1.2 and VTT [+]

[mamba]

I am not liking how restrictive the VTT part is. I want WotC to compete on merit, not by hobbling everybody else.

To that end I was thinking about what would accomplish that, and am now looking for feedback, improvements and support (i.e. bringing it up in the survey).

With that said, this is my proposal: the OGL has to include a clause that applies WotC’s VTT policy to their own VTT.

This solves two things 1) they will obviously remove limitations / it levels the field, 2) while the VTT policy is outside the OGL and therefore can be changed in the future, they are bound to it in the OGL and therefore cannot change that

Alternatively, just scrap the whole VTT policy, but then they can cross over into game territory even farther

Feedback is encouraged

 

[NaturalZero]

EDITed for a + thread

 

[mamba]

EDITed for a + thread

if you had some concerns, please post them. If you just do not like the idea / the fact that we even discuss potentially agreeing to 1.2, keep it to yourself

Also note that this is not my only concern, but the others are more widely discussed already

 

[tetrasodium]

the spell animations thing is absurd. Take this three year old example

plus the motion tools added since then & improved upon in the recent beta>stable update arkenforge made. Wotc seems to be using the new ogl to shackle competition from existing VTTs to get them out of the way of a still unavailable VTT they are building

 

[mamba]

the spell animations thing is absurd. Take this three year old example

plus the motion tools added since then & improved upon in the recent beta>stable update arkenforge made. Wotc seems to be using the new ogl to shackle competition from existing VTTs to get them out of the way of a still unavailable VTT they are building

of course it is absurd, the question is what is the best remedy, and how do we get that

 

[MarkB]

The first issue that needs fixing is that the VTT policy is not integrated into the OGL 1.2, and is subject to change. A VTT conforming to the current policy might find that a new version defines one or more of their core features as disallowed.

 

[Faolyn]

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"?

 

[mamba]

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"?

is it being used while someone plays D&D on your VTT? Then it is D&D’s magic missile

 

[mamba]

The first issue that needs fixing is that the VTT policy is not integrated into the OGL 1.2, and is subject to change. A VTT conforming to the current policy might find that a new version defines one or more of their core features as disallowed.

It changing is probably why it is not part of it in the first place. They want to be able to change it. Which I wanted to allow with my idea of binding their VTT to it via the OGL. That way they have an incentive to not get restrictive.

The best option probably is to scrap the VTT license altogether (well, duh), which I wanted to avoid to compromise on their fear that this is a backdoor into OGL computer games.
I doubt a 3pp VTT has a feature WotC would disallow if that meant they also could not have it, but a minimal risk remains, agreed

 

[Clint_L]

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"?

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.