SmiteWorks OGL 1.2 Discussion

[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.