Battlezoo Shares The OGL v1.1

Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1 draft which is currently circulating. This draft is, presumably, the same document obtained by Gizmodo last week. It's not currently known if this is the final version of the license.

​

 

[Branduil]

Is that game mechanics though? Clearly having a numeric value that determines a modifier to chance of success on certain actions is a game mechanic. But Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, and what specific actions each of those values modify? I think a solid argument could be made that’s a specific expression of the mechanic, and therefore under copyright. There’s at least enough there to make a case, which may be enough to keep potential competitors from risking using them. And that’s just one example, meant to illustrate the difficulty of sorting out mechanics from their presentation in an RPG.

The six stats would probably not hold up as copyrighted in court, I think. We have 40+ years of those not just being used in TTRPGS, but numerous video games as well. It would cause absolute chaos and an insane amount of industry-wide damage to say WotC suddenly has a copyright on those stats, and anyone sued for those terms specifically would end up with some massive titans on their side... same thing with the incredibly common "hit points."

Of course, this doesn't preclude other terms possibly being copyrightable, and you never know what a court will decide in America...

 

[Charlaquin]

The six stats would probably not hold up as copyrighted in court, I think. We have 40+ years of those not just being used in TTRPGS, but numerous video games as well. It would cause absolute chaos and an insane amount of industry-wide damage to say WotC suddenly has a copyright on those stats, and anyone sued for those terms specifically would end up with some massive titans on their side... same thing with the incredibly common "hit points."

Of course, this doesn't preclude other terms possibly being copyrightable, and you never know what a court will decide in America...

Again, the six abilities are just an illustrative example of the broader issue with sorting out what’s mechanic and what’s the presentation of a mechanic. It doesn’t matter that this specific example probably wouldn’t hold up as copyrighted, because the point is that any RPG is full of cases like this where the line between the mechanics and their expression is blurry.

 

[Branduil]

Again, the six abilities are just an illustrative example of the broader issue with sorting out what’s mechanic and what’s the presentation of a mechanic. It doesn’t matter that this specific example probably wouldn’t hold up as copyrighted, because the point is that any RPG is full of cases like this where the line between the mechanics and their expression is blurry.

I agree with your overall point that the more you differentiate yourself from D&D, the safer your probably are.

 

[Yaarel]

It looks like something done by in-house council at the corporate/wotc level with little input from the d&d team, and limited understanding of the wider marketplace.

It is impossible that the 5e designers would say nothing to decision-makers.

Hasbro-WotC did the Anti-OGL with full awareness.

Even now, Hasbro-WotC must have a backup plan waiting in the wings in case there would be a sizable backlash.

Hasbro is a multi-billion dollar corporation. There are a lot of people putting this plan together. They have been thinking about D&D as an Intellectual Property for "branding" and "monetizing" for a while.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

In theory if they can enforce (I doubt it, but if they could) a 20 year backpay scam where those who used OGL 1.0 had to also pay upon those receipts from 20 years back, you would also be on track to be in debt if you, as a store, ever sold those items as well.

Well, that would just be insane. But that's a good illustration to help me to empathise with 3PP. (Not that I have trouble empathizing. My problem is that I empathize with WotC, to a lesser extent. Just long enough for me to withhold my opinion until I see the "real" document).

Good thoughts for you to dwell on!

True enough!

Of course, I don't expect that to EVER be enforceable as contracts and contract law in most nations wouldn't try to enforce something retroactively that was understood very differently, BUT if they could (as it sounds like they want to in what I've been reading here), I'd probably not be sleeping too comfortably if I were a gamestore owner either.

As a game store owner I'm a little worried, to be sure. Mainly, at the moment, I'm worried about people forming their opinions from half-truths only partially understood from things heard second hand from someone who saw some video on YouTube. Seriously. Even before this OGL stuff, I'd heard customers complain about 1D&D based on incorrect assumptions.

Now that this OGL stuff is starting to look like it's really happening (I have to admit, I never thought that WotC would try this again after messing with it failed so badly with 4e), so I wasn't worried about it when it first leaked. I was sure that it was internet BS) I'm definitely concerned about what it will do to the industry.

 

[Staffan]

Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.

I'm not a lawyer, but absent legal advice to the contrary I would guess that my chances in court would be much better by continuing to use the OGL 1.0a than abandoning the OGL entirely and relying on copyright law and fair use. Using the OGL 1.0a allows me to shield my entire work behind a "perpetual" license (which may or may not be held to include "irrevocable"), which means the case can focus on the question of whether Wizards can revoke/unauthorize the license. That should, ideally, be a rather easy thing for a court to decide. If I drop the OGL, I open up the entire work to a lot of judgments about whether this piece or that, in whole or in aggregate, violate Wizards' copyright.

I mean, you can't copyright the concept of dragons. That would be absurd. But a set of brutish white dragons who live in arctic lands, corrupting black dragons who live in swamps, insidious green dragons who live in forests, cunning blue dragons who live in deserts, and imperious red dragons who live in mountains? I'd feel much less confident defending that in court.

 

[Yaarel]

They are really killing their movie. All the comments under their Facebook post with the movie trailer are anti-WoTC and pro open D&D. Gross incompetence to try this a couple months prior for the movie.

I suspect the plan by Hasbro-WotC is.

The popularity of the D&D movie would erase the publics memory of the betrayal that Hasbro-WotC committed.

 

[Yaarel]

The six stats would probably not hold up as copyrighted in court, I think.

Each of those Six Abilities by itself − Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma − would not stand as copyrightable.

However the Six altogether as an assemblage feels recognizable enough to be directly from the OGL 1.0a and its SRDs.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with your overall point that the more you differentiate yourself from D&D, the safer your probably are.

My overall point is that what is and isn’t game mechanics is not cut and dried, and anyone relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” to protect them is likely in for a rude awakening.

 

[Branduil]

My overall point is that what is and isn’t game mechanics is not cut and dried, and anyone relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” to protect them is likely in for a rude awakening.

Well, for 20 years we thought the OGL was safe. Anyone designing TTRPGs right now should be doing their research on the best ways to protect themselves, but it's hard to say what the safest path is if WotC plans to activate Lawbarian Rage