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

[JamesDixon]

Ismaul I too ran 4e for a while and had a lot of fun with it. I think your analysis is on point as far as strengths go. No other edition of D&D tops it as far as tactical combat goes and it was really easy to come up with interesting combat scenarios. I still sometimes think about breaking out 4e just to use as a tactics game.

At the same time, I can't take it seriously as an RPG anymore. This post on the Alexandrian about dissociated mechanics sums it up better than I can, though having played it for years, I'm sure you already get the idea. A hack or rewrite to fix that fundamental disconnect would elevate 4e to top tier status.

I started to read it and his analysis on the classes going to back to White Box was just absolutely wrong. DANDINO 3.x split away from what made those classes unique and made it into a min-max paradise.

 

[WhiteShark]

Yes, the game has changed considerably over the years. But playing a basic fighter in 3rd Edition was still basically the same thing as playing a fighter in 2nd Edition or a fighter in 1st Edition or a fighter in BECMI. Playing a wizard in 3rd Edition was still basically the same thing as playing a wizard in previous editions. And so forth.

JamesDixon, what's fundamentally different between a fighter in older editions and a fighter in 3(.5)E? I haven't played anything older than that, as I've mentioned elsewhere before.

 

[JamesDixon]

Yes, the game has changed considerably over the years. But playing a basic fighter in 3rd Edition was still basically the same thing as playing a fighter in 2nd Edition or a fighter in 1st Edition or a fighter in BECMI. Playing a wizard in 3rd Edition was still basically the same thing as playing a wizard in previous editions. And so forth.

JamesDixon, what's fundamentally different between a fighter in older editions and a fighter in 3(.5)E? I haven't played anything older than that, as I've mentioned elsewhere before.

No cheesy feats for one as your imagination was required. Also, fighters were weaker in AD&D 2E than they were in DANDINO 3.x. Stats were capped at 3-18 without the use of magic items. Your bonuses on weapons were much more constrained since the AC chart only went fro +10 to -10 with -10 being the absolutely best. By being constrained in the bonus department each +1 is more powerful overall, but you were limited to using only one bonus as they didn't stack if you had multiple magic items doing the same thing.

 

[WhiteShark]

No cheesy feats for one as your imagination was required. Also, fighters were weaker in AD&D 2E than they were in DANDINO 3.x. Stats were capped at 3-18 without the use of magic items. Your bonuses on weapons were much more constrained since the AC chart only went fro +10 to -10 with -10 being the absolutely best. By being constrained in the bonus department each +1 is more powerful overall, but you were limited to using only one bonus as they didn't stack if you had multiple magic items doing the same thing.

I see. The only one of those I would consider close to a fundamental difference regarding how a fighter plays is feats, and most feats only eliminate a penalty for doing something out of the ordinary or give a small bonus. I will concede that the exceptions to this that grant an ability technically mundane but not replicable by those without the feat are poor design and constitute a more substantial difference. Ideally all mundane activities would be possible to attempt and feats would only eliminate penalties or grant bonuses.

Regardless, if you can look past that point, I think you would likely find the rest of the article interesting and agreeable.

 

[JamesDixon]

No cheesy feats for one as your imagination was required. Also, fighters were weaker in AD&D 2E than they were in DANDINO 3.x. Stats were capped at 3-18 without the use of magic items. Your bonuses on weapons were much more constrained since the AC chart only went fro +10 to -10 with -10 being the absolutely best. By being constrained in the bonus department each +1 is more powerful overall, but you were limited to using only one bonus as they didn't stack if you had multiple magic items doing the same thing.

I see. The only one of those I would consider close to a fundamental difference regarding how a fighter plays is feats, and most feats only eliminate a penalty for doing something out of the ordinary or give a small bonus. I will concede that the exceptions to this that grant an ability technically mundane but not replicable by those without the feat are poor design and constitute a more substantial difference. Ideally all mundane activities would be possible to attempt and feats would only eliminate penalties or grant bonuses.

Regardless, if you can look past that point, I think you would likely find the rest of the article interesting and agreeable.

True D&D™ had the characters as normal people while DANDINO™ 3.x+ is all superheroes. They are fundamentally different. I shall try to read the article with an open mind and leave my thoughts here.

If you want to play AD&D 2E I do have slots in my game.

 

[JamesDixon]

Okay I tried and all I saw was the shit of a PC tactical game played on tabletop. It's not a role playing game in the slightest. Thus, it's shit.

 

[WhiteShark]

It's not a role playing game in the slightest.

Yes, that was the point of the article.

 

[JamesDixon]

It's not a role playing game in the slightest.

Yes, that was the point of the article.

I was talking about both of DANDINO 3.x and 4.0.

 

[Ismaul]

JamesDixon, what's fundamentally different between a fighter in older editions and a fighter in 3(.5)E? I haven't played anything older than that, as I've mentioned elsewhere before.

No cheesy feats for one as your imagination was required. Also, fighters were weaker in AD&D 2E than they were in DANDINO 3.x. Stats were capped at 3-18 without the use of magic items. Your bonuses on weapons were much more constrained since the AC chart only went fro +10 to -10 with -10 being the absolutely best. By being constrained in the bonus department each +1 is more powerful overall, but you were limited to using only one bonus as they didn't stack if you had multiple magic items doing the same thing.

Let me ask you this: do you like Fallout? And I mean 1-2.

Feats were a direct appropriation of the 'Perks' from Fallout, which came out 3 years prior to 3rd ed. As you / JamesDixon says, you can't copyright mechanics. 3E's devs themselves said it was their direct inspiration in interviews and dev diaries -- couldn't tell you which though, it's been so long ago.

 

[JamesDixon]

JamesDixon, what's fundamentally different between a fighter in older editions and a fighter in 3(.5)E? I haven't played anything older than that, as I've mentioned elsewhere before.

No cheesy feats for one as your imagination was required. Also, fighters were weaker in AD&D 2E than they were in DANDINO 3.x. Stats were capped at 3-18 without the use of magic items. Your bonuses on weapons were much more constrained since the AC chart only went fro +10 to -10 with -10 being the absolutely best. By being constrained in the bonus department each +1 is more powerful overall, but you were limited to using only one bonus as they didn't stack if you had multiple magic items doing the same thing.

Let me ask you this: do you like Fallout? And I mean 1-2.

Feats were a direct appropriation of the 'Perks' from Fallout, which came out 3 years prior to 3rd ed. As you / JamesDixon says, you can't copyright mechanics. 3E's devs themselves said it was their direct inspiration in interviews and dev diaries -- couldn't tell you which though, it's been so long ago.

Fallout isn't D&D and neither is anything that came after AD&D 2E. Your question makes about as much sense as if you asked me if I liked Chutes and Ladders when discussing Warhammer 40k.

The point I made is that DANDINO™ shares nothing with Real D&D™. That's why I pointed out that the author of the article was wrong in that classes of 3.x were the same as from Real D&D™. They aren't. My feelings on feats and superhero fantasy characters is irrelevant to the facts at hand.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Your question makes about as much sense as if you asked me if I liked Chutes and Ladders when discussing Warhammer 40k

Excuse me but Chutes and Ladders are an integral part of Space Hulk architecture, please do not dismiss them in such cavalier fashion.

 

[JamesDixon]

Your question makes about as much sense as if you asked me if I liked Chutes and Ladders when discussing Warhammer 40k

Excuse me but Chutes and Ladders are an integral part of Space Hulk architecture, please do not dismiss them in such cavalier fashion.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

 

[Rahdulan]

Paizo's Industry's ORC license is apparently almost ready for release.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sibu?ORC-License-Third-Draft-Ready-for-Comment

For the last several months, numerous publishers, including Paizo, have been working hard on the ORC License, a system-agnostic, perpetual, and irrevocable open gaming license that provides a legal “safe harbor” for sharing rules mechanics and encourages collaboration and innovation in the tabletop gaming space. In collaboration with hundreds of publishers and other interested parties on the ORC License Discord, we’ve been group-editing the license and related Answers and Explanations (AxE) document, kicking the language into shape and making sure that the license is as solid as possible, and works for as many publishers as possible.





We’re nearly at the end of the process. Thanks to all the hard work of everyone listed above, we’re now ready to release the third draft of the ORC License and AxE. We believe this draft is solid enough to be the final draft of the ORC License but know from past experience that new text can bring the opportunity for new errors or requests for clarification. The community has been phenomenally helpful in refining the language of this license. Now it’s time to take one last look and provide any final comments you may have before we lock the license terms in the very near future.

We have provided a redline version of both the ORC License and the AxE below to help you better compare the differences between the Third and Second Drafts. If you wish to start fresh with a “clean” copy of the Third Drafts, those have been provided as well.

We’ll keep commentary open on the official ORC License Discord for the next few days, with an eye toward locking the final version of the license by the end of next week. During this time, we’ll fold any necessary improvements into each document and release a Final Interim ORC License at www.azoralaw.com/orclicense, paizo.com, and elsewhere. Publishers will be able to use this version of the license to publish material under the ORC License by including the proper ORC Notice.

At the same time that the Final Interim ORC License is published, these documents will be filed with the United States Library of Congress, who will issue copyright registration in about six months. Once the registration is issued, Azora will publicly release the ORC License (including the final AxE). The only change between the Final Interim ORC License and the ORC License will be the addition of the TX number in Section III.a.

So, we’re very nearly there! Please help us over the finish line by taking a look at the Third Draft and providing your feedback on the official ORC License Discord. Thank you again for your assistance!

Download the Orc License​

Download the Orc License Redlined​

Download the Orc AxE​

Download the Orc AxE Redlined​

Join the conversation​

 

[JamesDixon]

Paizo's Industry's ORC license is apparently almost ready for release.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sibu?ORC-License-Third-Draft-Ready-for-Comment

a legal “safe harbor” for sharing rules mechanics and encourages collaboration and innovation in the tabletop gaming space.

It already exists. It's called public domain. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted or patented and exist in the public domain the moment they are published.

Oh and be excited for a bunch of woke SJWs that hate your guts only proves that you're not a learning animal. They are no different than Wizards of the Woke.

 

[Bara]

Paizo's Industry's ORC license is apparently almost ready for release.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sibu?ORC-License-Third-Draft-Ready-for-Comment

a legal “safe harbor” for sharing rules mechanics and encourages collaboration and innovation in the tabletop gaming space.

It already exists. It's called public domain. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted or patented and exist in the public domain the moment they are published.

Oh and be excited for a bunch of woke SJWs that hate your guts only proves that you're not a learning animal. They are no different than Wizards of the Woke.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Paizo's Industry's ORC license is apparently almost ready for release.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sibu?ORC-License-Third-Draft-Ready-for-Comment

a legal “safe harbor” for sharing rules mechanics and encourages collaboration and innovation in the tabletop gaming space.

It already exists. It's called public domain. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted or patented and exist in the public domain the moment they are published.

Oh and be excited for a bunch of woke SJWs that hate your guts only proves that you're not a learning animal. They are no different than Wizards of the Woke.

Let the man wage his holy crusade against convenience.

 

[JamesDixon]

Paizo's Industry's ORC license is apparently almost ready for release.
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sibu?ORC-License-Third-Draft-Ready-for-Comment

a legal “safe harbor” for sharing rules mechanics and encourages collaboration and innovation in the tabletop gaming space.

It already exists. It's called public domain. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted or patented and exist in the public domain the moment they are published.

Oh and be excited for a bunch of woke SJWs that hate your guts only proves that you're not a learning animal. They are no different than Wizards of the Woke.

Let the man wage his holy crusade against convenience.

Yes it is convenient to make yourself a slave to a corporate and be a cooonnnssssoooooommmmmmer.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Has anyone here read that license draft yet?

 

[JamesDixon]

Has anyone here read that license draft yet?

It's the same abuse of the law to push their false ownership over rules that are in the public domain and to lock you to their whims. Enjoy your soyslop slave.

 

[Bester]

What's so special about their rules? I know a bit of DND. If I make a game with 90% similar mechanics, going by memory and reinventing a few things along the way, where's the tragedy? How is it supposed to be such a terrible thing, that I would waive my rights to my creation in exchange for the 10% of the rules that I changed to something else?

I seriously don't understand.

 

[JamesDixon]

What's so special about their rules? I know a bit of DND. If I make a game with 90% similar mechanics, going by memory and reinventing a few things along the way, where's the tragedy? How is it supposed to be such a terrible thing, that I would waive my rights to my creation in exchange for the 10% of the rules that I changed to something else?

I seriously don't understand.

Nothing as their rules are public domain. What isn't public domain is their IP like settings and characters. All these licenses do is prohibit you from legally using what is yours while prohibiting you from using their logos and product identity. The very things that they can license.

 

[Bara]

What's so special about their rules? I know a bit of DND. If I make a game with 90% similar mechanics, going by memory and reinventing a few things along the way, where's the tragedy? How is it supposed to be such a terrible thing, that I would waive my rights to my creation in exchange for the 10% of the rules that I changed to something else?

I seriously don't understand.

These difference licenses or creative commons documents exists for convince sake alone and not necessary.

Game mechanics are not copyrightable but if you want to avoid cumbersome re-wording of things and feel safe that there is no possibility of a law suit that's why you use these.

There are some folks that don't want to use any licenses but the same rules but renaming things such as Hit Dice to "Health Durability."
Or a more annoying example Save vs Paralysis to Save vs "Hold". That ones going to bother me slightly ever time I read it on the stat blocks for their stuff.

Some folks aren't sure how much they need to change with the wording of the rules or how little they can get away with. A few are going really overboard with how much they're changing.
The letter of the law is more than likely on their side but no one wants to get involved in the legal costs hence a lot of this over adjustment I feel.

Getting a lawsuit no matter how frivolous will cost you either time or money if not both.
Unless your crazy like Dixon and tell people to depend on crowdfunding to deal with legal fees.

Biggest example of how concerned people are over lawsuits would be Kevin Crawford's Cities without number kick-starter.
When asked original about some public license he told folks he doesn't think its necessary as he rightly says game mechanics aren't copyrightable.
But enough people asked for it as they wanted that security even when Kevin of the rules told them they were fine without it and funded the stretch goal for it.

So folks got a few ways to go about it if they want to make stuff based on rule sets made by others:
Either they're small enough that they'd go under the radar and their stuff doesn't get noticed and copy whole sale.
Or they try to determine what wording you need to change and what you don't and hope (or feel secure enough) that whoever made the rules agrees they couldn't sue you.

So it's not about the rules, only the convenience and how secure you feel about going with or without a some kind of license.

 

[JamesDixon]

What's so special about their rules? I know a bit of DND. If I make a game with 90% similar mechanics, going by memory and reinventing a few things along the way, where's the tragedy? How is it supposed to be such a terrible thing, that I would waive my rights to my creation in exchange for the 10% of the rules that I changed to something else?

I seriously don't understand.

These difference licenses or creative commons documents exists for convince sake alone and not necessary.

Game mechanics are not copyrightable but if you want to avoid cumbersome re-wording of things and feel safe that there is no possibility of a law suit that's why you use these.

There are some folks that don't want to use any licenses but the same rules but renaming things such as Hit Dice to "Health Durability."
Or a more annoying example Save vs Paralysis to Save vs "Hold". That ones going to bother me slightly ever time I read it on the stat blocks for their stuff.

Some folks aren't sure how much they need to change with the wording of the rules or how little they can get away with. A few are going really overboard with how much they're changing.
The letter of the law is more than likely on their side but no one wants to get involved in the legal costs hence a lot of this over adjustment I feel.

Getting a lawsuit no matter how frivolous will cost you either time or money if not both.
Unless your crazy like Dixon and tell people to depend on crowdfunding to deal with legal fees.

Biggest example of how concerned people are over lawsuits would be Kevin Crawford's Cities without number kick-starter.
When asked original about some public license he told folks he doesn't think its necessary as he rightly says game mechanics aren't copyrightable.
But enough people asked for it as they wanted that security even when Kevin of the rules told them they were fine without it and funded the stretch goal for it.

So folks got a few ways to go about it if they want to make stuff based on rule sets made by others:
Either they're small enough that they'd go under the radar and their stuff doesn't get noticed and copy whole sale.
Or they try to determine what wording you need to change and what you don't and hope (or feel secure enough) that whoever made the rules agrees they couldn't sue you.

So it's not about the rules, only the convenience and how secure you feel about going with or without a some kind of license.

Hit Dice etc... are not needed to be renamed. This is ignorance on your part, but it is par for the course from you.

You end the lawsuit in the first motion by calling for a dismissal under the copyright law. If that fails then countersue the company for violating your rights to items in the public domain.

Again you don't need a license since copyright law and the case law is on your side.

Do you suck corporate cock all the time or is it just because you're a scared little cunt that loves soyslop?

 

[Bara]

What's so special about their rules? I know a bit of DND. If I make a game with 90% similar mechanics, going by memory and reinventing a few things along the way, where's the tragedy? How is it supposed to be such a terrible thing, that I would waive my rights to my creation in exchange for the 10% of the rules that I changed to something else?

I seriously don't understand.

These difference licenses or creative commons documents exists for convince sake alone and not necessary.

Game mechanics are not copyrightable but if you want to avoid cumbersome re-wording of things and feel safe that there is no possibility of a law suit that's why you use these.

There are some folks that don't want to use any licenses but the same rules but renaming things such as Hit Dice to "Health Durability."
Or a more annoying example Save vs Paralysis to Save vs "Hold". That ones going to bother me slightly ever time I read it on the stat blocks for their stuff.

Some folks aren't sure how much they need to change with the wording of the rules or how little they can get away with. A few are going really overboard with how much they're changing.
The letter of the law is more than likely on their side but no one wants to get involved in the legal costs hence a lot of this over adjustment I feel.

Getting a lawsuit no matter how frivolous will cost you either time or money if not both.
Unless your crazy like Dixon and tell people to depend on crowdfunding to deal with legal fees.

Biggest example of how concerned people are over lawsuits would be Kevin Crawford's Cities without number kick-starter.
When asked original about some public license he told folks he doesn't think its necessary as he rightly says game mechanics aren't copyrightable.
But enough people asked for it as they wanted that security even when Kevin of the rules told them they were fine without it and funded the stretch goal for it.

So folks got a few ways to go about it if they want to make stuff based on rule sets made by others:
Either they're small enough that they'd go under the radar and their stuff doesn't get noticed and copy whole sale.
Or they try to determine what wording you need to change and what you don't and hope (or feel secure enough) that whoever made the rules agrees they couldn't sue you.

So it's not about the rules, only the convenience and how secure you feel about going with or without a some kind of license.

Hit Dice etc... are not needed to be renamed. This is ignorance on your part, but it is par for the course from you.

You end the lawsuit in the first motion by calling for a dismissal under the copyright law. If that fails then countersue the company for violating your rights to items in the public domain.

Again you don't need a license since copyright law and the case law is on your side.

Do you suck corporate cock all the time or is it just because you're a scared little cunt that loves soyslop?

Dixon I though you had me on ignore?

But first yes I agree Hit Dice don't need to be renamed you moron read what I wrote, this is what the guy the system author was talking about.

Two we've been through this before if the dismissal fails you have to pay money in the mean time until you win you moron if you even can.
At the same time if the dismissal fail and its going to court they can request whatever storefront you have your stuff on to be taken down by the site owners.

Self host sure but your income will be slowed down at best if your depending on the product.
Your depending on the courts and whoever is deciding the case to run it well too.

Just before you respond again please look up how much it takes to hire a lawyer and how long copy copyright law cases can take.

But man how fucking old are you? You type like some dumbfuck edgelord and I'm starting to suspect your somewhere on the spectrum.

But continue to beat that horse of yours I will continue to enjoy the bullshit you spout out without ever addressing the basic realty of money and the legal system.