An Unexpected Victory, Unconditional Surrender, and Unfinished Business.

[Dungeonosophy]

Yes, this is exactly my point Words do matter! I actually think we more or less completely agree! I saw your list when you first posted it, and thought it was a great and higly reasonable list of requests. And I also agreed both then and now that at least something of that magnitude would be needed if the goal was to try to heal the wound caused by wizards.

ok cool.

What I am reacting to is that OPs post is confrontational. It ends with the apeal to fight on. This is not the rethorics of someone seeking to heal, as I read it.

Well, if Rob hadn’t articulated doable ‘demands/suggestions/requests’, then i could agree with you. yet i think the OP is very constructive.

 

[Dustin_00]

Uh, if you create an alternate SRD for use with ORC which uses the stuff in the Creative Commons license, you're now putting it under not one but TWO licenses. This seems, at best, useless and expanding page count and confusion. At worst, it means if there is ever a means discovered to circumvent or terminate one of the two licenses, or a conflict between the two, your publication would go down regardless of which two it happened to.

I mean, you CAN use both. But you're creating more mess and gaining very little.

The point of ORC is to have a license that no single company can unilaterally redact or alter.

It's not to make publishing easier/simpler. It's to make publishing consistantly reliable as something you can do with your own created content.

 

[robconley]

What I am reacting to is that OPs post is confrontational. It ends with the apeal to fight on. This is not the rethorics of someone seeking to heal, as I read it. And I believe that we now are at the point where everyone interested in the wellbeing of ttrpgs in general are more likely to get more trough a mutually suportive rather than a combative stance.

Make no mistake, I have been and remain an advocate of open content under open licenses. The goal I advocate is the independence of the hobby and industry from the D&D brand and the company that owns it. Afterward, WoTC is free to compete on its own merits. The well-being of TTRPGs is best in the hands of a hobby free to pursue their creative dreams. Hobbyists who are each their own best judge of what is good, just, and fair. Free to act in the manner they see fit.

So no, I am not interested in healing the hobby's relationship with Wizards of the Coast. Wizard of the Coast is welcome to compete and be treated fairly as long as they are on the same level playing field as the rest of the industry and hobby. Until the unfinished business is resolved that will not be the case.

So yes Fight On!

 

[wingsandsword]

What can be produced via OGL 1.0a that can't be produced via the CC SRD 5.1? All I can think of would be older edition stuff.

A lot of us still play older editions, or things derived from older editions.

 

[robconley]

Uh, if you create an alternate SRD for use with ORC which uses the stuff in the Creative Commons license, you're now putting it under not one but TWO licenses. This seems, at best, useless and expanding page count and confusion. At worst, it means if there is ever a means discovered to circumvent or terminate one of the two licenses, or a conflict between the two, your publication would go down regardless of which two it happened to.

I mean, you CAN use both. But you're creating more mess and gaining very little.

It works out in the open source world. Not all licenses will be compatible with each other. But in the case of CC-BY and assuming that ORC mirrors the OGL. Then the solution is to declare the CC Content as product identity.

What?

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 co-adaptability 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. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

So the independent agreement happens to be CC-BY. And if ORC like the OGL requires you to clearly mark what is product identity and what is open content. Then you will have satisfied the attribution and marking requirements of CC-BY as well. And the CC-BY also covers what happens with trademarks.

Or

They craft ORC to be 100% compatible with CC-BY in which case all you need to do is make sure the new SRD has the proper attribution.

 

[robconley]

A lot of us still play older editions, or things derived from older editions.

And there are the non-D&D systems that uses the OGL with no reference to the d20 SRD. And OGL works where the author is no longer in the business or have passed way.

 

[robconley]

Well, if Rob hadn’t articulated doable ‘demands/suggestions/requests’, then i could agree with you. yet i think the OP is very constructive.

Appreciate that. While my track record isn't 100%, I am more interested in actually accomplishing something rather than shouting to make myself feel better. So I focus more on what I can do. Despite the fact that my end goals can be quite idealistic.

 

[Maxperson]

That feels like a lot of stuff over the years...

How well do 3e and 4e sell days?

 

[Maxperson]

A lot of us still play older editions, or things derived from older editions.

I really doubt that they are going to get rid of the older SRDs. If they are keeping the 5e SRD around, they're not going to go after what amounts to a small fraction of what the 5e 3PP put out.

 

[Enrahim2]

The cat is already out of the bag in that regard. ORC will be popular and widely used but it not going to be what the OGL was. I have seen this play out in the open source world enough times, starting in the 1990s. People can and will follow their own instinct and share content under a kaleidoscope of open licenses. The vast majority of these efforts will amount to a one-off.

Hi! I just wanted to clear the air a bit and clarify that I think I fully agree with the main sentiment and idealistic background of your post. My disagreement seem to be mainly a concern regarding practicalities as to best achieve those.

As a software engineer with a "fetish" for rules and law I have also an interest in software open source. And while I agree that there are a ton of open licenses there, I can only think of one major SA: GPL? Indeed OGL apear to me to be(/have been) basically the lgpl of gaming.

So maybe there is a slight difference in our idealistic stance? I would like to see the gaming "free" while you are content with "open"? In that case that is a well known divide that would explain how you would be more comfortable with a lot of licenses at play than me..

The question if the most effective method to induce change is confrontational or cooperative is an age old divide in any matter, so I guess we wont be able to reach a consensus on that here

So I am happy with you clarifying your stance! I am not going to sabotage your baricades, even though you wont be finding me on them. Keep fighting for the good cause the way you find best!