1.2 and VTT [+]

[mamba]

I understand them wanting to protect their brand from being use into a new Chat gpt online DM powered by Microsoft

their brand is not covered under the OGL, all of that is excluded as IP

 

[Mecheon]

It seems like they are trying to make sure that someone can't make, say a D&D video game without permission. That seems fair to me.

Doesn't read anything like that. It moreso reads like they're trying to kneecap existing VTTs where stuff you can't do at a table is baked into the system. Token vision (IE: what your character can see) is incredibly basic and built into the system. Don't let the fancy words around the magic missile example trick you, that's what they're targetting. They're targetting anything outside of the very basic "Slap a thing down on a board", just using an extreme example rather than a far more basic one that's going to be exactly as effected.

They're trying to force their system to be the one option to play the game on

 

[Enrahim2]

They don't need to go after GMs, the goal could simply be to open the door for launching Contributory Infringement attacks on the competition once wotc has their late to the game VTT finished enough for people to actually use.

My post explicitely has as a premise that a srd based package with any existing well accepted VTT would be allowed. The point of the premise was that this would close the door to claim that either the vtt owner, or the srd pack creator could be targeted by contravutory infrignment. Accusing a provider of a generic animation pack for a generic VTT for Contributing to Contributory Infringnment though enabling someone to use content outside the policy also seem beyond absurd.

Hence who would you envision could be targeted by contributory infringement?

(As to wizards actual itentions it seem pretty clear that their construct indicate they do not care for the "all current VTTs" premise. However this was intended as a thread to explore how to  fix it, and I believe such a fix would require it to follow that premisse)

 

[Enrahim2]

My post explicitely has as a premise that a srd based package with any existing well accepted VTT would be allowed. The point of the premise was that this would close the door to claim that either the vtt owner, or the srd pack creator could be targeted by contravutory infrignment. Accusing a provider of a generic animation pack for a generic VTT for Contributing to Contributory Infringnment though enabling someone to use content outside the policy also seem beyond absurd.

Hence who would you envision could be targeted by contributory infringement?

(As to wizards actual itentions it seem pretty clear that their construct indicate they do not care for the "all current VTTs" premise. However this was intended as a thread to explore how to  fix it, and I believe such a fix would require it to follow that premisse)

To make an anology: You cannot target the paper maker, the pencil maker or your licensed publisher for contrabutory infringement if someone writes an unauthoriszed copy of your work by hand while reading the authorized book.

 

[Clint_L]

Doesn't read anything like that.

They specifically cite the blurred line between VTT animations and video games.

 

[mamba]

post explicitely has as a premise that a srd based package with any existing well accepted VTT would be allowed. The point of the premise was that this would close the door to claim that either the vtt owner, or the srd pack creator could be targeted by contravutory infrignment.

and my point is we should not have to work around these restrictions in the first place

 

[mamba]

They specifically cite the blurred line between VTT animations and video games.

sure, and then they disallow basic VTT features used today in the VTT policy. They want you to believe it is about games when it is not limited to that.

If the goal were do not allow video games then there are far less restrictive ways to do so. This is about not having to compete on the quality of the VTT by hobbling all others

 

[Steel_Wind]

There is nothing preventing that. And Hasbro doesn't care. What they are doing is trying to prevent folks from making a D&D video game or 3dVTT without their permission. I think that is a reasonable goal, and agree that the language around this is not yet clear.

On what basis do you accede to Hasbro's corporate demand for "clarity" concerning this? Have you thought this through?

The OGL 1.0a extended to software for 23 years. WotC was well able, during the whole of that time, to license a number of Dungeons and Dragons games in the marketplace. I think we can agree that there is an abundance of evidence that in order to conduct commerce and license its Brand in the marketplace, no further clarity or retraction of the OGL 1.0a was necessary. The following is a partial list of D&D licensed computer/ video games published during the period of time when the OGL 1.0a's application to software - including computer games - was in place and beyond doubt:

Icewind Dale
Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal
Icewind Dale: Trials of the Luremaster
Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
Neverwinter Nights
Icewind Dale II
Dungeons & Dragons: Eye of the Beholder
Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide
Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark
Forgotten Realms: Demon Stone
Neverwinter Nights: Mobile
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II
Neverwinter Nights: Shadowguard
Neverwinter Nights: Witch's Wake
Neverwinter Nights: Kingmaker
Neverwinter Nights: Pirates of the Sword Coast
Neverwinter Nights: Infinite Dungeons
Neverwinter Nights: Wyvern Crown of Cormyr
Neverwinter Nights 2
Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer
Dungeons & Dragons: Tiny Adventures
Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir
Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate
Heroes of Neverwinter
Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale
Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition
Neverwinter MMO
Dungeons & Dragons: Arena of War
Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition
Icewind Dale: Enhanced Edition
Lords of Waterdeep
Sword Coast Legends
Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear Baldur's Gate
Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms
Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition
Warriors of Waterdeep
Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance
Baldur's Gate III

But WotC has a legitimate commercial interest in clawing back the applicability of the OGL 1.0a to software? Really? REALLY?

No, not really. I put it to you that you have not carefully thought through your position on this matter. This isn't about the reasonable commercial interest of WotC in dealing with licensees who produce computer and video games in the marketplace. This isn't about that at all. The above list tells you all you need to know about the evidentiary basis for making that claim.

No. This is about WotC EXCLUDING others from making a VTT to play 6e. This desire exists now solely because in the near future WotC wants to sell a VTT product via subscription. Because it is a subscription product, they want to grant themselves an exclusivity to that play space that has not existed at any time in the past, so as to play a game using remote software with other humans using RPG rules. They want this exclusivity because otherwise, people might not buy their VTT because of the strength of its features and benefits, but simply because there is no available alternative. That's acting like a monopolist when it comes to using the rules of RPG play online.

"You can have a VTT, but it can't be too good".

That's why we are really here about all of this OGL nonsense; there is no other commercial reason. The rest is "extra" and details.

 

[Minigiant]

"You can have a VTT, but it can't be too good".

This. Current 2d VTTs and 3d token table top simulators are fine.

But when WOTC makes their 3D VTT that integrates characer/monster spells, manevers, and effects on the bard, no one else better make any VTT that can do the same. Because they will be sued and likely lose if its too good.

 

[tetrasodium]

To make an anology: You cannot target the paper maker, the pencil maker or your licensed publisher for contrabutory infringement if someone writes an unauthoriszed copy of your work by hand while reading the authorized book.

You can absolutely use lawyers to harass & make life difficult for the paper maker if you are big enough& they are small enough that the harassment is a burden. Furthermore wotc has given us every reason to assume that this sort of bad faith goal is their intent because they tried to terminate OGL1.0a as they tried & are still trying to force the old one to be invalidated with a replacement that includes numerous termination clauses despite having a statement on their website for years about how you could always use a prior version of the OGL & that content if wotc were to make a new version with changes you disagree with