Dungeons & Dragons plans to publish a new Systems Reference Document alongside its new 2024 rulebooks, hammering the final nail in the OGL's coffin.
  • Glytch ( Glytch@ttrpg.network ) 
    23·
    2 years ago

    Yeah, but if you make homebrew they don’t like, they’ll send the Pinkertons after you.

    (I know that was about an MTG set. I’m just making a joke about how little faith I have in WOTC.)

    • Kichae ( Kichae@lemmy.ca ) English
      6·
      2 years ago

      It’s been so frustrating seeing people on YouTube and wherever who have spent the past 18 months “spotlighting” and “advocating for playing” other systems climb all over each other to praise this move. A move that does nothing but tell 3rd party publishers that they can safely go back to ignoring Shadowrun, Pathfinder, and OSR games.

  • Neato ( Neato@ttrpg.network ) English
    19·
    2 years ago

    This includes all class features, monsters, rules expressions and anything that isn’t trademarked as intellectual property. Essentially, you get mechanics for cover but not Beholders, martial archetypes but not the city and denizens of Baldur’s Gate.

    Is this even necessary? Isn’t all of that stuff already non-copyrightable?

    • DAMunzy ( DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 
      15·
      2 years ago

      You are correct. They do this because corporations in the past have sued over even though rules, etc. are fair use. When they first started the OGL they gained a lot of goodwill from the community.

    • Flushmaster ( Flushmaster@ttrpg.network ) 
      3·
      2 years ago

      Short answer, no. There is a lot of nitpicky fine print and “nuance” involved but while you cannot copyright rolling a twenty sided die you can copyright a bunch of distinct and organized thoughts and specific groups thereof, such as the collection of rules that make up a class or subclass. If that class, subclass, spell, made up monster with a specific name and abilities, etc is published in some work that is sold for profit then legal action can occur.

      Anything under creative commons effectively becomes public domain. If it appears in a WotC book, digital content, etc and is not specifically under CC, like say spells and subclasses from any supplement not included in that (such as Xanathar or Tasha), it is copyrighted and WotC can and will sue you if you republish it.

  • Kroxx ( Kroxx@lemm.ee ) 
    9·
    2 years ago

    WOTC could offer to come suck me off and still wouldn’t give them a fuckin dime. Fuck you Hasbro, you lazy sacks of shit wanted to have intellectual rights to work you didn’t create just because it’s in a rule system you have some IP in. You forever burned the bridge for me.

            • wahming ( wahming@monyet.cc ) English
              3·
              2 years ago

              Source? That was not my understanding of the OGL. It guaranteed a perpetual license to users, and there is no legal precedence for such a revocation. That didn’t stop them from trying to bully everybody into submission. What reason is there to think any other license would make a difference? It’s not about the chances of them winning, it’s about the legal trouble and bills they can cause. I’m not sure why anybody would trust hasbro / wotc after that fuckup, regardless of their promises.

              • HubertManne ( HubertManne@kbin.social ) 
                2·
                2 years ago

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License

                Linda Codega, for Io9 in January 2023, reported on the details from a leaked full copy of the OGL 1.1 including updated terms such as no longer authorizing use of the OGL1.0. Codega explained that while the original OGL granted a “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license” it also included language around authorized versions of the license and “according to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL”.

                basically their lawyers combed through and thought they found a way around it. ORC was cleaned and and to make it clear that is not possible has this:

                b. Modifications. This ORC License may not be amended, superseded, modified, updated, repealed, revoked, or deauthorized. Neither You nor Licensor may modify the terms of this ORC License; however, You may enter into a separate agreement of Your own making provided such agreement does not seek to modify the terms hereof. This ORC License does not, and shall not be interpreted to reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this ORC License.

              • eerongal ( eerongal@ttrpg.network ) 
                1·
                2 years ago

                The text of OGL 1.0a does not say that its irrevocable, and that was the big problem. It does say perpetual, but not irrevocable, and that was where the supposed crux of the argument came in. That said, during the OGL debacle, i saw it pointed out that the legal licensing definition of “irrevocable” was decided in court years after the ogl was written. I know the original writers of it had come out and said that they had intended it to be irrevocable, though

    • random stranger ( kyonshi@dice.camp ) 
      2·
      2 years ago

      @loboaureo @copacetic yeah. Until they decide to argue to revoke the license for reasons.

      (Also you have to watch out what part is covered under the license, some stuff is gonna be product identity)

      (Actually, the beneficial part of this is mostly that you can use their own expression of the rules to make games. Rules as such are not copyrightable, but if you are expressing the rules too similar to their own texts they still could sue you. Using such a license is supposed to take care of that)