|
Boris Galerkin posted:Obviously it's not working if several companies are planning on making their own. This is completely fine, because ORC is angling to be a Capital O Open license, where contributors can go hog wild using each others' content to make new stuff, if they want.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Megazver posted:Fria Ligan announced they'll be releasing, uh, two OGLs of their own. I think I should point that Fria Ligan had previously stated their intention to do this (at least for year zero). They're 'announcing' it now because of the advantageous timing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
sweet geek swag posted:It isn't even out yet. We'll see what the adoption rate is when and if it comes out. The point of open standards governed by a neutral consortium is to have buy-in before decisions are made, so that they can be made together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
Cessna posted:My entire career in industry in one comic, thanks. *whispers* Survey foot
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
Siivola posted:This is completely fine, because ORC is angling to be a Capital O Open license, where contributors can go hog wild using each others' content to make new stuff, if they want. Paizo still has investors who wil have growth targets. The publicity might be good at the moment, but it's highly likely there'll still be a catch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Paizo still has investors who wil have growth targets. The publicity might be good at the moment, but it's highly likely there'll still be a catch. Paizo is not a public company
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Paizo still has investors who wil have growth targets. The publicity might be good at the moment, but it's highly likely there'll still be a catch. If they're giving it to a third party open source firm, it's out of the investors' hands. The growth is coming in from positioning themselves as the anti-WotC and seizing the media narrative, and its already paying off bigtime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
The Bee posted:If they're giving it to a third party open source firm, it's out of the investors' hands. The growth is coming in from positioning themselves as the anti-WotC and seizing the media narrative, and its already paying off bigtime. yeah I was at my local game store and could not get pathfinder books, they were totally sold out
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Yeah no one here is saying that you should like outright trust Paizo, but like generally it's probably more sane to at least wait til they show some sign of going back on their promises wrt their new license. Everything they've said is good. If they don't do what they said then they will almost assuredly get lit up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Its ironic, too, because self-serving goodwill was the entire point of the OGL. It waved away a complex legal situation, but also hid the fact that people didn't really need an OGL in the first place and made d20 the dominant ttrpg format without question. If Wizards remembered why they extended this goodwill in the first place, they wouldn't have shot themselves in the foot so hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
Can't believe Paizo didn't fix open gaming within the last week. Shut it down, shut it down forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Paizo still has investors who wil have growth targets. No, they don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Because the Creative Commons licenses do not work in a way that is most effective for a TTRPG, where there are two intertwined elements (fluff and mechanics), and we want to ensure public access to one but not the other. Even if we put aside the desire for "infectiousness" (which is a very desirable thing, tbh, and was a great thing to be in the OGL), it is much more of a pain in the rear end to take my complete TTRPG, siphon out exclusively the game mechanics to put in an SRD, then release that SRD under CC-BY, than it is to just take the OGL 1.0a, slap a "the setting of Exandria and all its associated elements are Product Identity" at the end of my book, and call it a day. This is, of course, exactly what WotC did with both the 3.x SRDs and the 5.x SRDs. I’m not sure why people think it’s so insanely hard. If you’re WotC or Paizo or anyone with a desirable system, you of course want to force people to use a viral license because it gives you a de facto advantage. You’re the original system owner, so you get to decide exactly what you want to share. Anyone downstream of you doesn’t get the same option. If you’re letting people declare *anything* as protected, that issue goes away. But then it isn’t a viral license any more. The original OGL avoided that pitfall by listing specific elements that could be Product Identity, which worked most of the time… but that also still gave WotC the edge since they could protect mechanics and nobody else could.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The point of open standards governed by a neutral consortium is to have buy-in before decisions are made, so that they can be made together. You mean like having a ton of different companies announce that they're all doing this very thing under one umbrella? The very thing that happened already?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
And that kind of thing's never going to have 100% adoption rate, but that's okay! The fact that we've already seen so many companies signed onto the ORC, before it's even left the draft stage, is honestly really telling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
Thanlis posted:If you’re WotC or Paizo or anyone with a desirable system, you of course want to force people to use a viral license because it gives you a de facto advantage. You’re the original system owner, so you get to decide exactly what you want to share. Anyone downstream of you doesn’t get the same option. IIUC, the ORC license is just... a license. Ostensibly, they're going to open up PF 2e with it, but I think the goal isn't to open PF 2e specifically, but create a bullet-proof open source gaming license that can be used by anyone. Like, if I build a new d7 system that uses d7 dice to resolve everything, I could decide to use ORC to license it if I want to allow anyone/everyone to modify and hack accordingly. It's not CC but it sounds like they are committing to have it at least be copyleft. Again, I could be majorly misunderstanding, so feel free to correct me if I am.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:IIUC, the ORC license is just... a license. Ostensibly, they're going to open up PF 2e with it, but I think the goal isn't to open PF 2e specifically, but create a bullet-proof open source gaming license that can be used by anyone. Like, if I build a new d7 system that uses d7 dice to resolve everything, I could decide to use ORC to license it if I want to allow anyone/everyone to modify and hack accordingly. It's not CC but it sounds like they are committing to have it at least be copyleft. Again, I could be majorly misunderstanding, so feel free to correct me if I am. I think that’s the intention. I don’t mean to pick on Paizo in particular here: viral licenses are generally better for anyone who’s further up the content creation stream. I don’t think there’s a strong moral preference for viral over non-viral, I just also don’t think people consider the advantage it gives the original publishers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Paizo at least in theory isn't going to own it. Need to trust them to keep them at their word obviously, but their stated goal is to hand this license off to a party not affiliated with selling Tabletop games. To Own and manage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Paizo still has investors who wil have growth targets. The publicity might be good at the moment, but it's highly likely there'll still be a catch. I mean even ignoring short-term sales, just getting their name and PF's name front and center in the public discourse before D&D One launches is going to pay huge dividends long-term. Dexo posted:Paizo at least in theory isn't going to own it. Need to trust them to keep them at their word obviously, but their stated goal is to hand this license off to a party not affiliated with selling Tabletop games. To Own and manage. A third party controlling the license is good. A third party literally owning the SRD copyrights would be even better, like what is often done with people assigning software rights to the free software foundation. That would mean changes to, in Paizo's case, how they actually license PF2E, but it could be done. (Since there's no actual SRD for PF2E.) Rescue Toaster fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
Rescue Toaster posted:A third party controlling the license is good. A third party literally owning the SRD copyrights would be even better, like what is often done with people assigning software rights to the free software foundation. That would mean changes to, in Paizo's case, how they actually license PF2E, but it could be done. (Since there's no actual SRD for PF2E.) That’s a really good idea. It’d put them on an even playing field with anyone else who wanted to derive from Pathfinder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Because the specific restrictions/permissions in the OGL worked fairly well for most people, having RPG-specific language makes sense, and there's no Creative Commons license that's immediately workable to step in. For example, I'm not aware of anything Creative Commons that allows for the cleaving of product identity and open content that was possible under the OGL. People were used to the OGL and found it fine to work under; there's no reason to change away from that model except to legally tighten it up and get it out from under Wizards' scheming. The games that do use CC make sure to make that separation by publishing what they want to be CC in a separate place, instead or in addition to what's published inside of what they want to restrict with other licenses. See Blades in the Dark. I'm of the opinion that fewer licenses make things much clearer to all involved - I would be interested to see what the ORC looks like and then see what about it is so superior to just dual-licensing parts of your
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The games that do use CC make sure to make that separation by publishing what they want to be CC in a separate place, instead or in addition to what's published inside of what they want to restrict with other licenses. See Blades in the Dark. I think the key thing would be probably exactly the same "product identity vs mechanical content" split that made the OGL more appealing to a lot of small-time authors than just opening up everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
Roadie posted:I think the key thing would be probably exactly the same "product identity vs mechanical content" split that made the OGL more appealing to a lot of small-time authors than just opening up everything. Small-time authors will still have to go over their own work and decide what parts of it they want to open regardless of what license they come up with, and you can already put your SRD aside a CC-BY and keep the rest closed off. I guess I'm confused as to what else needs to be there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Small-time authors will still have to go over their own work and decide what parts of it they want to open regardless of what license they come up with, and you can already put your SRD aside a CC-BY and keep the rest closed off. I guess I'm confused as to what else needs to be there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Go look at a monster stat block in 5e. Now express that stat block in such a way that it includes all of the game mechanics, and excludes all the identifying parts of a copyrightable monster. Now do that for 50+ monsters. Then figure out how you can consider this to be easier than saying "the monsters themselves are product identity, the mechanics describing this are open game content." At baseline, without a special license, you already can't claim copyright on the mechanics of the monsters. What you can do, and CC will let you do this, is publish your monster manual as a default copyrighted work (and also trademark the monsters, I suppose, which is also something no license is going to just do for you automatically), and then write a "description of how monsters work", call that the "Monster Reference Document" or MRD, and put that out on a CC license. And to be clear, someone could rephrase the MRD and publish that without your CC license, the only thing that's defensible is the specific expression of how you wrote that down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 02:45
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:At baseline, without a special license, you already can't claim copyright on the mechanics of the monsters. Okay, and are you ready to fight a million dollar lawsuit with Wizards of the Coast to prove that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 02:47
|
|
|
Oh wow. Looks like Funagain is closing. I know them mostly from kickstarter fulfillments. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 02:49
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Okay, and are you ready to fight a million dollar lawsuit with Wizards of the Coast to prove that? What are you talking about? I was referring to small-time authors and the context is the ORC, what do lawsuits by Wizards have to do with it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
aahahahahahahahahahah https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615097747983695872  a month lmfao ahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Those changes seem a bit unrealistic. I don't believe they will actully happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
$30/month/player What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:$30/month/player Yeah it's why I don't think it's going to be a thing. By default Beyond is free to use, with two Sub Types. Hero which unlocks a bunch of extra things for $2.99/mo and Master which does the same and unlocks content sharing for $5.99/mo. To go from that to 30 is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
xbox live gold is $25/month, and look how much more you're getting here!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
it's like paying for a WoW subscription except also you have to power the servers yourself by running on a hamster wheel
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:21
|
|
|
On the one hand that's the kind of outrageous poo poo I would make up to keep people mad at WotC. On the other hand, it is so comically dumb that I could see it being a thing they at least pitched.Midjack posted:xbox live gold is $25/month, and look how much more you're getting here! If you think about it D&D provides you with infinite content, because the only limit is your imagination. Therefore no price could accurately capture how much value it provides! Time to turn on the money hose!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Wasn't there a rumor like a year ago that Beyond was going to go to 30 bucks a month that everyone hated and WotC then said they were never planning to do? Edit: Yes, back in August, even includes the "no homebrew" for basic level thing 
Piell fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jan 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:23
|
|
|
"AI-DMs" is the one that really raises my eyebrows there
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:27
|
|
|
Piell posted:Wasn't there a rumor like a year ago that Beyond was going to go to 30 bucks a month that everyone hated and WotC then said they were never planning to do? No it was a faked leaked image, which was admitted to be fake. Also just read the "The $30pm is for the highest tier, and includes monthly content drops" Which just means we need to know more if this is true. As that $30pm just needs to justify itself and be shown with the other tiers and what they offer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:27
|
|
|
Midjack posted:xbox live gold is $25/month, and look how much more you're getting here! If Paizo can get a higher tier of Pathfinder Nexus on XBox Live Gold or GamePass they'll really eat Hasbro's lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Which just means we need to know more if this is true. As that $30pm just needs to justify itself and be shown with the other tiers and what they offer. I used to drop $15 a month on my Paizo flip map subscription. Physical, not virtual, but that’s only one sub — Paizo encourages you to do four subs at once for a bonus discount! WotC doesn’t produce material at anything like Paizo’s pace, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 03:41
|
|