SmiteWorks OGL 1.2 Discussion

[ddavison]

Useful links:
OGL 1.2 Playtest Announcement (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest)
Actual OGL 1.2 Draft (https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf)
Creative Commons License (https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/#:~:text=CC%20BY%2DSA%3A%20This%20license,modified %20material%20under%20identical%20terms)


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice.

OGL 1.2 Thoughts

Creator Product Badges - you may use one of the badges that uses the D&D Ampersand to show compatibility with 1.2. This is a good addition that gives something to the community that did not exist under OGL 1.0a.

Notice of Deauthorization of OGL 1.0a
Anything previously released under OGL 1.0a is okay. After [SOME DATE], no new work can be published under OGL 1.0a.

I think this date should be Jan 1, 2024. This gives time for creators and other publishers to move their work to ORC or another suitable license. My understanding is that most of these products don't actually need the OGL and companies will be able to build stuff that works alongside the Creative Commons License content. They won't include the SRD 5.1.

If I understand it correctly, even if SRD 5.1 has a Dwarf and Elf defined, you can still write your own version of a Dwarf and Elf without being required to use the SRD 5.1. SRD will still probably have 100% stuff that is not actually copyrightable. You just won't be able to copy their exact version of Dwarf and Elf. If the ORC license includes a Dwarf and an Elf, you can simply reference that content instead, or create your own.

Am I missing anything here?

1.ii Our Unlicensed Content

This means that you can't use all their content that is found outside the SRD 5.1 without some other license to do so. Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 pay a lot of money to license that content. It would prohibit other tools from being able to use that freely unless they were able to get a license as well. I think this is actually true already and nothing really changes. It just restates things that are already true.

1.iii Your Content
I think this means that you could include SRD 5.1 content and add your version of a Dwarf or Elf and it would be allowed under the OGL 1.2.

2. LICENSE. They added the term "irrevocable"
This is what we were asking them to add.

3. WHAT YOU OWN.
You own your content. If WOTC comes out with something that is similar, you can still sue them but it can only be for damages. You can't "block" them from producing that content.

I agree with this because lawsuits that prevent production are bad IMO. Let's take a hypothetical case where there is a blatant copy of your awesome work. You sell and distribute this work, having clear ownership of the concepts and ideas. WOTC comes along and copies that work in a very substantial way and makes 10's of millions of dollars off your work. You can sue them for 10's of millions of dollars (or maybe more). You can't shut down their copy, but if they lose in damages, those damages are likely to be higher unless they agree to stop producing that copied work. That looks like a good outcome to me.

6.f No Hateful Content or Conduct
I have concerns about this provision and I think it is unnecessary. Remember that you will now be able to include a badge that appears to link it to D&D's Ampersand, though. Is that enough reason to allow this provision?

The biggest problem I see here is that it gives WOTC sole authority to make that decision and that is a power that could be abused. An independent body that was able to make the determination would be better here, but I doubt that would be easy to set up. I'm very anti-censorship personally. I think the market should be able to decide what is acceptable and what is not, so I will provide feedback that I think this section should be stricken from the license entirely.

Barring that, I think I would push to change the wording so that WOTC can force you to remove any of the allowed badges from your product if they determine that your content is hateful. That would allow them to protect their brand from affiliating with hateful content but would still allow people to publish content without requiring WOTC's approval of their content.

7.a Modification
It only allows them to change the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). Nothing else is modifiable. Those are acceptable to me.

9.d Severability
I'm not sure about this one. It seems potentially problematic, but I would need a lawyer to weigh in on that.

9.e Governing Law/Jurisdiction/Class Action Waiver
I'm okay with the jurisdiction portion. I don't like the Class Action Waiver. I can see why WOTC would want that, but I don't think that is in the best interest of consumers.

9.g Waiver of Jury Trial
I dislike this section very strongly. Trial by Jury should always be something that is available to either party. I think a jury is more likely to understand common usage of D&D content, VTTs, etc than a judge would. A lot of judges are out of touch.

Virtual Tabletop Policy

WOTC wants to allow VTTs while disallowing video games from using the SRD 5.1 content. Since mechanics are in the creative-commons, I still think this allows people to make video games with their own spin. With OGL 1.2, someone would not be able to create a video game and add the Ampersand badge to their product. I believe they would still be able to use the same mechanics from D&D but use their own interpretation of dwarves, elves, etc., but they wouldn't be able to claim the OGL 1.2 or use its content and badging. They would have to use their own. Lawyers can weigh in on that sort of thing.

My biggest concern is that I think it will be very difficult to construct legal language that clearly distinguishes the difference between a video game and a virtual tabletop. I'm not sure it is possible. I don't like the example of the magic missile and making an animation prohibited. I think that harms the advancement of VTTs and looks anti-competitive with WOTC's upcoming VTT.

I can try to take a stab at how I think this might be written to still allow VTTs while prohibiting video games without a custom license.

Wizards of the Coast is already defined in the document as "Wizards", "us", "we", "our".

My Recommend VTT Policy Language
A Virtual Tabletop (VTT) is defined as software which enables users to play a tabletop RPG game (TTRPG) digitally, or which is primarily built to aid playing a TTRPG. Examples of this would include digital character sheets that automatically calculate values or provide convenient lookups of Licensed Content, as defined in the OGL 1.2. VTTs may include representations of Licensed Content in other digital forms as long as they are permitted by copyright. VTTs may automate and enhance common TTRPG gameplay experiences including but not limited to custom 2D and 3d imagery, animations, lighting, representations of character vision, environmental effects, Fx, sounds, virtual reality experiences, augmented reality experiences, or other technologies that enhance the play experience. VTTs may allow users to input or provide their own content. This policy does not allow for products that are primarily produced as video games and which do not work alongside printed RPG books or digitally printed RPG books (PDFs, ePubs, etc). The determination for what constitutes a video game versus a VTT should not be decided solely by Wizards, but can be brought before a judge or jury for determination. Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. Wizards expressly agrees that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that Wizards will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief.

Other thoughts on the VTT Policy
I doubt that this document will be made irrevocable and they may reserve the right to modify it at a later time. If so, then I would like to see a provision that states that any change to this policy will be publicly posted in draft form and will allow a 30-day review and response period before it is posted in a non-draft form. Any changes to the public draft will begin a new 30-day review period. Because software development can involve months of work, any change to rules governing usage should allow sufficient time for that work to conclude before new rules go into effect. Any change to the VTT policy should advance the Version # of the policy and VTT releases should be allowed to be published under the rules of the policy that was in effect at the time of release. New policy versions should establish a future effective date that is 12 months from the publish date of that version.

[JohnD]

I am not a lawyer but I did interpret and negotiate legal contracts for a number of years while I was still working.

It is difficult to differentiate between a video game and a VTT. Just look at people who come here from Steam or elsewhere expecting that they can just connect to a server and play like FG is CoD.

WotC being the sole arbiter of whether something is a video game of VTT is problematic given they have shown their approach and philosophy is untrustworthy (my own judgement).

Signing away your rights individually or collectively is never a Good Idea IMO.

Fundamentally allowing WotC to be the sole arbiter of anyone's "morality" is a complete non-starter. Add to this they seem to want to include what you say, do or believe outside of D&D in your personal life or on social media, well, most people should see that as a problem.

The VTT policy is written to allow WotC to claim they support the continued existence of VTTs other than theirs, but mandating they become Ford Model Ts vs the WotC 2024 Porsche 911. A complete non-starter for SmiteWorks I'd hope.

SmiteWorks' has a license for 5e and AD&D ("Classic"). What changes if (when is more realistic to assume IMO) WotC doesn't renew it at the end of the year? Sure we have all the DLC we already own each individually, but what else changes if anything?

I'd be concerned that the examples of the Owlbear token and the Magic Missile and DMCA reference means WotC intends on being litigious. Aside from that, in my mind the question is whether it is a leap conceptually to go from not being able to show a magic dart flying across the screen to illustrate said Magic Missile, to not being able to put environmental effects (rain, snow, water, fog, etc...) on a map, or placing light sources. Because is that now a video game since you don't have those things around the table face-to-face? Only WotC gets to decide and you have no recourse. Would SmiteWorks be in a situation where they would effectively have to cripple FG for 5e and AD&D play (by removing the above mentioned functionality), but leaving it in for the other 25+ rulesets that are available? I don't know.

In one place they say it's irrevocable and later on they tell you all the ways they can revoke/withdraw it. One sided and I have an impossible time anyone with any business acumen could take the terms seriously and begin to build a business on it expecting a solid foundation.

Frankly, these terms, while slightly better than the 1.1 which, despite claims to the contrary was no "draft" - a draft probably would have an NDA attached when going external, but not contracts for other companies to sign - don't feel like they have much if any "good faith" in them. 1,500 publishers signing on to ORC philosophically before even seeing a draft document almost immediately should tell everyone something.

[ddavison]

WotC being the sole arbiter of whether something is a video game of VTT is problematic given they have shown their approach and philosophy is untrustworthy (my own judgement).


Do you think my proposed VTT description addresses this sufficiently?




Fundamentally allowing WotC to be the sole arbiter of anyone's "morality" is a complete non-starter. Add to this they seem to want to include what you say, do or believe outside of D&D in your personal life or on social media, well, most people should see that as a problem.


I agree. Do you think my proposal that they can force you to discontinue using the Amperand logo/badges if they think your content is hateful but cannot prevent you from publishing it is sufficient to address this concern?

[esmdev]

One thing I think is funny is that their VTT policy is really short sighted by focusing on animation but allowing for automation of mechanics. What would stop me from writing a text based interactive multiplayer game with dungeon masters and use the whole SRD and call it a text VTT?

[celestian]

The language of the VTT is unnecessary and seems intentionally vague.

"Systems that seek to emulate a digital TTRPG experience" should be all they need to define as a VTT. I'm no lawyer but they should be able to codify that. Including what features a VTT can have is futile. I mean if you look at their preview of their own system it seems to violate their "video gamey" definition.

"Deauthorizing" 1.0a is going to be a non-starter for a LOT of OSR community. If it sticks around I'll be the first in line to thrown funds at a gofundme for whomever takes them to court over the "perpetual" language. So many people from that period are still around and have clearly said what it meant. Changes in how law sees those words now doesn't change the intent and that was clear, crystal.

[Voctor]

Some other things to consider -

The change to the SRD seems to be a problem. It's obviously much more limited than the SRDs released under 1.0a. As an example, it's not particularly clear if I could l make a new "Magic Missile Specialist" Wizard sublcass that is focused on augmenting their ability to cast that specific spell. You may be able to make a new class that says "This class uses the Wizard spell list" (although even that seems unclear), but may not be able to make a class that uses a mix of spells from 2 or more lists because you couldn't specify which spells it could use. It should also include all the old SRDs that were already released - only releasing 5.1 is just them trying to shut down the ability to make open content for these older systems. It seems disingenuous to say that this is a replacement for a system that was supposed to grant the ability to use certain things in perpetuity when it doesn't grant permissions over those same things.

The license isn't actually irrevocable. They made a big deal about using that word as a show of how they're closing the loophole they're using on 1.0a, but at the same time they re-define what irrevocable means. This license can be revoked by them, and the methods for doing so are actually more legally sound than what they're doing on 1.0a. With them shutting down 1.0a they are open to lawsuits from companies that can claim that WoTC lied about their intent with the OGL, but I doubt any such thing could happen if they used one of their options to revoke 1.2 because those options are more explicitly part of the contract.

The VTT policy has another problem. They only define what a VTT is in the VTT policy document, which we have to assume is modifiable. Anything defined there becomes an exception to the entire contract. This means that if something new comes along that they don't like, they can modify the VTT policy and the entire OGL stops applying to it. I honestly think the whole thing is far too unstable to serve as a platform for software development. As a software engineer myself, there's just no way I would work on a project with such shaky stability at its base. I could come up with some really innovative features and then WoTC just changes the VTT policy such that the OGL no longer applies to something with those features and I've lost my license. Even if they have some rule that prevents them from taking it away after the product was published, it still forces me to stay silent about my great idea (restricting my ability to use that as a selling point to generate funding and interest) until I'm far enough along that I am sure I could publish before a change was made.

On that note, how does it apply to updates? If I publish some software under the OGL and they change the rules so that my software would no longer qualify, could I still update that software with new features while preserving its legacy license? Could I sell DLC for it?

[Zeruel_Kagenie]

Defining what are the capabilities of a VTT so that it has a legal definition is complicated. Maybe something general like: A Virtual Tabletop (VTT) is defined as software that enables users to create, share, play, and experience a tabletop RPG game (TTRPG) digitally, or which is primarily built to aid in the use of TTRPG with any technology and software the VTT can offer.

If something general does not work, I think it is necessary to add more terms, no matter how obvious they seemed, taking into account current and future capabilities. However, I think that the ideal would be for the VTT developer to have the autonomy to define and change their own product created by any technology and software.

[Novacian]

I also am not a lawyer, though in my multi-decade career in both government and private industry, I also was in on negotiating and analyzing contracts and legal issues.

(ddavison) "VTTs may include representations of Licensed Content in other digital forms as long as they are permitted by copyright. VTTs may automate and enhance common TTRPG gameplay experiences with custom 2D and 3d imagery, animations, lighting, representations of character vision, environmental effects, Fx, sounds, virtual reality experiences, augmented reality experiences, or other technologies that enhance the play experience."*

*This first sentence, in my view, is the very definition of a video game. VTTs are video games and must progress as such to entice, increase and maximize their player/GM-customer base. It's only via video game enhancements that VTTs progress in the eyes of the consumer. [Note: computer games are also defined as video games]

(JohnD) It is difficult to differentiate between a video game and a VTT. Just look at people who come here from Steam or elsewhere expecting that they can just connect to a server and play like FG is CoD. [...] [WotC mandating other VTTs] become Ford Model Ts vs the WotC 2024 Porsche 911. A complete non-starter for SmiteWorks I'd hope [<== I agree with this statement]

VTTs may allow users to input or provide their own content.**

** As do computer (i.e. video) games with their mods galore.

This policy does not allow for products that are primarily produced as video games and which do not work alongside printed RPG books or digitally printed RPG books (PDFs, ePubs, etc).***

*** Computer-video games also come with many digitally and physical manuals, hint-books, maps, character building et al. RPG books and printed aids. This also blurs the line, to WotC's gain and VTTs loss, as to what differentiates a VTT and a computer-video game.

============================================

Finally, addressing the following OGL 1.2 draft points:

(e) No Illegal Conduct. You will not violate the law in any way relating to this license or Your Licensed Works.

(f) No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful,
discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,
obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you
covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

The key issue is the problematic use of the word "illegal". Notice in (f) how illegal is inserted between the other terms as if seeking full cover.

Hasbro-WotC cannot legally determine illegality -- only the courts can. But they can use that term, and the other terms as well, to victimize 3rd party creators and publishers, either via C&Ds, punitive lawsuits, and other ways that will eliminate most as competitors since they do not have the financial wherewithal to survive such punishing actions. To extrapolate from BelleMuerte's statement of "too much power" <== that is exactly what they want and why it is written in the way it is.

Cheers Aulderyn (Xyrosum)

[Griogre]

The difference between an VTT and CRPG is difficult to define by just using technology definitions. The most basic difference is a VTT has a human dungeon master to run each session while a CRPG uses "AI" or a set of programmed algorithms to run the game.

CRPGs have a main story line that "runs on rails", ie there is a limit number of story paths all preprogrammed before any game sessions are ever began. A VTT with a human GM do not have a finite story line determined before the game ever starts. The interactions between the human GM and the human players can and usually does modify the story path during current session and in subsequent sessions.

Edit: wanted to add: In a VTT the GM allows the game story line to advance. So no story advancement without GM approval. While in a CRGP the story advances automatically.

Fixed typos

[JohnD]

Do you think my proposed VTT description addresses this sufficiently?

I certainly think it comes closer to the reality of what play via a VTT environment is now and likely will become. How WotC responds to the suggested description will also tell you a lot about whether they're interested truly in VTTs being vibrant and healthy.

I would add in verbiage along the lines of "including but not limited to..." in your description as follows; "VTTs may automate and enhance common TTRPG gameplay experiences including but not limited to custom 2D and 3d imagery, animations, lighting, representations of character vision, environmental effects, Fx, sounds, virtual reality experiences, augmented reality experiences, or other technologies that enhance the play experience.". This is because the above are what you currently envision now, but it's possible something will come along a year or two years or more down the road that you want to implement and you could see WotC legal being very strict about the wording, especially if said feature/functionality is something they are working to add into their own VTT. The added verbiage may give a VTT owner too much latitude for WotC's liking, but IMO knowing that in the beginning has value for SmiteWorks.



I agree. Do you think my proposal that they can force you to discontinue using the Amperand logo/badges if they think your content is hateful but cannot prevent you from publishing it is sufficient to address this concern?

Any badging will quickly become a quasi "stamp of authorization/approval" among the larger community for 3PP (should there be any) and that's really what I think WotC intends it as; this product complies with OGL v1.2. So having to remove the logo would mean the product somehow falls short of that mark. Whether this would be seen as making a big enough distinction for WotC in my mind is a bit of a coin flip at best. Someone either shows a badge or if not they can still go with the "Compatible with the xth edition of the world's most popular role playing game." and in the eyes of the average consumer probably achieve the same thing, which is likely not what WotC wants. I do however think this is a good place to start a discussion from.

[Novacian]

[Went to alternate post format, please see post #14 for format substitute for #12]

[esmdev]

The difference between an VTT and CRPG is difficult to define by just using technology definitions. The most basic difference is a VTT has a human dungeon master to run each session while a CRPG uses "AI" or a set of programmed algorithms to run the game.

CRPGs have a main story line that "runs on rails", ie there is a limit number of story paths all preprogrammed before any game sessions are ever began. A VTT with a human GM do not have a finite story line determined before the game ever starts. The interactions between the human GM and the human players can and usually does modify the story path during current session and in subsequent sessions.

Edit: wanted to add: In a VTT the GM allows the game story line to advance. So no story advancement without GM approval. While in a CRGP the story advances automatically.

Fixed typos

That makes the assumption that 10 or 20 years from now it wouldn't be possible to integrate an AI to run a VTT. The problem WotC has is that it is looking at the past, the present, and what it has got in development, not beyond that. I've been playing with ChatGPT and it couldn't really run a game today but I could see FG integrating something like it down the road. It would technically be a VTT and the AI would be in the role of Dungeon Master and there would be live human players.

Anyways my point is whatever is agreed to now could be really bad in the future.

[Novacian]

The difference between an VTT and CRPG is difficult to define by just using technology definitions. The most basic difference is a VTT has a human dungeon master to run each session while a CRPG uses "AI" or a set of programmed algorithms to run the game.

CRPGs have a main story line that "runs on rails", ie there is a limit number of story paths all preprogrammed before any game sessions are ever began. A VTT with a human GM do not have a finite story line determined before the game ever starts. The interactions between the human GM and the human players can and usually does modify the story path during current session and in subsequent sessions.

Edit: wanted to add: In a VTT the GM allows the game story line to advance. So no story advancement without GM approval. While in a CRGP the story advances automatically.

Fixed typos


I think you are right in the functions between VTT&TTRPG-DM and CRPG-AI. However Hasbro-WotC, in my view, is looking at the technological differences in form and design to increase control and dominance over both VTTs and their control over 3rd party creators and publishers. Thus Hasbro-WotC are even pitting tabletop conventions against VTT conventions as indicated by this quote from their policy:

"What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your
imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT
integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."

Thus technologically, the current state and the future techno-evolution of VTTs and all their animated-programmed features are in jeopardy (except WotC's own VTT, of course).

[Griogre]

That makes the assumption that 10 or 20 years from now it wouldn't be possible to integrate an AI to run a VTT. The problem WotC has is that it is looking at the past, the present, and what it has got in development, not beyond that. I've been playing with ChatGPT and it couldn't really run a game today but I could see FG integrating something like it down the road. It would technically be a VTT and the AI would be in the role of Dungeon Master and there would be live human players.

Anyways my point is whatever is agreed to now could be really bad in the future.

The difference will still hold though: before the game ever starts the story path is determined in a CRPG - even with advanced AI and story branching it's just a question of which branch and you will automatically advance though the story.

[Voctor]

If I really wanted to make a good definition of VTTs I would come at it from a different angle - specifically the number of rulesets it supports. A traditional video game needs a single distinct ruleset, as defined by the developers of the game. I can't just play a class from Kobold Press in the new Baulder's Gate game even though the rules are compatible. Any remotely competitive VTT would not work this way. Even a VTT that only works for D&D would need to support Homebrew and OGL content or it would never hope to compete the market against existing products like FG and Roll20. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like this distinction could be turned into a sufficient definition for their purposes without constraining what VTTs could do.

[ddavison]

I would add in verbiage along the lines of "including but not limited to..." in your description as follows; "VTTs may automate and enhance common TTRPG gameplay experiences including but not limited to custom 2D and 3d imagery, animations, lighting, representations of character vision, environmental effects, Fx, sounds, virtual reality experiences, augmented reality experiences, or other technologies that enhance the play experience.".


Good point. I updated my proposed language to include that.

Regarding needing a human DM, I don't think that is wise to distinguish a VTT based on that criteria. There are already solo adventures out now and I could foresee advances in this area. Again, I think it will be very difficult to distinguish between video game and VTT legally. I think a jury of our peers would be better able to make that determination. Also, I'm recommending the same language as a remedy for WOTC here if they believe someone is violating this principle. They can seek monetary damages but not injunctive relief. They can't get an injunction to shut something down while it is being debated in court. A smaller party might decide that the risk is too great to continue and risk a costly legal battle. That is unfortunately already true today. We just hope that the legal system is fair in its judgements. That is why I think it is also critical to allow for trial by jury as well as trial by judge.

[Ram Tyr]

This post does not contain legal advice. No efforts have been made to understand any individual's situation and the various circumstances that may change one's legal rights in the preparation of this post. The reader should retain an attorney to assist them in understanding and protecting their legal rights and responsibilities.


**SNIP**
Creator Product Badges - you may use one of the badges that uses the D&D Ampersand to show compatibility with 1.2. This is a good addition that gives something to the community that did not exist under OGL 1.0a.

Notice of Deauthorization of OGL 1.0a
Anything previously released under OGL 1.0a is okay. After [SOME DATE], no new work can be published under OGL 1.0a.

I think this date should be Jan 1, 2024. This gives time for creators and other publishers to move their work to ORC or another suitable license. My understanding is that most of these products don't actually need the OGL and companies will be able to build stuff that works alongside the Creative Commons License content. They won't include the SRD 5.1.

If I understand it correctly, even if SRD 5.1 has a Dwarf and Elf defined, you can still write your own version of a Dwarf and Elf without being required to use the SRD 5.1. SRD will still probably have 100% stuff that is not actually copyrightable. You just won't be able to copy their exact version of Dwarf and Elf. If the ORC license includes a Dwarf and an Elf, you can simply reference that content instead, or create your own.

Am I missing anything here?
**SNIP**


*The contents of this post have disintegrated. There is nothing to see here.*

[ddavison]

This post does not contain legal advice. No efforts have been made to understand any individual's situation and the various circumstances that may change one's legal rights in the preparation of this post. The reader should retain an attorney to assist them in understanding and protecting their legal rights and responsibilities.


The OGL1.2 begins on the third page of the PDF you have linked. Your commentary responding to the content of the second page of the PDF is not commentary of the OGL1.2. I think this clarity is important. Parties to an agreement, such as a license, generally agree to the four corners of the document. Funnily, this means that OGL1.2 as drafted and shared in the linked PDF does not bind the parties to the license to an agreement on the deauthorization. Generally, potential parties to an agreement would do well not to invite including a provision in their agreement unless they desire the inclusion of the provision for some reason. If the other parties want to include something they can request it.

You sound like a lawyer. :)

If so, are you saying that the stuff on page 2 should be moved to another location or that it doesn't apply?

[lokiare]

The difference will still hold though: before the game ever starts the story path is determined in a CRPG - even with advanced AI and story branching it's just a question of which branch and you will automatically advance though the story.

Modern AI's use large databases of human responses to generate their content. In other words an AI for a VTT would be able to handle just about anything players throw at it and generate completely 'new' vastly different storylines than those presented in the adventure.

[Voctor]

You sound like a lawyer. :)

If so, are you saying that the stuff on page 2 should be moved to another location or that it doesn't apply?

Generally that is how it works. Anything outside the contract itself isn't legally binding. Case in point - them de-authorizing 1.0 even though they wrote an FAQ that says that they can't. The FAQ isn't the contract, so you can take them to court over lying about the contract but not for breach of contract.

[Ram Tyr]

Oh, please... your flattery will get you nowhere.;)

*The contents of this post have disintegrated. There is nothing to see here.*

[Myrdin Potter]

Doug is quite calm while discussing the gun aimed at he and his team's head to limit their ability to augment their core product to compete.

[KelticOwl]

I'm not a fan of how they worded the irrevocability in 2 . Licenses. The way that it reads it's suggests that WoTC can't remove content from the license, such as withdraw the Elf Class from OGL 1.2, but it is not worded in a way that makes the license itself unrevocable down the road if WoTC wanted to change it again. (I'm more familiar with Tax Law, not IP so these may have different definitions and I'm happy to defer to the experts). They definitely included so they could say "See See we used the word you like."

Overall, it's a step in the right direction but it still does contain very concerning things, the threshold for proving damages is near impossible to meet (which basically means you'll have little recourse if any) unless you prove their intention. Also I'm not familiar enough with Washington Law, but there may also be limits on those damages.

As far as the VTT, I'm not interested in exposing my players to whatever monetization scheme they've cooked up. I'm happy to play ORC games here, and avoid OneD&D all together.

Thanks for creating an awesome space

[ddavison]

Well, if you are eager to deauthorize OGL1.0a, I would be sure to talk about the deauthorization language while discussing OGL1.2. If you want the parties to the OGL1.2 to agree in this license to the deauthorization it needs to be stated in OGL1.2. (Not in the introductory text... not in the place where they give you images referred to in the OGL1.2.)

If you are not yourself interested in deauthorizing OGL1.0a, then there is a question of strategy (which a lawyer with experience in this kind of litigation might give advice on) concerning whether letting them say they deauthorize OGL1.0a matters to you. Whether your agreeing to the deauthorization in a subsequent license agreement will bear weight on the outcome of litigation about whether OGL1.0a can be deauthorized, etc.

Edit: sorry meant to reply to @ddavison

Is the "You" meant for me or for WOTC? I think the best thing is NOT to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a. I'm just being practical and guessing that WOTC is determined to replace OGL 1.0a with OGL 1.2. I'm just working to make that as palatable as possible. I did also see a comment from WOTC about expanding OGL 1.2 to cover other, previous SRD documents.

My assumption is that other publishers will be able to release products under a new license (not OGL 1.0a or OGL 1.2) where they would have previously released under OGL 1.0a. Announcement of the Open RPG Creative License (ORC) and others seems to point to this as a common thought among publishers and content creators. That could certainly be tested in court, but I think those parties would prevail.



Doug is quite calm while discussing the gun aimed at he and his team's head to limit their ability to augment their core product to compete.


I'm confident it will be rewritten. If not, we'll deal with it at that time.

[Voctor]

Is the "You" meant for me or for WOTC? I think the best thing is NOT to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a. I'm just being practical and guessing that WOTC is determined to replace OGL 1.0a with OGL 1.2. I'm just working to make that as palatable as possible. I did also see a comment from WOTC about expanding OGL 1.2 to cover other, previous SRD documents.

My assumption is that other publishers will be able to release products under a new license (not OGL 1.0a or OGL 1.2) where they would have previously released under OGL 1.0a. Announcement of the Open RPG Creative License (ORC) and others seems to point to this as a common thought among publishers and content creators. That could certainly be tested in court, but I think those parties would prevail.



I'm confident it will be rewritten. If not, we'll deal with it at that time.

From what they've said, you couldn't make a new class for 3rd edition. The 3e SRD would not be in this new OGL or the ORC, and the old OGL would no longer be usable. Basically, 3e and 5e become closed game systems (at least as much as a game system can be closed within the limits of copyright law) and any new 3rd party D&D content must only be for the 5.1 SRD. Since 5.1 is somewhat backward compatible to 5.0 you could probably make 5.1 content that can still be used by people playing 5.0, but it's a bit awkward. 3e and 3.5e would just be dead unless someone wants to enter the legal arena where they challenge WoTC over what parts of the rules they can and can't protect.

Edit - By extension you probably couldn't do new content for Pathfinder 1 since it's based on the 3.5 SRD.

[ddavison]

3e and 3.5e would just be dead unless someone wants to enter the legal arena where they challenge WoTC over what parts of the rules they can and can't protect.

Edit - By extension you probably couldn't do new content for Pathfinder 1 since it's based on the 3.5 SRD.

Paizo announced they are creating their own licensed called the Open RPG Creative License (ORC), so I think they are comfortable in the legal arena for it. There are a lot of other companies on board with that as well, including Fantasy Grounds.

[Voctor]

Paizo announced they are creating their own licensed called the Open RPG Creative License (ORC), so I think they are comfortable in the legal arena for it. There are a lot of other companies on board with that as well, including Fantasy Grounds.

Paizo can put Pathfinder 2 into the ORC because it does not use anything from a WoTC SRD. They cannot do the same thing with Pathfinder 1, because it does use WoTC content that they don't own and could only use through the OGL 1.0a.

[ddavison]

Paizo can put Pathfinder 2 into the ORC because it does not use anything from a WoTC SRD. They cannot do the same thing with Pathfinder 1, because it does use WoTC content that they don't own and could only use through the OGL 1.0a.

Do you have some examples of this? The PF 1E Core Rules basically redefined all the base classes, spells, feats, etc. from what I recall.

[Voctor]

Do you have some examples of this? The PF 1E Core Rules basically redefined all the base classes, spells, feats, etc. from what I recall.

From the Pathfinder 1 rules:

Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed
creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.


From the 3.5 SRD:
Dazed
The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.

A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.

This exact 1 to 1 reproduction of the SRD text is what the OGL allows. Without it, this is copyright infringement.

[ddavison]

Yeah, but they don't ever have to reprint the text for dazed for PF 1E. They can just release new PF1E products (if they chose) and then refer to "dazed". OGL 1.2 says that the PF 1E Core Rules are allowed because they have already been released.

[Voctor]

Yeah, but they don't ever have to reprint the text for dazed for PF 1E. They can just release new PF1E products (if they chose) and then refer to "dazed". OGL 1.2 says that the PF 1E Core Rules are allowed because they have already been released.

But it means they can't put the full PF1 rules into the ORC because that would include releasing content that they don't own. They could go through and find just the parts that they wrote and release those as a separate SRD, but it couldn't include anything that was a reproduction of D&D SRD content. There's a surprisingly large amount of that, I just picked Daze because it's fairly short. If they went through that effort then others could make their own work under ORC based on those parts of the PF1 rules, but again they have to be careful to avoid ever referencing anything that was in the D&D SRD. It's a legal minefield.

So good luck making your PF1 Diplomat class without the ability to refer to the Sense Motive skill.

[esmdev]

But it means they can't put the full PF1 rules into the ORC because that would include releasing content that they don't own. They could go through and find just the parts that they wrote and release those as a separate SRD, but it couldn't include anything that was a reproduction of D&D SRD content. There's a surprisingly large amount of that, I just picked Daze because it's fairly short. If they went through that effort then others could make their own work under ORC based on those parts of the PF1 rules, but again they have to be careful to avoid ever referencing anything that was in the D&D SRD. It's a legal minefield.

So good luck making your PF1 Diplomat class without the ability to refer to the Sense Motive skill.

So what you're saying is that Paizo gets to release Pathfinder 3 based on Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 4 based on Pathfinder 2 and sell us all the books again? ;)

[LordEntrails]

Great discussion folks :)

As to defining a VTT separately from a video game, I don't think you can. Or should.

I look at some of the video games my son plays online. Some of these are military simulations where you have different players each with a character/avatar that they can level up. They team up together to accomplish goals (often conquering resources so they can acquire more resources generators). Their are systemic rules. Except for scale, how is this any different than a game of KingMaker? About the only thing I can think of is their is no GM/DM, and usually no AI.

Think of Never Winter Nights. Is that a VTT or video game? I've always thought of it as a video game, but it can be used as a VTT.

Finally, I think the only reason to try to define a VTT is to prevent competition.

They also talk about not wanting to affect things like live action role play etc. And though today we can see a difference between a LARP and a TTRPG, in a few years when folks have wearables that handle the game mechanics and AR/VR for the environment, how is this much different?

Trying to protect their IP through segmenting is, imo, bad, and just not going to work for more than a few years.

[Zeruel_Kagenie]

With OGL 1.2, once OGL 1.0a is deauthorized, I believe that all content, from any creator, that is using the current SRD 5.1 and being published/sold will be automatically licensed by OGL 1.2... as stated in the first paragraph of the Open Game License 1.2, where it says: By using Our Licensed Content, you agree to the terms of this license. As used in this license, “we” (or any other term referring to us) includes our affiliates, successors, and predecessors.

If the license continues with this clause, the only option that content creators who are using the OGL 1.0a in their products will have is to change the license of all their products before the next OGL takes effect and re-release their products.

[Griogre]

Regarding needing a human DM, I don't think that is wise to distinguish a VTT based on that criteria. There are already solo adventures out now and I could foresee advances in this area. Again, I think it will be very difficult to distinguish between video game and VTT legally. I think a jury of our peers would be better able to make that determination. Also, I'm recommending the same language as a remedy for WOTC here if they believe someone is violating this principle. They can seek monetary damages but not injunctive relief. They can't get an injunction to shut something down while it is being debated in court. A smaller party might decide that the risk is too great to continue and risk a costly legal battle. That is unfortunately already true today. We just hope that the legal system is fair in its judgements. That is why I think it is also critical to allow for trial by jury as well as trial by judge.

Seems like a good point on the solo adventures.

Thinking about differentiating VTT and CRPGs some more - one key difference is all creature tokens on the maps are moved by humans: PCs by the players, NPCs/Monsters by the DM.

[JohnD]

From the Pathfinder 1 rules:

Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed
creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.


From the 3.5 SRD:
Dazed
The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.

A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.

This exact 1 to 1 reproduction of the SRD text is what the OGL allows. Without it, this is copyright infringement.

Discombobulated
Affected NPC or PC cannot act in a normal way.
Those who are discombobulated are unable to take any action while so afflicted.
Discombobulation usually affects an impacted entity for only one (1) round.

Solved. This is the kind of things people will be doing to de-OGLify their content. For example Troll Lord Games is currently undertaking this kind of deep dive to remove any OGL expressions that have made their way into Castles and Crusades and then they will release new printings of their core books.

[Batman13]

Honesty, as long as the VTT works with WOTC and pays appropriate fees, they should be fine. Doug does this. I doubt this will impact anything. WOTC could refuse to let FG convert future content, but we all know that has been a possibility with any company. To be fair, WOTC is entering the VTT space and wants to limit unfair competitors who do not pay WOTC for this IP or leave out key parts of the IP that is basically the same as coping. For some context here, the community is a bit spoiled in this regard with the original OGL. If any other company had agreed to the OGL like the condemned one WOTC released several days back, they would be celebrated. Only WOTC being so create-friendly already makes their recent proposals bad. I personally think Hasbro executives did not fully understand the passion of the D&D rules lawyer to sniff out BS, nor the passion of the fans for content creation options that are not WOTC.

[esmdev]

So I decided to voice my opinions in the survey. I really can't help wonder why they need to collect thousands of answers from people who aren't content creators. I suppose they're hoping that end user replies will water down the content creators, but not so sure that will be true in this case. Most of my written answers ended with "but you should abandon this plan and work with the ORC alliance to build a better, lasting, truly open game.". I even wrote them a nice, polite letter at the end. However if they get enough surveys I doubt they will read all the written statements, just a random sampling and a single page breakdown of all the click box answers.

[celestian]

So I decided to voice my opinions in the survey. I really can't help wonder why they need to collect thousands of answers from people who aren't content creators. I suppose they're hoping that end user replies will water down the content creators, but not so sure that will be true in this case. Most of my written answers ended with "but you should abandon this plan and work with the ORC alliance to build a better, lasting, truly open game.". I even wrote them a nice, polite letter at the end. However if they get enough surveys I doubt they will read all the written statements, just a random sampling and a single page breakdown of all the click box answers.

The survey has effect on everyone that plays the game. OSR, 5e, the new 6e, anyone that uses a VTT. If they "really" want feedback from everyone affected it makes sense.

[rhagelstrom]

WotC potentially could lose a lot more than just "you can't" in a legal fight over OGL 1.0a. If their strategy was just bully small pubs and push it though then they completely misunderstood their brand and customer base. Keep up the fight but be respectful. The line in the sand is 1.0a is not revokable. I'm hoping WotC legal talks some sense into management but regardless the damage to WotC reputation will be lasting.

[Khoros]

Oh boy, just signed up with FGU a few days ago and then WOTC drops this bomb on the community. If this was an rpg session, I'd change my dice right about now.

Never thought I'd have to do this in a post about tabletop gaming, but first things first: the disclaimer. I am a lawyer, but not an American one and I don't currently practice either, so nothing I post after this constitutes legal advice in any way, shape or form.

The first thing that jumps out at me in this whole controversy is the false flag WOTC is flying here: they keep talking about the "open gaming license" as if it was about them graciously giving every third party permission to use their stuff. Giving their rights away without any quid pro quo for the good of the community.

This is obviously not the case. They're asking that you sign the new ogl, and the only reason they want you to do that is to further their interests, not yours. They actually want you to sign your rights away so their legal position is better afterwards than what they would have under ogl 1.0a. Or even without any licensing agreement at all, just according to standard copyright and trademark law.

IMO you need to keep that in mind.This whole thing's a standard commercial contract negotiation, not WOTC trying to "do right" by the rpg community.

That being established you have to ask yourself two things: 1. what is WOTC's interest in all of this? 2. Do they have the actual power to force Fantasy Grounds to sign the new licence agreement?

Concerning the first question I think Stephen Glicker from Roll for Combat has it right: WOTC has sunk millions of dollars into d&d beyond and they desperately need to justify that investment to their shareholders. They'll do anything to build the site up as best they can.
The main cash cow, the best way to generate ROI in that respect is, you guessed it, their new vtt system. So that means they see d&d's future as being in the digital space, maybe even in video gaming. But not in the actual pen and paper ttrpgs.
This also means their main competition are roll20, Foundry and, yes, Fantasy Grounds.

Now what I say next is the worst case scenario. Not entirely sure whether it's actually as bad as that, but you're talking contract negotiation here, so you need to plan for the worst and hope for the best. So I'm just going to come out and say it:

IMO WOTC's ultimate goal here is to push the other vtt's out of business. Period.

Hence this whole song-and-dance about distinguishing vtts from video games. Hence the need to have a whole separate vtt agreement. Hence this smokescreen about wanting to prevent NFTs, hateful content and whatnot.

Now again, I can't be sure their intentions are actually as bad as that, but this is a contract negotiation, so you need to keep that worst case scenario in the back of your mind. Any new ogl you sign, regardless of how WOTC tries to disguise it with colourful language, will be to your detriment.

The second question (do WOTC have the power to enforce this) is for FG and Smite Works to answer.
I guess it would largely depend on how big the actual numbers of paying 5e players on here actually are vs. players who use other non-ogl systems. And on how willing the 5e players are to switch systems if push comes to shove.

If FG can afford to lose the 5e players without jeopardizing their whole business model, then WOTC have little power to force them and FG should seriously consider not signing the new ogl at all in IMO.
Unfortunately though, I suspect the 5e player base is too important for FG to be able to risk losing them completely, but I can't be sure of that and FG will have an understandable interest to not disclose those numbers. So I guess we'll never know. Which is a good thing. As far as I'm concerned ignorance is bliss in that respect ;-).

To sum it up: ultimately, as I said, this whole question of "do we or don't we sign it?" is for FG and Smite Works management to decide, and boy, oh boy, do I not envy them that decision.

[Voctor]

If FG can afford to lose the 5e players without jeopardizing their whole business model, then WOTC have little power to force them and FG should seriously consider not signing the new ogl at all in IMO.
Unfortunately though, I suspect the 5e player base is too important for FG to be able to risk losing them completely, but I can't be sure of that and FG will have an understandable interest to not disclose those numbers. So I guess we'll never know. Which is a good thing. As far as I'm concerned ignorance is bliss in that respect ;-).

To sum it up: ultimately, as I said, this whole question of "do we or don't we sign it?" is for FG and Smite Works management to decide, and boy, oh boy, do I not envy them that decision.

FG pays for a license with WoTC. That's how they're able to sell modules with full rules and images for things like Beholders which have never been in any version of the OGL. If they really wanted to push FG out of the VTT space for D&D, that would happen in their contract renewal negations rather than changes to the OGL. I guess there is the chance that they're changing the OGL now so that when that time comes around FG doesn't have it as a fallback option, but that doesn't seem extremely likely.

On the other hand, I think I heard Foundry is pure OGL and doesn't have a paid contract so WoTC could be going after them. Or they're just trying to block others from entering the space so they're competing against fewer options.

[Khoros]

"FG pays for a license with WoTC. "

Ah, ok, didn't know that. Thanks for the info. Indeed, that delays the question until the contract is up for renewal. And given FG pays for non-OGL content, that might actually not turn out so bad for FG. Unless, of course, the Glicker school of thought is correct and WOTC wants to direct all vtt 5e players to d&d beyond exclusively. Then, worst case, that might lead to a contract termination. But again, playing devil's advocate here, not at all sure about this.
In the end I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As far as Foundry's concerned: you're right, that will be a major headache for them, especially if they can't afford to lose the 5e players..

[dendarii]

6.f No Hateful Content or Conduct gave me pause.

"We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you
covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."

This is definitely worrisome, too much power.

Not to mention that in the text above the clause, they make it clear that they don't intend to limit their objections to just "hateful" or illegal content:

"You'll see that OGL 1.2 lets us act when offensive or hurtful content is published using the covered D&D stuff"

There's published D&D stuff that has content that I find offensive or objectionable, even WOTC stuff (incest in Rime of the Frostmaiden for Pete's sake?). I just don't buy or play that content, or if I'm DMing, I modify it; I don't advocate for the product to be unpublished.

Allowing WOTC to revoke your license, not because of libel or illegal content, but because somebody claims it's "hurtful" and WOTC agrees?

Ridiculous.

[Nyarly Dude]

On the other hand, I think I heard Foundry is pure OGL and doesn't have a paid contract so WoTC could be going after them. Or they're just trying to block others from entering the space so they're competing against fewer options.

Only Smiteworks and Roll 20 have such contracts for D&D 5E VTTs as far as I can tell. Any other implementations are much more constrained in what they can provide, hence things like utilities to scrape DDB data to import into them.

Traditional videogames are going to be a much bigger target, though. There's rather more money in it. WOTC wouldn't want anybody to build a video game that builds off the SRD content, fills in the gaps with homebrew, and attempts to skate bywithout paying WOTC by calling itself a VTT prepackaged with lots of bonus homebrew content with tools for even solo players to run a GM-less game to enjoy by themselves. Like, Tactical Adventures and Solasta -- WOTC got to ensure that they got royalties for that, even though Solasta used only SRD content + its own homebrew.

[Voctor]

Only Smiteworks and Roll 20 have such contracts for D&D 5E VTTs as far as I can tell. Any other implementations are much more constrained in what they can provide, hence things like utilities to scrape DDB data to import into them.

Traditional videogames are going to be a much bigger target, though. There's rather more money in it. WOTC wouldn't want anybody to build a video game that builds off the SRD content, fills in the gaps with homebrew, and attempts to skate bywithout paying WOTC by calling itself a VTT prepackaged with lots of bonus homebrew content with tools for even solo players to run a GM-less game to enjoy by themselves. Like, Tactical Adventures and Solasta -- WOTC got to ensure that they got royalties for that, even though Solasta used only SRD content + its own homebrew.

The thing is, most video games don't seem to need the OGL. If I make a game where characters level from 1 to 20, have 6 attributes, use Vancian magic for spellcasters, gain abilities at the same rate, use the same probabilities, etc. all of that is just game mechanics which don't have legal protection as far as current precedent would seem to indicate. As long as I don't use a patented mechanic (very rare, but the Nemesis system from Shadows of Mordor is an example), use their IP (Beholders, etc.), or use copyrighted expression (exact copy paste of text WoTC wrote) there's probably not much they can do about it. Of course having the OGL made the rules more clear so a group could make that game without fearing that they may need to defend themselves in court.

[MaxAstro]

The thing is, most video games don't seem to need the OGL. If I make a game where characters level from 1 to 20, have 6 attributes, use Vancian magic for spellcasters, gain abilities at the same rate, use the same probabilities, etc. all of that is just game mechanics which don't have legal protection as far as current precedent would seem to indicate. As long as I don't use a patented mechanic (very rare, but the Nemesis system from Shadows of Mordor is an example), use their IP (Beholders, etc.), or use copyrighted expression (exact copy paste of text WoTC wrote) there's probably not much they can do about it. Of course having the OGL made the rules more clear so a group could make that game without fearing that they may need to defend themselves in court.

It is absolutely true what you say.

It is also true that WotC has way more money to spend on lawyers than you do.

Anyone who thinks "being in the legal right" is sufficient protection where Wizards is involved is invited to investigate the sad story of Hex: Shards of Fate.

[Valatar]

Foundry has deals with a good many publishers, but never WotC. I suspect that since Foundry's much younger than FG, WotC already had designs on their own VTT and no interest in signing on with a competing system by the time Foundry got popular. I would anticipate that FG's deal with WotC will not be renewed as soon as Beyond is up and running; WotC clearly intends on not having competitors. Thankfully the people already running on FG don't stand to be affected, but it could damage FG going forward from that point if there is no decent OGL way for them to continue supporting future D&D editions.

[anstett]

Seems like a good point on the solo adventures.

Thinking about differentiating VTT and CRPGs some more - one key difference is all creature tokens on the maps are moved by humans: PCs by the players, NPCs/Monsters by the DM.

This is not true.

KloOge (the VTT I used for 18+ years before FG) had macros for the DM to set up random movement for NPCs etc. Randomization was built in also. That was 2005 at the latest.

With the current AI abilities it will take a year or two (maybe less) before you can use machine learning to fully automate many of the DM functions including NPC movement, placement, etc.

The view of what VTTs can do now versus where they will be in future needs to revolve around the concept of Agency of User in my opinion.

Can the DM or the Player choose to make meaningful decisions about actions and reactions to and about characters. Video games (currently with the limited AI) have more situations where a player does not have Agency.

In a VTT if the DM and or Player still has Agency to make choices, and override the structure of the program to suit their own desires.

[celestian]

KloOge (the VTT I used for 18+ years before FG) had macros for the DM to set up random movement for NPCs etc.



I thought myself and JPG were the only ones that knew what Klooge was ;)

Sorry to derail, carry on!

[Voctor]

It is absolutely true what you say.

It is also true that WotC has way more money to spend on lawyers than you do.

Anyone who thinks "being in the legal right" is sufficient protection where Wizards is involved is invited to investigate the sad story of Hex: Shards of Fate.

To be fair, Hex pushed the limits to an absurd degree. There were cards that had the same mana cost, stats, abilities, and had everything laid out in the same way on the card. If all they did was have a game with the extremely similar rules they may have been fine, but they fully cloned specific designs. WoTC can't copyright the rules of the game, but they can copyright the expression of those rules and Hex's designs were close enough to those expressions that they could be argued to be derivative works.

If you're going to copy Monopoly, don't go so far as to make the playing pieces a shoe, car, and battleship.

[Khoros]

It is absolutely true what you say.

It is also true that WotC has way more money to spend on lawyers than you do.

True, and that's the crux with this whole thing, isn't it. WOTC absolutely have the money to sue the competition into oblivion, even if they're not legally in the right here. The details of this judicial campaign will be determined by specialised litigation and IP lawyers, mostly in the US I suspect. But it seems pretty obvious that they're fully expecting to have to sue some of their competitors into compliance.
IMO they won't immediately go after the big names like Paizo or Kobold.Too difficult and too costly, since those guys do have the means to respond in kind. They'll probably go after smaller third party publishers first who don't have the financial means to defend themselves. They'll try to create legal precedent and then start negotiating with the bigger competitors after that on the basis of that precedent in order to have a better argument for a deal. I could be wrong, but at least that's my experience of how American lawyers tend to act.
As for the vtts I don't think they'll go after FG or roll20 at first if those companies still have deals in force with WOTC. They might target Foundry, though, if they do indeed run ogl games without any separate license agreement. Again, that would be to set legal precedent in order to have a better bargaining position in contract negotiations with FG and roll20 when their contracts have to be renewed.
Or they could just go all out and refuse to negotiate with all vtts, which would be the worst case scenario. That would mean they'd try to sue all the vtts into bankruptcy in order to create a monopoly in the vtt space. I don't think that's their actual goal though. That would be a bit extreme even for them and it would mean shooting themselves in the foot in a major way. But given their recent behaviour with ogl 1.0a it's a possibility you'll have to take into account IMO.

Come to think of it I wonder if the companies that signed up for ORC could set up a common defense fund in order to coordinate and finance the defense against potential WOTC lawsuits. Not sure about that, but that's something the lawyers at Azura might be looking into as well.

[Atarsamak]

This is not the first time I read about the fact that the outcome of a lawsuit is strictly related to the financial and economical power of one of the competitors. I do not live on the Moon and I understand tht, of course, being able to pay the best lawyers increases your chances of success, expecially when you are in a grey-zone area. At the same time, I think (hope) that this is not the main factor. I hope that what, nevertheless, who is right or who is wrong (or anything in between) is still dependent mostly on the rules,, laws and facts.
Otherwise it would mean that the American law system is broken.

[Khoros]

This is a tough question, and I'm not an American lawyer, so I wouldn't be able to answer your question definitively. I can only speak from the rather limited experience I had with American lawyers when I was practising in Europe myself (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ;-)).

You have to understand that the continental European legal and court systems are fundamentally different from the American ones because the US have a common law system that relies mainly on case law and precedent, and most continental European systems are civil law systems that mainly rely on written laws, not on precedent so much. That makes quite a difference because that means that in the US you can win a lawsuit and thereby already make a "law" that suits you, in a manner of speaking. You can then apply that "law" to other, similar cases and win them, too, because you can invoke the precedent. So one specialised litigation attorney can make a whole lot of difference if they get you that first win that can then serve as precedent. And law firms with good, specialised litigation attorneys aren't exactly cheap.

This is a very simplistic explanation, and I'm sure there'll be a thousand American legal eagles along shortly to explain why I'm wrong, but it's the best I can manage. So IMO no, the American system isn't broken, but you have to know your way around it. One way being that you band together to finance your defense against deep-pocket businesses like Hasbro and WOTC. As in a class action (just in case you were wondering why WOTC wants to exclude those) or in a common defense fund.

[Atarsamak]

Thank you for your contribution. I'm aware of the intrinsic differences in the court systems and, just to clarify, I was not making any comparison and I was not specifically accusing the American system. I was addressing the American one just because, in this case, it's the one involved. My commen was meant to be more general. So please let me rephrase my sentence. If, in any country, the outcome of a lawsuit is strongly related to the financial power of the two sides, then thesre is something wrong with the court system of that country.
But I'm probably going out of topic and, for sure, I do not want to start a tread war on this subject. It was just a sad comment on the problem.
I hope there will be no need at all to go to a court to settle the OGL issue.

[Khoros]

I hope there will be no need at all to go to a court to settle the OGL issue.

And you're certainly not the only one. Crossing fingers it won't come to that. Time will tell, I suppose.

[ddavison]

FG's future ability to deliver 5E or 6E content depends upon our contract auto-renewing each year in March (but with a 60-day notice requirement). We pay them 60% royalties on all products we sell for them, and it costs them almost nothing to support us. They don't perform quality control on our products, customer support, hosting, distribution, or development. Any costs they paid for the original writing and imagery would have already been paid when they created the print product and the version for D&D Beyond. The revenue that we provide them goes directly to the bottom line for Wizards of the Coast as profit. When you contrast this versus book sales where they have production fees and distribution fees, then I think we are much better for their business. If you compare us with sales on D&D Beyond, you could argue that they would get 100% of the revenue if they sold it on D&D Beyond instead of Fantasy Grounds. That would be true; however, we know that a fair percentage of our users purchased it on D&D Beyond and on Fantasy Grounds and then you are comparing 160% revenue to 60% revenue for those sales. The balance of which is probably demonstrably greater than the 100% by itself. They can decide not to renew our contract for an upcoming year. I don't think that it is in their best interest financially. If you pair this up with the negative backlash they would receive from our community (and similarly from Roll20's larger community), then I think a cancellation is very unlikely to happen.

We would still be able to keep all existing copies on our system for customers to use, reinstall, etc. even if the worst-case scenario happens, and they did cancel our license to produce and sell D&D content. We would just be unable to sell any of those going forward. What we are allowed to do with OGL based content matters a lot more to us at this point. That is why it is important for us to weigh in now. Aside from this, we currently include SRD content with our demo for free.

I would love for the whole OGL update to be dropped. I just don't realistically think that is going to happen. I want to at least help steer Wizards of the Coast towards an update that is as fair as it can be.

[Atua]

Doug, how do you make any profit on Steam for 5e products outside of sale volume when Hasbro takes 60%, steam takes 30%. 10% is razor thin...

Edit: I feel like I need to buy another dice pack from the FGU store 🤣

[ddavison]

Thankfully we pay out royalties in the Net amount after Steam’s cut. We often pay external community developers to convert products for us unless we use our in-house employees and that comes out of our share. Doing this allowed us to release around 500 products last year, so that is mostly thanks to our community development program.

[Ryuson]

FG's future ability to deliver 5E or 6E content depends upon our contract auto-renewing each year in March (but with a 60-day notice requirement). We pay them 60% royalties on all products we sell for them, and it costs them almost nothing to support us. They don't perform quality control on our products, customer support, hosting, distribution, or development. Any costs they paid for the original writing and imagery would have already been paid when they created the print product and the version for D&D Beyond. The revenue that we provide them goes directly to the bottom line for Wizards of the Coast as profit. When you contrast this versus book sales where they have production fees and distribution fees, then I think we are much better for their business. If you compare us with sales on D&D Beyond, you could argue that they would get 100% of the revenue if they sold it on D&D Beyond instead of Fantasy Grounds. That would be true; however, we know that a fair percentage of our users purchased it on D&D Beyond and on Fantasy Grounds and then you are comparing 160% revenue to 60% revenue for those sales. The balance of which is probably demonstrably greater than the 100% by itself. They can decide not to renew our contract for an upcoming year. I don't think that it is in their best interest financially. If you pair this up with the negative backlash they would receive from our community (and similarly from Roll20's larger community), then I think a cancellation is very unlikely to happen.

We would still be able to keep all existing copies on our system for customers to use, reinstall, etc. even if the worst-case scenario happens, and they did cancel our license to produce and sell D&D content. We would just be unable to sell any of those going forward. What we are allowed to do with OGL based content matters a lot more to us at this point. That is why it is important for us to weigh in now. Aside from this, we currently include SRD content with our demo for free.

I would love for the whole OGL update to be dropped. I just don't realistically think that is going to happen. I want to at least help steer Wizards of the Coast towards an update that is as fair as it can be.

Thank you for some insight into your operations and your arrangement with WotC. It really wouldn't make much sense if they severed ties (contract) with FG (or Roll20) for that matter. TBH, I'm glad I joined FG b/c I feel more secure with my purchases given FG's license with WotC that allows use of already-purchased content.

I'm intrigued if they've reached out with a new version of your licensing agreement - b/c the sense I get from OGL 1.2 is they're trying to stifle VTT innovation at a certain point (animation, more like video games). Plus, several publishers are jumping aboard Open RPG (referring to ORC and Pinnacle is developing their own creator universe IIRC). I would think FG should be open to all publishers?

[ddavison]

We signed on to support ORC as well. We have always tried to be a platform that supports all games.

[MassSailor]

6.f No Hateful Content or Conduct
I have concerns about this provision and I think it is unnecessary. Remember that you will now be able to include a badge that appears to link it to D&D's Ampersand, though. Is that enough reason to allow this provision?

The biggest problem I see here is that it gives WOTC sole authority to make that decision and that is a power that could be abused. An independent body that was able to make the determination would be better here, but I doubt that would be easy to set up. I'm very anti-censorship personally. I think the market should be able to decide what is acceptable and what is not, so I will provide feedback that I think this section should be stricken from the license entirely.

Barring that, I think I would push to change the wording so that WOTC can force you to remove any of the allowed badges from your product if they determine that your content is hateful. That would allow them to protect their brand from affiliating with hateful content but would still allow people to publish content without requiring WOTC's approval of their content.


Standard "not a lawyer, so take this opinion as, well, an opinion" disclaimer...

I share the same concerns voiced repeatedly about WOTC putting itself in the position of subjective decider whether content is hateful, obscene, etc. In my opinion, WOTC's current language is a complete non-starter, but wanting to be able to protect their brand image isn't an unreasonable position on it's face. If WOTC won't strike this section, then I agree that Doug's proposed solution of making badges or similar kinds of "WOTC approved" markings issuable/revocable at WOTC's discretion is a reasonable way for WOTC to protect their brand/image and it should largely address the community's censorship concern. That could include WOTC instituting a formal submission/review process (possibly even monetized) in order for creators to receive permission to include formal "WOTC approved/endorsed/ect." badges or markings indicating content is compliant with WOTC's stated community standards. Again, this would just be to receive some kind of voluntarily sought out WOTC badge/endorsement - not something that would be required to release 3rd party content. As long as it is optional for those who could care less about WOTC's stamp of approval, then I'd be ok with it - a WOTC badge is not something that would sway me when making a purchase but I could see some publishers attaching value to it. Where I would draw the line is restricting language or markings indicating that the included content is "5e/5x/6x Compatible" - system compatibility should not be reasonably taken as any kind of endorsement of content.

I'm not particularly a fan of the idea, but would also consider a compromise to require that 3rd party content include language that their content has not been reviewed, approved, or anyway endorsed by WOTC - depending on the specific language, of course. Would much rather see a process that interested content creators seek out a voluntary badge etc. as opposed to forcing all to include mandatory legalese language but a standard disclaimer doesn't seem overly onerous.

Would prefer to see this section completely tossed out but if some combination of WOTC approved badging and/or disclaimer isn't enough for them, then yup - it sure does look like WOTC is more interested in the ability to censor potential competitors, as opposed to just trying to protect their brand...

[HywelPhillips]

SmiteWorks broad support of a range of games, not just in terms of character sheet/rulesets but also in terms of actual full rulebooks with all data entered, plus adventures and supplements for lots of different game systems, is very much appreciated. I'm very grateful not just to the developer team but also to the community developers who work very hard of getting this stuff all available and released on the store. It goes a long way towards encouraging take-up of these other games to have the leg-work done already!

[LordEntrails]

(As I've said earlier, 6f is a non starter for me as written, but..)
Folks should know that WotC is currently engaged with TSR LLC / aka TSR Hobbies / aka NuTSR in a lawsuit that in part is about preventing hateful speech. So it's understandable to some degree that they would want to prevent having to take legal action against a company to protect their branding. There is a great deal more to the issue than hateful speech, but that is one aspect that is specifically listed in the legal case.

To me, 6f is a knee jerk reaction to that, but is poorly thought out and even more poorly written.

[Griogre]

That was my impression as well - WotC with a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction - maybe after being prodded by Hasbro over the lawsuit.

[Nylanfs]

No, that lawsuit is about trademarks. That Justin Lanasa is (IMO from all his posts online) a horrible person is tangential to the case.

[LordEntrails]

No, that lawsuit is about trademarks. That Justin Lanasa is (IMO from all his posts online) a horrible person is tangential to the case.

It is about trademarks, but... part of the trademark issue as outlined in court documents filed by WotC is that through bigotry and hate speech, NuTSR is damaging the Star Frontiers brand.

[Laerun]

Dear members of the Fantasy Grounds community,

We understand that there has been a lot of discussion and concern recently about the Open Game License (OGL) and its potential impact on the RPG community. We want to assure you that the Fantasy Grounds Academy is not affiliated with Wizards of the Coast or even directly affiliated with Smiteworks LLC, and our primary focus is on providing support, education, inspiration, and a positive community for users of the Fantasy Grounds Unity platform.

While it is true that many of the FG users enjoy using the platform for playing Dungeons and Dragons, there are also many other rulesets and games that can be played on Fantasy Grounds Unity. We encourage you and others to also explore these options and consider branching out into other games, such as Shadow of the Demon Lord, Alien, or Pathfinder 2e. There are so many exciting and diverse games available on the FGU platform, and we want to hopefully inspire and help empower you to discover new systems and experiences. Additionally, there are many licensed adventures and other content available through Smiteworks that can be used on the platform, regardless of the status of the OGL.

It is important to remember that the Fantasy Grounds Unity platform and our community of users, volunteers and GMs that surrounds it are bigger than any one game or ruleset. We are here to support and help each other, no matter what changes or challenges may come our way. Let's continue to be a positive and supportive community, and stay focused on what we can control: our own enjoyment of the platform and our efforts to help others learn and use it effectively.

No matter what changes or challenges come our way, we have each other and the incredible resources of the Fantasy Grounds Unity platform to help us navigate them. Let's continue to be a positive and supportive community, and to inspire and empower each other to make the most of the platform and all it has to offer.

Sincerely,
FG Academy Community

[Zeruel_Kagenie]

New official info from WOTC. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

[Griogre]

This is great news for 3rd party D&D publishers. All of the uncertainties created by OGL 1.2 just go away. I'm sorry WotC need to take such a hit in credibility to realize OGL 1.2 was a bad idea but am glad they listened in the end. Hopefully in the future they will do a survey *first* if they want to update the OGL again.

[lokiare]

My only question is: Will this apply to 6E?

[LordEntrails]

6E doesn't exist yet :) But, One D&D is supposed to be fully compatible with 5E. And since any change in mechanics can not be protected anyway, it pretty much means content for use with One D&D will be covered. But, exact text, as well as artwork, will still be protected IP and can not be used as is.

Keep in mind, the OGL 1.0 was intended to protect 3E, but was used for retro clones of OD&D, 1E, & 2E.

So, imo (IANAL), it pretty much means D&D, all editions for the foreseeable future, are given to the community at least enough that 3PP will always be able to publish new works for any edition.

[JonStormbringer]

Throughout this whole event, I've been more concerned about what WOTC plans to do with its VTT and how it views competition with that product. My own perception is that WOTC showed their hand and will be very aggressive about how it "protects" its VTT. I believe they view their new VTT as their primary monetization for the future of D&D and they seem to believe eliminating competition is in their best interest. In regards to their VTT, I believe this will still be the case, even in light of their recent reversals.

It's been suggested by more than one streamer that operational leadership within WOTC is looking to make D&D a billion dollar a year money earner--like the MTG side of the house. I'm certainly not a business genius, but I'm not sure how they get there. IMO the entire 5E product line was over priced, but there won't be an Amazon between us to discount their products 20-55% when they (WOTC) are their own storefront with their VTT/Digital distribution.

I love D&D and I want to see it be successful and I don't mind its parent company making some money. However, driving up prices and eliminating competition is not the way to go here, IMO. I started playing D&D in 1979 and played, primarily, 1st/2nd edition. When 3rd and 4th editions came out, we (my gaming group) never saw the need to move away from 2nd, so we didn't. I never bought a single 3e/4e book. I can see myself doing the same thing with 5E/6E. That is, just staying with 5E and not worrying about 6E. Playing on FG and not the new WOTC VTT. I've invested a fair amount into FG and it works great for me. I think it's a great product and has, IMO, a fantastic and helpful community.

I see a lot of people saying, after WOTC's latest OGL news, that we won the war. I'm not convinced we really understood what war we were fighting. OGL may have been part of their plan to monetize, but I think the battleground is digital/VTT distribution. While I applaud the recently announced OGL reversal, I think we need to keep our eyes on how they handle their approaching VTT.

[damned]

The OGL fight was the most important one.
I dont think there is a way to stop them from doing their VTT thing - and there probably shouldnt be a way to stop them other than the market voting with its wallets.
If the product is good enough people will pay for it.

[JonStormbringer]

The OGL fight was the most important one.
I dont think there is a way to stop them from doing their VTT thing - and there probably shouldnt be a way to stop them other than the market voting with its wallets.
If the product is good enough people will pay for it.

I agree, in principle, with what you're saying. I wrote that later at night after a long shift at work and probably didn't articulate myself the best. I certainly wasn't trying to minimize the fight for the OGL. I believe the more VTTs out there the better it is for the consumer. My concern is not that WOTC develops their own VTT but that they monopolize 6e to their VTT only. In my view that's harmful to the consumer and I can point to several instances where it's been harmful for the content creator/manufacturer.

[damned]

I agree, in principle, with what you're saying. I wrote that later at night after a long shift at work and probably didn't articulate myself the best. I certainly wasn't trying to minimize the fight for the OGL. I believe the more VTTs out there the better it is for the consumer. My concern is not that WOTC develops their own VTT but that they monopolize 6e to their VTT only. In my view that's harmful to the consumer and I can point to several instances where it's been harmful for the content creator/manufacturer.

My guess is that they will do that.
They will make licensed 6e material available only on their platform.
And it will be mixed response and have mixed impact on the other players in this industry.

I think the vast majority of people didnt even notice this months drama.
But many did.
There are already somewhere close to 10,000 RPGs out there.
Its not a lack of competition - its a lack of awareness or accessibility.

Some RPGs will do better because of this but probably only the big ones, the top 10 or 20 games.

How FG and other VTTs fare if WoTC pull licenses will be very much dependent on how many players do move to other systems.
Its very time consuming (and hence expensive unless someone is doing it for love) converting game systems to a VTT.
FG will be hard pressed to justify building out dozens of rulesets hoping that some of them are successful.

[sciencephile]

Well, based on history, I might even doubt whether they will even have a successful VTT, even if they tried. WotC tried this route back when 3.5 was their version of choice and it died in the womb. They forgot that they are not a software development company and that creating software is easier said than actually done (even veteran software companies fail more than they succeed).

But I guess we will see...

[esmdev]

I agree, in principle, with what you're saying. I wrote that later at night after a long shift at work and probably didn't articulate myself the best. I certainly wasn't trying to minimize the fight for the OGL. I believe the more VTTs out there the better it is for the consumer. My concern is not that WOTC develops their own VTT but that they monopolize 6e to their VTT only. In my view that's harmful to the consumer and I can point to several instances where it's been harmful for the content creator/manufacturer.

We don't know what One D&D will look like but from what I've seen it isn't fixing 5E and seems to be amplifying some of it's biggest problems while creating more problems. Just as a single example the decision that some attacks can critical hit and some can't does make some sense mechanically but is going to suck when one player can critical and the other can't. If you are supposedly fixing the game then look at the mechanics that are broken and fix them instead of throwing on a random patch that doesn't really work. Some of their ideas are good but many are broken. Obviously it is still early but their design decisions so far have been omg what are they thinking, to me.

Nothing WotC has released for 5E lately has really interested me enough to buy it, and I buy lots, except I was really pumped for Spelljammer, which I bought and I regretted. The free Spelljammer Academy from D&D beyond was a better introduction to Spelljammer than the official adventure. The actually Spelljamming rules were just sad. So much potential wasted. I have a hard time articulating my feelings about the overall product in polite company, suffice to say it was the final nail in the 5E coffin for me and I've not seen anything to change that.

So this leads to the VTT... first off companies that write computer games for a living announce, develop and cancel games before release at an astounding rate. WotC has a proven track record of either releasing something totally substandard or cancelling before release. They have been talking about VTT since 3.0. What they showed was pretty but what they didn't show was anything but a 3D graphic game board and miniatures. Do you run it locally or do you have to host it on their server? Does it handle the rules or is that on the DM? If you have a miniature can you use it multiple times or do you have to buy it for every instance in an adventure? How complex will it be for the DM, for the player? Will they release a quality product or something that routinely crashes for months on end while they try and fix it. Etc., Etc., Etc.

While it might bring some people to VTT gaming, outside of the lockdown, RPGs are very much a social experience. Probably more people use VTTs than they did 5 years ago it is still probably not a lot when compared to the total number of players out there. Despite having drivethrurpg on their side Astral couldn't generate enough users to carry on in a pretty competitive market. I really don't think that a VTT, 3D or not, is the avenue to a billion dollars that they think it is, and if it even appears to be then the big game studios will start making generic clones because that is what they do with anything that is popular.

In the end, however, it is 16 or so months away and a lot can happen. It is clear that WotC wants to limit what future competition can do. However it is also pretty clear that WotC cannot dictate terms the way they thought they could. So I really don't think people need to worry about One D&D on a VTT because they can't afford to lose Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds revenue if their VTT fails to meet expectations.

[HywelPhillips]

There were many important bits to the OGL fight, and some of those still need addressing - the fact that the OGL underpins a complete ecosystem outside of anything WotC have ever published, for example. Creators are using eg Kobold Press creatures in their adventures or bits from companies and creators long since defunct or even deceased. These works live on in the creative ecosystem of the OGL. Switching to ORC might orphan some of those works, having multiple companies each with their own semi-open licence is not really an improvement.

But what the Open Gamer faction inside WotC have pulled off here is a coup to prevent them yanking 5E out from the community.

They can try to tempt us to 6E, to a new licence, to closed ecosystem D&D Beyond and WotC VTT. But they are going to have to "fight fair" to do it now. Because if 6E isn't an improvement on 5E, if the VTT doesn't live up to the usability of D&D Beyond... the existing audience can stay on 5E. Forever. Which I think is what they were desperately trying to avoid, and acted in bad faith trying to pull a fast one on the community and hope we didn't notice.

One of the things they were trying to do, IMO, was to make sure that no-one could pull a D&D 3.5/Pathfinder 1.0 on them.

Releasing 5E SRD under Creative Commons means that that possibility is now guaranteed. SOMEONE is going to do that, probably several someones. And if WotC don't deliver the goods, Black Flag or whatever becomes the 5E-a-like replacement will steal their lunch just like PF1 did from 4E. Which I think gives a lot of power to the internal voices at WotC that have been saying the the community is a strength, they already had a near-monopoly, all they had to do was go forward with some good products and they would clean up.

It also takes away the impetus internally in the company to revoke the 1.0a OGL, because what I'm sure the company regards as the crown jewels is 5E. Do they REALLY care so much about revocation that they are going to kill PF1 (already defunct) and the whole OSR (let's not kid ourselves, small potatoes) just out of spite when they already gave away the crown jewels via Creative Commons? Having discovered just how united their customer base is in wanting the OGL to stay in place?

They were always free to release 6E under whatever licence they liked, and I don't think many of us would have blamed them for trying to keep it exclusive and go down the closed ecosystem VTT/D&D Beyond monopoly route and see if it works better for them this time than it did for 4E. We'd have said they were probably wrong, but it wouldn't have provoked the outrage. The outrage came from breaking a 23-year-old promise with fallout through the entire industry from OSR grognards playing B/X clones through people playing Traveller, Mutant Year Zero derived homebrews, trying to pre-emptively shut down VTTs not just for D&D but entirely by kneecapping the alternative systems. It was playing very dirty, they got caught at it, and they've been forced to row back on it. And personally I think the Open Gaming folks at WotC used the opportunity to pull a blinder on a par with Ryan Dancey's original OGL by getting the 5.1 SRD released to creative commons under cover of the storm.

Cheers, Hywel

[BaneTBC]

One thing here that is a little off is the conversation about VTT's. I think the way that SmiteWorks does it is the correct approach, you get official licensed support. SW makes money, WotC makes money, Pazio makes money, Kobold Press makes money, whatever other companies that license through them and makes their content available on the platform. Where the complaints and arguments from a company come into play is when you have someone like Foundry with no official licensing from WotC and backdoored access to D&D Beyond, this is where you're going to get companies complaining because they aren't authorizing that use of their content\property. There's official content released by Kobold Press on Foundry, among others, so it's not that they are against working with companies(Foundry), but until they actually do have proper licensing with the company whose content they wish to use, there's going to be issues.

[celestian]

One thing here that is a little off is the conversation about VTT's. I think the way that SmiteWorks does it is the correct approach, you get official licensed support. SW makes money, WotC makes money, Pazio makes money, Kobold Press makes money, whatever other companies that license through them and makes their content available on the platform. Where the complaints and arguments from a company come into play is when you have someone like Foundry with no official licensing from WotC and backdoored access to D&D Beyond, this is where you're going to get companies complaining because they aren't authorizing that use of their content\property. There's official content released by Kobold Press on Foundry, among others, so it's not that they are against working with companies(Foundry), but until they actually do have proper licensing with the company whose content they wish to use, there's going to be issues.

I'm pretty sure that "backdoor" API is managed, maintained and regulated by WoTC.

Not saying having a license deal with WoTC isnt better, I think it is. What WoTC does tho is really up to them. I'm sure all the VTTs would have them if WoTC was willing.

[LordEntrails]

Honestly, there is not enough money in the RPG industry for Hasbro to make the kind of money they probably want to make. They probably already take at least 1/4 of the entire market, 4 times growth would be nice, but it's probably not what they are looking for.

There are 2 entertainment sectors though that do have enough money for them. And that is the movie industry and the computer (mostly mobile) gaming industry. Then with merchandising supplementing those nicely as a third.

They probably want to be the next Marvel, and that, IMO, would be awesome if they could produce that level of entertainment repeatedly. They also want the gaming market. IMO, that is why they are so concerned with differentiating VTTs vs computer games and then the part that surfaced briefly about live action / performance arts.

I'm worried they may screw with the RPG and VTT aspects of the market while they try to grow the brand into a movie and gaming franchise. But I do hope they succeed on the movie and gaming part. Remember when Iron Man was only a comic book? (Which I never read, but I certainly have seen every movie, multiple times.) One day it would be nice to say "Yeah, all those D&D universes you love so much, you can actually play them as what we call a 'role playing game'. Why don't you join us next weekend and see what you think."

[esmdev]

It is sad, they have a setting that is so Game of Thrones and super developed it would make awesome movies and TV series but they seem afraid to rerelease it so they will realize they have cinematic gold.. I speak of Birthright of course.

[damned]

There could be more money in the hobby if they did actually make an AI GM that really could replace the grumpy ones we have now :bandit:

[EllivasKram]

Maybe AI players. Now that’s something I would buy into ;)

[celestian]

This is some very good insight into this entire situation (among others at hasbro).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZO8lkBWSWA

[Nylanfs]

Just think of the lack of scheduling issues... :D

[ddavison]

It is sad, they have a setting that is so Game of Thrones and super developed it would make awesome movies and TV series but they seem afraid to rerelease it so they will realize they have cinematic gold.. I speak of Birthright of course.

A Birthright series on Netflix would be awesome.

[kevdog45]

Didn't they just cancel there plans for the OGL. Just recently within the last few days? Big win for third party publishers and fans?

https://www.polygon.com/23574677/dungeons-dragons-dnd-ogl-canceled-wizards-fans-win

[LordEntrails]

Didn't they just cancel there plans for the OGL. Just recently within the last few days? Big win for third party publishers and fans?

https://www.polygon.com/23574677/dungeons-dragons-dnd-ogl-canceled-wizards-fans-win
Yep, link to the official announcement is in post #70; https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?76532-SmiteWorks-OGL-1-2-Discussion&p=676069&viewfull=1#post676069

[Nylanfs]

A temporary win, but definitely a win. It still showed the need for a license that isn't controlled by a single publisher, and the fact that they THOUGHT they could do this is an issue. I'm looking forward to what the ORC license will be.

https://www.polygon.com/23553389/dnd-ogl-paizo-orc-open-rpg-creative-license-announcement
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v

[celestian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPDc3DVHwKo&t=91s

[LordEntrails]

Thanks Celestian for linking that. One of the few OGL relate videos I've watched, but definitely a good and important one for those interested in the topic.

[JohnD]

Kyle stepped on his Johnson in that interview IMO, but racism and exclusion are apparently OK as long as directed at straight white males.

Looking around the internet WotC and the guy himself are getting flack again for his comments in that interview, but to each their own opinion I suppose.

[jasonisop]

This old white guy is done with them for good. I've spent thousands on both dnd and magic and they and hasbro will not see a single cent more. The straw that broke the camels back. Unfortunately that means no dnd purchases to fantasy grounds as well due to the royalties. I was planning on jumping back into playing online but will stick to in person with the content I already own.

[BushViper]

This old white guy is done with them for good. I've spent thousands on both dnd and magic and they and hasbro will not see a single cent more. The straw that broke the camels back. Unfortunately that means no dnd purchases to fantasy grounds as well due to the royalties. I was planning on jumping back into playing online but will stick to in person with the content I already own.

I'm not going to stop playing D&D, but I'm certainly done putting money in the pockets of people that hate, or at the very least, loathe people like myself (straight, white guy). It's not just WotC, there are a lot of creators that openly display the same kind of open, objective bigotry. For awhile I ignored it by simply avoiding learning anything about the creator to ensure I could separate art from artist, but not any more.

The sheer stupidity of people like Kyle Brink (and many others) is baffling. Particularly so given the fact that the overwhelming majority of their players are of the demographic they want to see "go away."

[ddavison]

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he had good intentions, but poor wording. If you were in a conversation with a person in real life and they said something like this, you could immediately point it out and they would have a chance to reword it. You can focus on a specific statement and even call that a stupid statement without attacking the person who spoke it. You would give people the benefit of that in real life (I hope), so let's extend that courtesy to online interactions as well.

The best way to grow the hobby is to make everyone feel welcome and included. Expanding the breadth of the D&D experience without excluding people based on how they were born is the only way to do that.

[esmdev]

This old white guy is done with them for good. I've spent thousands on both dnd and magic and they and hasbro will not see a single cent more. The straw that broke the camels back. Unfortunately that means no dnd purchases to fantasy grounds as well due to the royalties. I was planning on jumping back into playing online but will stick to in person with the content I already own.

D&D isn't the only system that Fantasy Grounds supports, there are some great alternatives. Pathfinder 1 and 2 both have an elf-ton of materials available and quite a bit of community support.

Additionally there are a lot of 3rd party expansions to 5E that do not pay royalties to WotC. In fact many of those publishers are working to establish the ORC license so supporting them is supporting the migration from the WotC OGL.

Just saying, FG has a lot to offer. :)

[celestian]

Community member interviewing Producer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-2yiFT2PU

[BushViper]

D&D isn't the only system that Fantasy Grounds supports, there are some great alternatives. Pathfinder 1 and 2 both have an elf-ton of materials available and quite a bit of community support.

Additionally there are a lot of 3rd party expansions to 5E that do not pay royalties to WotC. In fact many of those publishers are working to establish the ORC license so supporting them is supporting the migration from the WotC OGL.

Just saying, FG has a lot to offer. :)

Paizo is being propped up as some kind of White Knight, but the truth is in many ways they're just as bad as WotC. In some cases, worse. I'm not saying they don't have some fine ideas, make some good products, or employ some great people because they do, but I find the narrative that they're some kind of 'savior' to be nauseating. In fact, Paizo constantly engages in the same kind of ridiculous pandering that WotC is guilty of.

Also, I had a post in this thread that was deleted before I had an opportunity to even respond to the demand from a moderator that I censor it. So I'll re-package that post so I don't cause any 'hurty feels.'

I'm of the demographic (straight white guy) that a number of the WotC leadership has shown open contempt for. So, I won't be financing the stupidity and bigotry of the company. Furthermore, there are also a lot of 3rd party publishers that fall directly in line with that kind of thinking and I won't be supporting them either. Historically, I've chosen to keep myself completely ignorant of a creators personal beliefs to ensure I could separate art from artist, but it's gotten to the point where I can't (actually, won't) support people that despise people like myself for immutable characteristics and/or not ascribing to their social religion.

[Egheal]

About Paizo: - All the rules, monsters, spells, etc... Are available for free on the Archive of Nethys site.
- They propose great bundles on Humble Bundle with great support for charity.
- They do PDF stuff and it actually give discounts for vtts products.
They are no 'savior' but I would call them 'White Knights' compared to WotC.

[Valacar]

Just want to say thanks to Doug and team for their professionalism and how they respond to typically hot topics! Also glad to see the 5e and other dnd 1e/2e FG purchases I’ve made will be available no matter what but listening to the 3 interviews with Kyle, I think he’s sincere in wanting to put out fires that the OGL started and start to build back the relationship with fans and 3pp creators. I think the 2nd and 3rd interviews are better as if he knew some of us words weren’t taken in the context in which he meant.

[celestian]

This will probably be the last one I post but it's a interview with Kyle Brink, exec producer for D&D by Nerd Immersion. He does ask more questions outside of the previous interviews.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPHirlVGkKM

[jasonisop]

D&D isn't the only system that Fantasy Grounds supports, there are some great alternatives. Pathfinder 1 and 2 both have an elf-ton of materials available and quite a bit of community support.

Additionally there are a lot of 3rd party expansions to 5E that do not pay royalties to WotC. In fact many of those publishers are working to establish the ORC license so supporting them is supporting the migration from the WotC OGL.

Just saying, FG has a lot to offer. :)
I own fantasy grounds just the original dm version, I've been a longtime user, longer than just about everyone in this thread including the current owners :). I'd have no issue playing that version if that's what the community used, but they don't. And any purchase of the unity version would include royalties to hasbro/wizards and at this point that's a non starter for me unless things massively change with those companies.

Had the timing been different and I had purchased the unity version prior to that, as I was looking to do when this whole fiasco happened I'd have no issues using it. I truly believe this is the best application for online play for just about any pnp game system. So it does pain me not to.

[Griogre]

FYI, purchasing FGU software does *not* generate a royalty to Wizards. You could even just buy FGU and play D&D 5E and not buy any books and Wizards would not get any royalties.

What generates royalties to Wizards is buying the D&D Player's Handbook, DMG, Monster Manual, Adventures, ect.

So you could buy FGU and play Dungeon Crawl Classics, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds (SWADE) or many other 3rd party RPGs and not give Wizards any money as well.

[Moon Wizard]

SmiteWorks does not have any direct affiliation with Hasbro or Wizards of the Coast; they are merely one of many publishing partners that sell content for our platform. As @Griogre mentioned, they do not get any royalties from us, unless you buy one of their products directly.

Regards,
JPG

[Nylanfs]

It looks like the ORC first draft will be released soon. :)