Battlezoo Shares The OGL v1.1

Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1 draft which is currently circulating. This draft is, presumably, the same document obtained by Gizmodo last week. It's not currently known if this is the final version of the license.

​

 

[S'mon]

Respectfully disagree. If WoTC backtracked, apologized and rolled out new leadership and One D&D is more popular than even 5E I think a lot of 3PP, even ones who have sworn to never support WoTC, would come back.

Yes I think realistically if Hasbro-WoTC changed the leadership team responsible, did a mea culpa and promised to be good, many people would come back eventually. Thinking of the 4e GSL and 5e rollout in 2012-14. This is a lot worse than the GSL though, the damage will certainly linger for years. Things will never be quite the same again.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Pretty sure PF2 is published under OGL 1.0, so if that goes away, maybe PF3 will become the go-to refuge for WotC boycotters.

I can't see Paizo being in the place to make PF3. They're more likely to just scrub OGL from PF2 and continue.

PF2 is still pretty new, so just dropping it for PF3 wouldn't create goodwill amongst their community no matter how justified the reason.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes I think realistically if Hasbro-WoTC changed the leadership team responsible, did a mea culpa and promised to be good, many people would come back eventually. Thinking of the 4e GSL and 5e rollout in 2012-14. This is a lot worse than the GSL though, the damage will certainly linger for years. Things will never be quite the same again.

Im unsure there is a way for Hasbro-WotC to repair its betrayal of trust.

It is more like one day discovering ones spouse is a psychopath. There is no ignoring this afterward.

 

[S'mon]

I am really not sure that’s true, and in fact if Paizo tries to ditch the OGL and republish, I’m reasonably sure WotC WOULD sue, and tie them in court long enough to kill them, because that would be the most precedent-setting case of any case WotC would care to wager.

Paizo’s best bet, in my non-lawyer opinion, would be to attempt to join or initiate a class-action with other publishers over the revocation of OGL 1.0a, because the lawsuit over “what is a game mechanic vs. what is art” is a MUCH larger endeavor than “can this license which everybody used to agree was irrevocable be revoked?”

My more academic lawyerly opinion would be that Paizo should stand on their rights under the OGL 1.0. They don't initiate anything, but they are in contact with every other major player and ready to support each other if attacked, and crowdfund their defence.

There is a very strong case that the OGL 1.0 is non-revocable, except for anyone who agrees the OGL 1.1. Claims that a non-licenced D&D-style game does not infringe copyright are much hazier and legally riskier IMO.

 

[Zardnaar]

My overall point is that what is and isn’t game mechanics is not cut and dried, and anyone relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” to protect them is likely in for a rude awakening.

Thus I don't think you can copyright strength, dex, con etc.

However the expression of them I'm a lot less sure on that. Eg 12-13 is +1 bonus, 14-15 +2 etc.

Lawyers are saying that WotC may or may not win but they have a case. Microfeats woukd be another example.

No OGL the Expression of those concepts are in the 3.0 phb they invented.

Not theoretically you can clone 4E. No one has.

OSR games are using XP tables and ability score expression from BECMI. Well they have a claim there as well.

And they don't even need to win to deplatform you from things like One bookshelf, Kickstarter, VTTs. So even if you win, can afford it etc essentially you've been demonitized.

 

[Nikosandros]

It is more like one day discovering ones spouse is a psychopath. There is no ignoring this afterward.

Yes, but corporations are not people. If the leadership at WotC should change, the "behavior" of the company might change as well. There remains however the problem with OGL 1.0. Unless it were updated to a (completely hypothetical) 1.0b which spelled clearly that it is irrevocable, I can't see many people trusting it again.

 

[Zardnaar]

My more academic lawyerly opinion would be that Paizo should stand on their rights under the OGL 1.0. They don't initiate anything, but they are in contact with every other major player and ready to support each other if attacked, and crowdfund their defence.

There is a very strong case that the OGL 1.0 is non-revocable, except for anyone who agrees the OGL 1.1. Claims that a non-licenced D&D-style game does not infringe copyright are much hazier and legally riskier IMO.

My theory is they want you to sign your rights away so even if they're wrong to bad you signed this.

And/or some idiot threw out a number and they get 25% of said number. But you get 0% if no one signs up, goes bankrupt or worse yet beats you in court.

 

[S'mon]

Im unsure there is a way for Hasbro-WotC to repair its betrayal of trust.

It is more like one day discovering ones spouse is a psychopath. There is no ignoring this afterward.

One thing they could do is a revision of OGL 1.0 to remove possible loopholes against revocability, to give a more cast iron protection against future bad actors. "This license can ONLY be revoked for breach" would be a start.

 

[Yaarel]

Battlezoo mentions Pathfinder 2 and the OGL 1.0a.

Paizo can remove the OGL from PF2.

But it requires rewriting and republishing everything.

They prefer to continue using the OGL 1.0a in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Battlezoo mentions Pathfinder 2 and the OGL 1.0a.

Paizo CAN remove the OGL from PF2.

But it requires rewriting and republishing everything.

They prefer to continue using the OGL 1.0a in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

They might have to do a PF 2.5 or 3E.

There's a lot of potential screw ups and they only need to find one (eg ability scores, microfeats, spells even).