1.2 and VTT [+]

[Minigiant]

they are already beyond the limitations WotC wants to impose.

Apart from that I see no reason why I should be ok with them not having to compete by providing the better experience instead.

I think the point is that you can't but the actual effects with the names in the VTT or attach the spell to the math.

You can make a Mage token and have it shoot a missile of light.

Once you make a Mage token that can shoot a missile of light by either clicking a "Magic Missile" button, tagging the effect to deal 1d4+1 damage, or attaching a spell list to the token.... you are flirting with housing a video game engine.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think the point is that you can't but the actual effects with the names in the VTT or attach the spell to the math.

You can make a Mage token and have it shoot a missile of light.

Once you make a Moken token that can shoot a missile of light by either clicking a "Magic Missile" button, tagging the effect to deal 1d4+1 damage, or attaching a spell list to the token.... you are flirting with housing a video game engine.

Firstly, I reject this interpretation.

Secondly, a video game engine is EXACTLY what you are PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO DO under the OGL 1.0a. Which is precisely why they want to get rid of the OGL 1.0a, of course.

From WotC's own website on the OGL 1.0a. as recently as November 2021:

Q: So what kinds of programs can I make with the OGL?

A: Anything. Character generators are popular, as are programs that help GMs keep track of their adventure. Random treasure generators are also fun.

Q: So I could make a game?

A: Sure. Remember though, you cannot use any Product Identity with the OGL or claim compatibility with anything. So you can't say your game is a d20 System game or uses D&D rules or call it Elminster's Undermountain Crawl.

 

[Minigiant]

And by having a projector aimed down or flat TV built into the table you can have animated spell FX too...

What is program is the projection and is it also calculating the damage?
The projector is not rolling dice for you.

 

[tetrasodium]

When filling out the survey I had to think on this police and decided it's easily the worst thing in the 1.2 OGL.

Think of it this way: it's banning features that cannot be done on a physical tabletop and replace imagination. That's the policy "What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling."
It uses spell effects as its example but other examples could be:

• Fog of War
• Dynamic lighting
• Animated tokens
• Animated backgrounds
• Tokens and handouts only visible to some players
• Progress automatically saved between games
• A tabletop that can't be disrupted by a cat
• Battlemaps larger than a realistic physical tabletop

It's a ridiculous limitation.

Indeed. The 2022 post I linked shows dynamic lighting mixed with physical minis and there were animated bubbles in the static picture I took at the time While the 2010 one wasn't touch enabled but using digital tokens & obviously unable to be interrupted by a cat. In both games I could have sent (and sometimes did) things to only specific players. I used discord for that sometimes did/could have but I think roll 20 has allowed that for years..

I think that the vtt section in 1.2 combined with the decision to show a player view cinematic rather than literally anything at all about the "really robust tool" shows how utterly unfamiliar with the existing VTT market that wotc marketing & maybe legal/csuite/d&d designer folks are. Hopefully their VTT development isn't being managed by those same folks

 

[MarkB]

I think the point is that you can't but the actual effects with the names in the VTT or attach the spell to the math.

You can make a Mage token and have it shoot a missile of light.

Once you make a Mage token that can shoot a missile of light by either clicking a "Magic Missile" button, tagging the effect to deal 1d4+1 damage, or attaching a spell list to the token.... you are flirting with housing a video game engine.

It's astonishingly poorly-worded, but that's not the impression I get. What I get is that what you call the specific effects is irrelevant - if your VTT has features that make it look and play sufficiently better than a typical tabletop experience, it cannot provide OGL content.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I don’t think Wizards can make anything out of dynamic lighting and stuff. Even examples like magic missile don’t apply if it’s not called Magic Missile.

 

[Minigiant]

Firstly, I reject this interpretation.

Secondly, a video game engine is EXACTLY what you are PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO DO under the OGL 1.0a. Which is precisely why they want to get rid of the OGL 1.0a, of course.

I don't think you are entitled to make the Image of a Magic Missie attached to the Mechanics of a Magic Missile with the option with the Name of Magic Missole..

I just asked all the casuals in my groups and some nonplayers. All of them agree that its an easy lawsuit win for WOTC.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I don't think you are entitled to make the Image of a Magic Missie attached to the Mechanics of a Magic Missile with the option with the Name of Magic Missole..

I just asked all the casuals in my groups and some nonplayers. All of them agree that its an easy lawsuit win for WOTC.

According to whom?

The 5.1 SRD under the OGL 1.0a? It says this at p. 161:

Magic Missile
1st-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V,S
Duration: Instantaneous
You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4+1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the spell creates one more dart for each slot level above 1st.

Nobody held a gun to WotC's head in 2014 (or 2016) when they released this under the OGL 1.0a. That computerized spell effect was absolutely legal and licensed by WotC. We don't have to guess about this. It is explicitly in the license. (It appears you shouldn't go to the members of your gaming group for legal advice, btw.)

What you mean to say is:

"I'm altering the OGL, pray I don't alter it any further".

I have a few choice words about that. Two particular well worn Anglo-Saxon words immediately come to mind.

 

[Minigiant]

It appears you shouldn't go to the members of your gaming group for legal advice, btw.)

I was going to them as potential jury members. I think WOTC could managae to get a jury trail. And then it becomes a case of how much PI and IP is interpreted into in the VTT.

Because actually to te people I've asked, you'd need permission from WOTC once you lean from VTT to game engine.

That's the question. When does a VTT become a game engine?

 

[Haplo781]

My question is, let's say I made an animation for a magical burst of energy that can be used to strike a foe at a distance. WotC doesn't want that because they don't want magic missile being animated. OK. Dumb, but OK.

But--and I ask this as someone who has not actually used a VTT yet--what's to stop someone from saying "this isn't D&D's magic missile spell, it's SWADE's bolt spell or GURPS' Sunbolt spell"?

Absolutely nothing.