As game rules cannot be copyrighted, you do not, and have never needed a license to publish third party content for RPGs.

As game rules cannot be copyrighted, you do not, and have never needed a license to publish third party content for RPGs. Using an OGL is unwise for a publisher, since it is a list of restrictions that you must follow or lose the license.

Paizo's ORC license serves the same purpose as the original OGL: it is a magic feather that serves as free advertisement for Paizo. Thus, it proves once and for all that Paizo has no ideas except for Wizards' old mistakes.

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  2. 3 weeks ago
    Smaugchad

    Paizo is literally made up of the people who created three OGL in the first place. If you want supporters for your argument, dig up the graves of the Judges' Guild

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >dig up the graves of the Judges' Guild

      at least one of them is still around
      >he's a chud now

      • 3 weeks ago
        Smaugchad

        Yeah I was in that thread where we all sort of mutually discovered that. What a world.

        Wait, does the OGL prevent gender dysphoria?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, it in fact encourages it if Twitter is to be believed

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    perhaps that is true, we shall see. I'd sooner trust Paizo than WotC, however, barring the plethora of other options of course

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cool.
    We already knew that.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Thus, it proves once and for all that Paizo has no ideas except for Wizards' old mistakes.

    Has anyone ever entertained the idea that Paizo did anything aside from take WotC castoffs and polish them up a bit?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The main function of the OGL is to provide protection from legal action when it would be spurious or when whether or not there had been a copyright violation is ambiguous. Sure you can xerox DnD by just removing all the copyrighted terms and that would be legal but the OGL was a guarantee WotC wouldn't just sue you anyways

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The main function of the OGL is to provide protection from legal action when it would be spurious or when whether or not there had been a copyright violation is ambiguous.

      This. A corporation can bury a case in money, drag things out, and even if they wouldn't ultimately win (and with expensive lawyers on their side, who knows?), you may never get there, and even if you do, you may be heavily in debt and utterly screwed anyway. So having a case that's crystal clear with no ambiguities is much better than not having that. That makes it so it's probably not even worth them taking you to court in the first place.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The main function of the OGL is to provide protection from legal action when it would be spurious or when whether or not there had been a copyright violation is ambiguous.

      Sure, but it doesn't do that anymore than a piece of paper that says "you can't sue me" the OGL has no legal grounds.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Every lawyer to ever have fucking read it disagrees with you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah okay I bet buddy there's actual lawyers making content and discussing and pointing out how It's bullshit but I guess you know every lawyer that's ever read it and heard their opinions.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't ORC specifically intended to be out of Paizo's control and held by a nonprofit?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Azora Law will have custody of it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Their statement said that was an expediency measure and they would be forming a foundation to hold it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ah, is that so?
          I must have missed it.
          I stand corrected then, thank you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >foundation
          Oh great, another excuse to form faggy political committees.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yep. A foundation like this almost guaranteed to be overrun by trannies, manchildren and social justice warriors within a few years (if not from day 1). And then they'll force some sort of "no bigotry or racism" clause into the license.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Azora Law will have custody of it.

      Their statement said that was an expediency measure and they would be forming a foundation to hold it.

      >The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why not just use a creative commons license instead?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because it's a publicity stunt.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because it's a publicity stunt.

          Because the idea behind the ORC is everyone can get behind it and use to allow people to make third party content for all of their games. If it was in creative commons it can't do that without each game creator giving up certain rights.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Assuming that the ORC license fulfills a similar purpose to the OGL:

          If you put the Pathfinder SRD in a CC-BY, then other people can make Routescouter based on that content, but they maintain control over every last word of the resultant product, so they may try suing somebody for copying their variation on Vancian casting.

          If you put it in a CC-BY-SA, then they can make Routescouter, and anybody else can borrow from Routescouter, but their original setting for Routescouter, Goblaridion is now covered by CC-BY-SA too (at least, whatever is contained in the Routescouter Core Rules).

          The OGL creates a middle ground, where game mechanical content is explicitly declared to be OGC in all cases always forever, and you can opt-in to share as much more as you like. This allows companies to freely engage with the ecosystem without worrying about losing LotR or Dark Souls to the public domain.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Why not just use a creative commons license instead?
          Because they're not actually interested in an open system. They're interested in the good PR and free labor that comes with an open system. Paizo wants to own pathfinder, they just want you to give them free labor and marketshare.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If this were the case Magic: Middle Ages wouldn't have gotten DMCA'd into oblivion and I could make profit sell Alibaba printed boxes of my own MTG cards for $20/box.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Middle Ages got DMCA'd because it ripped off Magic's iconography, which can be trademarked.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The trick is that WotC can protect mtg as art, even down to the wording on the card. Yes, the words printed on the textbox are fucking art and you cannot print a card with the exact same sentences as the ones that have been printed by wotc, even tho those words are just the rules themselves. It's crazy and the very reason I hate gays that want to have videogames legally classified as art instead of games.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The OGL let you use more than "rules". It let you use everything from Magic Missile to Dragon-like Kobolds. This allows a game company to publish trademarked material that other game companies can use if they allow the aforementioned game company to use their rules.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      essentially it lets the brothas be part of the marvel cinematic universe

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't know how the court system works.
    Tht's obvious. Even if you are in the right and win damages after the case, the proccess of fighting a copyright suit will bankrupt you if you don't have at least Paizo money let alone Hasbro money.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Paizo doesn't have the money to stand up to Wizards.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They don't need that much liquid on hand. They have enough good will in the indudustry to have access to other people's money for something like this.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do they even need it?? They literally have the people who made the original OGL who can stand as witnesses and there's evidence that even not that far back WotC themselves had a statement on their site saying the OGL is irrevocable.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They do. There is no way in hell a class action over the OGL 1.1 is going to be heard in any discrict not sympathetic to hasbro. These kinds of cases are always held in the state of teh company's home (Washington for both WotC and Paizo), Northern California, or West Texas. In all three cases Hasbro as poured millions of dollars into the local economies and no judge will give a summery judgement against Hasbrow for it. The case will be seen in trial, and whomever has the least money will be bled dry.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Not the other anon, but I live in the seattle area and let me tell you, hasbro and wotc do NOT put in the sort of money they need to to be able to repudiate a contract like the OGL. I know that reading your replies that you THINK that wotc and Hasbro are hot shit, but dude, in WA state they can't even compare to shit like Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and the other big guys that dominate this region They are small change in comparison... and here's the thing, this area RELIES on strong contract law. If the courts around here get the reputation of being soft on companies that break contracts and licenses, it will signal to companies, like amazon, like , microsoft, like fucking Boeing... then this would become a no go zone for those businesses, because they'd know that they can't rely on contracts or licenses wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on. Seriously man, contract law exists because it underpins a lot of the business that makes shit happen. If they play favorites on a clear cut piece of law, they'd be in serious trouble. The problem here is that this is NOT a complex issue. All that needs to happen is wotc states that that 1.0a is no longer valid (they still have not said that 1.0a is dead YET) then what'll happen is that one of the licensees will sue wotc as the licensor and wotc will be the defendant. The plaintiff will ask for a bench ruling on whether wotc can repudiate 1.0a, and the court will have to rule on that narrow point. There's no legal need or justification for depositions, no need for discovery, just a ruling on the intent of the 1.0a. That's it. Also wotc's bs arhguement about "but it doesn't Say irrevocable" will run smack into the fact that that term didn't exist in the legal lexicon,at the time.They'll haul The ppl that created it in ans ask tjhe intent and wotc will be done. This is not a complex issue.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I live in Renton, exactly where their offices are and I used to live in Lacey. Yes, they do put a lot of money into the local economy.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not enough to give them the ability to repudiate a license agreement. Boeing they are not. Also they just opened up 350 programmer positions... but aren't even paying the going rate... they're paying 25-35% below going rate right now, and we're talking the now rate... the rate after ms and amazon just let a boatload of people go. So no.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You wanna hurt WotC? Here's how.

    Important facts about the situation, copyright, and licenses:
    >FACT: One D&D will be completely backwards compatible with 5e.
    >FACT: Existing copyright law says the mechanics and rules aren't copyrightable, only their specific literary expression.
    >FACT: You own the copyright to your own specific literary expression by default. You can do whatever you want with it.
    >FACT: What the OGL v1.0a licenses is the language in the SRD, not the abstract mechanics and rules.

    The plan:
    >download the most current version of their SRD, with all errata and updates
    >rewrite all spells, feats, rules, races, everything
    >release the entire thing under the ORC when it's out

    By doing what is outlined above, you'll have given every 3rd party publisher on the planet free reign to publish their own versions of D&D's rulebooks, mechanically perfect copies with your newly rewritten literary expression, and WotC won't be able to do one fucking thing. The reason this works is, like I said, the OGL v1.0a only ever provided a license for the specific literary expression of the SRD, which third parties could use and adapt at will under the license.

    In essence, you would be moving the entire D&D game (without the trademarks) to the ORC license.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good plan. My internet skills are in the pits, but can someone archive this whole site?:

      https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's on archive.org

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Excellent. What about the other OGL SRDs like pathfinder, M&M, and Fate?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i wouldn't do my classmate's homework for them in highschool and i'm certainly not going to do the busywork for a world of closet gays.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"You wanna hurt [insert corpo name here]?"

      Stop being a retard and simply don't buy their shit! is that too difficult?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's easy, but it's not enough. I'm talking about hurting them in a way that is exponentially larger and much longer lasting.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          DON'T BUY THEIR SHIT

          that's how you hurt capitalism and their cronies. They go bankrupt and that's it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No shit. You know what hurts them worse than one person not buying their shit? A lot of people not buying their shit. This would create an enduring (for at least two or three years, the life cycle of an edition) fragment of their potential customers that would buy the exactly equivalent other option. Think it through, man.

            Or, are you a WotC simp?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              DON'T BUY THEIR SHIT

              are you American? Because most of the time, Americans whine and then keep buying from the same corpo they are whining.

              It's like all burgers have some kind of Stockholm Syndrome with corpos. Maybe some kind of gnomish mind control or something.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Shut the fuck up retard. They are already agreeing with you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no don't leave a bad review or help people find alternatives
            >just silently leave without making a fuss, that'll hurt them more than getting other people to leave!

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              you can talk and whine about their products but if you keep buying them like a retard, it will be meaningless.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But what that anon suggests is better, it also makes other people not buy their shit.
        Are you a complete and utter retard?
        The answer is yes

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        DON'T BUY THEIR SHIT

        that's how you hurt capitalism and their cronies. They go bankrupt and that's it.

        you can talk and whine about their products but if you keep buying them like a retard, it will be meaningless.

        I think we have paid hasbro shills in the thread

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think we’re getting raided by ass-blasted redditors who think they will have less to consoom it the OGL 1.1 comes into force

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Who has time to read lefty memes? Jesus Christ

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't know what a comic is
            Rightard illiteracy is getting out of hand.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The comic sucks. If I wanted to read a manifesto I'd just read that

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's a shit comic with a terrible point. Which gaming store ONLY sells d&d? It's just a excuse for brain dead leftists to continue buying d&d products while complaining about it.

              Nogames gay

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're really overthinking this to justify your idiocy.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >overthinking
                How is that overthinking?
                "Buy something other than d&d in this story"
                "YOU ARE BAAAANED WE CAAAAANT"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Man, you're really reaching hard.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's literally what is written on the comic
                It's literally the point that the comic is making

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And you're getting really butthurt over a joke.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jokes should be fun

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The world doesn't revolve around your thoughts and shit sense of humor.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Man anon, you're really getting butthurt over someone else criticizing an unfunny comic

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most gaming stores would actually LOVE to not have their livelihood depend on WotC's products. Ask anyone who ever organized MtG events.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mind, your manners boy, Uncle Randy gave us hillbilly rapist ents.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Also cannibal catgirls and trapdoor gators.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I could tell this wasnt going to be worth reading before reading a single word on it just from density alone.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm illiterate

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Correct, if you can't write a comic strip concisely you're probably illiterate.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just admit you don't want to read.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >waste your time reading my illiterate spew.
                no.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Another trolling dipshit, huh?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you care so much about defending a shitty comic anon. Did the comic author suck you off once or something

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why did it trigger you so hard?

                You work for Hasbro or something?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sort of always seemed to me the only control would be of the srd and the ogl was just a means for folks to use and publish under a system's srd. so at most wotcc could just fiddle and fuck around with their srd's and maybe remove them from ogl?
      I dunno, im just person watching for entertainment and maybe learning something. there's this guy's giant 300page plus dissertation of the OGL ive been slogging through and find interesting.
      https://docslib.org/doc/9434679/if-you-love-something-set-it-free-open-content-copyright-licensing-and-creative-cultural-expression

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >300page plus dissertation of the OGL
        autism

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          copyright/trademark lawyer. probably a good place to focus the tism.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          copyright/trademark lawyer. probably a good place to focus the tism.

          and the guy has an older interview out there before any of this stuff happened. seems like an ok fellow.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Non-retarded link that lets you download the PDF: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/phd/58

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Actually, I guess I can just post it here.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The plan:
      the most current version of their SRD, with all errata and updates
      all spells, feats, rules, races, everything
      the entire thing under the ORC when it's out
      >
      >By doing what is outlined above, you'll have given every 3rd party publisher on the planet free reign to publish their own versions of D&D's rulebooks, mechanically perfect copies with your newly rewritten literary expression, and WotC won't be able to do one fucking thing. The reason this works is, like I said, the OGL v1.0a only ever provided a license for the specific literary expression of the SRD, which third parties could use and adapt at will under the license.
      I Believe this is the basic plan behind Kobold Press's Newly announced "Core Fantasy" Game

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even better than that, release it under the Creative Commons Zero Attribution license (CC0) -- now it's in the Public Domain and there are zero restrictions. You don't need the ORC. It's now actually, completely free for anyone to do anything with.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. No need to wait for the ORC. The ORC, so far as I can tell, is a publicity stunt looking to frame Paizo and a couple other companies as white knights while they continue to falsely assert property rights over things that are not subject to copyright.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so like your pic related, essentually AI art their content...
      MY god... it just might work... but who would do such a thing...

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I will if I have time when it comes around. I have a web server and can set up MediaWiki to run it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          so like your pic related, essentually AI art their content...
          MY god... it just might work... but who would do such a thing...

          Hell, I've already been thinking about doing exactly that same thing with GURPS.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >implying 5e has anything worth stealing
      >implying 6e will have anything worth stealing

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The paypigs, you shitflick. Being an OGLshill is the only way to run a profit making games.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >anything worth stealing
        All the players, their money and the top spots on DriveThru.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not about if it's legal or not, it's about intimidating masses of the population into thinking they can't afford the legal fees to say that it's legal. To some degree it's actually the fault of the government for making it financially not viable to enforce legality of matters unless copious amounts of money is spent to prove innocence.

      WOTC is going to sue small groups of people into submission knowing that they are doing nothing wrong because the court cases and courts themselves are the punishment in of themselves. Some companies can literally sue people as a form of harassment and will run at a loss as a judicial attack system. WOTC flat out knows that people using DnD are not breaking the law, it's not going to stop them from making a senseless cash grab, paying out investors, and collapsing into nothing, leaving a huge hole in the market all the while destroying a community and service.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Using their legitimate copy rights to falsely assert rights to public domain methods, procedures and practices (the rules of the game) is arguably copyright misuse and jeopardizes their ability to enforce their otherwise lawful rights.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In my country the loser of a lawsuit automatically has to pay all the lawyer fees of the winner.
        That stops a lot of frivolous litigation, and makes lawyers be willing to work for poor people if the other side is rich.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Mechanics aren't copyright but specific literary expressions of it are

      OK so why bother with WoTC copyright at all? Just use the mechanics to begin with

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yup. It's a facade to gain control.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's literally what I am advocating. Using their mechanics but expressing them in a new way, so that they don't fall under the SRD anymore, then giving that away for free to the community.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Most of the expressions of the words aren't subject to copyright in the first place, as changing out something as small as a "may" with a "shall" changes the meaning so much. There are little nuggets of decorative text here and there in the rules, but a complete rewording is unnecessary. See the One-stop Statblocks project for examples.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >unnecessary
            Even if that is true, a 100% rewording is the completely safe route. Remember, this is about taking WotC's control of their system away from them completely and not leaving them a legal leg to stand on. So, we're separating the system from their literary expression completely, just to be sure.

            WotC's options will be:
            >Change to a system that is no longer compatible with 5e, which will break their marketing promises and the current development for One D&D.
            >Accept that they no longer have control of their system, and that 3rd parties can produce mechanically identical games that they can market as such, which hurts WotC's bottom line for at least a few years while they work to develop a new system not related to their current one.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Complete rewording would be ridiculous. Would we replace every instance of, say, "3d6" with "Three six-sided dice?"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, you nimrod. We're not talking about changing individual words. We're talking about replacing sentences and paragraphs wholesale with a different way to convey the same message.

                What I mean is that if the actually important part of what makes DnD DnD is not copyrightable, why even touch the SRD at all or worry about transferring it to normies via paraphrasing sleight of hand? Just grab the mechanics and focus on the game you are building. Never think about WoTC at all

                Because the goal is to take everything about their system and move it outside of their control, so hurt them financially. All the skills, all the feats, all the spells, all the items, all the rules, everything. If you want to try to do that without an SRD to look at and rewrite in your own words, you're going to fail.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, I shouldn't have called you a nimrod here
                I'm just growing frustrated with the inability or unwillingness of some people here to comprehend why I am recommending what I am recommending.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                plagiarism

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Given the express inability of copyright to cover the rules of games (under the 1976 Copyright Act), their actual recourse would be to file patents for the procedures, methods, and processes of the game. For an example, Monopoly was patent-protected for a while.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I've heard people claim they waited far too long to patent these mechanics, and they are now considered to be generic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's safe to say that any motions to patent the procedures, methods, and processes of their game would fail as it's been too long since the the original white box set was released.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What I mean is that if the actually important part of what makes DnD DnD is not copyrightable, why even touch the SRD at all or worry about transferring it to normies via paraphrasing sleight of hand? Just grab the mechanics and focus on the game you are building. Never think about WoTC at all

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Given the express inability of copyright to cover the rules of games (under the 1976 Copyright Act), their actual recourse would be to file patents for the procedures, methods, and processes of the game. For an example, Monopoly was patent-protected for a while.

            ATTENTION GAMERS
            This gay has been ranting for days about how the entire OGL has never been legally valid because he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. Numerous anons have explained to him what the OGL applies to and no matter what you say he will revert to talking about rules because he has some kind of autism.
            Feel free to ignore anything he says

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              that's two different people, one of them being me. The OGL was arguably never valid, yes. It grants you no rights that you did not already have and asserts rights WotC was never entitled to. It offers the licensee no consideration, is not signed by anybody, was probably never enforceable in the first place and has never been enforced. WotC could theoretically sue, but anybody can file doomed lawsuits for any purpose. Its only value was in creating the appearance of certainty that WotC wouldn't get lawsuit-happy, even though the terms of the OGL never actually assert that.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The OGL was arguably never valid, yes. It grants you no rights that you did not already have and asserts rights WotC was never entitled to.
                See

                [...]

                >You read an interpreted a single fucking Act with no legal understanding at all.
                >Meanwhile, at least dozens of IP lawyers have looked at the OGL and none of them, not even the independent or even hostile ones thought “huh this is legally null”. Maybe- just fucking maybe- because it isnt

                >It offers the licensee no consideration, is not signed by anybody, was probably never enforceable in the first place
                You learned about consideration literally hours ago

                [...]

                And you’re wrong, there’s no consideration for the LICENSOR in the original OGL. They give you permission and you give them nothing. And no, your shitty homebrew is not inherently valuable to WotC
                The original OGL is gratuitous and as such YOU as licensee have no enforceable rights
                >and has never been enforced.
                Maybe not in court, but you’re braindead if you don’t think Paizo or CriticalRole never had lawyers sit down and negotiate usage

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And you’re wrong, there’s no consideration for the LICENSOR in the original OGL. They give you permission and you give them nothing

                They give you nothing. Permission to do what does not require permission. There's not one additional right you have as licensee under OGL 1.0a that you wouldn't have had you never accepted it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They give you nothing. Permission to do what does not require permission.
                If the entire OGL were invalid smarter people than you would have noticed- and that’s putting it kindly.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This isn't a novel interpretation. Nobody gave a shit before Hasbro decided to poke the hornet's nest. I mentioned it before, but take a look at the One-stop statblocks project for an example.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Nobody gave a shit before Hasbro decided to poke the hornet's nest
                No actually, I think Paizo probably gave a shit. I think CriticalRole gave a shit. I think Kobold Press gave a shit.
                I think anyone with sufficient monetary interest in whether they are bound by the OGL probably had lawyers take a look at it and not a single one found that it was legally null

                it's a license that ensures users wont be fucking sued.

                Also probably not valid consideration, it lets say it was, that still comes from WotC with no consideration given by the offeree
                Both parties must give consideration for a legal contract

                Again original OGL was a fucking gratuitous license

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They found that it was cheaper to play along than deal with copyright misuse by WotC lawyers. That's very different than something actually going through court proceedings and appeals.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They found that it was cheaper to play along than deal with copyright misuse by WotC lawyers.
                >[citation needed]
                You’re creating this fiction for yourself rather than just admit that lawyers have looked at this and it’s legally valid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>[citation needed]
                >You’re creating this fiction for yourself rather than just admit that lawyers have looked at this and it’s legally valid.

                I freely admit that I wasn't party to the discussions of whether to use the OGL at Kobold Press or Paizo. As for a citation, take a gander at https://gsllcblog.com/2019/08/26/part3ogl/ and let me know what he got wrong. Also explain why he still has https://gsllcblog.com/2019/09/07/ossbmm/ and such up and live without Hasbro lawyers all up in his nooks and crannies?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >he’s back to his rules autism
                Just as the prophecy foretold

                [...]
                ATTENTION GAMERS
                This gay has been ranting for days about how the entire OGL has never been legally valid because he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. Numerous anons have explained to him what the OGL applies to and no matter what you say he will revert to talking about rules because he has some kind of autism.
                Feel free to ignore anything he says

                God I want to crunch your little melon underfoot.
                The OGL is not merely a license for rules. Please, please, PLEASE have a nice day

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Seriously what does it license other than the rules?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Holy fuck how many times do people have to list this shit off to you? Copyright does not apply to ideas, it does apply to the expression of ideas
                Fonts, book layouts, other presentation, characters, original monsters and their names
                Anything that distinguishes a WotC product from the rest

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ... But the OGL doesn't license copyrighted material like monsters/names/characters/places/etc. It's explicitly called out as not covered by the OGL.
                Have you actually read it?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >copyrighted material like monsters/names
                Otyugh. Magic Missile

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Otyugh. Magic Missile
                Not copyrightable material. There's a reason why the stuff that they could actually copyright isn't in there, like mindflayers and named spells for example.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Rules are the abstract procedure that is conveyed via the wording, not the wording itself. Hence, the rule is the same, even when the language expressing it changes. Think the rules calculating total attack bonus. No matter whether you tell people how it works in English or Urdu, the rule is the same. This is a well-established distinction in copyright law.

                The OGL v1.0a licenses the literary expression that conveys the rules (the abstract mechanics). Publishers can take their wording from the OSR without running afoul of copyright law. The wording is the thing being licensed. It cannot be made any clearer than that.

                There is a legal distinction between the wording used to convey the conceptual rule and the rule itself. If you continue to ask questions about this, you're just exposing yourself as either a fuckwit or a troll, possible both. I'll let you decide which.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and the attribute system, that makes a modifier, that you add to the stat
                they own that.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There is a legal distinction between the wording used to convey the conceptual rule and the rule itself

                Right, but that's not what the OGL 1.0a purports to license to you in the official SRD. Take a look at sections 1d and 1e. They're "licensing" use of the "methods, procedures, processes
                and routines to the extent such content does not
                embody the Product Identity" in section 1d. Section 1e goes on to detail what they mean by "Product Identity" which includes a bunch of stuff they obviously have intellectual property rights to as well as some pretty sketchy claims.

                Of particular note to me is that "names and descriptions of
                characters, spells, enchantments, personalities,
                teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities" are listed as Product Identity. The SRD itself in largely, by raw word count, names and descriptions of spells, enchantments, and special abilities," suggesting that most of the SRD is not actually available for use under the OGL if the OGL was based on a reasonable interpretation of intellectual property law to start with.

                I'm referring here to the OGL and 5.1 SRD as found at https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Interestingly, it's common for contracts to give rights to someone that they already have, and for a licensor to license something no license is needed for, along with things that can actually be covered by the license. It's generally done "for good measure" so some shitbag attorney can't later come along and find things that aren't specifically enumerated among things a licensor used and claim that means the whole contract is broken.

                Licensing the wording (which is concrete) is not mutually exclusive with the licensing of rules (even though the rules, as abstract concepts, don't themselves need to be licensed).

                Just a final note... I actually published materials for D&D 3e, 3.5e, and D20 Modern. You can still find a very small sample of my products on DriveThruRPG. The rest aren't applicable anymore, so they aren't up anymore.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Licensing the wording (which is concrete) is not mutually exclusive with the licensing of rules
                Cool. But where in the OGL1.0a do they license the wording? The specific expression of the rules is not one of the things they list as open content.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                right at the beginning ya daft cunt

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, the terms under which I can copy modify and distribute the is granted through the OGL 1.0a. Great. Where in the OGL 1.0a does it let me copy text? The OGL 1.0a only grants me the ability to use the rules, mechanics, procedures, etc. but not a whole bunch of what the SRD actuall contains (descriptions of spells, abilities, etc expressly excluded as "product identity").

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Actually read the fucking OGL, as provided with the SRD. Look at section 4.
                >4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

                Now look at the beginning of the SRD.
                >pic related

                You have to try really hard to misunderstand this.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thank you for the insight writer Anon. Not asking for a plug but have you made any heartbreaker systems that have weathered /tg/'s "shit getting done" gaze? Something of a tangent but have you looked at the modern gunplay tabletop Ops&Tactics?

                http://opsandtactics.blogspot.com/

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah man. I was done making content for D&D or any other published system by the time 4e came out. In fact, I quit doing it because 4e and the GSL was such shit.

                In my time, I made a bunch of stuff with M&M Superlink (Mutants & Masterminds) in 1e and 2e, stuff for 3e and 3.5e, D20 Modern, and... That's about it. I have a bunch of shit I've made for various things that I never published though.

                These days, I've moved on to just writing fiction, because honestly there's more money there and it's not as locked into specific sectors of a small market. You make something for D&D, only D&D players are gonna want it, and the ttrpg market is actually pretty small compared to say fantasy fiction. Hell, even the small nice genres in fiction, like LitRPG or HaremLIT make more money than supplements for ttrpgs, at least for individuals making the stuff. There's very little art expense, and the people in those niches tend to buy and read everything in the niche.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thank you indulging my curiosity Writer-Anon. May your market fraction of fiction bring you happiness and well earned wealth for effort.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >LitRPG or HaremLIT
                What are those? Are they related to RPGs?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think they are the Western equivalent to modern Japanese isekai, with maybe some Korean influences. Dude gets sent to magical world that works on videogame rules, grinds or uses some special magic power to become super strong and get all the girlsl. See the isekai threads on /a/ to gauge wether you like to get into it or not.

                So, haven't they backtracked at this point?
                I love that even in their backtracking statement they are hiding behind "inclusivity and diversity" in this "we did all of it to protect you from those evil chuds that would use our game to make campaigns that are not inclusive" kinda way.
                Never change WotC.

                The only thing they have done so far is delay. If insiders are to believe, the powers that be are still all in favour of turning D&D into a mobile game. There will come another OGL in the future(April I guess, outrages usually last 3 months) and if it contains that "we can change this in the future" clause than nothing is won. They will just put all the bullshit back in when people aren't looking.

                But the damage is done because WotC has proven themselves to be an enemy to the community. Frankly, most companies should be avoiding WotC now too. In addition to the bad PR and clear statement of "we're bigger, so we own you", they have been proven to be incompetent and unreliable with them canning 6 video game products this year.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But the damage is done because WotC has proven themselves to be an enemy to the community.
                Kek. Could you be any more reddit?

                People seeking to profit off of D&D now license WotC to use anything they publish, but otherwise pay nothing
                If they earn over $750,000 per year off of D&D they owe 20-25% royalty

                If you fit into either of those categories, you are and always have been a parasite.
                I’m gonna keep playing D&D for free and laughing at you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Right, but that's not what the OGL 1.0a purports to license to you in the official SRD.

                This is just a lie. See the attached official version for the truth.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So the way they got around certain spells that contained a specific character's name which WotC (and Subsequently Hasbro) go due to buying out TSR by removing the names, so instead of Melf's Acid Arrow, you get Acid Arrow, Tasha's Hideous Laughter becomes Hideous Laughter, and so on. As for the rest it's pretty much just the parts that couldn't be done such as Acid Arrow doing X damage, and Hideous Laughter making the target prone after a failed save.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Actually read the fucking OGL, as provided with the SRD. Look at section 4.
                >4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

                Now look at the beginning of the SRD.
                >pic related

                You have to try really hard to misunderstand this.

                Wait wait wait do you mean to tell me that rules-autist has been wrong literally this entire time? Holy shit. God I fucking knew it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you sure?
                >(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >consideration given by the offeree
                they will sue you, are you a fucking third worlder
                do you know what the words THEY WILL FUCKING SUE YOU mean?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Also probably not valid consideration, it lets say it was, that still comes from WotC with no consideration given by the offeree
                >Both parties must give consideration for a legal contract
                Consideration on WotC's part: ability to copy the flavor text from the SRD.

                Consideration on licensee's part: agreement not to use the D&D trademark.

                Retard.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Consideration on licensee's part: agreement not to use the D&D trademark.
                Agreeing to refrain from doing something you had no legal right to do in the first place is not consideration

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Agreeing to refrain from doing something you had no legal right to do in the first place is not consideration
                Fortunately you have the legal right to use the D&D trademark to indicate compatibility, as Mayfair Games did with their AD&D adventures back in the day.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://rachelbrenke.com/can-i-use-this-when-a-trademark-can-and-cannot-be-used/

                Suffocate yourself with a fucking bag you crayon-eating gay
                You cannot use someone’s logo to say your product is compatible with theirs.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hm, that's weird, what is this then?

                You can normally use a brand without agreement with the brand owner. The purpose of trademark is so consumers know when they buy Coca Cola (TM) they are buying Coca Cola, and not Pepsi, or HEB Original Cola.

                The attached image is valid use of another company's trademark, for example.

                Ohhh, wait, you're illiterate. From your own link:
                >The defendant’s use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion.

                >If Pepsi put "better than Coca Cola" on their product they would be legally fine,
                Then why has no company ever done that? Oh because you’re fucking wrong.

                Also “better than” is not the fucking context proposed here you disingenuous gay.
                If Pepsi put “bottles compatible with Coca-Cola” on their fucking drinks, it would lead to brand confusion and absolutely be infringement. It implies some sort of business arrangement between the companies that doesn’t exist

                >Then why has no company ever done that? Oh because you’re fucking wrong.
                There have been many ads where a company used its rivals' trademarks in negative comparisons. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghMYzo0rgrw

                Moron. Complete gibbering fucktard with zero idea of history. Goddamn. It must be cool to be so fucking stupid yet so oblivious to the complete emptiness that is located in your fucking skull.

                >If Pepsi put “bottles compatible with Coca-Cola” on their fucking drinks, it would lead to brand confusion and absolutely be infringement. It implies some sort of business arrangement between the companies that doesn’t exist
                It's not about "implying a business arrangement," it's about somebody thinking Pepsi is selling them Coca Cola, which in your fucking example they would not. You are a complete moron. Please attempt to do literally any research.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Hm, that's weird, what is this then?

                You can normally use a brand without agreement with the brand owner. The purpose of trademark is so consumers know when they buy Coca Cola (TM) they are buying Coca Cola, and not Pepsi, or HEB Original Cola.

                The attached image is valid use of another company's trademark, for example.
                An example from decades ago where the right to the trademark was not enforced or where there was some sort of agreement
                >There have been many ads where a company used its rivals' trademarks in negative comparisons. For example
                Holy shit were you hoping I just wouldn’t watch the clip?
                >never show the Coca-Cola logo
                >never say Coca-Cola
                >say “Coke” instead
                Hmmmm almost as of Coca-Cola is the registered trademark and they were very fucking cautious not to open themselves to litigation

                You have brain damage. Actual diagnosable brain damage.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                show the Coca-Cola logo
                Okay, so you are blind AND a retard.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Show us the frame anon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Where is it anon? All I can see is blurred pixels.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, take those blurred pixels and slap 'em on your brown carbonated beverage, see how long it takes for Coca Cola to sue you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My bro, you see white lettering on a red background and assume it’s the Coca-Cola logo without even being able to fucking read it.
                You don’t know that it’s the Coca-Cola logo, you’re just presuming it is because you want it to be. Considering they repeatedly fucking said “Coke” in the voiceover, it seems likely to me that it actually says Coke, which is not the Coca-Cola trademark.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay so you're just retarded in addition to knowing nothing. Seeya.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >PEPSI USED THE COCA-COLA LOGO!!!!
                >posts blurred to shit 80s ad
                >they never say Coca-Cola, so why assume that says “Coca-Cola” instead of “Coke”?
                >REEEEEEEEEEE
                Takes me back. To dust off an old chestnut: ggnore

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pepsi and Coca-Cola take the piss out of each other in ads all the time. There was a Halloween one where a Pepsi can was wearing a cape with the coke logo on it for example. I actually have a theory that both Coca Cola and Pepsi know the "secret recipe" of the competitor's products as a defense against espionage.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, mistaking something for a logo because you’re desperate for it to be one is not trademark infringement.
                Coca-Cola would go to Pepsi and demand the as be axed, to which Pepsi would respond with a photo from the shoot clearly showing that it is not the Coca-Cola logo and that’s the fucking end of it.
                Just like how you can’t use “D&D” but you can use “DnD” you fucking sperg

                >There was a Halloween one where a Pepsi can was wearing a cape with the coke logo on it for example
                Was it the Coca-Cola logo or did it just resemble Coca-Cola’s branding? There’s a subtle but stupendously important difference here.

                Never mind, just looked it up “Cola-Coca”
                Holy shit, almost as if you can’t use other peoples exact logos and trade marks without their permission and would have to alter them into something that resembles it instead

                How the fuck am I even having to explain this?
                Some retard pulls out of his ass that actually you can use trademarks without permission and now it’s on me to disprove a blatantly retarded notion.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Holy shit, almost as if you can’t use other peoples exact logos and trade marks without their permission and would have to alter them into something that resembles it instead
                Again, retard, do you think that you can sell "Cola Coca," a carbonated brown beverage with white curly text on red background?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is more like coca cola agreeing to let you use their trademarked name in your coca cola cocktail, then suddenly asking you to pay royalties on it then expecting you not to just change to another soda

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Again, retard
                Bigger you started this argument by saying you can use trademarks without permission
                Holy shit so you think people can’t see the reply chain?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                please give an example of trade dress.

                >you see white lettering on a red background and assume it’s the Coca-Cola logo without even being able to fucking read it
                Thanks anon!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, mistaking something for a logo because you’re desperate for it to be one is not trademark infringement.
                Coca-Cola would go to Pepsi and demand the as be axed, to which Pepsi would respond with a photo from the shoot clearly showing that it is not the Coca-Cola logo and that’s the fucking end of it.
                Just like how you can’t use “D&D” but you can use “DnD” you fucking sperg

                >There was a Halloween one where a Pepsi can was wearing a cape with the coke logo on it for example
                Was it the Coca-Cola logo or did it just resemble Coca-Cola’s branding? There’s a subtle but stupendously important difference here.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Consideration on WotC's part: ability to copy the flavor text from the SRD.
                there isn't any
                >b-but muh 5e
                there isn't any for 3.5 chads, when the license was drafted.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                technically the OGL benefited them the most. the industry revived and D&D is synonymous with tabletop RPGs. all the compatible content ensures players will stay in the ecosystem experiencing the game compatible with the content.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >technically the OGL benefited them the most. the industry revived and D&D is synonymous with tabletop RPGs
                Absolutely none of that is valid consideration.
                It’s true consideration doesn’t have to be economically valuable, but it does have to be capable of being given by the offeree. No offeree can GIVE WotC the benefit of market dominance

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it's a license that ensures users wont be fucking sued.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          While we're expressing them in a different way, let's fix some of the stupid-ass wording while we're at it.

          No more attack vs Attack action, no more melee weapon attack vs attack with a melee weapon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thank God wizards were so thoughtful to write the rules in the most retarded way, now those who copy their mistakes and retardation will (rightfully) have to face the law.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      better yet, use AI to do it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm certain you're not the only one to think this. Hopefully a community project comes out of this debacle hat isn't controlled by any company.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks. That's what I am trying to inspire. I'm trying it here because Ganker is nothing if not psychopathically vindictive and petty when something pisses enough anons off.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ganker is also mostly incapable of coming together to work on a collaborative project. I'll keep an eye out for anything once the ORC is released and hopefully can help out a bit.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Personally I doubt putting D&D open source will hurt wizards much. People care about D&D because it's the default, not because it's particularly well made.
          What would really, truly piss off WotC/Hasbro would be to get some of their employees unionized, but that's beyond our power.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I did get recruited once but told them to fuck off when they told me the salary.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    literally put ORC on your product and you get eyes and ears on it since they will use your content to play their big name systems.
    moron.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I ain't simping for a document I haven't read or hasn't even been written

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It serves as giving you a legal framework to hold up should you ever be taken to court.

    It's all well and good to say you already have those rights, but are you prepared to argue that as an individual in a court of law against a legal team like wotc without a document like the ORC or OGL to back up your claim?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wow
    Way to misunderstand what the OGL and this new ORC are meant to be.

    Honestly, thinking these licenses are useless just goes to show how fucking little idea of the world you have.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >As game rules cannot be copyrighted
    This is a gross over simplification of the truth.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then spell the truth out in full

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they feel if they keep repeating it enough it will be true

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's roughly the truth. You can't copyright the actions, so rolling a dice and adding a number to it to beat another number can't really be copyrighted. Most of D&D is too generic to get copyrighted, and no judge would agree that Wizards of the Coast came up with the idea of Wizards and Dragons, you could try to argue for stats and saves, but they've become a normal expression of the hobby in non-OGL works that Wizards didn't pursue. The biggest thing are named things like spells, npcs, feats, and items.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >you could try to argue for stats and saves
        saves, at least, go all the way back to tabletop wargaming

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          As does Armor Class. D&D is a repackage of old warmgaming concepts with the caveat that you only control one guy and the stuff happening between battles has a bigger focus than normal. It's prticularly noticeable when you start playing small scale wargames with emphasis on campaign. They are basically 1:1 d&d.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You cannot copyright rules. You can copyright expression. You can use the rules for armor class in your system as long as you express the ideas in a different way because copyright does not extend to ideas, systems, or processes.

      >Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you.
      >Your AC is equal to the following:
      >10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers

      >Roll a d20 to attempt to strike your target. You must roll equal to or above their defense value. Otherwise you miss.
      >Defense value is the sum of their armor value (combine all appropriate items), their speed, and any other relevant modifiers, plus a base score of 10.
      >Armor value + speed + further appropriate values + 10 = defense

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even then, at this point "Armor Class" is essentially a generic term in D20 games.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't matter the license is just a guarantee that you won't be sued

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    anyone does thing based on their self-interest, if anything Paizo is seizing the opportunity to offer alternatives to the market, bringing competition, what is much needed in any industry so it improves, and Paizos actions converge with lots of actors in the market, creators seek, freedom and independence from a monopoly.
    in seeking things for their own self-interest, the creative production will improve in quality and quantity
    refuted

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anything that comes from a corporation under the name of "OPEN" is a red flag

    use GNU FDL, or Creative Commons or something similar. Here's a good list to choose from:
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OtherLicenses

    Fuck pazio and their attempt to profit from this.
    >Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice; shame on you.

    >release the entire thing under the ORC when it's out
    that's how you get fucked up, twice. Why use a corporate-created license? Fool.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Fuck pazio and their attempt to profit from this.
      WOTC SHILL ON FULL MALD MELTDOWN.

      Get absolutely dunked on by a far better system. One that has always been free to use (provided you have the intelligence to do simple addition). You know that it was leaked that WoTC and Hasbro want to turn the community against itself.

      Great job doing their bidding you whore

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        serious question to you and all people here on this thread

        do you people actually buy RPG stuff with real-life money for real?

        i don't believe i have ever bought a single book or written accessory in my 8 years of roleplaying, aside from my 3 pair of dice, and i never will.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >do you people actually buy RPG stuff with real-life money for real?
          You're implying any of us here could afford to buy a psychical book. Get your head out of the clouds Carl, you're a poor fag just like us.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        [...]
        [...]
        cope and seethe, WOTCshills

        >recommending GNU FDL or CC license
        >must be a shill of a company
        corporate fanboy detected

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, tell that to Kevin Siembieda.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this sped is back
    They can copyright all sort of shit like font, presentation, characters, original monsters and their names, and most importantly the logo and any association with the D&D IP
    Not only that, but this literally matters to people trying to profit from the IP, and fuck those people.

    Store-brand Basements&Beasts isn’t going to sell as well as D&D and that indicates an inherent value of the IP. There is literally no reason WotC should not have some right to work you sell based on their product. You wouldn’t even have that right if it was any other medium like music or literature

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You wouldn’t even have that right if it was any other medium like music or literature
      say what?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My guy, there’s a reason 50 Shades had to be rewritten. It was Twilight fanfic and they didn’t have the rights to any of the characters or the setting.
        And in music, Jesus Christ have you been on YouTube? Universal Music Group claims ad revenue for any use of their songs, even if it’s music being used in legitimate review, or hell even music in a MOVIE that is being reviewed.

        You do not have any inherent right to use the work of others to make your own thing for profit. The fact the OGL allows it at all is unusually generous legally-speaking.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Parody is protected under fair use and Al is autistic enough to know this.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In a sense yes, this entire debacle is irrelevant to your average player. it's just people will naturally throw their support behind a smaller underdog than gladly support WotC when it comes to new content.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a smaller underdog
        >people earning over $750,000 per year just from selling shitty homebrew
        They’re not underdogs, they’re leeches on the underbelly.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, 750k isn't a lot when you consider it's not a one-man team.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >run a $750,000 business
            >not a lot
            Grace us with your business expertise anon, because I have to say I ran a store that ran $57k gross profit per year and $29k net. I'd love to know where in the world I can run a 3/4 million dollar business and still be considered "small"

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              In a world where you have employees and expenses. I have no idea where you got those figures from.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Not net profit anon. Not even gross profit. 750k revenue

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not even 750k. They can change it at moment notice, it could be $5 or $6 millions depending on the mood of the suits that morning.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Revenue is gross profit

                It's not even 750k. They can change it at moment notice, it could be $5 or $6 millions depending on the mood of the suits that morning.

                It is 750k though. The fact that licenses can change doesn’t suddenly mean they don’t currently say what they say. If WOTC suddenly changed it to $0.01 you have time just fucking close up shop, as is currently in the OGL1.1

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Uhm... No. No it's not. Gross profit is revenue minus costs of goods sold. So unless you get your goods for literally free revenue is not gross profit

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You’re describing net profit right now dumbass

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh my god do you literally not even have the capacity to open investopedia? Please. I beg you. Educate thyself

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Store-brand Basements&Beasts isn’t going to sell as well as D&D and that indicates an inherent value of the IP.
      Under the OGL you can ONLY make "Basements&Beasts", it literally prohibits you from claiming compatibility with D&D, something that you would normally be legally allowed to do.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can you point me the part that says that? Not saying you’re wrong, I just want to read it for myself

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In Section 7:
          >Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or coadaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.
          And then, the preamble to the license in the D&D 5e SRD:
          > The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, [...]

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you can’t use the brand without a separate agreement

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Legally, you can. It's agreeing to the OGL that makes you unable to. But if you made a D&D compatible adventure without using the OGL and put "Compatible with D&D 5e", the law explicitly would allow you to in all jurisdictions matter, since the mechanics would not be copyrightable and you're allowed to use trademarks in claiming compatibility.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You can normally use a brand without agreement with the brand owner. The purpose of trademark is so consumers know when they buy Coca Cola (TM) they are buying Coca Cola, and not Pepsi, or HEB Original Cola.

              The attached image is valid use of another company's trademark, for example.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly.
                You can use trademarked objects in a "descriptive manner", which language like "compatible with" or "for use with" arguably falls under.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It definitely falls under it. The whole non-oem auto parts industry relies on that

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You can normally use a brand without agreement with the brand owner
                No actually, you fucking can’t. Go around putting the Coca-Cola logo on your drinks and see how long before you’re sued into oblivion
                Hell companies have successful copyright on specific fucking shades of colors these days.

                You’re an abject retard

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If Pepsi put "better than Coca Cola" on their product they would be legally fine, you are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable. You are LITERALLY quoting from a post with a fucking image of a book using TSR's trademark without TSR's permission!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If Pepsi put "better than Coca Cola" on their product they would be legally fine,
                Then why has no company ever done that? Oh because you’re fucking wrong.

                Also “better than” is not the fucking context proposed here you disingenuous gay.
                If Pepsi put “bottles compatible with Coca-Cola” on their fucking drinks, it would lead to brand confusion and absolutely be infringement. It implies some sort of business arrangement between the companies that doesn’t exist

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >HEB Original Cola
                Hello fellow Texas anon.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Anything that comes from a corporation under the name of "OPEN" is a red flag

    use GNU FDL, or Creative Commons or something similar. Here's a good list to choose from:
    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OtherLicenses

    Fuck pazio and their attempt to profit from this.
    >Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice; shame on you.

    >release the entire thing under the ORC when it's out
    that's how you get fucked up, twice. Why use a corporate-created license? Fool.

    >this sped is back
    They can copyright all sort of shit like font, presentation, characters, original monsters and their names, and most importantly the logo and any association with the D&D IP
    Not only that, but this literally matters to people trying to profit from the IP, and fuck those people.

    Store-brand Basements&Beasts isn’t going to sell as well as D&D and that indicates an inherent value of the IP. There is literally no reason WotC should not have some right to work you sell based on their product. You wouldn’t even have that right if it was any other medium like music or literature

    cope and seethe, WOTCshills

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it is a magic feather that serves as free advertisement
    You figured it out?

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Wierd Al 100% does not legally have to get permission for his parodies. He does it to not piss anyone off.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’d be surprised. Music copyright is incredibly aggressive. People have been sued just for making melodies that kind of sound like something else. And most of these cases settle. It’s all well and good saying that on paper you’re legally in the clear, but when it’s going to cost you 2 years and $300,000 to enforce that right, what’s the fucking point? Pay a couple grand in royalties and be done with it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You could just go into a court and argue that it's legal without hiring a lawyer. If the court upholds an illegal enforcement of law, it could be used as a precedence for further court cases, especially if it goes to higher courts. If you repeat this process enough, you can theoretically make almost everything illegal in America by interpretation of corporate lawyers. A persistent group of trolls could use this as an attack to make American society literally impossible to function in. To some degree, this has been happening for years, even requiring people to travel the globe to fight a made up legal case when the the original copyright holder isn't even involved.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hell of a way for a Nation State to cripple their rival. Both for a table setting with malicious sleeper sages to IRL with trained attack lawyers. Legal Fictions are the best doublespeak.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You could just go into a court and argue that it's legal without hiring a lawyer.
          Kek the delusions of laymen
          >If the court upholds an illegal enforcement of law, it could be used as a precedence for further court cases
          The word you're looking for is 'precedent' and it is necessarily not "illegal" if the court has ruled it to be legal.
          >If you repeat this process enough, you can theoretically make almost everything illegal in America by interpretation of corporate lawyers
          Anon, this is going to shock you, but big corporations like Disney and UMC file amicus briefs on behalf of parties in court they have no connection to in the hopes that the ruling will strengthen their copyright claims in future.

          Laymen need to stay out of legal discussion. You can never separate how you imagine the law to be/how you want it to be from what it is.
          You can have a right on paper but its your responsibility to defend it. Going pro se is so fucking stupid that even lawyers don't do it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You could just go into a court and argue that it's legal without hiring a lawyer.
          yes if youre a literal fucking retard
          based on the rest of your post that seems to be the case

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Parody is legally protected fair use. He asks permission because he's professional.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He asked for permission because your rights under the black letter of the law aren’t your rights in reality you sped.

          You have a right to self-defense but you’re going to be shocked when I tell you you’ll have to go to court to enforce it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Parody is protected in the constitution and by fair use. As for self defense, it depends on the state what will happen to you.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Kek the innocence of a man-child who has never been to court and thinks his rights just “happen”

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That's a legal defense that you use when you get sued. It doesn't prevent you from being sued though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are almost no legitimate courts in North America.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon courts are where you go to examine whether your action was within your rights

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is not at all what court is. Common Law is two thing, and only two things: 1) Do no harm and 2) Be honorable in your business dealings. Maritime Courts are alien to living men and women.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Common Law is two thing, and only two things: 1) Do no harm and 2) Be honorable in your business dealings.
                Uh huh…so where does judicial review fit into this binary? Harm? You know you can have judicial review without there being any harm?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There isn't any such thing as judicial review under common law, only judges. You can invite a judge to rule over your case. Or, if you are a king, the people may grant you the right to judge for them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                When people go to "court" today, they are responding to an invitation from a registered Dun & Bradstreet corporation to patronize their COURT (TM) business. And if you refuse to grant joinder to the COURT (TM) and its agents, they will refuse to do business with you, i.e., they will eject you from the "court." They have no lawful jurisdiction on the land, and so play pretend.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Common Law is two thing, and only two things: 1) Do no harm and 2) Be honorable in your business dealings. Maritime Courts are alien to living men and women.
                Hey, it's a sovcit retard.

                "Common Law" is the standard term for the collective decisions of law made by the judiciary. There's no such thing as a "maritime court."

                But it is amusing when you morons try that shit in real life and it fails you every time.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sad Bad Day was never turned into You Had A Bad Date.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Smaugchad

    [...]

    Something tells me Jim Carrey never got Vanilla Ice's permission, considering he hates that dude's guts to this day.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Paizo's ORC license
    Paizo doesn't own the license, they only created it. The license is "owned" by a non-profit organization.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Coolio threatened Weird Al and a bunch of other rappers threatened Coolio back. if anything happened to Al. They made up later when Coolio finally figured out being parodied by Al benefitted his brand.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yea they’re acting in their own self interest, but it also aligns with my self interest so I don’t care

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn’t WoTC just try to pull a Steam where they offer content creators to sell their content on DNDBeyond and take royalties from that?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's the main idea but they also have extreme hatred and jealousy for Paizo having more than 1% of the market and just had to give it a shot.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Paizo Chads win again baby. We'll take all that money you've just wasted DnD thank you.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Al had people from the label ask Coolio, and he was told by the label all was good, Coolio was on board. As he was recording he was told that Coolio still loved it, but his management had issues, but the label was handling it. Al was a presenter at an awards show with Coolio before it came out, nothing bad happened so he assumed whatever was wrong got ironed out. Then the Grammy's came, and he found out Coolio didn't approve it at all, the label just said he did. So now Al tries to ask for approval personally just to be sure never to run into that situation again.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"Core Fantasy" Game
    I'm the only one who thought the whole OGL was a mistake who ruined the hobby? Sure it flooded the market with thousands of shitty clones of the shitties RPG ever made. Fuck even Call of Cthulhu got a ridiculous d20 version. Let Wizards kill that shit once and for all and free the hobby from D&D and its retarded clones.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >ruined the hobby
      lol. I'm sorry you have to suffer more than one fantasy rpg

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No. I'm fine with fantasy RPG that aren't D&D clones.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is that really what you think?

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >strong independent black womxn leading the cover
    Paizo never changes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I've seen this character on a variety of their advertising materials and book covers, she's been established for a long time AFAIK. Long before the whole MuhSuggyKnee and StronkWamxn and all the woke shit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah she's the iconic character for paladin, she's a former street thief who stole a paladin's helmet to sell it for money, and that paladin later took a lethal shot to the head. She tried to commit suicide from guilt but instead joined them.

        Not knowing that shows just how much of a NEWFAG the guy you're talking to is. I know that shit and I only play BRP.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Pointlessness: The OP

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just play another system. dnd leeches creating a new dnd-like system doesnt improve anything.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >court is expensive
    >citation needed
    yikes, actual retard

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >court is expensive
      Do enlighten us anon, why did the lawyers Gizmodo asked to look at the OGL not come back and say it was legally null?
      Lawyers with an interest in the OGL being invalid haven’t found it invalid. Completely independent lawyers haven’t found it invalid. Rather than believing that some gibbering-retard who’s never had a day of legal education in his life somehow spotted what they all didn’t, it’s pretty fair to assume he’s just fucking stupid

      >consideration given by the offeree
      they will sue you, are you a fucking third worlder
      do you know what the words THEY WILL FUCKING SUE YOU mean?

      THATS NOT WHAT CONSIDERATION MEANS ARE YOU A FUCKING THIRD WORLDER?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        shove the consideration up your butt, you will need it when they fucking BEND YOU OVER AND RAPE THAT BUSSY IN COURT

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t care you disgusting fucking lawmorons

    Let’s see your law degree protect your family from a flaying knife and ten starving dogs

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fuck your dogs i kick puppies

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >fuck your dogs
        ANON, DON'T!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          holy shit i kneel
          was just being crude but that's gross

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Parody is covered under fair use. Coolio could have sued, sure, but would have lost the case immediately if it weren't thrown out entirely.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sued lost money time ect
      the funny thing is weird al causes songs to blow up when he parodies them

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The purpose of patents, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, is to promote innovation. Inventors are rewarded with a temporary monopoly on their invention in exchange for giving the public information on how it works.

    >According to the law, a person isn’t entitled to a patent if the claimed invention already existed when the application was filed or would have been obvious to someone skilled in the relevant technology area. The idea of playing a small game while the larger one loads has been around for a very long time.

    >In 1987, many years before Namco filed its patent application, Richard Aplin created Invade-a-Load, a utility for developers who wrote games for the Commodore 64 computer. As a game developer, you could package Invade-a-Load with your game; while players waited for the game, they’d be treated to a mini-game similar to Space Invaders. Given the breadth of Namco’s claims, there is a very strong case that its application should have been rejected as anticipated or obvious in light of Invade-a-Load.

    >The Supreme Court has said that patents should only be granted for “those inventions which would not be disclosed or devised but for the inducement of a patent.” In other words, if the inventor isn’t trading information of real value for the patent, then it’s not a good patent.

    >Unfortunately, many software patents do just the opposite. They offer no real information about how to implement a feature, only a vaguely worded description of the feature itself. In court, vagueness is often rewarded over specificity, as plaintiffs stretch the boundaries of their inventions to cover the defendants’ products.

    pretty interesting read on the loading screen games patent
    >https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/loading-screen-game-patent-finally-expires

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here. Here's an actual lawyer talking about this stuff. Other good examples would be from Dungeons and Discourse, or Roll For Combat, which actually had the people behind the OGL1.0a on, and an actual IP lawyer on to talk about the ins and outs. I'm sure there are others.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Buy an ad

      Also
      >actual lawyer
      >LegalWeasel
      Lmao do we have to go over how he completely misapplied assault batter and self-defense to Captain Marvel again?
      He’s trying to sell bar practice courses. He doesn’t know shit about most of the issues he discusses (as demonstrated by any specialist lawyer who critiques his videos) and he’s unashamedly biased

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh, so I'm not the only one who didn't forget about that

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Did you miss yesterdays thread? There was like 4 different dudes trying to push that just going up to Captain Marvel could be an assault.
          The guy ended up saying you don’t have a right to talk to anyone in public unless they’re in your way, in danger, or approach you first lmao it was hilarious. He got banned for saying naughty racist words trying to fit in though

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not asking for much in an open-gaming license: Don't change or revoke it, don't police my original content, don't demand money or my original content. If you like an original rule I made and want to implement it in the SRD, we can discuss like adults who understand that "no" means "no".

    It's not a big ask.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Or- here’s a thought- you could make your own game instead of piggybacking off someone else’s success?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not like Wotc was doing that for years with Tolkien's work

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The OGL (and ORC in the future) means that you don't get sued. For a lot of small publishers, even if they are right, getting sued means they close the doors.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, haven't they backtracked at this point?
    I love that even in their backtracking statement they are hiding behind "inclusivity and diversity" in this "we did all of it to protect you from those evil chuds that would use our game to make campaigns that are not inclusive" kinda way.
    Never change WotC.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’ll probably work too.
      >flood the hobby with literal communists
      >ask them to respect IP rights
      >face backlash
      The bed they made for themselves

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ORC is probably going to be pozzed trash just like the new OGL. Not to mention just like the OGL it's untested in the law world. CC-BY-SA is the best way to go forward, CC licenses have been proofed by legal fire. While it'd be nice to have a TTRPG specific open content license you can't trust these corpos.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >CC licenses have been proofed by legal fire
      As in, lawyers made money out of it, and the license actual contributors offered got 'upgraded'?
      examples:
      -wikipedia : oops your shit isn't GFDL anymore
      -stack exchange : oops, seems like your shit isn't BSD anymore/ isn't CC2.0/isn't CC3.0 anymore.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For Wizards, the original OGL actually makes sense because because D&D has name recognition.
    Let's just be honest here, D&D's rules are worthless, even if they could be copyrighted. The only value that playing it has is that "Check out our D&D stream" sounds better to normalfags than "Check out our tabletop RPG stream".
    An OGL or ORC makes no sense for Paizo because Pathfinder doesn't draw eyes like D&D does.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do you know what the real purpose of the OGL was? The OGL was sinister in its nature. Before the open gaming license, there was dungeons and dragons, and then a thriving environment of other roleplaying games. If you went into your local game store, you'd see a wide variety of roleplaying games. A lot of them made by people who had that desire in them to create.

    The OGL was Wizards of the Coast, a company that sold cardboard lootboxes to gambling addicted children and new owners of the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual property, to do three things. First, it was a bit of PR. TSR in its late days was downright draconian with the control it sought over the dungeons and dragons rules and trademark. Wizards of the Coast wanted to signal there was a change in management. Second, it allowed Wizards of the Coast to, for free, outsource things to its players. Adventures and splatbooks could be made by anyone, but the core rules of D&D would only be made by them - and also, your splatbooks will ALWAYS sell just a bit more reliably. And third, remember that thriving ecosystem I mentioned? The OGL helped Wizards of the Coast strangle it to death. Because remember, the hobby hinged around the local game store. There wasn't a thriving online market. You had bookstores with limited shelf space, and occasionally, magazines where you could order things. D&D was a known entity, and if you were a small studio or a solo creator just jumping in, what do you think would be a safer bet? Pour your heart and soul into your heartbreaker, and wind up like the rest? Or hitch your wagon to dungeons and dragons, and hopefully ride Mr. WoTC's coattails to moderate success. But this had a knock on effect. The more OGL books that came out, the more shelf space was taken up by D&D, the less shelf space there was for not D&D. Soon enough, several of those other games turned into a d20 version of themselves or disappeared entirely.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now let's talk about Paizo, it's relationship to Wizards of the Coast, and it's relationship to you.

      Paizo is an offshoot of Wizards of the Coast. The founding members all worked for Wizards of the Coast. Their first and ONLY client as an independent magazine publisher was Wizards of the Coast. The other magazines they published failed to find success. Paizo, until the release of 4th edition, was basically an arm of wizards of the coast not owned by them. I'll also just remind you: Paizo were bad at their jobs. Dragon magazine and dungeon magazine during the 3.5 era sucked, and everyone agreed on it.

      So when 4th edition rolls around, and Wizards rethinks their strategy, brings dragon and dungeon internal as part of their DDI marketing plan, Paizo is suddenly left with nothing except maybe publish under the GSL or try something bold - capitalizing on your outrage to sell you the 3.5 Players Handbook a second time under a new name. And it worked. You're all marks and suckers who let paizo use and stoke your emotions to get you mad at WoTC (which, admittedly, were right to do so) and embrace your manchildish ways. You didn't have to "invalidate your shelf" by playing 4e. You can play pathfinder, which is sorta compatible with your books. Just, you know, don't worry about how it's just jarring enough that you won't use them.

      Pathfinder is often cited as this great success. It toppled D&D, and outsold it! Except... Paizo never actually said they outsold D&D, did they? I mean, if I outsold the biggest and most recognizable name in tabletop games, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "COME PLAY PATHFINDER, THE NUMBER ONE ROLEPLAYING GAME IN THE WORLD." Sure, someone's going to come in here and talk about the numbers, the numbers from a self-reporting survey with a small sample size of game stores. Ignore that even under 4e, WoTC's money from D&D outstripped the entirety of Paizo. That didn't mean anything.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Dragon magazine and dungeon magazine during the 3.5 era sucked, and everyone agreed on it.
        lmao only for fags like you

        [...]
        [...]
        Very cool anon, does this novel come in hardback?

        Cool my ass is a biased account

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They sucked were dogshit, Anon. I know this because I was subscribed to both of them. Because as bad as they were, a younger me was ravenous for more D&D content. But nothing in either Dragon or Dungeon was ever any good. You opened every month's pages hoping that THIS TIME it'd be different. THIS TIME you'll find that cool adventure or awesome monster or fun prestige class and it NEVER. FUCKING. HAPPENED.

          >Pathfinder is often cited as this great success. It toppled D&D, and outsold it! Except... Paizo never actually said they outsold D&D, did they? I mean, if I outsold the biggest and most recognizable name in tabletop games, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "COME PLAY PATHFINDER, THE NUMBER ONE ROLEPLAYING GAME IN THE WORLD." Sure, someone's going to come in here and talk about the numbers, the numbers from a self-reporting survey with a small sample size of game stores. Ignore that even under 4e, WoTC's money from D&D outstripped the entirety of Paizo. That didn't mean anything.
          This alone shows you are a delusional 4rrie, therefore a disingenuous retard that cannot be trusted.

          And this is funny - you 4rries are still so assblasted for Paizo's success and 4ed failing that now wish the OGL ends with no alternatives.

          No. I'm just aware of the situation. Pathfinder was never as popular as D&D. Never was. You're all terminally online forum posters, that's not a dig, I am too. But the claims that Pathfinder outsold D&D, simply put, isn't true. It's what you tell yourself to feel like your outline outrage brought you a victory.

          And let me be clear: 4th edition failed. It was a MAJOR fuckup as far as WoTC and Hasbro are concerned. While it sold better than its competitors, it failed to actually grow the brand significantly, which was the point. WotC pissed away a lot of money on their failed attempt at virtual integration and a live service. The books sold well, but never enough to meet the lofty goals that were set. WoTC's idea that the OGL had given them total control over the tabletop market and they could now turn around and milk third party publishers turned out to not actually be true. And finally, yes, 4th edition did reputational damage to Wizards of the Coast - it did damage to their reputation with Hasbro, it did damage to the reputation of the D&D within WoTC, it damage the IDEA of a D&D as the dominant force within the market, and it overall was a huge fucking embarrassment.

          I'm not out here saying "actually you're wrong everyone loves 4th edition." They don't. But the idea that it was some market failure that everyone hated is also inaccurate.
          Would you like to know the average D&D player? God's own truth?
          They just play the new thing. You put out a new editionm they go "Sure." Maybe not with every book, but they buy the new PHB.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Pathfinder is often cited as this great success. It toppled D&D, and outsold it! Except... Paizo never actually said they outsold D&D, did they? I mean, if I outsold the biggest and most recognizable name in tabletop games, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "COME PLAY PATHFINDER, THE NUMBER ONE ROLEPLAYING GAME IN THE WORLD." Sure, someone's going to come in here and talk about the numbers, the numbers from a self-reporting survey with a small sample size of game stores. Ignore that even under 4e, WoTC's money from D&D outstripped the entirety of Paizo. That didn't mean anything.
        This alone shows you are a delusional 4rrie, therefore a disingenuous retard that cannot be trusted.

        And this is funny - you 4rries are still so assblasted for Paizo's success and 4ed failing that now wish the OGL ends with no alternatives.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, he knows exactly what he's talking about. You're the delusional, disingenuous retard.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now let's talk about Paizo, it's relationship to Wizards of the Coast, and it's relationship to you.

      Paizo is an offshoot of Wizards of the Coast. The founding members all worked for Wizards of the Coast. Their first and ONLY client as an independent magazine publisher was Wizards of the Coast. The other magazines they published failed to find success. Paizo, until the release of 4th edition, was basically an arm of wizards of the coast not owned by them. I'll also just remind you: Paizo were bad at their jobs. Dragon magazine and dungeon magazine during the 3.5 era sucked, and everyone agreed on it.

      So when 4th edition rolls around, and Wizards rethinks their strategy, brings dragon and dungeon internal as part of their DDI marketing plan, Paizo is suddenly left with nothing except maybe publish under the GSL or try something bold - capitalizing on your outrage to sell you the 3.5 Players Handbook a second time under a new name. And it worked. You're all marks and suckers who let paizo use and stoke your emotions to get you mad at WoTC (which, admittedly, were right to do so) and embrace your manchildish ways. You didn't have to "invalidate your shelf" by playing 4e. You can play pathfinder, which is sorta compatible with your books. Just, you know, don't worry about how it's just jarring enough that you won't use them.

      Pathfinder is often cited as this great success. It toppled D&D, and outsold it! Except... Paizo never actually said they outsold D&D, did they? I mean, if I outsold the biggest and most recognizable name in tabletop games, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "COME PLAY PATHFINDER, THE NUMBER ONE ROLEPLAYING GAME IN THE WORLD." Sure, someone's going to come in here and talk about the numbers, the numbers from a self-reporting survey with a small sample size of game stores. Ignore that even under 4e, WoTC's money from D&D outstripped the entirety of Paizo. That didn't mean anything.

      So now we cut to today.

      WoTC, under new management again, wants to turn the OGL from something that helps them dominate the market to something that makes them money. This is because they've won, they've accomplished their goals. D&D IS the tabletop market now, so dominant that there isn't truly a #2 gaming system.

      But in their arrogance, they overstepped and someone leaked their first attempt at squeezing money out of the OGL (a thing not designed to make money.) And people raged online, Rightly so, but they worked themselves up into a frenzy. And once that frenzy had died down, and the anger had become consensus, who shows up? It's WoTC's bastard child, Paizo. Here to capitalize on your outrage, like they always have been.

      Paizo's new license, which its roped a bunch of smaller sucker companies into, is designed to do two things. First is to let them try to gain marketshare the same way D&D did with the OGL, by letting other people take up shelf space. the second is to work you, just like they did before. To show up and sucker you into being their loyal fanboy again. But there's a reason you didn't play pf2e, Paizo suck and have always sucked. Paizo has always been in the business of manipulating you.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Now let's talk about Paizo, it's relationship to Wizards of the Coast, and it's relationship to you.

        Paizo is an offshoot of Wizards of the Coast. The founding members all worked for Wizards of the Coast. Their first and ONLY client as an independent magazine publisher was Wizards of the Coast. The other magazines they published failed to find success. Paizo, until the release of 4th edition, was basically an arm of wizards of the coast not owned by them. I'll also just remind you: Paizo were bad at their jobs. Dragon magazine and dungeon magazine during the 3.5 era sucked, and everyone agreed on it.

        So when 4th edition rolls around, and Wizards rethinks their strategy, brings dragon and dungeon internal as part of their DDI marketing plan, Paizo is suddenly left with nothing except maybe publish under the GSL or try something bold - capitalizing on your outrage to sell you the 3.5 Players Handbook a second time under a new name. And it worked. You're all marks and suckers who let paizo use and stoke your emotions to get you mad at WoTC (which, admittedly, were right to do so) and embrace your manchildish ways. You didn't have to "invalidate your shelf" by playing 4e. You can play pathfinder, which is sorta compatible with your books. Just, you know, don't worry about how it's just jarring enough that you won't use them.

        Pathfinder is often cited as this great success. It toppled D&D, and outsold it! Except... Paizo never actually said they outsold D&D, did they? I mean, if I outsold the biggest and most recognizable name in tabletop games, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "COME PLAY PATHFINDER, THE NUMBER ONE ROLEPLAYING GAME IN THE WORLD." Sure, someone's going to come in here and talk about the numbers, the numbers from a self-reporting survey with a small sample size of game stores. Ignore that even under 4e, WoTC's money from D&D outstripped the entirety of Paizo. That didn't mean anything.

        Do you know what the real purpose of the OGL was? The OGL was sinister in its nature. Before the open gaming license, there was dungeons and dragons, and then a thriving environment of other roleplaying games. If you went into your local game store, you'd see a wide variety of roleplaying games. A lot of them made by people who had that desire in them to create.

        The OGL was Wizards of the Coast, a company that sold cardboard lootboxes to gambling addicted children and new owners of the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual property, to do three things. First, it was a bit of PR. TSR in its late days was downright draconian with the control it sought over the dungeons and dragons rules and trademark. Wizards of the Coast wanted to signal there was a change in management. Second, it allowed Wizards of the Coast to, for free, outsource things to its players. Adventures and splatbooks could be made by anyone, but the core rules of D&D would only be made by them - and also, your splatbooks will ALWAYS sell just a bit more reliably. And third, remember that thriving ecosystem I mentioned? The OGL helped Wizards of the Coast strangle it to death. Because remember, the hobby hinged around the local game store. There wasn't a thriving online market. You had bookstores with limited shelf space, and occasionally, magazines where you could order things. D&D was a known entity, and if you were a small studio or a solo creator just jumping in, what do you think would be a safer bet? Pour your heart and soul into your heartbreaker, and wind up like the rest? Or hitch your wagon to dungeons and dragons, and hopefully ride Mr. WoTC's coattails to moderate success. But this had a knock on effect. The more OGL books that came out, the more shelf space was taken up by D&D, the less shelf space there was for not D&D. Soon enough, several of those other games turned into a d20 version of themselves or disappeared entirely.

        Very cool anon, does this novel come in hardback?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Deranged Ganker post only, sorry.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Now let's talk about Paizo, it's relationship to Wizards of the Coast, and it's relationship to you.

        Paizo is an offshoot of Wizards of the Coast. The founding members all worked for Wizards of the Coast. Their first and ONLY client as an independent magazine publisher was Wizards of the Coast. The other magazines they published failed to find success. Paizo, until the release of 4th edition, was basically an arm of wizards of the coast not owned by them. I'll also just remind you: Paizo were bad at their jobs. Dragon magazine and dungeon magazine during the 3.5 era sucked, and everyone agreed on it.

        So when 4th edition rolls around, and Wizards rethinks their strategy, brings dragon and dungeon internal as part of their DDI marketing plan, Paizo is suddenly left with nothing except maybe publish under the GSL or try something bold - capitalizing on your outrage to sell you the 3.5 Players Handbook a second time under a new name. And it worked. You're all marks and suckers who let paizo use and stoke your emotions to get you mad at WoTC (which, admittedly, were right to do so) and embrace your manchildish ways. You didn't have to "invalidate your shelf" by playing 4e. You can play pathfinder, which is sorta compatible with your books. Just, you know, don't worry about how it's just jarring enough that you won't use them.

        Pathfinder is often cited as this great success. It toppled D&D, and outsold it! Except... Paizo never actually said they outsold D&D, did they? I mean, if I outsold the biggest and most recognizable name in tabletop games, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "COME PLAY PATHFINDER, THE NUMBER ONE ROLEPLAYING GAME IN THE WORLD." Sure, someone's going to come in here and talk about the numbers, the numbers from a self-reporting survey with a small sample size of game stores. Ignore that even under 4e, WoTC's money from D&D outstripped the entirety of Paizo. That didn't mean anything.

        I didn't read all of that shit, but you obviously weren't around in the 4e era. Literally 9 out of 10 games on roll20 for over half a decade were Pathfinder. Every LGS I saw in that era had Pathfinder shit front and center in their rpg sections, and many of them had one or more Pathfinder games active. /tg/ was Warhammer shit, Pathfinder shit and quest threads. I say this as someone who was against Pathfinder at the time.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I was, and save for the roll20 stuff (which I wouldn't know much of, as I wasn't using it until around 2019), I can say this didn't match my experience. Meanwhile, I saw a lot of activity of 4th edition in the LGSes.
          In the store I went to, encounters ran 2-3 tables; that third table once caused issues with the Wednesday Warhammer crowd. Meanwhile, Saturday the LFR org ran 2 table, and apparently ran a 4 table game on Mondays at a college. The pathfinder society in that store was ... nonexistent. There were multiple attempts to organize one, including one by me. No one was interested. In order to join a PFS game, I had to drive about an hour away and cross state lines.
          Then if we pull back from the place I normally went and just look at the general market, pathfinder wasn't really the big game. It was sharing shelf space with the aging World of Darkness books. One store literally had is discounted because, to paraphrase the owner, a lot of people were talking about Pathfinder but no one was actually buying Pathfinder.

          Literally the only time I found a store that was primarily Pathfinder was when I went to Ohio for Origin Game Fair and stopped into one of the local stores.
          The man was the most typical neckbeard you could meet. His store was primarily Pathfinder because he had refused to stock 4th edition. Very proud of that fact.

          Origin, I feel, felt very much like the general mix of things.The Pathfinder room and the LFR room were pretty busy. You'd see a lot of people moving between the two every so often. I played at the Battle Interactive (big LFR event) with some guys I met in the Pathfinder room.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > roll20

          Roll20 didn't even come out until like 5 years after 4e. Even when it was out, online play through roll20 was still in its infancy in those days, and it only got big after 4e stopped producing content.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody used roll20 for 4E until well after 4E was dead in the water. Maptool was a much better tool for 4E at the time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            maptool is better for everything.

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Correct. The Open Game License has NEVER been needed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tell that to Critical Role, Paizo, and Kobold Press

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong. The OGL was absolutely needed if WotC wanted to expand their reach and get a bigger player base with almost zero effort.

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Both DNDones OGL 2.0 and ORC will have provisions banning chuds from playing.
    OSR BTFO! HAHAH

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The ORC isn't even out yet, you're not very good at this.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Have the writers of ORC promised not to include political provisions in the license?
        No?
        Oh then we know how it will go then don't we!

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    While technically correct from a legal standpoint. That requires the design and means to fight in court over it. And that didn't work out well for Hex TCG for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex:_Shards_of_Fate
    The OGL, as flawed as it was provided surety at no cost to small entities who wanted to enter the market. I assume Paizo is trying to provide a similar mechanism from a more trusted source.

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When I run pathfinder campaigns, I omit every reference to homosexuality and change mayors and gods to male.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based retard.

      Just kidding. You're not based at all, because you don't play games.

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and the purpose of the OGL was to have shared exact wording on projects.
    Look back to earlier editions of D&D that didn't have an OGL and 3rd Party creators had to rename all the attributes to stuff like Might, Agility, Fortitude, Smarts, Knowledge and Presence to get around TSR slapping them with an IP Infringement C&D.
    While you cannot copyright game rules you CAN copyright the way those game rules are expressed.
    The OGL/SRD allowed creators to use the same wording as D&D in their products. They get to use Armor Class, Attack Rolls, Skill Checks, Spell Slots and so on.
    They tried to change this in 4e by adding a poison pill that said if you made a 4e 3rd Party supplement under the GSL (4e's version of the OGL) you gave up your license to the OGL forever. 4e devs were directly quoted saying they wanted people to stop making 3.5 stuff so they wanted to kill the OGL but couldn't directly.
    Note, that's why many major 3.5 3pp didn't touch 4e even after the poison pill was removed.
    tl:dr OP is a retard that doesn't understand what the OGL/SRD actually means.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why hasn't someone genericized the SRD and released it under Creative Commons or something similar? Seems like less of a pain than relying on Wizard's good graces.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        see

        You wanna hurt WotC? Here's how.

        Important facts about the situation, copyright, and licenses:
        >FACT: One D&D will be completely backwards compatible with 5e.
        >FACT: Existing copyright law says the mechanics and rules aren't copyrightable, only their specific literary expression.
        >FACT: You own the copyright to your own specific literary expression by default. You can do whatever you want with it.
        >FACT: What the OGL v1.0a licenses is the language in the SRD, not the abstract mechanics and rules.

        The plan:
        >download the most current version of their SRD, with all errata and updates
        >rewrite all spells, feats, rules, races, everything
        >release the entire thing under the ORC when it's out

        By doing what is outlined above, you'll have given every 3rd party publisher on the planet free reign to publish their own versions of D&D's rulebooks, mechanically perfect copies with your newly rewritten literary expression, and WotC won't be able to do one fucking thing. The reason this works is, like I said, the OGL v1.0a only ever provided a license for the specific literary expression of the SRD, which third parties could use and adapt at will under the license.

        In essence, you would be moving the entire D&D game (without the trademarks) to the ORC license.

        You're on the right path anon. Doing what you suggest would end WotC's control of the system they base their books on until they completely redesign it, which they can't do right now because it would break their marketing promises for One D&D.

        Hell, forcing them to fully redesign is actually beneficial to the hobby, because it forces innovation.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm more wondering why it hasn't happened already. Like Paizo put PF2e under OGL something that they weren't even using anymore and was controlled by their biggest competitor. Just seems short sighted by these other companies,

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's because OGL 1.0a was specifically written to be irrevocable (except for the terms laid out in the termination clause), but since 2000 when it was written, there was a dumb case in the UK where a judge held that "perpetual" doesn't NECESSARILY mean "irrevocable," so every lawyer has now started adding irrevocable to everything meant to be irrevocable.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Interestingly, this very fact may be the nail in the coffin for WotC being able to deauthorize the OGL1.0a. The fact that irrevocable didn't exist as a separate concept in case law until after the OGL was written and in wide use means that at the time the OGL was written, perpetual also meant irrevocable in legal terms.

              I'm not a lawyer. I am just repeating what lawyers have said on the matter, in the specific context of the OGLv1.0a.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >reddit spacing
                Get out

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus Christ, you don't even know that people have been formatting their posts here that way since before reddit was even on the internet. Fucking newfag.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Only reddit fags care, bitch.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because for more than 20 years wotc didn't show any interest in trying to take down the OGL, and it shouldn't even be possible to take it down in the first place.
        Also, if you were interested in using the OGL it was because you wanted to be wotc-friendly and tap into the shared community of D&D-derivatives and making Your Own Thing™ is counterproductive.

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Paizo is coming up with their own ogl and promises they won't pull the same shit
    >THANK THE GODS I CAN CONSOOM AGAIN!
    >Huh? No I don't want to play your fully free, copyleft RPG.
    >That's like... Nerd stuff.

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love that nobody cares that I called Ganker psychopathically vindictive and petty. It's good to be among those that get me.

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The license is meant to ease concerns about the lawyer equivalent of stupid pixel bitching about stuff like calling a roll a check, having a strength score, etc. etc.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *