SmiteWorks OGL 1.2 Discussion

[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.