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

[JamesDixon]

Here's a link to a copyright lawyer that dealt with Wizards in past over the claim of stat block copyrights. The dude won by Wizards backing down.

https://gsllcblog.com/2019/08/12/part1statblocks/

 

[JamesDixon]

Part 3 of his series really dives into what the OGL is. Here's the opening paragraph.

WotC introduced the OGL and the System Reference Document 5.0 (“SRD5”) for the noble cause of telling the public which of the material they published was, in their opinion, protected work (i.e., work only they could publish), and which was public domain (i.e., freely useable by everyone without restriction). This isn’t sarcasm; their stated intent was noble. Sure, they called it a license when it clearly isn’t, but if that were their only sin, we could all overlook that. The idea was to avoid as many unnecessary disputes as possible. That’s helpful. It has since morphed into an oxymoronic attempt to license public domain material and intimidate members of the industry and community in general, who are fearful, ignorant, or unable to finance a defense against a lawsuit. That’s damaging.

https://gsllcblog.com/2019/08/26/part3ogl/

EDIT:

What Exactly is Licensed by the OGL?

Open Gaming Content is the content WotC says the public can use, and Product Identity is the content WotC claims the public can’t, but Open Gaming Content can’t be copyrighted because it’s already in the public domain. By its own terms, the 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons OGL (“OGL”) grants to gamers something that the gamers already have the right to use. Thus, no consideration passes to the gamers, and the OGL is a legally null document.

The OGL defines two gaming elements: The “Open Game Content” and the “Product Identity.” Open Game Content (“OGC”) is defined in paragraph 1(d) as

“the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.”

Next is the Product Identity (“PI”). In summary, paragraph 1(e) gives a comprehensive list of everything relevant to the RPG that could possibly be protected under copyright or trademark law and defines that as PI. For the sake of argument, we’ll assume that, except for game mechanics or items specifically excepted below, anything WotC has historically claimed to be copyrighted or trademarked material is indeed protected.

Let’s break down OGC first. It includes the game rules (a.k.a., “game mechanics”), which are not copyrightable, so everyone may distribute them without restriction. The definition goes on to point out that if any game rules are copyrightable, then they’re included in Product Identity. Technically, this is correct, but there are no game rules in PI (as a matter of law), so nothing is transferred into that pool of material. The talk about copyright law in this term is without substance. This means that the OGC is subject matter a gamer may use without WotC’s permission, and thus doesn’t require a license. Compare that to PI, which is everything gamers can’t use unless they have a license from WotC, and we get to the crux of the problem. Turning to paragraph 4:

“Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.”

In plain English, “We’re licensing to you game mechanics, which we have no right to prevent you from using.” Now paragraph 7:

“You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.”

In plain English, “We’re not licensing anything that we could theoretically license to you, so you may not use Product Identity. In fact, you can’t even say that your original work is compatible with our game system.”

Ergo, WotC is licensing nothing with the OGL. They claim to license something they have no right to license (OGC), and anything that requires such a license is explicitly excluded (PI). Moreover, they don’t even want third parties to mention their game system. Once again, in plain English: “We’re licensing to you what we have no right to claim as ours, and not licensing you anything we can claim as ours, and are thus giving you nothing.” Even if a third party signed this agreement (probably no one has; there’s no signature line), or if a court bound the third party to its terms because it was printed in a book as instructed in paragraph 10 (“You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.”), there’s no consideration, so there’s no legally enforceable agreement.

 

[axedice]

Isn't this whole license about the wording and structure of such rules? You can't of course license the fighter class or feats, much less the concept base attack bonus. But what you can license is the wording of the entire feat/spell/skill/class descriptions and how they tie with each other. A designer can use any part of it in their games, but it's easier to c/p from an already available, tested and clearly structured source instead of building these from scratch.

 

[JamesDixon]

Isn't this whole license about the wording and structure of such rules? You can't of course license the fighter class or feats, much less the concept base attack bonus. But what you can license is the wording of the entire feat/spell/skill/class descriptions and how they tie with each other. A designer can use any part of it in their games, but it's easier to c/p from an already available, tested and clearly structured source instead of building these from scratch.

All of what you speak of falls under game mechanics. You can't copyright game mechanics. I suggest you spend the time to read the link I provided where a lawyer goes through this entire thing. You'll be surprised how much of what are in the rulebooks fall under game mechanics.

 

[axedice]

Which means there are some parts of the rule books that don't fall under game mechanics? And for the average content creator especially with limited understanding of the laws, there is still the danger of receiving cease&desist letters from a greedy megacorp with endless pockets? Nah thanks, I'll take the ORC license paizo is building with other publishers. I'm sure it's possible to fight this stupidity at court, but the question is why bother?

 

[Jaedar]

Isn't this whole license about the wording and structure of such rules? You can't of course license the fighter class or feats, much less the concept base attack bonus. But what you can license is the wording of the entire feat/spell/skill/class descriptions and how they tie with each other. A designer can use any part of it in their games, but it's easier to c/p from an already available, tested and clearly structured source instead of building these from scratch.

All of what you speak of falls under game mechanics. You can't copyright game mechanics. I suggest you spend the time to read the link I provided where a lawyer goes through this entire thing. You'll be surprised how much of what are in the rulebooks fall under game mechanics.

I strongly doubt that you could copy paste every spell from DnD and not fall into copyright issues. At the very least everything like "Tenser's floating disk" and what not would be copyright infringement, because Tenser is (c). And I strongly suspect that if you copy verbatim all the classes/feats the courts would agree you dun goofed.

Not being able to copyright game mechanics refers more to stuff like "roll a d20 and compare it to a target number" or "when you level up you pick a class" or vancian spellcasting I think.

There is after all a lot more to "game mechanics" than mathematical formulas...

Afaik the OGL does let you copy classes, descriptions, monsters, spells, etc verbatim? And I think you could otherwise get into trouble for that... I might be wrong though, I am not a lawyer, and there's the whole world to consider for copyright, not just US case law?

 

[Acrux]

Tenser's floating disk

Right, but if you remove any of the branded terms, you are fine. Just "flating disc" or "Acrux's floating disc" would be okay.

Afaik the OGL does let you copy classes, descriptions, monsters, spells, etc verbatim?

Yes, no, depends, depends. Have you looked any of the existing OGL systems to see what's possible? Castles and Crusades, Labrynth Lord, 13th Age, OSRIC, etc. all use the OGL in different ways.

Even just comparing 3.5 rules to Pathfinder gives a really clear distinction on what's copyable and what's not.

 

[JamesDixon]

I strongly doubt that you could copy paste every spell from DnD and not fall into copyright issues.

You finally moved the goal to something you can win at. I never said you could copy and paste the exact same phrase. In fact, I have been consistent in stating that you have to rewrite it into your own words. Oh you ignored that didn't you?

At the very least everything like "Tenser's floating disk" and what not would be copyright infringement, because Tenser is (c).

Single words can't be copyrighted otherwise every word would be copyrighted by various companies. Tenser when attached to a specific character biography is copyrighted, but names are not. That's why you can have a million different companies using Richard the Lionheart. A single word name can also be trademarked provided that you attach a distinct image to it. The downside is that it only affects that version of the word and the attached image.

And I strongly suspect that if you copy verbatim all the classes/feats the courts would agree you dun goofed.

I never said that you can copy word for word anything. I have repeatedly said you rewrite it. However, you do run into a problem in that there is only so many ways you can phrase a rule and copyright still wouldn't cover it.

Not being able to copyright game mechanics refers more to stuff like "roll a d20 and compare it to a target number" or "when you level up you pick a class" or vancian spellcasting I think.

Not being able to copyright game mechanics means exactly that. It covers the mathematical formulas and how to run those formulas.

There is after all a lot more to "game mechanics" than mathematical formulas...

Nope, it's all mathematical formulas in the vein of You drive a car at 50 mph and Susie drives 35 miles. How many miles did you both drive?

Afaik the OGL does let you copy classes, descriptions, monsters, spells, etc verbatim?

You don't need the OGL to copy anything. You can use every single monster, spell, etc... You just have to put it into your own words. You know why? Almost all monsters that Wizards has are based upon folklore. They don't have a copyright to things in the public domain. Think that they own the Drow? You'll be surprised to learn that Drow or Trow is a dark elf in Scottish folklore. They live underground. Let me quote the lawyer I posted.

In plain English, “We’re licensing to you game mechanics, which we have no right to prevent you from using.”

And I think you could otherwise get into trouble for that... I might be wrong though, I am not a lawyer, and there's the whole world to consider for copyright, not just US case law?

Get in trouble for what? Using mathematical formulas and public domain things like character classes, skills, etc..?

I don't give a shit about your third world shithole. I live in the US as does Wizards. You should consult your local attorneys for their advice.

 

[JamesDixon]

Right, but if you remove any of the branded terms, you are fine. Just "flating disc" or "Acrux's floating disc" would be okay.

Single words can't be copyrighted. A character named Tenser is copyrighted, but only if you have the name attached to a biography or a specific description of a character by that name. If you have Tenser the character drawn up you can trademark the name, but it applies only to that exact Tenser. Plus trademarks are expensive.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

That's why you can have a million different companies using Richard the Lionheart.

Isn't he a public domain figure though.

 

[JamesDixon]

That's why you can have a million different companies using Richard the Lionheart.

Isn't he a public domain figure though.

Yes that is the point I'm making. Game rules are also public domain.

 

[JamesDixon]

Which means there are some parts of the rule books that don't fall under game mechanics? And for the average content creator especially with limited understanding of the laws, there is still the danger of receiving cease&desist letters from a greedy megacorp with endless pockets? Nah thanks, I'll take the ORC license paizo is building with other publishers. I'm sure it's possible to fight this stupidity at court, but the question is why bother?

Okay cuck and don't bother getting a lawyer to defend your rights in criminal cases either.

 

[axedice]

Apples and oranges. I shouldn't even have to explain myself, but then again this is the codex so why not..

A criminal case requires all my attention and resources, while a case about OGL has cheaper alternatives to be solved like using my own system or even better adapting a system like Paizo & Co's new ORC. Now if there was some class action lawsuit that I could attach myself fine, but I do not value D&D's OGL to do anything beyond. And I definitely do not value it as much as my freedom (hence not the same energy as a criminal case).

 

[JamesDixon]

Apples and oranges. I shouldn't even have to explain myself, but then again this is the codex so why not..

A criminal case requires all my attention and resources, while a case about OGL has cheaper alternatives to be solved like using my own system or even better adapting a system like Paizo & Co's new ORC. Now if there was some class action lawsuit that I could attach myself fine, but I do not value D&D's OGL to do anything beyond. And I definitely do not value it as much as my freedom (hence not the same energy as a criminal case).

Retard proclaims that he loves freedom from the government, but not from the government overlords that trample all over his freedom.

Do you have anything intelligent to add to this conversation?

 

[saint amchad]

I am very concerned. Reading up on a lot of the responses on other sites, I realized that Wotc breaking DnD broke the containment unit. Wotc knew what they were doing by catering to these rpg tourists, and now these tourists realize new Dnd is trash and are ready to go trash good rpg systems. How do you stealth filter them from your games now?
Use to just ask "Do you like DnD 5e?" and filter the ones who say yes. Now they will all say no.... the asylum has been breached

 

[axedice]

I am left wondering two things. First is why are you trying so hard JamesDixon ? And second is who conned Hasbro management into thinking that such stupidity would not backfire. I mean yes the corpo management is of course living in another planet, but there has to be checks and balances for such decisions. I guess I agree with the idea that some law firm was trying to milk Hasbro and they promised a juice deal to a mid-level idiot to bring it up.

 

[JamesDixon]

First is why are you trying so hard @JamesDixon ?

I didn't realize educating people about their rights and the law is trying hard. Wizards is breaking the law and you're okay with that. I find that much more concerning than what I'm doing.

Why are you okay with a megacorporation stripping your rights but get pissed when the government does it?

 

[Nazrim Eldrak]

Simple logic:
When WotC wins many people lose another option to make good money.
Is that good, bad or just plain ugly?

 

[IDtenT]

This is all about creating a walled garden to nuke un-PC campaigns.

 

[mediocrepoet]

View attachment 32480

This is all about creating a walled garden to nuke un-PC campaigns.

If your dungeons don't include wheelchair ramps, prepare to be banned!

 

[Tyranicon]

View attachment 32480

Saying your predatory corporate bullshit is actually part of the latest branding fad is hilariously bad PR writing.

 

[rojay]

"We rolled a 1" lol

 

[Trithne]

View attachment 32480

This is all about creating a walled garden to nuke un-PC campaigns.

Yep, this is all in response to nu-TSR and their new Star Frontiers.

This backfired spectacularly.

 

[Alex]

That's been the big secret the whole time. It's a contract that's explicitly not enforcing things that are unenforceable.

The real goal was to promote a 3rd party ecosystem, for better or worse.

I think that, at least in theory, the essence of what is being licensed by the ogl is the names used by the rules system. Yes, you can have your own system where characters have statistics which, for normal humans, go from 3 to 18. You could have a rule where contests are resolved by throwing an icosahedron and adding a relevant statistic subtracted of 10 and then halved and floored. But if you want to call your statistics "attributes", that particular calculation you made "modifier", icosahedrons d20s etc, then the OGL is a security you won't, probably, face a lawsuit because of that.

Now, being clear, I do go overboard a bit. XdY is a common notation in several game systems, so it is unlikely WotC would try to sue because of that (I wouldn't say impossible, though, they seem progressively more deranged lately). Attribute is such a common word, both in RPGs and outside them, that it is also unlikely to be the basis of litigation. Others, however, like saving throw or modifier or challenge rating are more dangerous and might well be used as an excuse to shut you down.

Now, of course, if you want to make your own system and just do your own thing, D&D be damned, this is not a big problem. But if you wanted to find a niche withing the D&D "ecosystem", maybe making some kind of adventure or splatbook that no one is doing, then working around what you can't use without the OGL may hurt your product and your sales. Sure, it might be compatible as long as someone translate the new terms back to the old ones. But doing that wastes time, so people may overlook your product just because of that.

 

[JamesDixon]

That's been the big secret the whole time. It's a contract that's explicitly not enforcing things that are unenforceable.

The real goal was to promote a 3rd party ecosystem, for better or worse.

I think that, at least in theory, the essence of what is being licensed by the ogl is the names used by the rules system. Yes, you can have your own system where characters have statistics which, for normal humans, go from 3 to 18. You could have a rule where contests are resolved by throwing an icosahedron and adding a relevant statistic subtracted of 10 and then halved and floored. But if you want to call your statistics "attributes", that particular calculation you made "modifier", icosahedrons d20s etc, then the OGL is a security you won't, probably, face a lawsuit because of that.

Now, being clear, I do go overboard a bit. XdY is a common notation in several game systems, so it is unlikely WotC would try to sue because of that (I wouldn't say impossible, though, they seem progressively more deranged lately). Attribute is such a common word, both in RPGs and outside them, that it is also unlikely to be the basis of litigation. Others, however, like saving throw or modifier or challenge rating are more dangerous and might well be used as an excuse to shut you down.

Now, of course, if you want to make your own system and just do your own thing, D&D be damned, this is not a big problem. But if you wanted to find a niche withing the D&D "ecosystem", maybe making some kind of adventure or splatbook that no one is doing, then working around what you can't use without the OGL may hurt your product and your sales. Sure, it might be compatible as long as someone translate the new terms back to the old ones. But doing that wastes time, so people may overlook your product just because of that.

Nothing in the OGL that pertains to terms and mechanics can be copyrighted. Let's review what the lawyer said here.

In plain English, “We’re licensing to you game mechanics, which we have no right to prevent you from using.”

In plain English, “We’re not licensing anything that we could theoretically license to you, so you may not use Product Identity. In fact, you can’t even say that your original work is compatible with our game system.”

The only thing that WotC can license to people is the ability to use their trademarks and settings, but you are prohibited by the OGL from doing it. All the OGL does is gatekeep through copyright misuse things that everyone has access and a right to. Imagine if people didn't get upset if your local parks department shut every park down and sold them to Nestle only to have Nestle forced you to sign a contract to enter into something you have a right already.

Single words and short phrases are not copyrightable. That's why hit points, armor class, THAC0, etc... are available for everyone to use. Wizards may not like it, but you can use it. The only term I know of that requires an analogue is Dungeon Master and DM. That's because first TSR trademarked it and Wizards keeps paying to renew said trademark. If Wizards didn't sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry for using Dungeon Master/DM they'd lose the trademark. It's a you have to fight situation.