Well it seems WOTC dropped case of OGL 2.0/1.2 and also put SRD on Creative Commons.
That's unexpected for me, expected them to fought harder I must say.
Seems Twitter/FB outrage was enough for some CEO's to decide it's to much trouble for not enough money back.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons
The SRD 5.1 under CC-BY-4.0 seems like a big deal. The only real "trap" is that some games used the 3.x SRDs which isn't CC licensed, but really the content of the 5.1 should cover their needs(monster names, spell names, stat blocks, etc). Also, Wizards can certainly release One DnD under whatever GSL they want.
But that really isn't a big deal. I don't think many people had issue with them releasing the new system under a restrictive license. It was the attempt to do that and force everyone into it that broke trust.
It's irrelevant at this point. There's nothing to prevent them from sneakily revoking 1.0a in the middle of the night after the hubbub dies down. They've shown they can NEVER be trusted again. Ever. They are like an abusive spouse apologizing and promising to never hit us again. Sorry, you get to violate my trust once, and once only.
They surrendered. I'm pretty sure it was my survey comment "See you in court." that terrified them.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 27, 2023, 03:51:08 PM
Well it seems WOTC dropped case of OGL 2.0/1.2 and also put SRD on Creative Commons.
That's unexpected for me, expected them to fought harder I must say.
Seems Twitter/FB outrage was enough for some CEO's to decide it's to much trouble for not enough money back.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons
If they really do follow through with all that, then it means that they were literally
scared to death of another 4e scenario where a clone would outsell the official brand.
That being said; I fully expect devious shenanigans to follow...
This is a very big deal.
The survey didn't change their minds.
Their lawyers realized they were up shit creek in a swiss cheese canoe if a federal judge didn't agree with their reading of the OGL 1.0a.
Also, if their dreams of VTT 6e microtransaction nirvana come true, then nothing the dirty little dice tossing plebs do with their cheeto stained books matter.
If the future of gaming is really people staring at screens in their soiled undies talking with an AI chatbot DM, so be it. Let the one hobby become three separate and distinct hobbies - MMO RPGs, VTT RPGs and Tabletop RPGs.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 27, 2023, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 27, 2023, 03:51:08 PM
Well it seems WOTC dropped case of OGL 2.0/1.2 and also put SRD on Creative Commons.
That's unexpected for me, expected them to fought harder I must say.
Seems Twitter/FB outrage was enough for some CEO's to decide it's to much trouble for not enough money back.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons
If they really do follow through with all that, then it means that they were literally scared to death of another 4e scenario where a clone would outsell the official brand.
That being said; I fully expect devious shenanigans to follow...
They already published the 5.1 SRD UNDER the CC By, there's no comming back from that, they can publish 5.2 and not have it under CC By but that's it.
Which means that all the guys using OGL for their D&D retroclones can just switch to the note they included. I think, someone smarter and with more legal knowledge than me needs to weight in.
I find it telling that they said
QuoteThese live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
Then they go on to talk about CC stuff and keeping OGL 1.0a. What they're not doing is publishing OGL 1.0b, which should be identical to 10.a, except with an irrevocability clause. They're told us they know we want it, and the only reason I can see not to give it is that they still hope to revoke it in the future.
Quote from: JRR on January 27, 2023, 04:09:36 PM
It's irrelevant at this point. There's nothing to prevent them from sneakily revoking 1.0a in the middle of the night after the hubbub dies down. They've shown they can NEVER be trusted again. Ever. They are like an abusive spouse apologizing and promising to never hit us again. Sorry, you get to violate my trust once, and once only.
Releasing entire SRD to creative commons does, in fact, prevent them from ever revoking it again. That's what that means.
Quote from: Krazz on January 27, 2023, 04:30:38 PM
I find it telling that they said
QuoteThese live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
Then they go on to talk about CC stuff and keeping OGL 1.0a. What they're not doing is publishing OGL 1.0b, which should be identical to 10.a, except with an irrevocability clause. They're told us they know we want it, and the only reason I can see not to give it is that they still hope to revoke it in the future.
Creative Commons does that better than anything they could possibly do with 1.0b. If people thought that was an option, they would have demanded that rather than 1.0b. Creative Commons is completely outside of their control forever once they publish to it. Way more irrevocable in all respects than a 1.0b could be.
You don't want a 1.0b. You want a CC, if you truly want confidence WOTC can never fuck with it again.
It's really a stunning move. It's like they just told their entire legal team to go fuck themselves. I didn't think was a move they would be willing to ever make.
I presume they were well aware of how precarious their bluff was. Still, here's hoping everyone doesn't go flocking back to WotC's apron strings now.
Quote from: Vile Traveller on January 27, 2023, 04:46:00 PM
I presume they were well aware of how precarious their bluff was. Still, here's hoping everyone doesn't go flocking back to WotC's apron strings now.
Exactly!
88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.
Those percentages are too low. They are lying again, but this time i find it more acceptable.
Quote from: Mistwell on January 27, 2023, 04:35:40 PM
It's really a stunning move. It's like they just told their entire legal team to go fuck themselves. I didn't think was a move they would be willing to ever make.
100%. I think it was their best course of action given everything they have going on. I'd say this news cycle is about to quickly fade.
Quote from: DocJones on January 27, 2023, 04:10:33 PM
They surrendered. I'm pretty sure it was my survey comment "See you in court." that terrified them.
Good job :)
Ok, excuse my ignorance, sincerely.
My quick glance the other day was that the only portions of the 5e SRD being released to CC was all the mechanics stuff that is perhaps not even protectable anyway. Everything relating to classes, to spells, to magic items, everything else, was held back and will only be available under the more restrictive new OGL that is "replacing" 1.0a. Is this not a correct read of what they actually did?
Because if what I restate above is true, WOTC has essentially tried to have its cake and eat it too, by making a big announcement about CC and mollifying the barking press and less-knowledgeable people, but is effectively screwing everyone just as hard as before. But again, maybe I misread this or it changed very recently.
It's probably something (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230126005951/en/Hasbro-Announces-Organizational-Changes-and-Provides-Update-on-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2022-Financial-Results) to do with this. Im not sure how.
I think maybe the D&D devision is going under no matter what, so this is a "well who cares at this point" idea.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 27, 2023, 03:51:08 PM
Well it seems WOTC dropped case of OGL 2.0/1.2 and also put SRD on Creative Commons.
That's unexpected for me, expected them to fought harder I must say.
Seems Twitter/FB outrage was enough for some CEO's to decide it's to much trouble for not enough money back.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons
Given that they ALREADY released the ENTIRE 5.1 SRD under the CC-BY 4.0, they really did the serious, irrevocable thing. (IMO, IANAL)
Would like to see 3.5 also released under CC-BY, but that's just a pipe dream right now.
I'm thinking the upcoming D&Done VTT Edition is going to be a 6th Edition, and will not be CC-BY at all.
Quote from: GamerforHire on January 27, 2023, 05:13:43 PM
Ok, excuse my ignorance, sincerely.
My quick glance the other day was that the only portions of the 5e SRD being released to CC was all the mechanics stuff that is perhaps not even protectable anyway. Everything relating to classes, to spells, to magic items, everything else, was held back and will only be available under the more restrictive new OGL that is "replacing" 1.0a. Is this not a correct read of what they actually did?
Because if what I restate above is true, WOTC has essentially tried to have its cake and eat it too, by making a big announcement about CC and mollifying the barking press and less-knowledgeable people, but is effectively screwing everyone just as hard as before. But again, maybe I misread this or it changed very recently.
They were putting a bit more than the mechanics under CC By.
But that has changed, now the whole 5.1 SRD IS under CC By 4.0 international.
If you're only using the mechanics and all your text is original you don't need them, but if you want to use ANYTHING in that SRD well now you can, forever.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 27, 2023, 05:17:15 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 27, 2023, 03:51:08 PM
Well it seems WOTC dropped case of OGL 2.0/1.2 and also put SRD on Creative Commons.
That's unexpected for me, expected them to fought harder I must say.
Seems Twitter/FB outrage was enough for some CEO's to decide it's to much trouble for not enough money back.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons
Given that they ALREADY released the 5.1 SRD under the CC-BY 4.0, they really did the serious, irrevocable thing. (IMO, IANAL)
Would like to see 3.5 also released under CC-BY, but that's just a pipe dream right now.
I'm thinking the upcoming D&Done VTT Edition is going to be a 6th Edition, and will not be CC-BY at all.
Oh, yes, it's irrevocable, there's no comming back from it.
As for 3.5... Well, all it's needed is some creative people with time and passion to create a totally not 3.5 SRD out of the 5.1 one and put it under CC By.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51iAUn5ZwYL._AC_.jpg)
Funny choice, if they were gonna release just one of the srd to the Creative Commons i would have guessed the 3.5 would be the one.
Say, rather it's a sop. 5.1 will be the past fairly soon, so there's nothing lost by letting people keep doing what they've been doing.
There's no chance it'll be the same license for D&Done, so it'll be moot soon enough.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 27, 2023, 05:34:28 PM
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51iAUn5ZwYL._AC_.jpg)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 27, 2023, 05:41:36 PM
Say, rather it's a sop. 5.1 will be the past fairly soon, so there's nothing lost by letting people keep doing what they've been doing.
There's no chance it'll be the same license for D&Done, so it'll be moot soon enough.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 27, 2023, 05:34:28 PM
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51iAUn5ZwYL._AC_.jpg)
So? If anyone wants to publish for whatever Wotzi shits out next they're welcome to sign their soul away.
We now have an unrevokable SRD, we can build from that backwards or innovate upon it in whatever direction we wish.
Or we can not use it at all and publish what we want.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 27, 2023, 05:40:12 PM
Funny choice, if they were gonna release just one of the srd to the Creative Commons i would have guessed the 3.5 would be the one.
Like I told Daddy Warpig, all it takes is for some passionate, creative people to take the 5.1 and create a totally not 3.5 SRD under the CC By.
It is interesting that it isn't even Share Alike. CC-BY-SA could make some people think twice about putting their stuff under CC and, maybe, be dumb enough to remain under OGL 1.0a.
This is almost* total victory - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGTO9fld1gqkWF3I8dPI5uY0933OxnOr/view
That's the entire 5e SRD there with a far more open licence than the OGL. No more 'Product Identity' shenanigans!
*The only way it could be better is releasing the 3e SRDs to CC too, giving a lot of descriptive text missing from the 5e SRD.
I like this, but I keep remembering Murphy's Laws of Combat, especially the one that says, "If your attack is going well, you have walked into an ambush."
WotC has demonstrated their intentions and this is too quick & easy a win.
I think they would rather keep people on the reservation "free of charge" then off of it for a fee.
Seems like the best possible result at this point.
I will never use the OGL again regardless, but I like the idea of using CC, and I might even use their CC in the future - although TBH I am afraid there might be some trap in there as well (I do'nt see how, but anyway...).
The whole thing made me sour on D&D, however; probably the damage to their brand is partly irreparable.
(Also, unfortunately I was writing a book using 3e SRD text that I might change just to be sure).
Quote from: S'mon on January 27, 2023, 06:05:04 PM
This is almost* total victory - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGTO9fld1gqkWF3I8dPI5uY0933OxnOr/view
That's the entire 5e SRD there with a far more open licence than the OGL. No more 'Product Identity' shenanigans!
*The only way it could be better is releasing the 3e SRDs to CC too, giving a lot of descriptive text missing from the 5e SRD.
Daddy Warpig also wants the 3.5 SRD, why not take the 5.1 and retrofit it into a totally not 3.5? You'd need to use your own words but it's feasible.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 27, 2023, 06:23:55 PM
I think they would rather keep people on the reservation "free of charge" then off of it for a fee.
Exactly, the D&DOne cancellatiosn, PF2 selling their 8 month stock of hardcovers in two weeks, Black Flag and Cubicle7's upcoming system are a very real threat the idiots in the C suit didn't saw coming.
This is pretty much a total victory. There are still things that would be nice- for instance, an OGL 1.0b that is explicitly irrevocable (this would make all concerns of Hasbro trying another grab back in a few years even harder), as that would cover all the older OGL stuff. Or they could put everything that they have ever OGLed into creative commons.
But honestly, the 5.1 SRD being under creative commons is huge. Every complaint from anyone in OSR is either solved completely or almost completely by this, as there was concern Hasbro might try to target people for using terms like "Magic Missile" (they explicitly stated this as an example of something that they believed was copyrighted), or "Armor Class", or "Hit Points", or six attribute scores. Did they have the right to do this? Absolutely not, they would lose in any fair court. How much does a fair court cost in this country? Or whatever country they might try to choose to push the envelope first? Now, with everything under creative commons, there's absolutely no grounds for a lawsuit. Again, they could always try it, but they have firmly tied their hands on everything here.
What remains as a concern, that Hasbro might go after you for referencing the feat Power Attack, which they would first have to claim to have "deauthorized" the OGL and then use the fact that the 3.5 SRD is now (according to them) a big deal to refer to? I think that there's basically no chance of that.
:D This is a good start! All I need now is public seppuku of those C-level suits and whoever else made this happen, and a 50-state USA stockade tour of the rest of the legal dept. and middle management -- with Hasbro/WotC footing the bill for the rotten vegetables to throw at them! ;D
So close guys, you're almost on the road to forgiveness! 8)
Now I'm considering the limitations of CC-BY-4.0, before using it.
---
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
In the 4.0 license suite, licensees are required to indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material. This obligation applies whether or not the modifications produced adapted material. As with all other attribution and marking requirements, this may be done in a manner reasonable to the means, medium, and context. For example, "This section is an excerpt of the original." For trivial modifications, such as correcting spelling errors, it may be reasonable to omit the notice.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
---
How does that work if I'm publishing a derivative work in DTRPG using part of the text? Think "adventures in middle earth" - would they have to indicate all the changes from the original text? "This section is an excerpt of the original." in every page?
Would they be prohibited from using, say, watermarks?
Does the lack of ShareAlike clauses prohibits me from releasing it in such a manner?
Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 27, 2023, 07:46:23 PM
How does that work if I'm publishing a derivative work in DTRPG using part of the text? Think "adventures in middle earth" - would they have to indicate all the changes from the original text? "This section is an excerpt of the original." in every page?
Would they be prohibited from using, say, watermarks?
Does the lack of ShareAlike clauses prohibits me from releasing it in such a manner?
See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
You basically have to attribute the work, you'd likely want to use the verbiage WoTC has suggested. Your new work can be an exact copy or have changes in it. If it has changes in it you have to state your work is different than the original work:
In the 4.0 license suite, licensees are required to indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material. This obligation applies whether or not the modifications produced adapted material. As with all other attribution and marking requirements, this may be done in a manner reasonable to the means, medium, and context. For example, "This section is an excerpt of the original." For trivial modifications, such as correcting spelling errors, it may be reasonable to omit the notice.The above would be intentionally vague as the intent is to be reasonable and not have this be a burden.
You can add watermarks, write a novel based on it, create a movie or video game with it, use it as a blueprint for a new greater human society, whatever you want. Just add the attribution and indicate if there are changes from the original in a reasonable way.
A ShareAlike CC is more restrictive than this in that your work based on the material must also be shareable(copyleft). The SRD vanilla CC doesn't have that requirement.
Quote from: GamerforHire on January 27, 2023, 05:13:43 PMOk, excuse my ignorance, sincerely.
A) Welcome aboard!
B) There is no excuse for your sincere ignorance! Next up you'll be trying to excuse your insincere ignorance and that kind of shenanigans ain't accepted around here buster!
C) Today's big change appears to be the entire 5.1 SRD got tossed into the Creative Commons making it effectively public domain forever and evermore. Which is incredible news for all the 3PP kids.
I say
appears because I have not personally looked into what exactly is in the document WotC claims to have placed into the CC.
I do not think it matter much....
Anyone creating a business now or already running one will have to think very hard about what is going on. For despite this reversal, they still tried to do what they did. So all those creators, companies and all their employees and families now now that at some point one day in the future some corporation could choose to make some kind of decision that adversely affect them. They might have walked this back now, but what will the next ceo do in 10 years? The only choice for creators is to step away completely from it, and I doubt this announcement will effect much concerning the publishers and big creators. They will still be moving to ORC or making their own licenses.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 27, 2023, 07:46:23 PM
Now I'm considering the limitations of CC-BY-4.0, before using it.
---
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
In the 4.0 license suite, licensees are required to indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material. This obligation applies whether or not the modifications produced adapted material. As with all other attribution and marking requirements, this may be done in a manner reasonable to the means, medium, and context. For example, "This section is an excerpt of the original." For trivial modifications, such as correcting spelling errors, it may be reasonable to omit the notice.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
---
How does that work if I'm publishing a derivative work in DTRPG using part of the text? Think "adventures in middle earth" - would they have to indicate all the changes from the original text? "This section is an excerpt of the original." in every page?
Would they be prohibited from using, say, watermarks?
Does the lack of ShareAlike clauses prohibits me from releasing it in such a manner?
The license says you must not restric others from doing what the license permits, if there's watermarks I can still type everything under the license. I can't copy paste but I can type it. I think this is for video games mostly, DRM and such.
You can't change the license of the original since you don't own the copyright, but you can publish your work under CC By SA with adecuate notes of the stuff you can't place under such license and under what license they are (Including none in the case of art you don't own the copyright to) and crediting the copyright owners of such stuff.
You can even publish your work OUTSIDE of the CC By, unlike with the CC By SA that doesn't allow that, as long as you specify WHAT parts are from their SRD and are therefore CC By.
For the OGL, yeah, that's probably dead for third party publishers at this point. But for 5E CC SRD, that can't be taken back and is probably less restrictive than what ORC will be. For one, CC has no product identity concept it in. So go to town now with beholders and mind flayers, because its in there. The other thing is that the CC SRD applies to all mediums, even those not invented yet. Will ORC?
Finally, this puts OSR in a great place as many names and terms have become truly open. Basic Fantasy was scrubbing chromatic and metallic dragons from their non-OGL version rules(among a lot of other things) because it was up in the air if Wizard's could claim ownership on them. All the classic stats, spell names, monsters, mechanical terms and so on are free and clear now. It's a big deal.
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 27, 2023, 08:25:00 PM
Quote from: GamerforHire on January 27, 2023, 05:13:43 PMOk, excuse my ignorance, sincerely.
A) Welcome aboard!
B) There is no excuse for your sincere ignorance! Next up you'll be trying to excuse your insincere ignorance and that kind of shenanigans ain't accepted around here buster!
C) Today's big change appears to be the entire 5.1 SRD got tossed into the Creative Commons making it effectively public domain forever and evermore. Which is incredible news for all the 3PP kids.
I say appears because I have not personally looked into what exactly is in the document WotC claims to have placed into the CC.
I downloaded it, First page says the entire document IS under CC By, and it has the exact same page count as the one that doesn't say that.
Now, did they remove anything or carved some exception inside the document? Don't know! (Read that last part in The Critical Drinker's voice).
CC By is very different from CC0 (Public Domain) for starters you have to give credit, something you don't have to do with Public Domain (although most do).
And that boys and girls is why they released the SRD to CC By, to try and stop the bleed of 3pp and games that have shit to do with their IP but that put the OGL there like White Star, it has (as far as I know) ZERO Wotzi's SRD in it, and yet there's the OGL at the end.
That's brand recognition, it makes them seem like the best and bigest game.
Besides stoping the subscriber bleed from D&DBegone!
Masterful stroke of PR, put CC By something you're not gonna use for much longer (Bet D&DOne is a very different game) makes you look good while costing you shit.
Well, that's a victory for everyone, although it's too bad as I would've liked WOTC/Hasbro to continue down this path.
The CC-BY release empowers a lot of people, myself included. The OGL 1.0a authorization put some business plans in jeopardy. Even if they backed off, the villainous nature of WOTC created a real stench around the OGL. Now that SRD content is released under CC-BY, all of the potential threat is erased.
Still curious to see if WOTC will attempt to impose restrictions on VTTs. I suspect that is ultimately what this was about.
Quote from: Zelen on January 27, 2023, 09:06:25 PM
Well, that's a victory for everyone, although it's too bad as I would've liked WOTC/Hasbro to continue down this path.
A selfish part of me would've liked to see that as well, but it's best for a lot of companies that they now have 5E they can fork and move on with.
Quote from: Zelen on January 27, 2023, 09:06:25 PM
Still curious to see if WOTC will attempt to impose restrictions on VTTs. I suspect that is ultimately what this was about.
They can't for 5E content now, but that wasn't their goal. I'd bet good money that One DnD will have VTT restrictions on it in a new license for that. And frankly, they have enough money to make One DnD/VTT successful no matter how bad it is(see Diablo Immortal). But I mostly just care about the current community being able to part ways with Hasbro and play with our clones and older versions. An amicable divorce.
One thing to pay attention to, IMHO, is to see if heads will roll at WotC/Hasbro - and which ones. If the fiasco is real (and PF selling out eight months of books in two weeks, to the point that the next reprint will arrive in April, is quite a real slap) someone will pay. Maybe it will be the actual culprits or maybe some scapegoat.
I don't think that what happened will remain without consequences. Nothing right now assures that the D&D brand hasn't been permanently damaged. People can, from now, see PF as a safety net (again).
Anyway, to paraphrase "Blackhawk Down", isn't funny how when the first menace to the wallet whistled near the community's head, all the woke values went out of the window? ;D
Quote from: Summon666 on January 27, 2023, 08:27:40 PM
I do not think it matter much....
Anyone creating a business now or already running one will have to think very hard about what is going on. For despite this reversal, they still tried to do what they did. So all those creators, companies and all their employees and families now now that at some point one day in the future some corporation could choose to make some kind of decision that adversely affect them. They might have walked this back now, but what will the next ceo do in 10 years? The only choice for creators is to step away completely from it, and I doubt this announcement will effect much concerning the publishers and big creators. They will still be moving to ORC or making their own licenses.
I'm not sure. SRD is now 'basically' in the public domain and you don't need the OGL to use it. There is no connection to WotC anymore so if you are building 3pp products you do so safe of any future WotC interference. If you use the old OGL you have some risk they may cancel or change or whatever, I wouldn't trust that unless I had a product under it already in which case you have more time to scrub SRD 3.5 content if you don't trust them.
Ok.... If WOTC dumped the entire 5.1SRD into CC, there's some good in that I suppose; but they were still assholes and bullies for creating all of this chaos, to begin with. They only did this CC, as an attempt to plug the hole in the bottom of a sinking ship. Nobody should ever trust them again. They tried to make a power play on the whole RPG industry, and run their "competition" into bankruptcy. Piss on WOTC.
They asked for this shit sandwich. Let them eat it.
Quote from: Krazz on January 27, 2023, 04:30:38 PM
I find it telling that they said
QuoteThese live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
Then they go on to talk about CC stuff and keeping OGL 1.0a. What they're not doing is publishing OGL 1.0b, which should be identical to 10.a, except with an irrevocability clause. They're told us they know we want it, and the only reason I can see not to give it is that they still hope to revoke it in the future.
No, this is the best outcome. If they attempted to do an OGL 1.0b the creepy Woke weirdos would be all over them to make it more inclusive, make sure no nazis can make nazi stuff, blah, blah. That just opens a worm hole of problems.
Leave the OGL 1.0a alone. Put the stuff in CC. Wash your hands.
The only thing that could make this better is putting the 3.0 and 3.5 stuff in CC, including the Modern and Future stuff.
Quote from: thornad on January 27, 2023, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Krazz on January 27, 2023, 04:30:38 PM
I find it telling that they said
QuoteThese live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
Then they go on to talk about CC stuff and keeping OGL 1.0a. What they're not doing is publishing OGL 1.0b, which should be identical to 10.a, except with an irrevocability clause. They're told us they know we want it, and the only reason I can see not to give it is that they still hope to revoke it in the future.
No, this is the best outcome. If they attempted to do an OGL 1.0b the creepy Woke weirdos would be all over them to make it more inclusive, make sure no nazis can make nazi stuff, blah, blah. That just opens a worm hole of problems.
Leave the OGL 1.0a alone. Put the stuff in CC. Wash your hands.
The only thing that could make this better is putting the 3.0 and 3.5 stuff in CC, including the Modern and Future stuff.
It would be nice for someone with the proper time and expertise; to let Joe content writer know exactly what is open use, and what is not. People have already gone through the wringer, canceling or rewriting projects lately.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 27, 2023, 09:41:16 PM
Ok.... If WOTC dumped the entire 5.1SRD into CC, there's some good in that I suppose; but they were still assholes and bullies for creating all of this chaos, to begin with. They only did this CC, as an attempt to plug the hole in the bottom of a sinking ship. Nobody should ever trust them again. They tried to make a power play on the whole RPG industry, and run their "competition" into bankruptcy. Piss on WOTC.
They asked for this shit sandwich. Let them eat it.
Not if, they did. It is done.
Bullies? Jam, bro, you sound like a bed-wetter. They own that material. Their only sin was going back on their word. And that is a big deal. But to say nobody should ever trust them again is the same type of hyperbole that you hear from the woke. Forever is a long time. New leadership, new slate.
Nobody should ever use the OGL or SRD because been there done that. There is literally nothing new or innovative being created. And if you disagree, fine. Name something.
Eh, it's probably all they can do at this point in an attempt to stem the bleeding. Now, it's about getting as much as they can from people wanting to snatch up all the 5th edition stuff while they still can now that the threat of "their," game going away is a tangible thing.
Keep the OGL in play, etc., etc. and just go on with 6th edition after the yelling stops but have a totally different game license related to that and to cover any VTT associated with 6th. If they want a clean break and keep all that sweet, sweet IP in-house, then don't see them having too many options. Keep some folks plugging away at 5th ed material in the basement to hover up some dosh from time to time but otherwise let it dwindle away.
They'll be finally the kings of their diminishing castle, but it'll be theirs for as long as it lasts.
Bet that 7th edition is a re-skinned 5th edition as they (or whomever owns D&D at that point) comes back hat-in-hand saying "sorry; we're back, though!"
Quote from: FingerRod on January 27, 2023, 10:18:45 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 27, 2023, 09:41:16 PM
Ok.... If WOTC dumped the entire 5.1SRD into CC, there's some good in that I suppose; but they were still assholes and bullies for creating all of this chaos, to begin with. They only did this CC, as an attempt to plug the hole in the bottom of a sinking ship. Nobody should ever trust them again. They tried to make a power play on the whole RPG industry, and run their "competition" into bankruptcy. Piss on WOTC.
They asked for this shit sandwich. Let them eat it.
Not if, they did. It is done.
Bullies? Jam, bro, you sound like a bed-wetter. They own that material. Their only sin was going back on their word. And that is a big deal. But to say nobody should ever trust them again is the same type of hyperbole that you hear from the woke. Forever is a long time. New leadership, new slate.
Nobody should ever use the OGL or SRD because been there done that. There is literally nothing new or innovative being created. And if you disagree, fine. Name something.
But do we have new leadership, taking them in a new direction?
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 27, 2023, 10:15:52 PM
Quote from: thornad on January 27, 2023, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Krazz on January 27, 2023, 04:30:38 PM
I find it telling that they said
QuoteThese live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
Then they go on to talk about CC stuff and keeping OGL 1.0a. What they're not doing is publishing OGL 1.0b, which should be identical to 10.a, except with an irrevocability clause. They're told us they know we want it, and the only reason I can see not to give it is that they still hope to revoke it in the future.
No, this is the best outcome. If they attempted to do an OGL 1.0b the creepy Woke weirdos would be all over them to make it more inclusive, make sure no nazis can make nazi stuff, blah, blah. That just opens a worm hole of problems.
Leave the OGL 1.0a alone. Put the stuff in CC. Wash your hands.
The only thing that could make this better is putting the 3.0 and 3.5 stuff in CC, including the Modern and Future stuff.
It would be nice for someone with the proper time and expertise; to let Joe content writer know exactly what is open use, and what is not. People have already gone through the wringer, canceling or rewriting projects lately.
Dear Joe Content Writer:Everything in the 5.1 SRD is open to use, forever, you can even mix stuff without putting it under the CC By, you just need to credit and specify WHAT exactly on your works IS from their SRD. For example you could use a different color or font for the text you used from their document. You DON'T have to put YOUR works under CC By.
sincerely yours Geeky Bugle
PS: Forgot to mention that ANYTHING they say it's Product Identity is not under the CC By.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2023, 10:39:43 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 27, 2023, 10:15:52 PM
Quote from: thornad on January 27, 2023, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Krazz on January 27, 2023, 04:30:38 PM
I find it telling that they said
QuoteThese live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
Then they go on to talk about CC stuff and keeping OGL 1.0a. What they're not doing is publishing OGL 1.0b, which should be identical to 10.a, except with an irrevocability clause. They're told us they know we want it, and the only reason I can see not to give it is that they still hope to revoke it in the future.
No, this is the best outcome. If they attempted to do an OGL 1.0b the creepy Woke weirdos would be all over them to make it more inclusive, make sure no nazis can make nazi stuff, blah, blah. That just opens a worm hole of problems.
Leave the OGL 1.0a alone. Put the stuff in CC. Wash your hands.
The only thing that could make this better is putting the 3.0 and 3.5 stuff in CC, including the Modern and Future stuff.
It would be nice for someone with the proper time and expertise; to let Joe content writer know exactly what is open use, and what is not. People have already gone through the wringer, canceling or rewriting projects lately.
Dear Joe Content Writer:
Everything in the 5.1 SRD is open to use, forever, you can even mix stuff without putting it under the CC By, you just need to credit and specify WHAT exactly on your works IS from their SRD. For example you could use a different color or font for the text you used from their document. You DON'T have to put YOUR works under CC By.
sincerely yours Geeky Bugle
PS: Forgot to mention that ANYTHING they say it's Product Identity is not under the CC By.
Thank you, for your contributions during this difficult time in the RPG industry.
On unrelated news, Hasbro will fire 1000 people (15% of their workforce).
"Despite strong growth in Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming... our consumer products business underperformed in the fourth quarter against the backdrop of a challenging holiday consumer environment," CEO Chris Cocks said.
Hasbro estimated a 26% slump in revenue from its consumer products segment, compared with a 22% jump in its Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming business.
I guess that the "jump" just splatted.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/hasbro-cut-1000-global-full-time-jobs-2023-2023-01-26/
Quote from: Reckall on January 27, 2023, 11:06:24 PM
On unrelated news, Hasbro will fire 1000 people (15% of their workforce).
"Despite strong growth in Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming... our consumer products business underperformed in the fourth quarter against the backdrop of a challenging holiday consumer environment," CEO Chris Cocks said.
Hasbro estimated a 26% slump in revenue from its consumer products segment, compared with a 22% jump in its Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming business.
I guess that the "jump" just splatted.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/hasbro-cut-1000-global-full-time-jobs-2023-2023-01-26/
What a beautiful flop it is.
Quote from: Reckall on January 27, 2023, 11:06:24 PM
On unrelated news, Hasbro will fire 1000 people (15% of their workforce).
"Despite strong growth in Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming... our consumer products business underperformed in the fourth quarter against the backdrop of a challenging holiday consumer environment," CEO Chris Cocks said.
Hasbro estimated a 26% slump in revenue from its consumer products segment, compared with a 22% jump in its Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming business.
I guess that the "jump" just splatted.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/hasbro-cut-1000-global-full-time-jobs-2023-2023-01-26/
One has to wonder if they will follow Big Tech's example and fire the D.I.E. cultists first.
(Boss yelling over the din of the game-making floor after bad message comes through)
"What do you mean we're stepping on our dicks?"
[sheepish looks among the dick-steppers]
"Aaagghh!"
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 27, 2023, 06:20:24 PM
I like this, but I keep remembering Murphy's Laws of Combat, especially the one that says, "If your attack is going well, you have walked into an ambush."
WotC has demonstrated their intentions and this is too quick & easy a win.
That's how I'm feeling about it.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2023, 10:39:43 PM
PS: Forgot to mention that ANYTHING they say it's Product Identity is not under the CC By.
The concept of Product Identity does not exist in the CC licence, nor is it mentioned by WoTC in the CC licenced SRD -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGTO9fld1gqkWF3I8dPI5uY0933OxnOr/view?usp=sharing
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2023, 08:58:54 PMCC By is very different from CC0 (Public Domain) for starters you have to give credit, something you don't have to do with Public Domain (although most do).
You're right. Technically they are different.
However, WotC's action proves they're walking away from tabletop RPGs and don't care anymore what anyone does with 5e and earlier material. Any minor attribution is a formality now, and skipping that formality won't really matter to them because they and their 6e customers are "evolving" into beings of pure VTT nirvana.
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 27, 2023, 06:20:24 PMWotC has demonstrated their intentions and this is too quick & easy a win.
WotC believes the "trap" is any company staying in the TTRPG space instead of the glorious nirvana of VTT, so by dumping the SRD into CC, their competitors can keep selling books while WotC turns D&D into an evergreen SaaS product with the customers they actually want.
And they might be right from a financial standpoint.
Quote from: Dracones on January 27, 2023, 08:54:13 PM
So go to town now with beholders and mind flayers, because its in there.
The beholder is not an entry in the monsters section of the document. But the word is used in two places, in the Deck of Illusions magic item, and in the subsection explaning the types of monsters, listed as "quintessential aberrations" along with "mind flayers", which also don't have an entry as a monster.
WotC's intention wasn't to give us beholders, but the word was left behind in the text twice. I bet since this SRD 5.1 was released under the OGL 1.0a many years ago (if it is the same exact SRD), publishers noticed this but were advised not to push it by using what I believe is WotC trademark as the name of a monster, even if the name was in SRD.
Quote from: zer0th on January 28, 2023, 06:43:13 AM
WotC's intention wasn't to give us beholders, but the word was left behind in the text twice. I bet since this SRD 5.1 was released under the OGL 1.0a many years ago (if it is the same exact SRD), publishers noticed this but were advised not to push it by using what I believe is WotC trademark as the name of a monster, even if the name was in SRD.
The OGL specifically forbade use of Product Identity terms, including
beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar'ri, baatezu, displacer
beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.Under the CC licence that no longer applies.
Just as a minor observation that the 5.1 SRD contains basically zero fluff-text (ex. nothing in the kobold entry suggests any appearance other than small humanoid). Rather, 5.1 is ONLY mechanics, so WotC is still clinging tight to its actually copyrighted material.
Short version, you can now safely use any of the provided 5e mechanical content stacks and names and spells, but you still need your own fluff expressions for things like races, classes and monster descriptions.
Similarly, the 5e SRD was always far less complete on the player side than the 3.5e SRD so if WotC were to stop offering the 5e Core Books, a content creator would still have a lot of work to do without duplicating the still copyrighted content (i.e. you could create a 5e school of abjuration for the wizard-class; but it would need its own elements and not just a cut-and-paste out of the PHB).
Basically, 5.1 under CC is good if you only care about access to various concept names. Content creators still have a lot of work they'll need to put into making the content useable. It's more like a box of barely copyrightable spare parts than anything.
They also STILL haven't made the OGL1.0a (where more of the fluff text lives) irrevocable so they can always revisit that later, once their movie has made its money and, they hope, justified their unpopular acquisition of eOne studios to their shareholders.
Because I suspect as much as anything that's what this is about. Hasbro execs spent a LOT on acquiring the studio and the shareholders aren't happy about it... and here's this OGL controversy sucking all the oxygen out of the room whenever anyone does a search for "D&D" instead of directing people towards their upcoming film that they need to see make at least mid-tier Marvel money to quiet the already jittery investors.
Once that hurtle is passed they can revisit all the OGL1.0a issues with less need to play nice. They still want all the fluff text back, because of course all the visual depictions of various critters are the most important parts of the IP when you're building a VTT using the unreal engine.
Without the 3.5e SRD under OGL1.0a providing;
"Kobolds are short, reptilian humanoids with cowardly and sadistic tendencies. A kobold's scaly skin ranges from dark rusty brown to a rusty black color. It has glowing red eyes. Its tail is nonprehensile. Kobolds wear ragged clothing, favoring red and orange. A kobold is 2 to 2½ feet tall and weighs 35 to 45 pounds. Kobolds speak Draconic with a voice that sounds like that of a yapping dog."
...then all the 5.1 gives you is a stat block for an undefined small humanoid who is sensitive to light and uses pack tactics. For purposes of a turn-based video game with probably automated combat outside of a health bar, action bar and click/touch targeting that is the LEAST important element... that only Hasbro has dragonling kobolds with the funny yappy voices for the VTT and plushies (that exclaim "we love you" like they did in that animated short) is what they care about.
Make no mistake, Hasbro still wants all the non-mechanical IP back... they view that as THE important thing to building their lifestyle brand. They just have a bigger fire to put out first.
The saddest aspect of this whole episode are the pathetic men so desperate to copy D&D just because it has some terms that you grew up liking as a child ("Mind Flayer", "Beholder"!) instead of creating literally anything new.
Quote from: Zelen on January 28, 2023, 09:07:34 AM
The saddest aspect of this whole episode are the pathetic men so desperate to copy D&D just because it has some terms that you grew up liking as a child ("Mind Flayer", "Beholder"!) instead of creating literally anything new.
I'll never regret stepping away from the OGL years ago. Having to create all my own lore by going back to the original myths and legends or by taking my own path really helped make the world feel like it's own special thing instead of having just what I consider to be better mechanics than 5e.
I'll take my Volcanic Dragons over Red Dragons any day. Same for my Ifrit, Jinn, Ku'ul, Shedim, Gallu, Dybbuk, Ghul, etc. demons. I'll take my more coherent origins for the wide array of monsters in my setting to the utterly random disconnected origins of most D&D settings.
I think realistically if all you're trying to do is ape D&D then you're never going to overthrow the 800 lb. Gorilla that is the real thing complete with all its ridiculous D&D-isms. You will always be in its shadow.
The only ones a third party can really hope to reach are the proverbial "Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" seeking something more and so, "more of the same" is not going to draw them to you. Mind Flayers and Beholders aren't going to be a draw to such people.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: Zelen on January 28, 2023, 09:07:34 AM
The saddest aspect of this whole episode are the pathetic men so desperate to copy D&D just because it has some terms that you grew up liking as a child ("Mind Flayer", "Beholder"!) instead of creating literally anything new.
...I think realistically if all you're trying to do is ape D&D then you're never going to overthrow the 800 lb. Gorilla that is the real thing complete with all its ridiculous D&D-isms. You will always be in its shadow.
A number of folks are not trying to replace the 500lbs gorilla but to sell adventures and supplements to the people that play the 500lbs gorilla. For those people they need to copy things close enough they feel 'right' to the end user instead of feeling part of another game.
Quote from: Zelen on January 28, 2023, 09:07:34 AM
The saddest aspect of this whole episode are the pathetic men so desperate to copy D&D just because it has some terms that you grew up liking as a child ("Mind Flayer", "Beholder"!) instead of creating literally anything new.
I don't know. Needing to insist that nostalgia is the only reason that someone likes something, I find is usually because of a desperate need to feel superior. That's pretty darn pathetic.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 28, 2023, 11:19:10 AM
Quote from: Zelen on January 28, 2023, 09:07:34 AM
The saddest aspect of this whole episode are the pathetic men so desperate to copy D&D just because it has some terms that you grew up liking as a child ("Mind Flayer", "Beholder"!) instead of creating literally anything new.
I don't know. Needing to insist that nostalgia is the only reason that someone likes something, I find is usually because of a desperate need to feel superior. That's pretty darn pathetic.
Boring personal attacks aside, that's entirely the point. The things people liked (the ideas) were never under lock and key to begin with. So the crowing over this is purely about being able to Consoom D&D Product.
Nice to see they caved. Presumably it finally dawned on these dimwits that even if they got their way it would be a pyrrhic victory, so the best damage control was to concede ASAP as possible.
QuoteAnyway, to paraphrase "Blackhawk Down", isn't funny how when the first menace to the wallet whistled near the community's head, all the woke values went out of the window? ;D
Disagree.
Woke is also anti-capitalist, usually sympathetic to anarchism. So not allowing corporation to own things is... very woke. Especially things that was kinda owned by community.
With TV-shows and films they really had no leverage over corporations - so allowing them to annoy "evil bigots" was acceptable. It won't stop woke designers, and mobs of woke players by pescering non-woke designers in future and trying to cancel them.
QuoteNo, this is the best outcome. If they attempted to do an OGL 1.0b the creepy Woke weirdos would be all over them to make it more inclusive, make sure no nazis can make nazi stuff, blah, blah. That just opens a worm hole of problems.
Not sure. Woke crowd was quite clear they won't give their magical mob powers to WOTC.
Approval for claims they only do this to stop nazis was minimal.
QuoteNobody should ever use the OGL or SRD because been there done that. There is literally nothing new or innovative being created. And if you disagree, fine. Name something.
Quite obvious new stuff using it - are new settings and adventures that can be innovative without changing system. Obviously there is more room in hobby for more such supplements than for more totally new engines.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 28, 2023, 11:52:14 AM
Woke is also anti-capitalist
I thought Woke was a replacement for anti-capitalism, OWS et al. Get the lefties focusing on race hate, gender hate et al, rather than hating the fat cats.
Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 12:02:57 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 28, 2023, 11:52:14 AM
Woke is also anti-capitalist
I thought Woke was a replacement for anti-capitalism, OWS et al. Get the lefties focusing on race hate, gender hate et al, rather than hating the fat cats.
And you're correct, it's why while they spoput anti-capitalist shit all day they will lick the boots of the megabillion corporations and stand against the working class because "Muh heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, Istophobia..."
There is certainly attempt to virtue signal their way into woke's favour by big corporations and some amount of people being totally in line with woke-progressivism while also capitalist or even libertarian in terms of economy, but after spying upon several very woke FB groups for nerds and RPG players, I can safely say majority there while mocking non-woke fans chagrin about black elves in ROP also very much hate capitalism.
But usually they are not willing to put hatred toward conservative over it but this time WOTC showed weak underbelly, and attacked place in fandom where plenty smaller woke producers were making own shit, so situation changed and WOTC claims they just wanted to stop nazis helped them in no way.
QuoteAnd you're correct, it's why while they spoput anti-capitalist shit all day they will lick the boots of the megabillion corporations and stand against the working class because "Muh heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, Istophobia..."
Depends. Most time wokesters while anticapitalist by belief also are weak losers having nothing of revolutionary zeal and capability of communists and anarchists of old. They are too egotistic, too cacooned in their own precious identities, to do anything practical, and when you accuse them of being losers, they will throw a tantrum and say it's society fault not their.
And they usually say there is no ethical consumption but one needs to live so they are open to a lot of compromise to survive.
But this time WOTC showed weakness and due to all woke designers standing against Woke - basically power dynamics changed.
And voilla.
Of course they are still vehemently rooted in their twisted identity politics no doubt about it.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 28, 2023, 11:19:10 AM
Quote from: Zelen on January 28, 2023, 09:07:34 AM
The saddest aspect of this whole episode are the pathetic men so desperate to copy D&D just because it has some terms that you grew up liking as a child ("Mind Flayer", "Beholder"!) instead of creating literally anything new.
I don't know. Needing to insist that nostalgia is the only reason that someone likes something, I find is usually because of a desperate need to feel superior. That's pretty darn pathetic.
Don't try to understand an Alpha male, his liver-powered original brain is as far beyond yours as a man's to a monkey. You should just be flattered that he took the time out of constantly creating new and incredible things (while models bounce on his crotch) to crap on you for liking an existing thing.
You utter, utter, baby man child baby, liker of things, UGH!
Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 07:41:19 AM
...
The OGL specifically forbade use of Product Identity terms, including
beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar'ri, baatezu, displacer
beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.
Under the CC licence that no longer applies.
But we have yet to see what version of the 5.1 SRD that they put under CC.
They may yet go through and 'sanitize' it.
Seeing is believing from Wotzi from this point forward.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 28, 2023, 12:40:29 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 07:41:19 AM
...
The OGL specifically forbade use of Product Identity terms, including
beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar'ri, baatezu, displacer
beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.
Under the CC licence that no longer applies.
But we have yet to see what version of the 5.1 SRD that they put under CC.
They may yet go through and 'sanitize' it.
Seeing is believing from Wotzi from this point forward.
You can download it right now, in fact you could since they announced it, the link is in their announcement.
It has the same page count as the one that had the CC By ONLY covering parts of it, is it there any good stuff?
Doubt it, but it's a guarantee for those who want to create shit for 5e they can do so safely.
As for the missing fluff some have mentioned... Create your own, different from theirs, and put it under CC By.
Next, create a new SRD stripping it back to the ruleset of 3.0/3.5 including all your own fluff.
Next create a totally not 0D&D, AD&D, BX, BECMI SRDs porting back all the fluff but changing the rules and put it under CC By.
We could do it as a collaborative effort if we wanted to.
Hell we could create a totally new SRD without ANY of their shit and put it under CC By, but it needs lots of people.
I can already hear the Reeeeeeeeing if we created a new SRD and lots of people started using it because it's more complete than Wotzi's·
This is not a trap. It's a distraction. 5th was already on the way out, releasing the SRD has negligible impact on them and buys back goodwill. They're gonna keep their heads down and make nice until OneD&D hits, and that will be restrictively licensed like you wouldn't believe, with no recourse for anybody since it's their perfect legal right to assign whatever license they like on new content. They will refrain from selling the new stuff to any competing VTT and doll up their own with as many microtransactions as it can hold.
And there's nothing unethical about that, though their attempt to do that with 4e didn't go great for them. I suspect their attempt to torpedo the OGL was to sabotage people keeping 5th around as a competitor to OneD&D. Guess we'll see how this pans out.
Quote from: Valatar on January 28, 2023, 02:24:31 PM
This is not a trap. It's a distraction. 5th was already on the way out, releasing the SRD has negligible impact on them and buys back goodwill. They're gonna keep their heads down and make nice until OneD&D hits, and that will be restrictively licensed like you wouldn't believe, with no recourse for anybody since it's their perfect legal right to assign whatever license they like on new content. They will refrain from selling the new stuff to any competing VTT and doll up their own with as many microtransactions as it can hold.
And there's nothing unethical about that, though their attempt to do that with 4e didn't go great for them. I suspect their attempt to torpedo the OGL was to sabotage people keeping 5th around as a competitor to OneD&D. Guess we'll see how this pans out.
This is exactly how I see it.
Their big mistake was opening their big mouths in the first place. The herd would follow them into their next iteration of D&D regardless. Sure they would lose people that don't want to play that way, but they would have had more buy-in, had they not said shit about updating the OGL and nuking the old one... the irony being they should have known it was impossibly without losing millions upfront fighting in court.
Now they're trying to backtrack and pretend everything is cool, lets go back to the way things were. "Honey, sorry I threatened to kill you and ended up shooting myself in the head. I promise I won't wave the gun around anymore and threaten to kill you. Can we just pretend it never happened? Let's not scare the kids anymore!"
I honestly don't see the draw to anyone wanting to play what they're going to offer unless you just *have* to slavishly follow a brand name. In which case... whatever. It's not going to stop anyone that's already working on their own OGL... nor should it. Trusting WotC (or any of these others that have proven to *not* like you) is folly.
Quote from: tenbones on January 28, 2023, 02:50:24 PM
Their big mistake was opening their big mouths in the first place. The herd would follow them into their next iteration of D&D regardless. Sure they would lose people that don't want to play that way, but they would have had more buy-in, had they not said shit about updating the OGL and nuking the old one... the irony being they should have known it was impossibly without losing millions upfront fighting in court.
Now they're trying to backtrack and pretend everything is cool, lets go back to the way things were. "Honey, sorry I threatened to kill you and ended up shooting myself in the head. I promise I won't wave the gun around anymore and threaten to kill you. Can we just pretend it never happened? Let's not scare the kids anymore!"
I honestly don't see the draw to anyone wanting to play what they're going to offer unless you just *have* to slavishly follow a brand name. In which case... whatever. It's not going to stop anyone that's already working on their own OGL... nor should it. Trusting WotC (or any of these others that have proven to *not* like you) is folly.
Well, they didn't 'open their mouths'--it looks like they were trying to bring the big players along with a carrot-and-stick approach, but the stick leaked, and now they're just trying to figure out some way to smooth everything over.
Quote from: tenbones on January 28, 2023, 02:50:24 PM
Their big mistake was opening their big mouths in the first place. The herd would follow them into their next iteration of D&D regardless. Sure they would lose people that don't want to play that way, but they would have had more buy-in, had they not said shit about updating the OGL and nuking the old one... the irony being they should have known it was impossibly without losing millions upfront fighting in court.
They way that it got leaked suggested they desperately need 3pp to be on board, and they wanted to get them under some kind of control for extra profit. They also had to give some lead info, because part of the reason Paizo got started with PF1e was WotC was too tight lipped about what 4e would be like and what the GSL would be like. So trying to keep quiet about what they planned would have likely caused defection and lack of 3pp support as well.
Quote from: Zelen on January 28, 2023, 09:07:34 AM
The saddest aspect of this whole episode are the pathetic men so desperate to copy D&D just because it has some terms that you grew up liking as a child ("Mind Flayer", "Beholder"!) instead of creating literally anything new.
We took any mosnter that was IP and respun it in unique ways that we wanted to use them and make them even more interesting. WOTC gave us the base ingrediants and we crated a Julia childe's souflette.
have not bothered to use the original creation again and the players enjoy it that way as they have no idea what these things ARE even though mechanically they could guess.
Quote from: Valatar on January 28, 2023, 02:24:31 PM
This is not a trap. It's a distraction. 5th was already on the way out, releasing the SRD has negligible impact on them and buys back goodwill.
There is one thing I don't genuinely understand:
Let's say that WotC pulls some stunt with 6E or similar. With 5.1 out in the open, anyone can counter-stunt the way we already saw with the OGL fiasco.
Hasbro/WotC may have one advantage: the money they can put in an advanced VTT using UnrealX, VR and Olphat Tech. However, even if we discard the fact that Hasbro just squandered a lot of faith all around, is an advanced VTT really an incentive?
Maybe it is just me, but RPGs are a social hobby. The pandemic was a fluke (and I still met with my group - it was very therapeutic in those dark days). Today, social hobbies are returning to normal, Zoom-only games are a good alternative, and the VTT alternatives out there are just fine.
To me, TTRPGs are games were the tabletop is your imagination. This is why I never used miniatures (and I could argue that the boardgamish nature of 4E killed it on the spot even before I became aware of how dire the whole package was). The presentation of Wizards' "Advanced" VTT left me cold, because I don't need any kind of visual aids when my imagination is always better). And I guess that if one needs aids... we'll, miniatures didn't disappear and - as I said - other VTTs are already there. If anything, they could be stimulated to innovate and welcome new subscriptions with open arms.
OGL and D&Done were tied by a nice knot. This is what made them work. Now that knot was broken and there is no way in hell that the community will put back all their eggs in WotC. As soon as they will attempt to toe outside the line a tons of alternatives will spring up. D&D Digital is in probation and I don't think that the stray stunt will be looked at much differently than "very dimly".
Quote from: Reckall on January 28, 2023, 09:50:36 PMHasbro/WotC may have one advantage: the money they can put in an advanced VTT using UnrealX, VR and Olphat Tech. However, even if we discard the fact that Hasbro just squandered a lot of faith all around, is an advanced VTT really an incentive?
Yes, but the people in charge are from videogames.
If Hasbro really want to monetize D&D they should find a way to make people show up ready and on time. Find a way to prevent that one guy from destroying groups. Find a way to reward DMs for buying and providing everything.
Quote from: David Johansen on January 28, 2023, 10:06:25 PM
If Hasbro really want to monetize D&D they should find a way to make people show up ready and on time. Find a way to prevent that one guy from destroying groups. Find a way to reward DMs for buying and providing everything.
They couldn't even manage to do that with their Organized Play.
Quote from: David Johansen on January 28, 2023, 10:06:25 PM
If Hasbro really want to monetize D&D they should find a way to make people show up ready and on time. Find a way to prevent that one guy from destroying groups. Find a way to reward DMs for buying and providing everything.
If you can figure out how to do that you'll have solved RPG's biggest design flaw.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 28, 2023, 06:35:32 PMWe took any mosnter that was IP and respun it in unique ways that we wanted to use them and make them even more interesting.
What did you do with the beholder?
Quote from: David Johansen on January 28, 2023, 10:06:25 PM
If Hasbro really want to monetize D&D they should find a way to make people show up ready and on time. Find a way to prevent that one guy from destroying groups.
I never have these issues. We play at a set time with whoever turns up. We start on time, if you're late you miss the start.
The main thing is to have a campaign structure not dependent on any particular PC or player. Old school dungeon delving works great for this. The PCs assemble in the tavern just like the players assemble at the game venue, go to the dungeon, adventure a few hours, then return and separate until next time - all closely mirroring the real life play session.
QuoteWhat did you do with the beholder?
It's all ears.
QuoteMaybe it is just me, but RPGs are a social hobby. The pandemic was a fluke (and I still met with my group - it was very therapeutic in those dark days). Today, social hobbies are returning to normal, Zoom-only games are a good alternative, and the VTT alternatives out there are just fine.
I guess they count that with 6e being only on their VTT the brand name will be enough to hook up many newbies willing to pay.
Given the latest developments, might it not make sense for WotC to somehow outsource the ttrpg side of D&D and only retain the digital business, such as DnDBeyond and any new VTT environment? I can't imagine that Hasbro makes much money from the sale of D&D books and this seems to be one of the reasons why the whole OGL controversy kicked off in the first place.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 07:04:42 AM
Given the latest developments, might it not make sense for WotC to somehow outsource the ttrpg side of D&D and only retain the digital business, such as DnDBeyond and any new VTT environment? I can't imagine that Hasbro makes much money from the sale of D&D books and this seems to be one of the reasons why the whole OGL controversy kicked off in the first place.
It might, but the thing about "lifestyle brands" is the need to present a consistent identity. Tieflings in the new edition have to look just like the one in the movie who will look just like any that turn up in the tv show who will look just like what turns up in their tabletop book.
I do actually commend Hasbro on its devious solution. A bunch of the people on DnDBeyond have announced they're re-subscribing and it's largely calmed the waters while the 5.1SRD itself is all but devoid of the descriptions/appearances that Hasbro actually cares about for its lifestyle brand.
Similarly, though it's untouched for now, they still haven't actually taken steps to ensure the 3.5e SRD (where some actual IP fluff lives) is similarly protected... because deauthorization has always been the end goal to reclaim that IP fluff so they're the only ones with the small draconic kobolds (a distinct D&D-ism) and similar elements that were described in 3.5e, but were blank statblocks in 5.1.
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.
They wanted to force the ttrpg hobby onto their platform... but I think they may have chosen divorce as the less costly option. Their attorneys will still revoke the OGL1.0a (and thereby the 3.5e SRD) once they no longer care about the controversy eating up all the oxygen for their movie/tv series launches and that'll hit the properties like Paizo whose Pathfinder uses all that more directly than others... while the OSR is unlikely to really notice as they can probably reverse-engineer most of what they care about from the 5.1 SRD after a fashion.
I'd still wanna crosscheck everything from the 3.5e SRD and yank it if its not specifically in the 5.1SRD if I were a third party publisher... just because you know Hasbro will yank it eventually and it's much easier to do while there's time than at the last minute. That mostly means fluff text at this point as the names at least the 5e levels for spells are CC-by-4.0... but still something you want to keep an eye on... especially going forward.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 07:04:42 AM
Given the latest developments, might it not make sense for WotC to somehow outsource the ttrpg side of D&D and only retain the digital business, such as DnDBeyond and any new VTT environment? I can't imagine that Hasbro makes much money from the sale of D&D books and this seems to be one of the reasons why the whole OGL controversy kicked off in the first place.
Similarly, though it's untouched for now, they still haven't actually taken steps to ensure the 3.5e SRD (where some actual IP fluff lives) is similarly protected... because deauthorization has always been the end goal to reclaim that IP fluff so they're the only ones with the small draconic kobolds (a distinct D&D-ism) and similar elements that were described in 3.5e, but were blank statblocks in 5.1.
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.
Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 08:41:17 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.
Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.
Luckily...
(https://onetrackmine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/thats-not-how-this-works.jpg)
Quote from: DocJones on January 29, 2023, 09:16:50 AM
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 08:41:17 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.
Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.
Luckily...
(https://onetrackmine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/thats-not-how-this-works.jpg)
Says the IP edgelord who will risk nothing himself, but demands others take the legal and monetary risks to deliver unto him what he desires.
Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up, buttercup.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 11:33:23 AM
Quote from: DocJones on January 29, 2023, 09:16:50 AM
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 08:41:17 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.
Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.
Luckily...
(https://onetrackmine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/thats-not-how-this-works.jpg)
Says the IP edgelord who will risk nothing himself, but demands others take the legal and monetary risks to deliver unto him what he desires.
Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up, buttercup.
So this is OGC: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm
A kobold's scaly skin ranges from dark rusty brown to a rusty black color. It has glowing red eyes. Its tail is nonprehensile. Kobolds wear ragged clothing, favoring red and orange. A kobold is 2 to 2½ feet tall and weighs 35 to 45 pounds. Kobolds speak Draconic with a voice that sounds like that of a yapping dog.There are no images in the SRD. However images derived from that description are non-infringing of WoTC copyright.
Kobold is clearly a trade mark for Kobold Press. They have indeed registered the mark - https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:yao38x.2.1 - although the filing was
very recent, 24th January 2023, likely spooked by WoTC's face-heel turn.
It does not appear to have ever been used as a trade mark by WoTC. They could try to stop approval of the mark but they'd need to point to some use by them of Kobold as a mark of origin.
I think Kobold Press are pretty safe. WOTC could try suing for non literal copyright infringement of a particular piece of kobold art they claim the KP kobold mascot was derived from, but it looks like a longshot to me.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 11:33:23 AM
Quote from: DocJones on January 29, 2023, 09:16:50 AM
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 08:41:17 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.
Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.
Luckily...
(https://onetrackmine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/thats-not-how-this-works.jpg)
Says the IP edgelord who will risk nothing himself, but demands others take the legal and monetary risks to deliver unto him what he desires.
Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up, buttercup.
Apparently many brave souls have overcome fear uncertainty and doubt to put up.
Look at all the reptilian-like kobolds I found! (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kobold+reptilian&t=ffab&atb=v175-1&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images) I guess either copyright don't work that way for art or WotC is going to have to get busy with takedown notices. I think the answer is what I said.
Let's take your comments on kobold descriptions to it's logical conclusion. You recommend someone make dog men style kobolds instead.
However Hackmaster Basic has dog men style kobolds. So does the Critters, Creatures & Denizens DCC supplement.
I guess dog-men are right out then unless you want to get sued by Kenzer & Co. or Goodman games. Or perhaps they are suing each other?
Again that's not how this works.
Dungeon World has rat-like dragon-men kobolds. RoleMaster has goblin imp-like kobolds. I guess those a right out then. The again DW's dragon-men description is the very image of Wizard's kobolds.
They aren't going get sued because...
Again that's not how this works.
Here's another person who manned up (Justin Holiday) and did exactly what you said to avoid.
Quote from: Heroes against Darkness page 179
Kobold
Kobolds are tiny reptilian humanoids. They are generally cowardly and weak, but in larger numbers they can easily overrun a travelling caravan or a smaller human settlement.
Because that's how this works.
I just started my D&D illustrated clone weeks ago.
You talk about cheap talk, but how long have you been talking? ;-)
I dislike how D&D kobolds have displaced the original German fairies. It makes advertising folklore authentic writing way difficult
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 29, 2023, 06:13:58 PM
I dislike how D&D kobolds have displaced the original German fairies. It makes advertising folklore authentic writing way difficult
Couldn't agree more. I still play them this way. Never liked the D&D kobolds.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 29, 2023, 06:13:58 PM
I dislike how D&D kobolds have displaced the original German fairies. It makes advertising folklore authentic writing way difficult
Germanic Kobolds = UK Brownies
Where's the danger? They gonna hide your tools or kick you on the shin?
https://mythus.fandom.com/wiki/Kobold (https://mythus.fandom.com/wiki/Kobold)
Now, you could take the Germanic Kobold AND make it into a dangerous thing, but then it would share only the name with the original.
Why not make them look like this?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenonychosaurus#/media/File:Dinosauroid.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenonychosaurus#/media/File:Dinosauroid.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenonychosaurus#/media/File:Dinosauroid.jpg)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 29, 2023, 06:13:58 PM
I dislike how D&D kobolds have displaced the original German fairies. It makes advertising folklore authentic writing way difficult
In my games, I simply renamed D&D kobolds "draconites". Actual kobolds exist as well, but they are the generally invisible fairy beings of German folklore.
Btw: In German rpgs, kobolds are treated as fairy beings in the Dark Eye, while the oldest German rpg, Midgard, uses them like D&D kobolds, albeit they aren't draconic and have more rat-like heads.
The game Midgard has obviously nothing to do with the Kobold Press setting, which is called Mythgart here. Midgard was originally created in 1981 and it's still in existence (now in its fifth edition).
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
Just as a minor observation that the 5.1 SRD contains basically zero fluff-text (ex. nothing in the kobold entry suggests any appearance other than small humanoid). Rather, 5.1 is ONLY mechanics, so WotC is still clinging tight to its actually copyrighted material.
And since mechanics can't pe protected under Copygright anyway it's ultimately just a brilliant marketing ploy.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
They also STILL haven't made the OGL1.0a (where more of the fluff text lives) irrevocable so they can always revisit that later,
I wouldn't put it past them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
once their movie has made its money and, they hope, justified their unpopular acquisition of eOne studios to their shareholders.
They likely intend to use this studio for Power Rangers, Transformers, and My Little Pony productions as well, so a failure here would be a substantial setback.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
Hasbro execs spent a LOT on acquiring the studio and the shareholders aren't happy about it... and here's this OGL controversy sucking all the oxygen out of the room whenever anyone does a search for "D&D" instead of directing people towards their upcoming film that they need to see make at least mid-tier Marvel money to quiet the already jittery investors.
We hit them right in the SEO.
Quote from: migo on January 28, 2023, 04:34:11 PM
They way that it got leaked suggested they desperately need 3pp to be on board,
They do, which is why choosing to alienate them instead of creating a profitable 3rd party ecosystem on #DnDBeyond is so mindboggling. It's one of the biggest cases of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory I've ever seen.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
It might, but the thing about "lifestyle brands" is the need to present a consistent identity. Tieflings in the new edition have to look just like the one in the movie who will look just like any that turn up in the tv show who will look just like what turns up in their tabletop book.
They have an uphill battle here as there's nothing in the movie previews that's particularly iconic.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
I do actually commend Hasbro on its devious solution. A bunch of the people on DnDBeyond have announced they're re-subscribing and it's largely calmed the waters while the 5.1SRD itself is all but devoid of the descriptions/appearances that Hasbro actually cares about for its lifestyle brand.
I wish people didn't keep falling for this.
Quote from: S'mon on January 29, 2023, 12:46:56 PM
So this is OGC: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm
A kobold's scaly skin ranges from dark rusty brown to a rusty black color. It has glowing red eyes. Its tail is nonprehensile. Kobolds wear ragged clothing, favoring red and orange. A kobold is 2 to 2½ feet tall and weighs 35 to 45 pounds. Kobolds speak Draconic with a voice that sounds like that of a yapping dog.
There are no images in the SRD. However images derived from that description are non-infringing of WoTC copyright.
Kobold is clearly a trade mark for Kobold Press. They have indeed registered the mark - https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:yao38x.2.1 - although the filing was very recent, 24th January 2023, likely spooked by WoTC's face-heel turn.
It does not appear to have ever been used as a trade mark by WoTC. They could try to stop approval of the mark but they'd need to point to some use by them of Kobold as a mark of origin.
I think Kobold Press are pretty safe. WOTC could try suing for non literal copyright infringement of a particular piece of kobold art they claim the KP kobold mascot was derived from, but it looks like a longshot to me.
The key factors here are that 'kobold' is a name from mythology, the registration is just for the text, and their use of the mark has been uncontested for 17 years. So while they may be forced to abandon some representations their brand is safe.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
once their movie has made its money and, they hope, justified their unpopular acquisition of eOne studios to their shareholders.
They likely intend to use this studio for Power Rangers, Transformers, and My Little Pony productions as well, so a failure here would be a substantial setback.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
Hasbro execs spent a LOT on acquiring the studio and the shareholders aren't happy about it... and here's this OGL controversy sucking all the oxygen out of the room whenever anyone does a search for "D&D" instead of directing people towards their upcoming film that they need to see make at least mid-tier Marvel money to quiet the already jittery investors.
They're already in the process of selling eOne:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/29/hasbro-puts-newly-acquired-tv-brand-entertainment-one-eone-back-up-for-sale/?sh=2e2061e13ce3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/29/hasbro-puts-newly-acquired-tv-brand-entertainment-one-eone-back-up-for-sale/?sh=2e2061e13ce3)
I realize it is just an example but I'm surprised anyone cares much for Kobolds.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 12:37:01 PM
They're already in the process of selling eOne:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/29/hasbro-puts-newly-acquired-tv-brand-entertainment-one-eone-back-up-for-sale/?sh=2e2061e13ce3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/29/hasbro-puts-newly-acquired-tv-brand-entertainment-one-eone-back-up-for-sale/?sh=2e2061e13ce3)
Well shiiiiiit.... [article quotes follow]
QuoteHasbro purchased eOne in 2019 for approximately $4 billion.
PFFFFTTT.... *cough*. Holy hell.
QuoteHasbro realized it was more cost-effective to outsource the content creation as opposed to owning a media company, so it's now selling eOne.
Well of
course it's more cost effective to license out ideas you already have rather than put the work into creating anything. About the only expense you need to worry about are approvals.
QuoteA proxy battle with activist investor Alta Fox didn't help the situation, as Alta Fox was trying to get Hasbro to sell off its games division.
Innnteresting.
QuoteA company like Disney has hundreds of properties to create content for, where Hasbro has limited options.
#Hasbro has
plenty of options. An embarrassment of riches in fact. They just lack the courage and vision to make use of them.
QuoteThe purchase of eOne included the eOne Music division that owned the music catalogs of Death Row Records, Dualtone Records and titles from the Lumineers, RZA, Chuck Berry and more.
However, Hasbro later sold the music division for $385 million to entities owned and controlled by Blackstone.
Well that's disappointing.
So #Hasbro is in much more dire straights than I imagined, and this D&D fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:15:42 PM
I realize it is just an example but I'm surprised anyone cares much for Kobolds.
I don't think anyone does. It's just Chris has this fixation on trying to spread FUD about WOTC owning broad categories of stuff, when actually they just own very narrow expressions of things.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:26:55 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 12:37:01 PM
They're already in the process of selling eOne:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/29/hasbro-puts-newly-acquired-tv-brand-entertainment-one-eone-back-up-for-sale/?sh=2e2061e13ce3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/29/hasbro-puts-newly-acquired-tv-brand-entertainment-one-eone-back-up-for-sale/?sh=2e2061e13ce3)
Well shiiiiiit.... [article quotes follow]
QuoteHasbro purchased eOne in 2019 for approximately $4 billion.
PFFFFTTT.... *cough*. Holy hell.
QuoteHasbro realized it was more cost-effective to outsource the content creation as opposed to owning a media company, so it's now selling eOne.
Well of course it's more cost effective to license out ideas you already have rather than put the work into creating anything. About the only expense you need to worry about are approvals.
QuoteA proxy battle with activist investor Alta Fox didn't help the situation, as Alta Fox was trying to get Hasbro to sell off its games division.
Innnteresting.
QuoteA company like Disney has hundreds of properties to create content for, where Hasbro has limited options.
#Hasbro has plenty of options. An embarrassment of riches in fact. They just lack the courage and vision to make use of them.
QuoteThe purchase of eOne included the eOne Music division that owned the music catalogs of Death Row Records, Dualtone Records and titles from the Lumineers, RZA, Chuck Berry and more.
However, Hasbro later sold the music division for $385 million to entities owned and controlled by Blackstone.
Well that's disappointing.
So #Hasbro is in much more dire straights than I imagined, and this D&D fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg.
Some around here have focused on Ha$bro's stock price, but that's driven by public perception, if the people think it's profitable they will want to buy the stock which drives the price up. We saw an example of this with the Stonks kerfufle, many said they were memeing the stock up. Well duh! that's how the stock market works!
But there's a piece of information, that IF true reveals much more in depth what's going on with Hasbro:
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/47698/wotc-makes-more-money-hasbros-toy-business (https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/47698/wotc-makes-more-money-hasbros-toy-business)
"WotC generated $110M of Hasbro's $147.3M operating profits in the first quarter of this year, with an increase of 15% on last year." That's 75% of Hasbro's profits.
Either selling D&D/MTG is way more profitable than anyone thought or Hasbro is in deep shit. Their toys aren't selling, MLP, Transformers, G.I. Joe, Action Man, and others used to be big sellers, who had the comic book franchise? IDW, who lost them in Dec 2022 and who has been tethering on the edge of bankruptcy for a long while.
Both Hasbro & IDW went woke, which to me means they were already broke and needed the ESG cash flow.
Quote from: Zelen on January 30, 2023, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:15:42 PM
I realize it is just an example but I'm surprised anyone cares much for Kobolds.
I don't think anyone does. It's just Chris has this fixation on trying to spread FUD about WOTC owning broad categories of stuff, when actually they just own very narrow expressions of things.
So, which book are you putting out in the near future where you're going to put this theory of yours to the test? How many thousands of dollars will you potentially lose if your bravado is misplaced?
It's easy to talk tough about how you don't fear Hasbro's lawyers when you've got nothing on the line. You call it FUD. I call it reasonable caution when you're actually looking to publish outside the OGL in the near future using just fair use, sufficient differences and that mechanics aren't copyrightable as your potential defenses against an infringement suit from Hasbro.m
ETA: Also, I care more about Kobolds than I do about dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, orcs, goblins and all the other Tolkein-alike races you always see in Tolkein-clone #537. At least the yapping little dragonmen are visually interesting and their facility with traps also sets them apart from many of the other low-tier monstrous humanoids.
I also prefer Dragonborn and Tieflings in the Nentir Vale setting to the Tolkein clones while we're at it (or anything else that is actually unique to an original setting). Anything but another Tolkein-ripoff or tautological D&D setting.
Here's the Kobold entry from the 5.1 SRD
Kobold
Small humanoid (kobold), lawful evil
Armor Class 12
Hit Points 5 (2d6 − 2)
Speed 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
7 (−2) 15 (+2) 9 (−1) 8 (−1) 7 (−2) 8 (−1)
Senses darkvision 60 ft., passive Perception 8
Languages Common, Draconic
Challenge 1/8 (25 XP)
Sunlight Sensitivity. While in sunlight, the kobold has
disadvantage on attack rolls, as well as on Wisdom
(Perception) checks that rely on sight.
Pack Tactics. The kobold has advantage on an attack
roll against a creature if at least one of the kobold's
allies is within 5 feet of the creature and the ally isn't
incapacitated.
Actions
Dagger. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft.,
one target. Hit: 4 (1d4 + 2) piercing damage.
Sling. Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, range 30/120
ft., one target. Hit: 4 (1d4 + 2) bludgeoning damage
SO...what do we know?
It's a small humanoid that speaks Draconic and is sensitive to light that uses pack tactics.
To me, this says WotC may want to copyright their image/concept of Kobolds - as is there's no mention of "tiny dragonmen who love traps"
Wonder how many other "concept stack" issues may exist in the 5.1 SRD?
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 31, 2023, 03:54:25 AM
To me, this says WotC may want to copyright their image/concept of Kobolds - as is there's no mention of "tiny dragonmen who love traps"
But to what extent can they copyright it? Like it seems the Tolkien estate has the word 'Hobbit' locked down, but you can make something that completely matches the Hobbit's 'concept stack', and call it a Halfling, and you're clear. Given that has already been tested in court, we have a pretty good idea of what you can cover and what not.
Like also, you can have an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse that is very clearly supposed to be Mickey Mouse, and just isn't called that by name, and it's OK. Family Guy and South Park have both done this. The 'concept stack' has been completely copied, just not the name.
Quote from: migo on January 31, 2023, 07:12:55 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 31, 2023, 03:54:25 AM
To me, this says WotC may want to copyright their image/concept of Kobolds - as is there's no mention of "tiny dragonmen who love traps"
But to what extent can they copyright it? Like it seems the Tolkien estate has the word 'Hobbit' locked down, but you can make something that completely matches the Hobbit's 'concept stack', and call it a Halfling, and you're clear. Given that has already been tested in court, we have a pretty good idea of what you can cover and what not.
Like also, you can have an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse that is very clearly supposed to be Mickey Mouse, and just isn't called that by name, and it's OK. Family Guy and South Park have both done this. The 'concept stack' has been completely copied, just not the name.
Just as a note; courts generally give more leeway to works intended as satire or parody... particularly if the depiction is providing some degree of commentary on the nature of the original. Similarly, those characters didn't stick around past the point where the commentary had been made.
As to Halflings vs. Hobbits; 1e AD&D Halflings are described only in the PHB as "very much like small humans, thus their name." Everything else is mechanics that includes level limits for various classes, a bonus to save vs. wands, staves, rods,
spells and to all manner of poisons for every 3.5 points of Con. They automatically speak common, dwarven, elven, gnome, goblin, halfling and orcish. They have infravision. They can note passage grade 75% of the time and determine direction 50% of the time. When alone in non-metal armor they can surprise someone 66.6% of the time.
In other words... there's virtually ZERO in the written Halfling concept stack that matches Tolkein's Hobbits. Bonuses vs. magic and poison (which later became to all saves)? Massively multilingual? Can see into the infrared range? Later editions added bonuses to slings and other ranged weapons (from the +3 to attacks with ranged weapons in the MM most likely).
Also note which race is missing from the picture of all the races on page 18; the Halfing (and Gnome). In fact, there is actually NO picture confirmed to be of a Halfling in the entire 1e PHB (there is possibly one on the full page art on p. 108 holding a torch, but it could be a beardless dwarf and regardless, it's wearing shoes, which would be another distinct difference from Tolkein's stack).
So, while much has been made of Halflings being just renamed Hobbits, it appears Gary was slightly more aware of the potential copyright problems than people pretend when he was putting together the 1e PHB (less so the MM, but one critter entry among hundreds is easier to overlook as compared to a playable race).
It's notable too that by the time 3e came around, Halflings had basically absorbed a number of Kender-ish traits including being svelter (vs. more portly Hobbits), the wearing of shoes, and particular facility with slings. In other words, the move has been on for quite a while to make D&D Halflings conceptually distinct from Hobbits.
Ultimately, the correct answer to where the line falls is "where the judge you get thinks the line is" and what your own personal level of financial risk tolerance is.
Quote from: Dracones on January 27, 2023, 08:54:13 PM
For the OGL, yeah, that's probably dead for third party publishers at this point. But for 5E CC SRD, that can't be taken back and is probably less restrictive than what ORC will be. For one, CC has no product identity concept it in. So go to town now with beholders and mind flayers, because its in there.
You might want to check your facts, because beholders and mind flayers are not in the SRD. Many of the "iconic DnD" monsters aren't, like carrian crawlers, slaadi, or yuan'ti.
Quote from: migo on January 31, 2023, 07:12:55 AM
Like also, you can have an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse that is very clearly supposed to be Mickey Mouse, and just isn't called that by name, and it's OK. Family Guy and South Park have both done this. The 'concept stack' has been completely copied, just not the name.
To be clear, the "image" of Micky Mouse is copyright, but shows like Family Guy get away with using it through the "parody" clause of Fair Use.
Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 07:41:19 AM
Quote from: zer0th on January 28, 2023, 06:43:13 AM
WotC's intention wasn't to give us beholders, but the word was left behind in the text twice. I bet since this SRD 5.1 was released under the OGL 1.0a many years ago (if it is the same exact SRD), publishers noticed this but were advised not to push it by using what I believe is WotC trademark as the name of a monster, even if the name was in SRD.
The OGL specifically forbade use of Product Identity terms, including
beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar'ri, baatezu, displacer
beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.
Under the CC licence that no longer applies.
But those monsters don't appear in the SRD, so you can't claim their use under CC-By-4.0 license. You can TRY to incorporate them into your product via Fair Use or through some unique creative expression, but any copy/paste of the stat blocks would be a clear and obvious violation of WotC's copyright.
Quote from: Zelen on January 30, 2023, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:15:42 PM
I realize it is just an example but I'm surprised anyone cares much for Kobolds.
I don't think anyone does. It's just Chris has this fixation on trying to spread FUD about WOTC owning broad categories of stuff, when actually they just own very narrow expressions of things.
People do, espcially the sparkle troll types. There so much "cute" kobold art you wouldnt think they were meant to be a monster. I have a friend who has a discord server for some 5e youtube channel and someone typed out hissing at me cause i suggest kobolds should be vile little things.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 12:41:00 AM
So, which book are you putting out in the near future where you're going to put this theory of yours to the test? How many thousands of dollars will you potentially lose if your bravado is misplaced?
It's easy to talk tough about how you don't fear Hasbro's lawyers when you've got nothing on the line. You call it FUD. I call it reasonable caution when you're actually looking to publish outside the OGL in the near future using just fair use, sufficient differences and that mechanics aren't copyrightable as your potential defenses against an infringement suit from Hasbro.m
Again, what you're doing is spreading FUD. If you don't like me calling you out on it, then don't do it. There's no reason to believe that WOTC can own broad conceptual categories of things like, "creatures from folklore depicted as reptilian."
Even your more complex FUD talking about "concept stacks" basically boils down to, "If you copy everything directly from WOTC, they might sue you!" Okay, and? No one ever disputed that. Avoiding it is easy. Create your own things.
Do you think that WOTC might bring meritless lawsuits to attack you? Okay, don't publish anything. Keep not publishing. I'm happy for you.
Quote from: Zelen on January 31, 2023, 12:25:56 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 12:41:00 AM
So, which book are you putting out in the near future where you're going to put this theory of yours to the test? How many thousands of dollars will you potentially lose if your bravado is misplaced?
It's easy to talk tough about how you don't fear Hasbro's lawyers when you've got nothing on the line. You call it FUD. I call it reasonable caution when you're actually looking to publish outside the OGL in the near future using just fair use, sufficient differences and that mechanics aren't copyrightable as your potential defenses against an infringement suit from Hasbro.m
Again, what you're doing is spreading FUD. If you don't like me calling you out on it, then don't do it. There's no reason to believe that WOTC can own broad conceptual categories of things like, "creatures from folklore depicted as reptilian."
Even your more complex FUD talking about "concept stacks" basically boils down to, "If you copy everything directly from WOTC, they might sue you!" Okay, and? No one ever disputed that. Avoiding it is easy. Create your own things.
Do you think that WOTC might bring meritless lawsuits to attack you? Okay, don't publish anything. Keep not publishing. I'm happy for you.
If someone says "hey, double-check your chute" before you jumped out of airplane would you accuse them of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt? Do you find the guy who you've seen hasn't checked any of the chutes and isn't actually jumping out of the plane saying "Nah, it'll be fine! Just jump!" to be exercising reasonable caution?
You are aware that other posters like DocJones are telling people to use WotC's IP outright and as is word for word because he claims they won't actually go after you, right?
Also... that there are posters saying "time to use Beholders, Mind Flayers, Yuan'ti, Slaadi, etc. because everything is CC-by-4.0 now" when none of those things are in the 5.1SRD?
Have you by chance glanced at the changes made in the animated Vox Machina series to avoid using distinct elements of Hasbro's IP? (Hint - the petrifying tentacle monster in the latest batch of episodes was a Beholder in the actual play stream).
There's what you see the actual professionals doing in matters of IP and there's what a bunch of non-professionals are saying... and if you lean towards what the actual professionals are doing the non-professionals try to denigrate you with "spreading FUD."
I see a bunch of posters urging people to just ignore what actual publishers consider generally accepted safe use copyright practices because it seems like "Fuck WotC" is all they're really thinking about.
Frankly, if you're toeing up to some multi-billion dollar corporation's IP without clear guidelines for use then exercising a little fear and having some uncertainty over where the lines are is REASONABLE.
And who said anything about me not publishing? I am absolutely publishing. I'm taking time off my actual day job as my unpaid "vacation" just to finish up the artwork and get it out there.
But my project has been non-OGL for years now. I've long since broken away from any of Hasbro's copyrighted IP. My pointing out issues with copyright is more general practices because I see a bunch of other posters encouraging people to ignore what in any other writing field would land you in hot water (i.e. no, you don't get to write "Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir" including a boy wizard with a magical scar on his hand given to him by Lord Mortis as a baby and following through the whole story of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" with minor renames and slightly different dialogue).
When one decides to travel through a (legal) minefield, FUD is warrented and the guy who just runs in heedless of the potential danger is an idiot (perhaps he'll be a lucky idiot, but an idiot nonetheless). Particularly when there are really easy procedures to minimize the risk.
Sorry to rain on your "Fuck Hasbro/WotC" parade... which is what you really seem to be upset about.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 01:45:18 PM
You are aware that other posters like DocJones are telling people to use WotC's IP outright and as is word for word because he claims they won't actually go after you, right?
Never ever in a million years would I have said the above.
Could it be that you are the one with a basic misunderstanding of what copyright covers?
And by the way there is no such thing as "concept stacks". Concepts cannot be copyrighted. Neither can stacks of them.
Quote from: DocJones on January 31, 2023, 02:36:11 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 01:45:18 PM
You are aware that other posters like DocJones are telling people to use WotC's IP outright and as is word for word because he claims they won't actually go after you, right?
Never ever in a million years would I have said the above.
Could it be that you are the one with a basic misunderstanding of what copyright covers?
And by the way there is no such thing as "concept stacks". Concepts cannot be copyrighted. Neither can stacks of them.
"Word-for-word" might have been an exaggeration, but the spirit of the statement of what you're calling for remains true. You're the one screaming
"Fight the power!...Somebody else fight the power!"So go ahead and prove me wrong by publishing something using all of Hasbro's non-CC-by-4.0 IP then. Or better yet, go rewrite the entirety of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in your own words with different names for the characters and see where that lands you. Go tell Matt Mercer he's doing it wrong by replacing the Beholder from the live play stream with a tentacle beast that was an original creation because you can't copyright a stack of concepts.
You clearly know so much more than people who actually work in fields where knowing what is and isn't IP is important... so put your money where your mouth is and show us all how its done.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 08:38:26 AM
So, while much has been made of Halflings being just renamed Hobbits, it appears Gary was slightly more aware of the potential copyright problems than people pretend when he was putting together the 1e PHB (less so the MM, but one critter entry among hundreds is easier to overlook as compared to a playable race).
The MM was published first, and the PHB instructed you to refer to the MM. So the absence of detail in the PHB is not indicative of Gary being careful not to step on the 'concept stack' as it was not wanting to repeat himself.
Quote from: Effete on January 31, 2023, 10:24:53 AM
Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 07:41:19 AM
Quote from: zer0th on January 28, 2023, 06:43:13 AM
WotC's intention wasn't to give us beholders, but the word was left behind in the text twice. I bet since this SRD 5.1 was released under the OGL 1.0a many years ago (if it is the same exact SRD), publishers noticed this but were advised not to push it by using what I believe is WotC trademark as the name of a monster, even if the name was in SRD.
The OGL specifically forbade use of Product Identity terms, including
beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar'ri, baatezu, displacer
beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.
Under the CC licence that no longer applies.
But those monsters don't appear in the SRD, so you can't claim their use under CC-By-4.0 license. You can TRY to incorporate them into your product via Fair Use or through some unique creative expression, but any copy/paste of the stat blocks would be a clear and obvious violation of WotC's copyright.
It depends on what you're doing. If it's an OSR game, you have to re-word and re-organize the stat blocks anyway. At that point now that the words Beholder, Mind Flayer and Yuan-Ti are CC, you can take your Evil Eye that was mechanically identical to an AD&D Beholder and just call it a Beholder.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 03:04:43 PM
Go tell Matt Mercer he's doing it wrong by replacing the Beholder from the live play stream with a tentacle beast that was an original creation because you can't copyright a stack of concepts.
You can't copyright a 'stack of concepts'. However you can copyright the image of a Beholder, and sue people for creating derivative works based on that image. Detailed characters - but not stock characters - can also be copyright protected in some jurisdictions such as the USA (eg
MGM v Honda, and recently
Shazam v Only Fools here in UK), which might extend to copyright protection for a detailed original monster. Merely referring to the monster by name would not be enough, though.
Concept stack is just shorthand for 'If you add enough stuff, it eventually comes close enough to copyright'.
A Demon King named 'Emperor Voldemort' - Nah
A Demon King named 'Lord Voldemort' - Raises eyebrows
A Demonic Sorcerer named 'Lord Voldemort' - Getting there
A Skeletal looking Sorcerer named 'Lord Voldemort' who wants to rule the wizard world and wants revenge against 'Parry Hotter' - Yeah they gonna sue.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 31, 2023, 03:44:09 PM
Concept stack is just shorthand for 'If you add enough stuff, it eventually comes close enough to copyright'.
It's not good shorthand though. In fact it's very bad.
US law Title 17 of the United States Code S. 102: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.It's best not to use verbiage to describe the Law that goes directly against the law as written.
Quote from: S'mon on January 31, 2023, 03:51:47 PMIt's not good shorthand though. In fact it's very bad.
Everything is a concept, and an idea, ergo copyright law doesn't exist.
Quote from: migo on January 31, 2023, 03:22:53 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 31, 2023, 10:24:53 AM
But those monsters don't appear in the SRD, so you can't claim their use under CC-By-4.0 license. You can TRY to incorporate them into your product via Fair Use or through some unique creative expression, but any copy/paste of the stat blocks would be a clear and obvious violation of WotC's copyright.
It depends on what you're doing. If it's an OSR game, you have to re-word and re-organize the stat blocks anyway. At that point now that the words Beholder, Mind Flayer and Yuan-Ti are CC, you can take your Evil Eye that was mechanically identical to an AD&D Beholder and just call it a Beholder.
You could do that anyway, it just can't have the statblock of a DnD beholder (from any version of the rules) and it can't be TOO similar in description.
"Eyeball with wings?" You're probably good.
"Eyestalks and born from nightmares?" Infringement.
The word "beholder" showing up in CC without any context attached to it doesn't magically give you rights to stuff that isn't explicitly provided by the material placed in the Commons. The 5.1 SRD and the 5.1 Monster Manual are entirely separate documents. Just because the SRD says "beholder" somewhere in it doesn't imply you can take the "beholder" from the MM.
You can use the term "beholder" to describe virtually any kind of monster you want, like a skulking beast that can see perfectly in darkness, fog, and through any illusions. The only thing you can't do is use "beholder" with DnD's description (or anyone else's description of a "beholder" you don't have the rights to use).
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 31, 2023, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 31, 2023, 03:51:47 PMIt's not good shorthand though. In fact it's very bad.
Everything is a concept, and an idea, ergo copyright law doesn't exist.
Copyright does not protect the concept of an evil undead wizard who wants to rule the wizard world and seeks revenge on the boy wizard protagonist. However it can protect a particular expression of that concept, such as Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter series. This is an important distinction for understanding how copyright law works.
Quote from: Zelen on January 28, 2023, 11:35:29 AM
Boring personal attacks aside, that's entirely the point. The things people liked (the ideas) were never under lock and key to begin with. So the crowing over this is purely about being able to Consoom D&D Product.
I've got more books than I could ever possibly use in three lifetimes of gaming. I don't personally give a shit if I ever buy anything new. But the hobby dies without new blood, and new blood dries up without product. All the hoarded used books and random shit in second hand shops in the world won't keep the hobby alive as anything more than a few isolated groups, whereas I'd like to be able to pass it on to my godchild and maybe even their future hypothetical children. But if all that's left is a bunch of old greybeards, that aint gonna happen.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 31, 2023, 07:21:27 PM
I've got more books than I could ever possibly use in three lifetimes of gaming. I don't personally give a shit if I ever buy anything new. But the hobby dies without new blood, and new blood dries up without product. All the hoarded used books and random shit in second hand shops in the world won't keep the hobby alive as anything more than a few isolated groups, whereas I'd like to be able to pass it on to my godchild and maybe even their future hypothetical children. But if all that's left is a bunch of old greybeards, that aint gonna happen.
I don't know. The hobby started out as pamphlets when they were expensive and time-consuming to produce. One ink cartridge on a small business printer will let me print out a complete set of rules for at least 20 people, in color--assuming that I'm correct that I'm currently at about 40% of the final page count. Then add in paper and binding. And I'm only doing some things to keep the cost down, such as using multiple, small booklets for now because I know I'll be reprinting as we test and fix things.
If you have to sell it, handle it, ship it, etc., it adds up. If all you want to do is pass it along to keep it going, not so much.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 03:04:43 PM
Quote from: DocJones on January 31, 2023, 02:36:11 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 01:45:18 PM
You are aware that other posters like DocJones are telling people to use WotC's IP outright and as is word for word because he claims they won't actually go after you, right?
Never ever in a million years would I have said the above.
Could it be that you are the one with a basic misunderstanding of what copyright covers?
And by the way there is no such thing as "concept stacks". Concepts cannot be copyrighted. Neither can stacks of them.
"Word-for-word" might have been an exaggeration, but the spirit of the statement of what you're calling for remains true. You're the one screaming "Fight the power!...Somebody else fight the power!"
It's not about "fighting the power", but all about doing what you are legally allowed to do.
The only hyperbole I've used is "Don't be a pussy" and "Man up".
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 03:04:43 PM
So go ahead and prove me wrong by publishing something using all of Hasbro's non-CC-by-4.0 IP then. Or better yet, go rewrite the entirety of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in your own words with different names for the characters and see where that lands you.
I don't want to use any of Hasbro's IP that's protected by copyright or trademark.
I don't want to use their OGL1.0a nor their CC-by-4.0. I don't care what is in or not in their SRD.
If I want mountain dwarves or wood elves I'll have them, even though they aren't in their SRD.
I want to make a D&D compatible rules book using my own work.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 03:04:43 PM
Go tell Matt Mercer he's doing it wrong by replacing the Beholder from the live play stream with a tentacle beast that was an original creation because you can't copyright a stack of concepts.
I don't know anything about critical role, but I found this (https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/K%27Varn).
I'm guessing you are talking about the cartoon. Maybe the cartoon operates under OGL, but the live stream does not.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 08:38:26 AMUltimately, the correct answer to where the line falls is "where the judge you get thinks the line is" and what your own personal level of financial risk tolerance is.
Bingo!
Also, kudos on the Halfling vs. Hobbit breakdown.
Anybody know who the 5e Hobbit from One Ring was done vs. the 5e Halfling? It would be interesting to see how the authorized Tolkein version compares to the D&D version.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 31, 2023, 09:09:31 PM
I don't know. The hobby started out as pamphlets when they were expensive and time-consuming to produce. One ink cartridge on a small business printer will let me print out a complete set of rules for at least 20 people, in color--assuming that I'm correct that I'm currently at about 40% of the final page count. Then add in paper and binding. And I'm only doing some things to keep the cost down, such as using multiple, small booklets for now because I know I'll be reprinting as we test and fix things.
If you have to sell it, handle it, ship it, etc., it adds up. If all you want to do is pass it along to keep it going, not so much.
I will admit that the electronic publishing boom changes the metric, and I don't know quite how. Certainly it's less likely that - hopefully - popular books will go out of print and become scarce if you can get nice slick PDFs, and yeah, sure, you can print them out - hell, you can even get them printed out and bound to where they are pretty much as good as any conventionally produced book.
But I wonder at how much of that market is existing gamers, verses new gamers. How many new gamers come in purely digitally, verses how many start out with "gateway" products you can find in game and comic shops and regular bookstores, like WotC and Paizo products. Ebooks might be fine for second- and third-generation gamers, being introduced by their parents/uncles/etc, but will they draw in new players spontaneously?
I don't know. I'll admit, I don't have the answers there.