1.2 and VTT [+]

[mamba]

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.

it being displayed while your D&D char casts magic missile makes it a mm effect, no matter what you called the animation. They want there to be no effects under the OGL

 

[mamba]

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.

I am talking about WotC’s VTT, they lose nothing, edited OP for clarity

 

[tetrasodium]

it being displayed while your D&D char casts magic missile makes it a mm effect, no matter what you called the animation. They want there to be no effects under the OGL

They are trying to do much more than that though in an effort to stop people from doing things they already do
[spoiler-="another example"]
[/spoiler]
Wotc's very late to the VTT game & they haven't even put one out yet.

 

[Clint_L]

it being displayed while your D&D char casts magic missile makes it a mm effect, no matter what you called the animation. They want there to be no effects under the OGL

Not if you are calling it D&D or using D&D IP, no. You would need to work out a separate license with them. 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.

 

[Faolyn]

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

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

Well, more good reasons to oppose 1.2.

 

[Enrahim2]

The big problem with trying to separate between a VTT and a videogame is that at least 2 of the biggest VTTs are arguably generic programming frameworks. Both Foundry VTT and pro level Roll20 allow for adding essentially unrestricted javascripted features to your VTT experience. In that regard the VTTs are a bit like for instance Unreal engine. They are arguably not a game themselves, but they can both be expanded to become videogames.

As such allowing "any use with VTTs", and then go on to try to define VTT is a framework that seem futile to use if one want to accept any of the currently accepted VTTs, while preventing use with any potential future video games. It would seem like a more natural approach would have to look at who actually uses the vtt along with srd content to create a "video game" experience.

To exemplify: If we for the sake of argument accept the laughable proposition that the display of a moving magic missile somehow is what differentiates a "table top" experience from a "video game" experience, the policy need to state clearly that if someone is using a provided VTT compatible compendium of SRD content with a VTT, along with a modification enabling spell animations, neither the VTT provider, the compendium provider or the provider of the spell animation package is in any way "at fault". For the current situation hence the only one wizards could reasonably target with C&D or other legal actions would be individual GMs.

However going after GMs like this seem like both a highly unpopular move, and practically not really enforceable. It would also make it impossible to go after the main target - someone making a full fledged video game "template" package, only requiring the insertion of monster and spell data of a "certain format" to run on the VTT as an actual proper video game.

In other words, in order to achieve all 3 of allow existing VTTs, prevent de facto SRD use in video games under the VTT policy, and being able to target anyone save the actual end user for infringement, some really creative framework of thinking I can't see for the time being needs to be applied to the policy.

My working hypotesis is that it just cannot be done.

 

[mamba]

Not if you are calling it D&D or using D&D IP, no. You would need to work out a separate license with them. 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.

read the VTT policy, it is at the end of OGL1.2

Nothing you cannot do at your kitchen table. Video games are already excluded, they do realize that VTTs with sufficient automation and animation are not easily distinguishable from games, so they draw a line that cannot be crossed and is miles away from where today’s VTT already are.

If they had said a VTT is anything where the players control a char each and the DM / one player controls all NPCs and monsters, no creature is controlled by the computer is the line, I would be fine. Still excludes (most) games while including VTTs that are not 5 years old already.

 

[mamba]

My working hypotesis is that it just cannot be done.

same. which means no one can use the OGL features, they need separate licenses from WotC, who have little incentive to provide one once their VTT is up and running

 

[tetrasodium]

The big problem with trying to separate between a VTT and a videogame is that at least 2 of the biggest VTTs are arguably generic programming frameworks. Both Foundry VTT and pro level Roll20 allow for adding essentially unrestricted javascripted features to your VTT experience. In that regard the VTTs are a bit like for instance Unreal engine. They are arguably not a game themselves, but they can both be expanded to become videogames.

As such allowing "any use with VTTs", and then go on to try to define VTT is a framework that seem futile to use if one want to accept any of the currently accepted VTTs, while preventing use with any potential future video games. It would seem like a more natural approach would have to look at who actually uses the vtt along with srd content to create a "video game" experience.

To exemplify: If we for the sake of argument accept the laughable proposition that the display of a moving magic missile somehow is what differentiates a "table top" experience from a "video game" experience, the policy need to state clearly that if someone is using a provided VTT compatible compendium of SRD content with a VTT, along with a modification enabling spell animations, neither the VTT provider, the compendium provider or the provider of the spell animation package is in any way "at fault". For the current situation hence the only one wizards could reasonably target with C&D or other legal actions would be individual GMs.

However going after GMs like this seem like both a highly unpopular move, and practically not really enforceable. It would also make it impossible to go after the main target - someone making a full fledged video game "template" package, only requiring the insertion of monster and spell data of a "certain format" to run on the VTT as an actual proper video game.

In other words, in order to achieve all 3 of allow existing VTTs, prevent de facto SRD use in video games under the VTT policy, and being able to target anyone save the actual end user for infringement, some really creative framework of thinking I can't see for the time being needs to be applied to the policy.

My working hypotesis is that it just cannot be done.

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.

 

[Krachek]

Technological entertainment is still an obscure future, AI dm, 3D modeling, custom avatar, we don’t know for sure where it’s going.

They want to make sure that any new technological entertainment won’t use DnD without their approval and without sharing.

Will they miss some opportunities?
That an young genius create a new wonder and use DnD as universe because it have a unrestrictive OGL?

that may have been possible in the 90. but now those projects are bigger and bigger and engage massive investment.
Those crazy projects are spotted early these day, and soon big name like Microsoft, google rapidly sneak in.
I understand them wanting to protect their brand from being use into a new Chat gpt online DM powered by Microsoft.