Vapourware WOTC restricting content creation in new OGL - Paizo launches competing OGL - lol cancelled

[JamesDixon]

You can resize images using BB code:

You can also resize them by clicking on the picture then going to the center or corners of the picture to drag the square box there.

 

[Zlaja]

Dungeons & Dragons? In 2023 it's more like:

- Dumb & Dumber
- Dicks & Douchebags
- Dollars & Dime
- Deadlisted & Defunded
- Dark & Democrat

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

you know things are going well when you have to retract everything twice a week

And the best thing is that there's nothing that they can do. It doesn't really matter what will the new OGL look like since they can simply "deauthorize" it in the future. I'm actually impressed that people were so pissed off that WoTC had to backpedal. Gamers usually bitch and moan for a week or so and then pre-order collector's edition of the latest AAA garbage.

 

[Tyranicon]

you know things are going well when you have to retract everything twice a week

This is just the end result of a company being run by bean counters who are not only out of touch with their audience, but probably hate and despise them too.

 

[mondblut]

Hobbits are clearly distinct from any other creature found in folklore and Tolkien estate can't do shit to stop people from putting them into their games.

Actually they very much did shit to stop people from calling them "hobbits". Cue "halflings".

Same with balrogs who turned into balors.

 

[udm]

I'm getting a kick out of all the zoomer retards thinking that Paizo, Kenzer, and other leftist companies will be their saviors when the employees hate your fucking guts.

Yeah, in no way would I trust Paizo's ORC (lololol they're really going out of the way to paint orcs as the good guys or underdogs or something) anymore than I would trust Wokester's OGL. They may pretend to be the good guys, but make no mistake, they're still wearing sheep clothing. They can virtue signal all they want with their ORC, but history has shown they'd happily screw people over if it benefits them in some way.

 

[Hammer Of The Heretics]

Still better to have two sides that can be played off against each other than just one doing whatever the hell they want.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Hobbits are clearly distinct from any other creature found in folklore and Tolkien estate can't do shit to stop people from putting them into their games.

Actually they were much did shit to stop people from calling them "hobbits". Cue "halflings".

Same with balrogs who turned into balors.

Yes but only because Hobbit is their trademark or whatever, they could stop people from calling them hobbits but not from stealing the race itself. Which is what JamesDixon argued for. You can copyright the world Ilithid but you can't stop people from using squid-headed humans who eat brains.

Yeah, in no way would I trust Paizo's ORC (lololol they're really going out of the way to paint orcs as the good guys or underdogs or something) anymore than I would trust Wokester's OGL. They may pretend to be the good guys, but make no mistake, they're still wearing sheep clothing. They can virtue signal all they want with their ORC, but history has shown they'd happily screw people over if it benefits them in some way.

Yeah but Chaosium and Green Ronin also support the project. They know that Paizo can do whatever WoTC did if they let them have the same power. Which makes me think that it's going to be your standard open license that the original OGL was supposed to be.

If they will try to create a license to screw people over they're dumb as shit. I know they're dumb but they aren't this dumb. First of all it's one in a million chance for Paizo and the others to get some free advertising and reach D&D players who don't even know they exist. Secondly everyone is currently aware of possible methods of screwing people over and once ORC is published they will check if it's the same bullshit as the old OSR. So I don't think it will be even copyrighted by Paizo.

So Paizo would need to create a license which allows them to screw everyone else, it needs to be cleverly hidden so that people looking specifically to find that clause won't realize it's there. If they fail their reputation will suffer and they'll lose a chance to steal a lot of DnD players. If they somehow succeed then in the future they'll be do what WoTC is currently doing, which is a fucking disaster.

 

[mondblut]

Yes but only because Hobbit is their trademark or whatever, they could stop people from calling them hobbits but not from stealing the race itself. Which is what JamesDixon argued for. You can copyright the world Ilithid but you can't stop people from using squid-headed humans who eat brains.

Dunno, I suspect certain imagery is copyrightable too. Pretty sure you can't reproduce a particular black cartoon rodent called Nickey Maeus without Disney lawyers going after your throat.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Yes but only because Hobbit is their trademark or whatever, they could stop people from calling them hobbits but not from stealing the race itself. Which is what JamesDixon argued for. You can copyright the world Ilithid but you can't stop people from using squid-headed humans who eat brains.

Dunno, I suspect certain imagery is copyrightable too. Pretty sure you can't reproduce a particular black cartoon rodent called Nickey Maeus without Disney lawyers going after your throat.

Yeah, you can't make your own Mickey Mouse but you can make Mickey Mouse-like character. I don't think anyone actually dared to copy the mouse, but Marvel had Howard the Duck which looks pretty similar to all the ducks in Disney comics and Disney never sued them.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Yes but only because Hobbit is their trademark or whatever, they could stop people from calling them hobbits but not from stealing the race itself. Which is what JamesDixon argued for. You can copyright the world Ilithid but you can't stop people from using squid-headed humans who eat brains.

Dunno, I suspect certain imagery is copyrightable too. Pretty sure you can't reproduce a particular black cartoon rodent called Nickey Maeus without Disney lawyers going after your throat.

He prefers to be called Rickey Rat.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Yes but only because Hobbit is their trademark or whatever, they could stop people from calling them hobbits but not from stealing the race itself. Which is what JamesDixon argued for. You can copyright the world Ilithid but you can't stop people from using squid-headed humans who eat brains.

Dunno, I suspect certain imagery is copyrightable too. Pretty sure you can't reproduce a particular black cartoon rodent called Nickey Maeus without Disney lawyers going after your throat.

The mouse is a registered trademark.

 

[JamesDixon]

You can copyright the world Ilithid

If you meant world then you are correct in that they copyright a world named Ilithid as long as you describe it in detail. You can't copyright a word though. For that you would need a trademark that has a specific image attached to it.

I suspect certain imagery is copyrightable

Art is copyrighted, but making something new like a pastiche of Mickey Mouse is fair game.

 

[Stella Brando]

Hasbro is attempting to retroactively invalidate the OGL

They can't. It's a legally binding agreement, the content released under it cannot be taken back anymore than someone can remove something from the public domain.

That's what we all think, but kwan's judges gonna kwan.

Hey, the American justice system is the envy of the world, dude.

 

[Demo.Graph]

I've been talking about the fluff this whole time. If I wrote a novel about evil drow elves with black skin and white hair, who live underground, worship spiders and demons, practice slavery, organize in a matriarchy, and dress in BDSM fetish wear, then I'm definitely gonna be worried if that opens me to litigation by Hasbro.

Don't do it, then.
Make your elves into shitskinned chicken worshippers who practice pseudo-equality cult and dress in dangerhair wigs and you're golden. Fantasy, after all, is about dreaming up new things, not an endless regurgitation of illithid porn.

Can't use gnolls? Call them kynokephaloi. This word has a wider background than hyenamen from Imoen porn.

And who the hell cares about the color of the dragons? The only good color of the dragon is dead!

Fucking zoomers. Creative generation my ass.

 

[Stella Brando]

Now I understand why some of the game books I played as a kid had "brain slayers" instead of mind flayers.

"You want to get sued?" to quote Grounds-keeper Willie.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

I love how he even remembered to bring snacks into the battle just in case.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I love how he even remembered to bring snacks into the battle just in case.

Not like he gets rations as part of his starting inventory.

 

[Stella Brando]

It makes a lot of sense that our good friend James Dixon is a lawyer, he seems like someone who could argue whether tomato is a fruit for an hour. I once had an Australian teacher who would call such people "bush lawyers."

 

[ERYFKRAD]

It makes a lot of sense that our good friend is James Dixon is a lawyer, he seems like someone who could argue whether tomato is a fruit for an hour. I once had an Australian teacher who would call such people "bush lawyers."

Tomato is a fruit you fruit.

 

[Stella Brando]

It's a fruit that identifies as a vegetable.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

It's a fruit that identifies as a vegetable.

A fruit, nonetheless.

 

[Stella Brando]

Maybe it is, it's not really important.

 

[Alex]

It makes a lot of sense that our good friend is James Dixon is a lawyer, he seems like someone who could argue whether tomato is a fruit for an hour. I once had an Australian teacher who would call such people "bush lawyers."

Tomato is a fruit you fruit.

Depends on what you mean by fruit, really.

1. Specifically, a sweet and/or sour, edible part of a plant that resembles seed-bearing fruit (see next sense), even if it does not develop from a floral ovary; also used in a technically imprecise sense for some sweet or sweetish vegetables, such as the petioles of rhubarb, that resemble a true fruit or are used in cookery as if they were a fruit.
2. (botany) A product of fertilization in a plant, specifically:
   1. The seed-bearing part of a plant, often edible, colourful and fragrant, produced from a floral ovary after fertilization.
   2. The spores of cryptogams and their accessory organs.

(note that the numbering above is offset by 1 in the actual page).

Anyway, on the first meaning, which is based on how it is used in the kitchen, it isn't usually a fruit since it is not very sweet, nor very harmonious with this kind of flavour. This isn't absolute, though; you can make sweet jam out of tomatoes, for instance. But at least in most western cooking, tomatoes are used differently than fruits.

On the second, biological meaning, sure, tomatoes are fruits.

 

[JamesDixon]

It makes a lot of sense that our good friend James Dixon is a lawyer, he seems like someone who could argue whether tomato is a fruit for an hour. I once had an Australian teacher who would call such people "bush lawyers."

I'm not a lawyer, but I am intelligent enough to know what the law says and the court rulings that uphold that law. The only requirement is to have a functioning brain and the ability to read. Thus, your attack against me falls under an ad hominem and strawman logical fallacies.

Tomatoes are both a fruit and a vegetable at the same time. They're a fruit by biology and a vegetable by government mandate.