words, those OGL provisions people have been bitching about as too restrictive seem to actually be part and parcel of Creative Commons licenses... or are close enough that if they aren't then an expansion of Freedom of Association protections to allow the Licensor to choose their associations and not suffer harm to their reputation among customers who don't even know there was a legal difference between "perpetual" and "irrevocable" from third parties indicating compatibility or "a supplement for"... well, that does not feel like a bad thing now that I'm looking at a license from the direction of a provider of content instead of a user of it.
Bottom Line. If you know and trust a person, you don't need a license for them to use your work; a handshake is sufficient. Licenses and contracts exist to protect the rights when the parties and their intentions aren't fully known. Open Licenses by definition allow others to use your material without even contacting you.
Thus, when you evaluate the protections and restrictions offered by a license you should never assume best intent by both parties, but rather that each opposing party has malicious intent towards the other and what does the language of the license do to mitigate the risk of malicious action against the other party.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: estar on January 16, 2023, 07:31:28 AM
In addition if the new license contains the clauses in the OGL that limit our normal rights in regards to copyrighted content "product identity" (i.e. citing compatibility, etc.) then they will also find it rough dealing with the open source foundations.
Funny thing though, according to Geeky and the others pushing for use of Creative Commons licenses you absolutely CAN exclude Product Identity (or anything you want really) while using an Open License just by including a notice that those elements are not covered by the CC-by-A and CC-by-SA license.
Similarly, depending on the interpretation of "cannot assert or imply connection with" in Section 2(a)(6) of the CC-by-A and CC-by-SA says;
No Endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).
That sounds an awful lot like the OGL1.0a's "can't indicate compatibility with the Licensor's product" to me... i.e. a random Licensee shouldn't be able use your system to write "the pedo's guide to grooming" and include "a supplement compatible with [Your System Here]" in two inch high letters on their cover and leave it to you to explain to laypeople how "a supplement compatible with" isn't actually a legal claim of a connection to your product.
In other words, those OGL provisions people have been bitching about as too restrictive seem to actually be part and parcel of Creative Commons licenses... or are close enough that if they aren't then an expansion of Freedom of Association protections to allow the Licensor to choose their associations and not suffer harm to their reputation among customers who don't even know there was a legal difference between "perpetual" and "irrevocable" from third parties indicating compatibility or "a supplement for"... well, that does not feel like a bad thing now that I'm looking at a license from the direction of a provider of content instead of a user of it.
Bottom Line. If you know and trust a person, you don't need a license for them to use your work; a handshake is sufficient. Licenses and contracts exist to protect the rights when the parties and their intentions aren't fully known. Open Licenses by definition allow others to use your material without even contacting you.
Thus, when you evaluate the protections and restrictions offered by a license you should never assume best intent by both parties, but rather that each opposing party has malicious intent towards the other and what does the language of the license do to mitigate the risk of malicious action against the other party.
Nope, I never said you can exclude "anything you want", I said you have to declare which parts of the work don't fall under the license, since the license doesn't erase copyright protections (that's called public domain) you have the right to exclude the art, your product's name, and other copyrightable materials from it.
Citing compatibility doesn't fall under copyright, it falls under trademark, and the license doesn't deal with that, ergo it has zero to say about it.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 04:37:15 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 16, 2023, 12:38:44 AM
I don't trust Paizo, but I'll read their license when they launch it. I fully expect they'll go the morality clause route, both as CYA and virtue signalling.
By contrast, I fully expect Paizo to not have a morality clause because it is in their best interests to...
A) appear to be as different from Hasbro as possible. Releasing an ORC that is just a 1.0a with "irrevocable" and "cannot be deauthorized" added wins them universal acclaim within the entire hobby and once again sets them up to be the central fixture of the hobby like they were in the D&D 4e era making it all the easier to push the woke agenda to a much broader audience.
B) not allow anyone other than themselves to be able to employ a morality clause, lest the woke "progress" past where even Paizo is able to follow and they get cancelled from the very license they created. Making a third party law firm the arbiter means they can't guarantee they won't be hit eventually. They wouldn't want that degree of risk.
It is important to note that this is not a position taken with the expectation of altruism by Paizo. Rather it is based on what is most in line with their cynical self-interests.
Virtue signaling is all well and good, but only when it doesn't actually affect their bottom line. They are nothing if not hypocrites.
I hope you are right, but I don't agree. I think Paizo's leadership are true believers in progressive totalitarianism. And woke true believers never let anything stand in the way of crushing those they disagree with. It is always their highest priority.
They don't want universal acclaim. They only want acclaim from the right kind of people. They literally don't view people who disagree with them as legitimate members of society who matter. They view them as Nazis, to be punished and opposed no matter the cost.
And progressive totalitarians
never consider the fact that the vanguard of societal transformation might pass them by and leave
them as the "bigots." It is a curious but consistent blind spot for them. No matter how many times it happens to others, until it happens to them, they never seriously countenance that they might be next. They truly believe that the cutting edge of woke thought is always obviously correct and supported by all of the good loving people, and since they are good loving people, they will never not be on the cutting edge, supporting the latest thing. It's axiomatic for them.
Like I said, I could be wrong. If Paizo is struggling financially, the prospect of outright losing the company (or having to lay off a huge number of people, etc.) can sometimes snap someone out of this ideological mindset. But I'm not counting on it.
Quote from: Plotinus on January 16, 2023, 09:56:48 PM
I hope you are right, but I don't agree. I think Paizo's leadership are true believers in progressive totalitarianism.
I think Lisa Stevens & Vic Wertz believe in a lot of things, including the Seattle State Religion of progressive totalitarianism. That hasn't stopped Stevens firing the horrible SJW fanatic Jessica Price when she became too much trouble. My expectation right now is no Morality Clause in the ORC. But we'll see.
Quote from: estar on January 16, 2023, 07:31:28 AM
Not just this specific issue but the runup to a new license (or version) is always fraught with drama. Either they fuck up or they don't. Even if they don't there will be folks complaining as their pet peeve is not included. Not just what being talked about here, whether it open enough, whether it should require any original game mechanics that are included to be open as well not just those based on the content being used. And so on.
This is a typical article on the subject
https://www.zdnet.com/article/you-cant-open-source-license-morality/
I was a contributor on a number of projects that Coraline Ehmke tried to subvert with his Contributor Covenant.
This was an overt attempt to push individuals deemed toxic by progressives off projects.
Several folded but a quite a few told Coraline that he could go pound sand.
Quote from: S'mon on January 17, 2023, 10:31:17 AM
Quote from: Plotinus on January 16, 2023, 09:56:48 PM
I hope you are right, but I don't agree. I think Paizo's leadership are true believers in progressive totalitarianism.
I think Lisa Stevens & Vic Wertz believe in a lot of things, including the Seattle State Religion of progressive totalitarianism. That hasn't stopped Stevens firing the horrible SJW fanatic Jessica Price when she became too much trouble. My expectation right now is no Morality Clause in the ORC. But we'll see.
While this is true. I would submit she (Lisa) should be running a company that would never hire a person like Jessica Price in the first place. Which brings us to the real issue. There is Crazy, and there is also Batshit Crazy. Lisa might be the former, and Jessica the latter, but they're both cut from the cloth. Jessica's cut has ass-stains on it... which apparently was too much even for the Progressive Totalitarian of Lisa S..
Quote from: Plotinus on January 16, 2023, 09:56:48 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 04:37:15 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 16, 2023, 12:38:44 AM
I don't trust Paizo, but I'll read their license when they launch it. I fully expect they'll go the morality clause route, both as CYA and virtue signalling.
By contrast, I fully expect Paizo to not have a morality clause because it is in their best interests to...
A) appear to be as different from Hasbro as possible. Releasing an ORC that is just a 1.0a with "irrevocable" and "cannot be deauthorized" added wins them universal acclaim within the entire hobby and once again sets them up to be the central fixture of the hobby like they were in the D&D 4e era making it all the easier to push the woke agenda to a much broader audience.
B) not allow anyone other than themselves to be able to employ a morality clause, lest the woke "progress" past where even Paizo is able to follow and they get cancelled from the very license they created. Making a third party law firm the arbiter means they can't guarantee they won't be hit eventually. They wouldn't want that degree of risk.
It is important to note that this is not a position taken with the expectation of altruism by Paizo. Rather it is based on what is most in line with their cynical self-interests.
Virtue signaling is all well and good, but only when it doesn't actually affect their bottom line. They are nothing if not hypocrites.
I hope you are right, but I don't agree. I think Paizo's leadership are true believers in progressive totalitarianism. And woke true believers never let anything stand in the way of crushing those they disagree with. It is always their highest priority.
They don't want universal acclaim. They only want acclaim from the right kind of people. They literally don't view people who disagree with them as legitimate members of society who matter. They view them as Nazis, to be punished and opposed no matter the cost.
And progressive totalitarians never consider the fact that the vanguard of societal transformation might pass them by and leave them as the "bigots." It is a curious but consistent blind spot for them. No matter how many times it happens to others, until it happens to them, they never seriously countenance that they might be next. They truly believe that the cutting edge of woke thought is always obviously correct and supported by all of the good loving people, and since they are good loving people, they will never not be on the cutting edge, supporting the latest thing. It's axiomatic for them.
Like I said, I could be wrong. If Paizo is struggling financially, the prospect of outright losing the company (or having to lay off a huge number of people, etc.) can sometimes snap someone out of this ideological mindset. But I'm not counting on it.
I give it a 50/50 chance that Paizo will add a morality clause to ORC, equal to a coin toss. ???
Paizo are true believers in their neo-Marxist "struggle" against "the Nazis" and all the "bigots" with "isms" and "phobias". But this is a unique situation in the TTRPG industry (and hobby), so their survival instincts might kick in enough to prevent them from committing corporate suicide....by adding a morality clause. A morality clause would make the ORC license unusable, which would be bad for Paizo. Are they stupid enough to add one in? I have no idea. People are much less practical and sensible than they used to be.
Edit: Slight edit. Paizo, not Hasbro.
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
I think my new game should include a morality clause, "you've all been naughty and need a spanking!" There, yup, I think that covers it.
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
Do you believe them?
Quote from: Omega on January 27, 2023, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
Do you believe them?
That the ORC won't have a morality clause? Yes.
That doesn't mean the new Pathfinder SRD, the Kobold Press SRD, etc. won't have their own supplemental Morality Clauses. That's where I expect to see them turn up.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2023, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: Omega on January 27, 2023, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
Do you believe them?
That the ORC won't have a morality clause? Yes.
That doesn't mean the new Pathfinder SRD, the Kobold Press SRD, etc. won't have their own supplemental Morality Clauses. That's where I expect to see them turn up.
Here's the thing, if the ORC allows for the developer/publisher/creator to place morality clauses it's not really an open license. They will just have found a way to redirect the anger/pushback towards those who do.
Quote from: David Johansen on January 26, 2023, 01:18:23 AM
I think my new game should include a morality clause, "you've all been naughty and need a spanking!" There, yup, I think that covers it.
While that would be roleplaying, I think you need a different forum for that game ;)
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2023, 08:26:22 AM
Quote from: Omega on January 27, 2023, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
Do you believe them?
That the ORC won't have a morality clause? Yes.
That doesn't mean the new Pathfinder SRD, the Kobold Press SRD, etc. won't have their own supplemental Morality Clauses. That's where I expect to see them turn up.
With ORC allowing customization, the devil will be in the details. I posted above non-morality stuff Chaosium already has in their "open" licenses for BRP and OpenQuest. I expect to see a lot like that as well as a morality clause in most of the extensions.
I think those offering SRDs with morality clauses will be less popular than they might have been compared to those SRDs offered without.
Quote from: wmarshal on January 27, 2023, 12:23:57 PM
I think those offering SRDs with morality clauses will be less popular than they might have been compared to those SRDs offered without.
True, but the size of the largest no morality clause company may affect viability.
It is undoubtedly a way for Kobold Press to kill the viability on their 5e clone/5.75 game.
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
That's... not how things went down, as I can assure you the ORC was
never going to have a morality clause.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2023, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2023, 08:26:22 AM
That doesn't mean the new Pathfinder SRD, the Kobold Press SRD, etc. won't have their own supplemental Morality Clauses. That's where I expect to see them turn up.
Here's the thing, if the ORC allows for the developer/publisher/creator to place morality clauses it's not really an open license.
No less open than the OGL, which was specifically designed to enable companies to license their brand and rules separately. Those brand licenses will absolutely have such clauses, as they should, because at that point you're representing their brand. And given how many Community Content Agreements already operate under these restrictions I'm really curious as to how many times content has actually been pulled for violating such clauses.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
That's... not how things went down, as I can assure you the ORC was never going to have a morality clause.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2023, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2023, 08:26:22 AM
That doesn't mean the new Pathfinder SRD, the Kobold Press SRD, etc. won't have their own supplemental Morality Clauses. That's where I expect to see them turn up.
Here's the thing, if the ORC allows for the developer/publisher/creator to place morality clauses it's not really an open license.
No less open than the OGL, which was specifically designed to enable companies to license their brand and rules separately. Those brand licenses will absolutely have such clauses, as they should, because at that point you're representing their brand. And given how many Community Content Agreements already operate under these restrictions I'm really curious as to how many times content has actually been pulled for violating such clauses.
Those are two sepparate things, even under CC0 you can preserve your brand AND have a separate license to allow others to use it, if someone inserts a morality clause on their branding license it doesn't reflect/affect the oppenes of CC0.
While, from what has been said by the ORC people they were thinking of ways to allow the publisher to (by modifying the license I assume) insert a morality clause.
The OGL was designed to promote D&D while restricting the rights of those using it to not claim compatibility with D&D.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 11:24:46 AM
The OGL was designed to promote D&D while restricting the rights of those using it to not claim compatibility with D&D.
I've heard that before but never understood the logic. Why would a company not want folks to claim compatibility. Imagine if they all turned their backs on WotC and went for compatibility with GURPs for example, that would seem horrible for WotC and great for GURPS.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 11:24:46 AM
The OGL was designed to promote D&D while restricting the rights of those using it to not claim compatibility with D&D.
I've heard that before but never understood the logic. Why would a company not want folks to claim compatibility. Imagine if they all turned their backs on WotC and went for compatibility with GURPs for example, that would seem horrible for WotC and great for GURPS.
Because then they can sell you a license to do what the law already allows you to do without paying them shit.
ORC, Black Flag, or anything that doesn't use the lingua franca of Roleplaying Games is not likely to ever get widespread adoption.
The lingua franca being, of course, Dungeons and Dragons.
if ORC uses the D&D rules then it has a chance to succeed. But then what is the point?
Quote from: thornad on January 30, 2023, 10:00:18 PM
ORC, Black Flag, or anything that doesn't use the lingua franca of Roleplaying Games is not likely to ever get widespread adoption.
The lingua franca being, of course, Dungeons and Dragons.
if ORC uses the D&D rules then it has a chance to succeed. But then what is the point?
Doesn't have to worry about Hasbro nonsense?
WOTC says that they're leaving the OGL 1.0a in place. That was not a statement guaranteeing that position irrevocably into the future. They (or the next round of short-sighted corporate management) could change their mind. It'd be stupid, but "stupid"rarely stops from acting.
Quote from: wmarshal on January 30, 2023, 11:31:24 PM
Quote from: thornad on January 30, 2023, 10:00:18 PM
ORC, Black Flag, or anything that doesn't use the lingua franca of Roleplaying Games is not likely to ever get widespread adoption.
The lingua franca being, of course, Dungeons and Dragons.
if ORC uses the D&D rules then it has a chance to succeed. But then what is the point?
Doesn't have to worry about Hasbro nonsense?
WOTC says that they're leaving the OGL 1.0a in place. That was not a statement guaranteeing that position irrevocably into the future. They (or the next round of short-sighted corporate management) could change their mind. It'd be stupid, but "stupid"rarely stops from acting.
If a team of designers were to draft an SRD that sifted through the decades of D&D rules and distilled all the game mechanics out, the non-copyrightable stuff, wrote it up cleanly and succinctly, and made that publicly available through a CC commons license so that anyone can copy and paste from it then we'd have something.
It would be a lot of work and hundreds of pages long. Seems like a monumental effort to do without compensation.
Quote from: thornad on January 31, 2023, 12:09:57 AM
If a team of designers were to draft an SRD that sifted through the decades of D&D rules and distilled all the game mechanics out, the non-copyrightable stuff, wrote it up cleanly and succinctly, and made that publicly available through a CC commons license so that anyone can copy and paste from it then we'd have something.
Something like that with various optional rules and variant rules would be amazing, but, every table would have their own set of rules before long. Would that be a good thing?
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 31, 2023, 08:01:58 AM
Quote from: thornad on January 31, 2023, 12:09:57 AM
If a team of designers were to draft an SRD that sifted through the decades of D&D rules and distilled all the game mechanics out, the non-copyrightable stuff, wrote it up cleanly and succinctly, and made that publicly available through a CC commons license so that anyone can copy and paste from it then we'd have something.
Something like that with various optional rules and variant rules would be amazing, but, every table would have their own set of rules before long. Would that be a good thing?
Too many optional rules and you end up with 2nd edition D&D. Yuck.
I like the idea of having "optional rules" or "modular rules" but trying to do this in any context-less way you are quickly run into issues because game rulesets (should) serve some specific purpose.
You could make a game that's all about spies and espionage, and design a really excellent stealth system. But it's not going to matter much if the game is a kick-down-the-door brawler. An amazing miniatures combat system doesn't add much if your game is supposed to be about political intrigue.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
That's... not how things went down, as I can assure you the ORC was never going to have a morality clause.
And I can assure you that the thread I'm talking about was the first time Mona or anyone else in a position of authority in the ORC ever said anything of the sort. In fact, in the thread Mona suggested that he could NOT guarantee that it wouldn't.
So its seems there were definitely people on the inside who wanted it to. It was my pushing that forced Mona to PUBLICLY agree that the ORC would be "DOA" if it took on a morality clause.
Optional rules in the SRD does not mean those rules are optional when transferred over to games. It just means those building their own games have more choices to pick & choose from.
Prediction. When ORC ships and everyone is making a big deal about it WotC counters by re-issuing the OGL with a new clause saying it cannot be revoked, ever, thus stealing ORC thunder and giving people a bit more of what they were demanding as we get closer to the movie premier.
Quote from: RPGPundit on February 01, 2023, 02:38:04 AM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
That's... not how things went down, as I can assure you the ORC was never going to have a morality clause.
And I can assure you that the thread I'm talking about was the first time Mona or anyone else in a position of authority in the ORC ever said anything of the sort. In fact, in the thread Mona suggested that he could NOT guarantee that it wouldn't.
So its seems there were definitely people on the inside who wanted it to. It was my pushing that forced Mona to PUBLICLY agree that the ORC would be "DOA" if it took on a morality clause.
I have to seriously question Mona's common sense if you had to
convince him that a morality clause is a bad idea. How could he possibly not know that a morality clause could be weaponized against anyone for any manufactured reason whatsoever, and thus.....become useless to publishers? If a so-called "open" license has a morality clause, then publishers will simply avoid it.....and use a different license instead.
Quote from: Ruprecht on February 01, 2023, 10:38:56 AM
Prediction. When ORC ships and everyone is making a big deal about it WotC counters by re-issuing the OGL with a new clause saying it cannot be revoked, ever, thus stealing ORC thunder and giving people a bit more of what they were demanding as we get closer to the movie premier.
That would be an uncharacteristically smart thing for Hasbro to do. When ORC arrives, we'll see what Hasbro does.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
That's... not how things went down, as I can assure you the ORC was never going to have a morality clause.
Anon - sounds like you also saw the thread that Pundit is talking about. If it is publicly available, can you give a link to it? If not, can you describe more about it?
Quote from: Thor's Nads on January 31, 2023, 01:50:18 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 31, 2023, 08:01:58 AM
Quote from: thornad on January 31, 2023, 12:09:57 AM
If a team of designers were to draft an SRD that sifted through the decades of D&D rules and distilled all the game mechanics out, the non-copyrightable stuff, wrote it up cleanly and succinctly, and made that publicly available through a CC commons license so that anyone can copy and paste from it then we'd have something.
Something like that with various optional rules and variant rules would be amazing, but, every table would have their own set of rules before long. Would that be a good thing?
Too many optional rules and you end up with 2nd edition D&D. Yuck.
I believe you mean "best D&D".
Quote from: RPGPundit on February 01, 2023, 02:38:04 AM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
That's... not how things went down, as I can assure you the ORC was never going to have a morality clause.
And I can assure you that the thread I'm talking about was the first time Mona or anyone else in a position of authority in the ORC ever said anything of the sort. In fact, in the thread Mona suggested that he could NOT guarantee that it wouldn't.
Source?
Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2023, 04:26:58 PM
Anon - sounds like you also saw the thread that Pundit is talking about. If it is publicly available, can you give a link to it? If not, can you describe more about it?
I saw the #Tweet. As in singular. And I was going to ask @RPGPundit the exact same thing.
Quote from: Ruprecht on February 01, 2023, 10:38:56 AM
Prediction. When ORC ships and everyone is making a big deal about it WotC counters by re-issuing the OGL with a new clause saying it cannot be revoked, ever, thus stealing ORC thunder and giving people a bit more of what they were demanding as we get closer to the movie premier.
I think they've accepted the inevitable losses already, and they're not going to do anything more which distracts from promoting the movie until its release.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 11:24:46 AM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:39:59 AM
No less open than the OGL, which was specifically designed to enable companies to license their brand and rules separately. Those brand licenses will absolutely have such clauses, as they should, because at that point you're representing their brand. And given how many Community Content Agreements already operate under these restrictions I'm really curious as to how many times content has actually been pulled for violating such clauses.
Those are two sepparate things, even under CC0 you can preserve your brand AND have a separate license to allow others to use it, if someone inserts a morality clause on their branding license it doesn't reflect/affect the oppenes of CC0.
CC0 does not prevent others from using your Trademarks to imply compatibility.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:14:49 PM
I've heard that before but never understood the logic. Why would a company not want folks to claim compatibility.
Because it enabled them to control their brand while simultaneously establishing a lingua franca of RPGs.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 09:44:22 PM
Because then they can sell you a license to do what the law already allows you to do without paying them shit.
The #D20STL license was free, and (eventually) had a morality clause.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on January 30, 2023, 10:00:18 PM
ORC, Black Flag, or anything that doesn't use the lingua franca of Roleplaying Games is not likely to ever get widespread adoption.
The lingua franca being, of course, Dungeons and Dragons.
if ORC uses the D&D rules then it has a chance to succeed. But then what is the point?
I actually think the tower of Babel has been toppled, and unlike with 4e the fall of 5e will lead to multiple slightly different and sorta compatible versions, until #WotC rebuilds it with 6e. Because having a universal standard is more important to the majority of players, and none of these clones offer anything innovative or compelling enough to choose otherwise.
Quote from: Bruwulf on February 01, 2023, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on January 31, 2023, 01:50:18 PM
Too many optional rules and you end up with 2nd edition D&D. Yuck.
I believe you mean "best D&D".
Hah, ok I have some nuance here. I hated 2e when it came out, was deeply disappointed by how it didn't go far enough in fixing a lot of the problems with D&D. The 2e DMG was just an insult to DMs. Then I recently won a lot on eBay and it happened to have some of the revised 2e books. After reading them I concluded 2e was a lot better than I remembered.
The reason we do not see the obsession with 2e D&D retro-clones the way we do with every other edition is that it never built a cohesive player base. Because it had too many optional rules, no two groups played the game similarly.
Who knows, maybe now that Wizbro backtracked, someone will come along and make a great retro-clone of 2e. I would advocated for a comprehensive SRD be released into OpenRPG, ORC, or better yet the Public Domain that anyone could copy and paste from without fear of retribution. I could see that SRD looking a lot like 2e in many ways.
;D 2e was the people's happy constellation of private tables, wholly separate places to visit without having to switch out systems, dice, and core reference books. Granted, with the 90s we did a lot of that too anyway... ;) It was the best of times, it was the best of times... Peak humanity 1970s-1990s. 8)
2e's options and variability between (and even within) groups was one of the things that made it great, IMO. YYMV, of course.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on February 01, 2023, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 11:24:46 AM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:39:59 AM
No less open than the OGL, which was specifically designed to enable companies to license their brand and rules separately. Those brand licenses will absolutely have such clauses, as they should, because at that point you're representing their brand. And given how many Community Content Agreements already operate under these restrictions I'm really curious as to how many times content has actually been pulled for violating such clauses.
Those are two sepparate things, even under CC0 you can preserve your brand AND have a separate license to allow others to use it, if someone inserts a morality clause on their branding license it doesn't reflect/affect the oppenes of CC0.
CC0 does not prevent others from using your Trademarks to imply compatibility.
When did I say otherwise? Thew law allows you to DECLARE compatibility. But declaring compatibility isn't the same as usurping your brand, because that's trademark law and then Wotzi could/would sue you to oblivion
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on February 01, 2023, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:14:49 PM
I've heard that before but never understood the logic. Why would a company not want folks to claim compatibility.
Because it enabled them to control their brand while simultaneously establishing a lingua franca of RPGs.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 09:44:22 PM
Because then they can sell you a license to do what the law already allows you to do without paying them shit.
The #D20STL license was free, and (eventually) had a morality clause.
WAS, past tense. Until a few days ago they wanted you to sign to the DM's Guild (which is free) and publish there to say your stuff was compatible with their shit. Which costs you a % of your sales and gives them rights over your stuff (IIRC that last part).
Which is the same shit they trid to pull with their OGL1.1
Effectively charging you for the privilege of doing what the law ALREADY allows you to do (declare compatibility).
Care to try again so you can prove you don't understand what I wrote this time either?
Quote from: deganawida on February 02, 2023, 11:31:57 AM
2e's options and variability between (and even within) groups was one of the things that made it great, IMO. YYMV, of course.
I think you meant YMMV. And yes, my mileage does vary. I've come to despise optional rules. They are laziness and indecisiveness on the part of the designers. It is their job to play test and design the hell out of their game and make every part the best they can. Optional rules are whiffling and passing that burden on to the players.
I speak with experience and have learned my lesson.
Note: there are no absolutes here, occasionally there may be a very good reason for an optional rules. Those are the exception, whereas in 2e they were the rule.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on February 02, 2023, 06:51:59 PMI think you meant YMMV. And yes, my mileage does vary. I've come to despise optional rules. They are laziness and indecisiveness on the part of the designers. It is their job to play test and design the hell out of their game and make every part the best they can. Optional rules are whiffling and passing that burden on to the players.
I speak with experience and have learned my lesson.
Note: there are no absolutes here, occasionally there may be a very good reason for an optional rules. Those are the exception, whereas in 2e they were the rule.
Not really, though I get where you are going with that.. The problem with optional rules is not having optional rules. The problem is the designer not being clear with their intent. There are things that a system is designed to do and things that it is not. There could be areas where those are multiple things. There can also be areas that aren't central to that intent.
Which is why, if its not blindingly obvious in context (and it seldom is), then an optional rule ought to tell you what case it is for, explicitly. After having told you in the default rules somewhere why those are the way they are. Or if the thing isn't central to the main intent of the rules, it can be called out as something you can pretty much change however you want without likely breaking anything. GM's being people, there's no accounting for everything.
If it's an optional rule with intent, then it should be tested like anything else. If it's not going to be tested, then it wouldn't be an optional rule. It would instead be some musing on how you might house rule to get something in that ballpark. :D
Quote from: Ruprecht on February 01, 2023, 10:38:56 AM
Prediction. When ORC ships and everyone is making a big deal about it WotC counters by re-issuing the OGL with a new clause saying it cannot be revoked, ever, thus stealing ORC thunder and giving people a bit more of what they were demanding as we get closer to the movie premier.
That would be a tremendously clever move by Hasbro/WotC. Which means I doubt they'll think of it, unless they happen to see this post.
Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2023, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on January 25, 2023, 10:54:16 PM
Eric Mona first agreed in a thread with me (after I convinced him) that they can't have a morality clause. The Paizo account later confirmed that the ORCLicense itself wouldn't have a morality clause.
That's... not how things went down, as I can assure you the ORC was never going to have a morality clause.
Anon - sounds like you also saw the thread that Pundit is talking about. If it is publicly available, can you give a link to it? If not, can you describe more about it?
If you all just followed my every tweet like normal people do, you wouldn't have to be asking this.