1.2 and VTT [+]

[MarkB]

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 do like the idea in principle. An issue with it is that VTTs take a variety of approaches, some emphasising different tools, interfaces and styles than others, and there's a risk here that this policy would wind up only leaving space for the D&D VTT and clones of the D&D VTT.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Right, but if I make an asset and sell it or give it away or whatever it is people do to get animations on VTTs, and they use it as a magic missile, how would that affect me, the person who made a generic burst-of-energy effect or bolt spell?

 

[tomBitonti]

Right, but if I make an asset and sell it or give it away or whatever it is people do to get animations on VTTs, and they use it as a magic missile, how would that affect me, the person who made a generic burst-of-energy effect or bolt spell?

I'm thinking the VTT would be prevented by the OGL 1.2 from putting that together with any OGL 1.2 SRD content. You could provide the animation, but the VTT couldn't use it.

(Pondering this further: I'm thinking a goal of WotC is to monetize, via microtransactions, graphical and sound assets. Dice, spell effects, creature animations, character animations, location dressing. I expect that the goal is to have a private ecosystem, in the sense of the Apple App store, where-in such assets are only available for purchase from WotC, or sold by third parties but subject a hefty percentage fee, and strong price controls. Prices and fees would be much less in an open ecosystem. There being an open VTT which was enabled for any third party developers to contribute assets would seem to demolish such a strategy of WotC.)

TomB

 

[Clint_L]

I don't think this situation is that different from, say Reaper miniatures making and selling an "eye beast." I'm pretty confident that every "eye beast" ever sold has seen the tabletop as a "beholder," but the model is differently named and different enough from the official WotC IP that Reaper not going to be sued.

WotC can't do anything about you creating a magic-missile effect for your VTT. Pew pew effects are a dime a dozen. But they can prevent you from calling it "magic missile" for use in a D&D setting. I think. Not a lawyer.

 

[tetrasodium]

Since it talks about "experience of sitting around the table playing d&d" Here are examples from 2022 & 2021 post showing use of a tabletop display & a touch enabled tabletop display sitting around a table playing d&d

 

[DarkCrisis]

They can’t really stop anyone from using day Roll20 for D&D. Voice chat plus a map you can draw on. Generic monster tokens etc.

 

[mamba]

Thinking about this, my other problem is enforceability, if a 3pp violates the OGL, they get kicked out, this does not work here because it is the only thing that restricts WotC’s VTT, they lose nothing when they can walk. Not sure how to fix that in an acceptable way…

 

[mamba]

Right, but if I make an asset and sell it or give it away or whatever it is people do to get animations on VTTs, and they use it as a magic missile, how would that affect me, the person who made a generic burst-of-energy effect or bolt spell?

it still feels like exploiting a loophole though and it cannot be the VTT publisher at that point. So I prefer fixing it over avoiding it in dubious ways

 

[MarkB]

Thinking about this, my other problem is enforceability, if a 3pp violates the OGL, they get kicked out, this does not work here because it is the only thing that restricts their VTT, they lose nothing when they can walk. Not sure how to fix that in an acceptable way…

If a VTT is supporting a plethora of ongoing campaigns that are using OGL content purchased through that VTT, and they lose their license and have to revoke all players' access to that content, they very much lose something.

 

[mamba]

I'm thinking the VTT would be prevented by the OGL 1.2 from putting that together with any OGL 1.2 SRD content. You could provide the animation, but the VTT couldn't use it.

agreed, which means we gained nothing wrt competing VTTs for D&D