95% of you didn't need the OGL and you don't need ORC

[Greggy C]

For software development, the point of open source licenses was that I could take someones entire lifes work, word for word, and reuse it in my project, under the conditions of the license.

The point of the original OGL was that someone could take the 3e D&D rules, reproduce them in their entirety, add their own content and sell that final product as their own.
Examples include Castles and Crusades, 13th age, most of the OSR, etc.

But for all these third-party products, supplements, home brew campaigns, new character classes, new settings... you didn't need the OGL, and you don't need OGL 1.1
nor, in fact, will you need the ORC.

The OGL was a trick to force you on DMSGuild to give away half your profits.

The rules lawyer addresses this specifically at around 11 mins.
Ben talked about this in the past as well.


Of course, if you write an adventure and don't create your own monsters, you just reproduce all the WOTC ones,
a) That is a little lazy.
b) You need the OGL/ORC.

When you realize all this, you also learn how disgusting OGL 1.1 was, trying to steal from prominent creators like Critical Role with no legal standing to do it.

D&D will return when they innovate a 6th edition, but we must teach the Microsoft Executives a lesson. Hopefully, they will be fired.

 

[Ondath]

The OGL was a trick to force you on DMSGuild to give away half your profits.

Except... DM's Guild does not use the OGL? So this really isn't relevant to your point.

Everyone and their mother has made the "You actually can't copyright game rules, so you could always make D&D content without the OGL" point. What this point fails to realise is that for TTRPGs, the line between rules and copyrightable story content is really unclear (do the dragon stat blocks only express rules? Or does the classification of dragons under metallic and chromatic become copyrightable story idea?).

The OGL v1.0a was an agreement to move the discussion away from copyright law and allow people to use the D&D as a chassis without ever discussing whether a specific game content was uncopyrightable rules or copyrightable story work. Presumably, this will apply also for the ORC.

So I'm really not getting the point you're trying to make.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes, game rules are not copyrightable but there's still the risk of being sued over it, especially in the USA where anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at all. The point of the OGL was the "safe harbor" it provided, specifically a literal promise in writing not to sue you for copy and pasting open game content. The ORC will provide the same kind of "safe harbor" as the OGL, again, a literal promise in writing to not sue over the use of game mechanics. Again, yes, game rules are not copyrightable...but anyone can sue for any reason, so the license did actually provide CYA.

 

[JAMUMU]

Back in the day when TSR was very litigious there were still plenty of off-brand supplements for (A)D&D. All you needed was a super-secret-decoder-ring to parse things like "hits to kill", "Attack & Defending Numbers", "injury dice" or whatever. I imagine with the almost worst case scenario being likely, there may be a return to knock-off supplements.

 

[Greggy C]

What this point fails to realise is that for TTRPGs, the line between rules and copyrightable story content is really unclear (do the dragon stat blocks only express rules? Or does the classification of dragons under metallic and chromatic become copyrightable story idea?).

I get that you don't understand the difference, but its pretty clear to most lawyers what the difference is.
The dragon stat blocks are copyright, you can't copy it word for word.

 

[Morrus]

The OGL was a trick to force you on DMSGuild to give away half your profits.

How very prescient of Dancey to set up that trick, 15 years before DMsG was even a glint in WotC’s eye.

Of course it wasn’t.

 

[Ondath]

I get that you don't understand the difference, but its pretty clear to most lawyers what the difference is.
The dragon stat blocks are copyright, you can't copy it word for word.

I get that you're trying to be a smarty pants, but there are literally dozens of lawyers that have been discussing this issue for 80+ pages in several threads, and none of them are talking with the certainty that you have.

It's really not good manners to talk down on people like that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I get that you don't understand the difference, but its pretty clear to most lawyers what the difference is.

Ad hominem aside, no they don't. If you bothered to listen to more than one lawyer, you'd see that there is no consensus other than "the rules are murky, this level of challenge has never happened in court, and you are your own peril by doing so."

That's the only thing they agree on. Just look at the other thread where no fewer than seven lawyers all chimed in on the subject.

Telling people they never needed OGL and they can do whatever they want as long as they don't reproduce word for word is dangerous advice. It completely ignores just how much of something can be called derivative work (which is mentioned in the very video you link but seem to have forgotten about).

 

[Greggy C]

I get that you're trying to be a smarty pants, but there are literally dozens of lawyers that have been discussing this issue for 80+ pages in several threads, and none of them are talking with the certainty that you have.

It's really not good manners to talk down on people like that.

They are arguing about whether the original OGL can be revoked and other topics, not whether a dragon with colors requires a license, it doesn't.
You are just further confusing everyone.

 

[Ondath]

They are arguing about whether the original OGL can be revoked and other topics, not whether a dragon with colors requires a license, it doesn't.
You are just further confusing everyone.

Okay, we're done. You clearly formed your opinion and just wanted to show off how above it all you were compared to everyone else who still thought they needed the OGL.