|
CitizenKeen posted:A little sad that 13th Age is squandering this window. If you want a game that feels like 5E D&D but is better and not WotC, 13th Age is your best bet. Some of the people squandering this window are very funny, though.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
I mean . . . yeah? That's Wizards saying, "We're cool with Deal A, we don't want to unintentionally sign up for Deal B if a judge changes things. We'll renegotiate from square one in that case." Which seams reasonable, and I'm betting is also standard language if we start doing Severability comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I mean . . . yeah? That's Wizards saying, "We're cool with Deal A, we don't want to unintentionally sign up for Deal B if a judge changes things. We'll renegotiate from square one in that case." Which seams reasonable, and I'm betting is also standard language if we start doing Severability comparisons. EDIT: Language in the announcement blog post is interesting. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest They're continuing to insist that they have to deauthorise 1.0a, because the possibility of someone putting out hate content under it is unacceptable... without acknowledging that someone doing that, by virtue of not being able to use Product Identity, couldn't associated it meaningfully with the D&D brand. It feels like there's a part of their position there which they are not able to publicly enunciate, and therefore are reduced to just repeating this point without fully explaining why it's the case. Did they sign something misguided themselves when they reached the deals for those movies and TV shows or something? Does some major collaboration hinge on them not only purging hate content from the DM Vault or similar licensing which lets you use brand identity, but from OGL stuff as well? It would be understandable - in some ways even laudable - if that were so, but they don't say, and if there's some sort of confidentiality issue surrounding their reasons they might never be able to say. Warthur fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jan 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:I mean . . . yeah? That's Wizards saying, "We're cool with Deal A, we don't want to unintentionally sign up for Deal B if a judge changes things. We'll renegotiate from square one in that case." Which seams reasonable, and I'm betting is also standard language if we start doing Severability comparisons. It’s not quite as standard as having a severability clause at all, but it’s not unknown; sometimes you’ll see “parties must negotiate if severability is triggered” type clauses, but those are usually in the context of party contracts rather than open licenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
Maybe it's because the license would be "perpetual" and "irrevocable"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
I'm glad it's fake, but let me just soapbox for a second: WotC gets about $5 a month from me in a lump sum for their Master subscription, and that's about as much as I'd ever want to pay for DnDBeyond. It's been years and the loving site is still designed like hot rear end in so many places. It's all very clearly designed to get customers in the door and not to get them to actually play. Maybe all their optimization resources are going into their VTT, but until I'm proven otherwise I can't presume that and am still working with a user experience that feels like a first draft no one got around to properly revising. And because WotC is part of Hasbro and therefore functionally the Coca Cola of the TTRPG world, and therefore always going to be able to reach into its deep pockets and just outlast/outmarket everyone else in the space, there isn't much actual incentive for them to do a good job. For the most part I'm resigned to putting up with that, but even with pathetic dopes like me there is a limit, and that limit would absolutely be some bugfuck pricing like $30/month without some truly unbelievable goods and services to go with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
Warthur posted:It feels like it's more standard for a contract negotiated between a limited set of parties, where if the deal falls apart then everyone loses out so everyone will have a motive to renegotiate from square one, and where you know who else is getting involved in the deal and can get a feeling of whether you want to be in a contractual relationship with them, than an open licence which could involve a plethora of different parties, which can't stop a raging turboasshole from jumping on and then needing legal action to stop them being assholes (said legal action potentially having unintended fallout if the turboasshole also has a good lawyer), and where the issuing party may abruptly decide that actually, their best interests are served by shutting down the competition altogether. I'm gonna hazard a guess and say Wizard wants more control than the wild west of 1.0a, and are picking the most unobjectable sounding feature 1.2 has over it to be their flag to wave. Otherwise all they'd need to do is add the content clause and "irrevocable" to a 1.0b and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
Warthur posted:It feels like there's a part of their position there which they are not able to publicly enunciate, and therefore are reduced to just repeating this point without fully explaining why it's the case. Did they sign something misguided themselves when they reached the deals for those movies and TV shows or something? Does some major collaboration hinge on them not only purging hate content from the DM Vault or similar licensing which lets you use brand identity, but from OGL stuff as well? It would be understandable - in some ways even laudable - if that were so, but they don't say, and if there's some sort of confidentiality issue surrounding their reasons they might never be able to say. Videogames. They want to have full recourse to sue OGL-facing videogames into oblivion if they try to update or add content to their game because the license they operate under would be technically "de-authorized". Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous is getting a major update in 47 days. With two more planned for later in the year. Solasta is continuing to update, and it's unclear how much their "Tactical Adventures" license covers as opposed to the OGL. This is, among other things, absolutely about crushing any video game that uses OGL-based rules to ensure they don't compete with Baldur's Gate III and other upcoming D&D projects (which we know there are like six of, even after the recent cancellations).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
Of course, the most obvious argument for the game people would be "actually, we're not licensing from Wizards, we're licensing from company ABC that's licensing from Wizards using a license identical to the one that Wizards offers directly, and Wizards doesn't get to decide what other companies do with their licenses even if those licenses are using license text originally provided by Wizards".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I imagine that stuff will be filled in come the release of One D&D. quote:
They wouldn't have cited specific page numbers in the current SRD if that wasn't an indicator of exactly what is and isn't being released under CC once the new OGL is out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Of course, the most obvious argument for the game people would be "actually, we're not licensing from Wizards, we're licensing from company ABC that's licensing from Wizards using a license identical to the one that Wizards offers directly, and Wizards doesn't get to decide what other companies do with their licenses even if those licenses are using license text originally provided by Wizards". OGL licensees don’t have the right to sublicense Wizards’ copyrighted works, though, even if they’re properly licensed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
The Bee posted:At this point, what changes from publishing that content under 1.2 instead of 1.0a? I haven't had a chance to pop into the legal doc yet, but the worst and most invasive provisions seem to be gone. At this point, the worst thing about it is that it means they can change the rules and gently caress people over whenever they want by ignoring their own rules. And that is a gateway to some serious fuckery. quote:Also god damnit. Did they really have to bring Tweet back? Rob is being a shithead and defending his awful friend and seriously damaging faith in the brand in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:They wouldn't have cited specific page numbers in the current SRD if that wasn't an indicator of exactly what is and isn't being released under CC once the new OGL is out. Providing specific page numbers also reveals how seriously the D&D1 feedback is(n't) being considered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
moths posted:Providing specific page numbers also reveals how seriously the D&D1 feedback is(n't) being considered. Uh, what
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
They never said One D&D wouldn't be just 5e with more stuff. They've specifically said it would be compatible with existing products. Also it's child's play to drop content into specific page numbers with modern layout tools.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Covok posted:At this point, the worst thing about it is that it means they can change the rules and gently caress people over whenever they want by ignoring their own rules. And that is a gateway to some serious fuckery. Assuming the OGL goes into print as is (which there is a decent chance it won't) they can't change it freely. Unlike the old OGL they are adding irrevocable to this one, with clauses to only be able to change 2 exact things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Assuming the OGL goes into print as is (which there is a decent chance it won't) they can't change it freely. Unlike the old OGL they are adding irrevocable to this one, with clauses to only be able to change 2 exact things. Okay, since people seem to be missing this point repeatedly: irrevocable applies to the contract formed when you accept the license, not to the offer the license text represents. Wizards will not be able to (outside the exceptions identified in the license text) revoke licenses that have been accepted. That does not require them to leave the offer open forever - they can still revoke (or deauthorize) the OGL1.2 if they want to. What it means is if you publish, they can’t retract the license you thereby obtained.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Assuming the OGL goes into print as is (which there is a decent chance it won't) they can't change it freely. Unlike the old OGL they are adding irrevocable to this one, with clauses to only be able to change 2 exact things. If they can 'de-authorize' 1.0a then they can just 'de-authorize' 1.2 anytime they want. Two years from now they just produce 1.4, bring back any horrible provisions they want, and de-authorize 1.2. Assuming that's legal, you can no longer produce any new content using the 1.2 OGL and the SRD. Also, it's notable this document claims 1.0a is de-authorized, but makes no mention of the d20SRD, effectively banning all publication of any new material based on d20SRD, period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
A bunch of new signees to ORC, including every major VTT: https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7y
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Okay, since people seem to be missing this point repeatedly: irrevocable applies to the contract formed when you accept the license, not to the offer the license text represents. Ok thanks for that, not super familiar with legal stuff. Lumbermouth posted:A bunch of new signees to ORC, including every major VTT: https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7y
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
A few big names I didn't see any announcements for are there now, like Mongoose and Pelgrane. And yeah, VTTs. I am guess Cubicle 7 and Modiphius aren't interested in this for now; they'd probably be in this list by now otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:They never said One D&D wouldn't be just 5e with more stuff. They've specifically said it would be compatible with existing products. They made the same broad claims early in 5e's development.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
PST posted:Kyle's accout on D&D beyond was created specifically to post that message. Because D&D is so much a part of his life he didn't have a work d&d beyond accout despite that also being a huge part of the business. Brink's on Linked In. Mostly PC game design: started with Spectrum Holobyte and Microprose, did Sims Online for EA, then unproductive year-long stints with Cryptic (Champions Online), Activision, Sega (completed Iron Man 2), then jumped to iWin and "Viggle Rewards" (aka BS monetizing and gamification). Then almost 3 years as a "consultant." The two years plus at ArenaNet directing Guild Wars 2 sounds legit. Started at WotC in 2021. So he's got to be the lead on the D&D Beyond/VTT/"monetize that poo poo" project. Didn't complete his college degree to go into PC games in the 90s? Yeah, he probably has played D&D for a long time. That doesn't mean his past record should inspire much confidence. The VTT page is pretty bare bones ATM, but I have questions. It explicitly says "don't use our art for the Owlbear, but feel free to use other art for the Owlbear." And that's a good rule. But it also says "you can't do an animated effect of a magic missile because that's video-games and not VTT." How can WotC assert ownership of the animated effect of a magic missile, especially on the basis of a text description in the PHB? "Don't rip off the Magic Missile animation in our VTT" is perfectly reasonable, but saying nobody is allowed to associate any such animation with a spell in a VTT titled Magic Missile? I don't see that they have any leg to stand on there legally apart from "you agreed to the license and that's the only reason you can't," in much the same way that their SRD excludes some rules which almost certainly could be used, in their pure mechanical form, in a non-OGL product. All that said, the 1.2 draft is a massive improvement on the leaked version. And 1.0a is effectively dead now, anyway. Nobody with any sense would plan to release a project under 1.0a unless they planned to challenge Hasbro in court, and who has both the will and that kind of money? Unless the EFF or a similar group brings a lawsuit--and that could take years with no clear remedy beyond being able to publish under 1.0a again--a few publishers will opt for 1.2, and it may be popular with developers not presently in business or people posting things to D&D Beyond for nominal amounts of money. But everyone else has already abandoned the sinking ship. moths posted:Providing specific page numbers also reveals how seriously the D&D1 feedback is(n't) being considered. The previous SRD covers 5E. One doesn't exist yet. I'd wager actual money that they don't even have a complete draft written yet. These page numbers must refer to the next SRD they release. One will only be in the SRD if they include it. Also, the page numbers and Creative Commons statement appear on the "introduction" page, which is not part of the OGL draft. It's unclear how the CC license will interact with this material: CC says it is irrevocable, but if they can change the page numbers licensed then they can revoke the whole thing in effect. Or if they can change the SRD and start the page numbers at 500 or something like that. Maybe this language will get tightened up in future drafts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:47
|
|
|
Megazver posted:A few big names I didn't see any announcements for are there now, like Mongoose and Pelgrane. And yeah, VTTs. Modiphius just rolled out their own SRD and community license for 2d20, so there's really no reason for them to grab the ORC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
There's some serious language fuckery going on with the whole 'deauthorised' thing which ends up making itself contradictory. The OGL 1.0a says: quote:9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. Wotc are now claiming quote:
Nothing in the original OGL says what determines authorised or not other than the implicit 'a license that follows the original', but WotC are deauthorising. However, they're then claiming that previous content is still licensed. Except if the license is deauthorised then it cannot be, as there is no license anymore. They're contradicting themselves. They're acting as if they can pick and choose how the word 'authorised' works and avoid the 'remove all old content' part of what they're doing, even though that's implicit in the idea that the existing licenses are no longer authorised. PST fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jan 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
Lumbermouth posted:A bunch of new signees to ORC, including every major VTT: https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7y The ORC is gathering into a Horde 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:55
|
|
|
Megazver posted:A few big names I didn't see any announcements for are there now, like Mongoose and Pelgrane. And yeah, VTTs. It really saddens me that 2d20 isn't getting opened up, but they've spent the last year prepping for their Community License, so I kind of get it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Lumbermouth posted:A bunch of new signees to ORC, including every major VTT: https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7y Interesting that Goodman Games is there, after their pretty lackluster initial response. Also, Troll Lord Games, eh? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Interesting that Goodman Games is there, after their pretty lackluster initial response. There's a few yikes names in there - Autarch, Frog God - but that's kind of the price of having a genuinely open licence; if you start being selective about who can participate, it stops being open.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Right, so why wouldn't a VTT be allowed to have it's own animation for a magic missile for being too much like a video game, if a video game is allowed to exist anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
I feel their definition of what a video game is is too strict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:I feel their definition of what a video game is is too strict. I'm not sure what people would expect from a pile of Microsofters who worked in the Xbox division and then a bunch of them also did mobile game poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
moths posted:Providing specific page numbers also reveals how seriously the D&D1 feedback is(n't) being considered. This is a draft, not an actual license. My expectation is that page numbers will be updated in this or a future version of this license, when both the license is final and there's new page numbers for the D&D One release. Either way, it's a huge stretch to take this as "proof" that they've already got a draft for D&D One and aren't going to alter it based on feedback. We've actually seen the proposed text of D&D One updates/changes from one month to the next as Wizards proceeds with its community testing and surveys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
PST posted:There's some serious language fuckery going on with the whole 'deauthorised' thing which ends up making itself contradictory. Yeah they seem to be avoiding the 'we can revoke an old license that was perpetual and before the word irrevocable was common wording' legal question by attempting to claim the language about authorized licenses gives them an explicit ability to de-authorize. As you say, even if this were valid, it would completely void the license. It does not say "You can continue distributing any material created under this license as long as it was first published using an authorized license, even if that license later becomes de-authorized." That's something completely made up by WoTC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status/1616223680345907201
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
PST posted:There's some serious language fuckery going on with the whole 'deauthorised' thing which ends up making itself contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
"Which is to say, we don't want to shut them down all at once, we want to strangle the life out of them over the course of several years until we contain the entire industry within our walled garden."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
Rescue Toaster posted:
Yeah whether they can deauthorise or not, they absolutely cannot change the terms of an existing license. And this really looks like they just don't understand it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:51
|
|
|
Warthur posted:There's a few yikes names in there - Autarch, Frog God - but that's kind of the price of having a genuinely open licence; if you start being selective about who can participate, it stops being open. You don’t have to let them participate in your PR. Autarch is really iffy: once someone goes to work for Milo, he’s put himself way beyond the pale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
PST posted:Yeah whether they can deauthorise or not, they absolutely cannot change the terms of an existing license. And this really looks like they just don't understand it at all. See my prior post in the thread: they understand it just fine, you’re missing the difference between the offered license and accepted license. They’re only deauthorizing the first of the two. To use an analogy: If my local burger place offers a “free burgers for life if you eat a ten pound burger in an hour” ‘license’, and five people manage that, there’s no issue with the burger place stopping making that offer while still giving lifetime burgers to the people who succeeded. In this analogy, the OGL is the offer/challenge and the already published products are the people who get burgers for life even after they stop offering the challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 03:57
|
|