5E Product Walkthrough Playlist
Page 1 of 11 123 ... Last
  1. #1
    ddavison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,123
    Blog Entries
    21

    SmiteWorks OGL 1.2 Discussion

    Useful links:
    OGL 1.2 Playtest Announcement
    Actual OGL 1.2 Draft
    Creative Commons License


    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.
    Last edited by ddavison; January 20th, 2023 at 18:47.

  2. #2
    JohnD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Johnstown ON
    Posts
    5,316
    Blog Entries
    1
    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.
    "I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."

    - John Diefenbaker

    RIP Canada, February 21, 2022

  3. #3
    ddavison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,123
    Blog Entries
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD View Post
    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?

  4. #4
    BelleMuerte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    North Florida, USA
    Posts
    42
    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.

  5. #5
    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?

  6. #6
    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.
    Last edited by celestian; January 20th, 2023 at 17:19.
    ---
    Fantasy Grounds AD&D Reference Bundle, AD&D Adventure Bundle 1, AD&D Adventure Bundle 2
    Documentation for AD&D 2E ruleset.
    Custom Maps (I2, S4, T1-4, Barrowmaze,Lost City of Barakus)
    Note: Please do not message me directly on this site, post in the forums or ping me in FG's discord.

  7. #7
    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?

  8. #8
    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.

  9. #9
    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)


    Novacian a.k.a. Aulderyn Xyrosum
    Note: my name is not "novocaine" mispelled

    Fate is the roll of the dice, destiny the play of the game.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    7,381
    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
    Last edited by Griogre; January 20th, 2023 at 18:18.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
FG Spreadshirt Swag

Log in

Log in