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.

​

 

[Zardnaar]

I feel like the big thing that would make it hard for WotC to claim copyright on these is they're such common words. Even if it's those 6 specifically, I think it's hard to make the argument no one could come up with those attributes without "plagiarizing."

That said, I have somewhat mixed feelings on this, since I personally wouldn't mind at all if games moved away from the big 6. I think especially the "mental stats" are bad at both

1. Representing modern conceptions of how our brains work and
2. Emulating extremely common fantasy archetypes

Almost all heroes in high fantasy tend to be "charismatic," and the charismatic warrior hero is especially common (Yes, the Paladin exists, but the archetype I'm talking about is not limited to religious boy scouts). Wisdom being both sensory perception and good judgment is also weird. Intelligence is just the concept of "I.Q.," which is arguably a flawed and biased model of human intelligence and probably not the best way to measure something like "good at magic and knowledge." So I think there would be a lot of benefits of moving away from the D&D categorizations. Dexterity should probably also be broken up into different stats instead of being the god stat.

They can't really claim the words as IP. They may be able to claim the d20 or OSR version of them however.

If your product has the stat system from Basic, AD&D or 3E well that could be a problem as you've potentially violated WotC IP.

That pretty much nukes the clones, Pathfinder (both of them), Level Up etc

 

[dave2008]

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.

Of course I am not sure - I said 98%! If I was sure, it would be 100%! I do want to clarify that I don't mean they would release it without any changes. For example, regarding ability scores, monsters scores are already expressed as modifiers only in PF2. They could just make the change for PCs too. Then there is no infringement.

Personally I think the first step is to fight for the OGL 1.0(a). I think Paizo has a 90% chance to win that

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Scrubbing OGC from PF2 is exactly what I was thinking “PF3” would be, so I don’t think we’re disagreeing here.

In which case, it's still not the ideal system for snatching up leaving 5e players. It's much more complex and more intimidating than DnD 5e to get into, even if in reality it's more simple than it first appears.

It's one of the reasons my group won't even consider it, despite me wanting to switch.

 

[Staffan]

Claiming copyright on "Strength" seems like an overreach. But if your book has:

Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. This ability is especially important for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks because it helps them prevail in combat. Strength also limits the amount of equipment your character can carry.

You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:

• Melee attack rolls.
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
• Climb, Jump, and Swim checks. These are the skills that have Strength as their key ability.
• Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).

Then you might be in trouble.

 

[GreyLord]

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.

It's not based on TTRPGS. It's based on what has happened with game mechanics and computer programming.

This is why it could be dangerous ground, depending on where you come at it from.

You approach it wrong you will have the ENTIRE computer industry against you.

It depends on WHAT they try to take down and how.

Microsoft is their next door neighbor. Some of those in good positions at Hasbro are from Microsoft. They aren't going to go after Game mechanics on their own most likley, they'll go after something FAR easier to prove in court and back up as unique and specific via trademark and other venues.

It will be FAR easier to go after something like Chromatic dragons that are specifically like the D&D dragons (so not just because it is a green or red dragon, that's still too nebulous), or verifiable D&D material than it would be to go after a more nebulous area such as game mechanics.

You think that's not going to happen if they decide to go lawsuit happy? That's a much easier fruit to nab than something at the very top of a tall tree. It's also more likely to be something that will happen and be easy to get to in these instances than something that is harder to define and more likely to get friends and neighbors becoming your enemy.

Well, I can tell you that relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” is not a safe strategy.

I agree, it isn't the safest strategy, but you are thinking more in terms of TTRPGs.

I am not. I don't think those who are trying to do this are either. That's where the problem with the wording is coming in. They are approaching it like they would a Computer software item...and there HAVE been cases in regards to this type of thing in that arena regarding programming and usage of programs.

It's why you have licenses and other things for certain items, but you also have certain lines of code that everyone uses even though it originated initially with someone.

It is why I am saying I think this came out wrong. I don't think they are trying to squash those who made 3e or 3.5 rules and items. The idea is to do away with 5e arenas and those who would want to use OGL 1.0a to acquire the SRD for any new items going forward. They do not want to allow this, and possibly not allow further 5e competition (more vague on that one though). 3e and 3.5 aren't big enough at this point anyways (or I think they are not).

The don't want the excuses some have been using on the forum that because of OGL 1.0a they can use anything from the new SRD that will come out. They want to hammer that idea away and kill it. This means that in regards to D&D going forward, OGL1.0a is NOT authorized...at all. It is not able to use their SRD. It is not able to use their stuff.

More likely this is an unfortunate case of wording and misrepresentation (or so I hope).

Of course, I could be absolutely wrong on this. The intent I understood previously was what I just typed though. It may be that I grossly misunderstood the intent.

I imagine their will be clarifications or something to that effect coming out (once again, I imagine there will be, but I could also be proven wrong).

 

[dave2008]

In which case, it's still not the ideal system for snatching up leaving 5e players. It's much more complex and more intimidating than DnD 5e to get into, even if in reality it's more simple than it first appears.

It's one of the reasons my group won't even consider it, despite me wanting to switch.

However, if Pazio releases PF3 with a CC license then someone could make a "basic" pathfinder that could be very similar to 5e (in terms of simplicity).

That is pretty much exactly what I will do with my homebrew game if we switch. My players, like yours, don't want the complexity of the base PF2.

 

[S'mon]

The don't want the excuses some have been using on the forum that because of OGL 1.0a they can use anything from the new SRD that will come out. They want to hammer that idea away and kill it. This means that in regards to D&D going forward, OGL1.0a is NOT authorized...at all. It is not able to use their SRD. It is not able to use their stuff.

They can legally do that by releasing a new game/edition with no SRD.
They seem to want to 'take back' the 5e SRD that was released in 2016 under OGL 1.0a. AFAICS they have no right to do that (unless you agree to OGL 1.1).

 

[mhd]

In this weird situation, I'm still holding out for it to become even weirder and Palladium Fantasy 3E being the solution to it all

 

[Beefermatic]

I just hope WotC pulls their heads out of their asses before it's literally 100% too late to save their fanbase.

 

[S'mon]

I just hope WotC pulls their heads out of their asses before it's literally 100% too late to save their fanbase.

According to rumour (screenshots of tweets I saw this morning somewhere, I can't find them right now), WoTC are currently in full Fuhrer Bunker mode. No one wants to speak up for fear of getting fired. It sounds as if they're paralysed. Sane people at WoTC know they ought to be issuing a conciliatory press release, but the boss is in Evil Emperor mode and they don't dare tell her. That's the rumour anyway.