An IP lawyer just broke down the new OGL draft (v1.2)

[kigmatzomat]

It‘s profoundly weird that we are even having this debate. No one gets up in arms about not being use the Monopoly Open License.....

A monopoly open license isn't needed. Here is a forum full of Monopil-ish games: Inspired By Monopoly - Variants and Rip-Offs

Want something more current? Go look at Words with Friends; it is scrabble with a different name.

Rules can't be copyrighted. What they release under CC shouldn't require any license.

Game companies in the 80s knew this so they trademarked everything as a way to create a legal blocker, to the point It is was integrated into templates resulting in Nazi(tm) in the Marvel RPG.

Many of the things they are hiding behind the SRD (like elf, orc, dwarf, power attack, fey touched, fireball, goblins, dragons, poison traps etc) don't need licenses as they can't be copyrighted.

Unique creations (kender, mind flayer, probably owlbear), could be trademark violations and/or be very difficult to redescribe without getting close to a copyright violation. This was the only real value of the SRD: it meant you didn't have to go through the monster manuals etc with a fine tooth comb to grind off the names/descriptions for unique creations.

However, if you had the time, you could take the statblock of every single creature in the monster manual, change the name & rewrite the description from scratch and be legal.

I am a data nerd so I would use a generic format of CR-terrain-alignment-type-bodystyle-size. Like 0.25-forest-neutral-beast-quadruped-small-01 (or 0.25FNBQS01 for short) and then have a list of creatures that could be (war dog, wolf, immature dire wolf, sabretooth bobcat, young lion, etc). I would like to do the reverse as well and have a section on dire wolves that lists which creature types can be for pups, immature, adult, pack leaders.

 

[pemerton]

Rules can't be copyrighted. What they release under CC shouldn't require any license.

<snip>

Unique creations (kender, mind flayer, probably owlbear), could be violations. This was the only real value of the SRD: it meant you didn't have to go through the monster manuals etc with a fine tooth comb to grind off the names/descriptions for unique creations.

One important value of the licensing of the SRD under the OGL was things like the hypertext SRD. Reproducing the text of the SRD would violate WotC's copyright in that text. The license permits what would otherwise be an infringement of WotC's copyright.

 

[kigmatzomat]

One important value of the licensing of the SRD under the OGL was things like the hypertext SRD. Reproducing the text of the SRD would violate WotC's copyright in that text. The license permits what would otherwise be an infringement of WotC's copyright.

WotC had offset how unnecessary a license was by adding convenience. It was a convenience as it meant not doing the work of rewriting the material. But if anyone went through the effort to produce their own "srd" and then made it public domain or under a CC-sharealike license, the dnd srd becomes irrelevant for most games.

The ogl1 was sufficiently non-onerous that using it wasn't a big deal for the effort it saved. And anyone who might write their own srd didn't have enough motivation to deal with any lawsuits over missed trademarks.

However now there are plenty of companies based on the OGL1 that are motivated to do the work and pay the lawyers to fight OGL1.2.

I am pretty sure Ryan Dancey and the rest have ensured that the d20 rules will be free forever by fostering an economy around them motivated to do the work to free them.

And hasbro-Wotc will harm their own sales by failing to realize the OGL was a more toxic poison pill than they thought.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A monopoly open license isn't needed. Here is a forum full of Monopil-ish games: Inspired By Monopoly - Variants and Rip-Offs

I appreciate the law-plainer on intellectual property (I apologize if you do not recognize sarcasm), so I will be brief.

To the extent people believe they can just clone the rules, then ... go ahead. Go on. Really. And stop complaining. Please. It would make the forums more readable.

To the extent that they cannot, or this is in doubt (because the issue is not as clear cut as you are asserting), then I would suggest looking at the Monopoly "ripoffs," and deciding if you are going to pass go, collect your $200, and try and buy Park Place.

 

[Blue]

I am, of course, using averages.
Do dirt-simple TTRPGs exist? Sure.
Do highly complex video game exist? Yup (Paradox Interactive’s strategy games, for example).
On average? Especially if we compare representatives of the mainstream market (which for TTRPGs, is sadly just D&D and derivatives)? No comparison.

There's the problem - your "average" is anything but. Once you aren't playing D&D, it opens up pretty quickly. FATE games are simple. PbtA are generally pretty simple. D&D on the other hand is a world of exceptions - know each of these spells, and all of these damage types, and this subsystem for comabt that's different than this subsystem for something else, and it's an mechanically-protected team game so learn your roles, etc.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Unique creations (kender, mind flayer, probably owlbear), could be trademark violations and/or be very difficult to redescribe without getting close to a copyright violation. This was the only real value of the SRD: it meant you didn't have to go through the monster manuals etc with a fine tooth comb to grind off the names/descriptions for unique creations.

Don't give up on the owlbear, man. It's in the 3.5 SRD, might be in the 5.1 SRD as well (I've never read that document). It's also... not a very original idea (chimeric creatures are all over mythology and folklore), and the design is supposedly from a Japanese children's toy from the 80's anyway.

 

[Jer]

Don't give up on the owlbear, man. It's in the 3.5 SRD, might be in the 5.1 SRD as well (I've never read that document). It's also... not a very original idea (chimeric creatures are all over mythology and folklore), and the design is supposedly from a Japanese children's toy from the 80's anyway.

I'm creating a new creature called an owlbear. It has the body of an owl and the head of a bear.

Whenever I refer to an owlbear in the future, you can just assume that I mean that one and not one of the other ones.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Don't give up on the owlbear, man. It's in the 3.5 SRD, might be in the 5.1 SRD as well (I've never read that document). It's also... not a very original idea (chimeric creatures are all over mythology and folklore), and the design is supposedly from a Japanese children's toy from the 80's anyway.

The Monster Manual was released in 1977, but the rest of that is allegedly correct.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

The Monster Manual was released in 1977, but the rest of that is allegedly correct.

I don't think the Monster Manual from 1997 is open game content though. My claim to commercial exploitation rights over the poor thing is almost entirely based on the OGL 1.0(a) (and of course the fact that's it's just not that original to begin with). Hasbro/WotC is now trying to monopolize it, and I'm not okay with that. Agreements ought to be kept.

 

[Olrox17]

There's the problem - your "average" is anything but. Once you aren't playing D&D, it opens up pretty quickly. FATE games are simple. PbtA are generally pretty simple. D&D on the other hand is a world of exceptions - know each of these spells, and all of these damage types, and this subsystem for comabt that's different than this subsystem for something else, and it's an mechanically-protected team game so learn your roles, etc.

So it's just a D&D problem, huh? Yeah, sure, because Shadowrun, Vampire, Cyberpunk and GURPS are all simple systems, right on par with your average Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty game.
I have no idea why so many people are choosing to contest this self-evident point that I've made: on average, TTRPGs are massively more complex than videogames, especially if we compare the most popular TTRPGs with the most popular videogames.
I'm just going to assume that anybody disputing this point isn't really familiar with the current (and recent) videogame market, and leave it at that.