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.

​

 

[Yaarel]

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).

Heh, I hope Paizo does, because the gaming community needs a safe haven (again).

At the same time, I sympathize with the costs that Paizo would have to undertake.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, for 20 years we thought the OGL was safe. Anyone designing TTRPGs right now should be doing their research on the best ways to protect themselves, but it's hard to say what the safest path is if WotC plans to activate Lawbarian Rage

Well, I can tell you that relying on “you can’t copyright game mechanics” is not a safe strategy.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Scrubbing OGC from PF2 is exactly what I was thinking “PF3” would be, so I don’t think we’re disagreeing here.

 

[S'mon]

It is impossible that the 5e designers would say nothing to decision-makers.

Hasbro-WotC did the Anti-OGL with full awareness.

Even now, Hasbro-WotC must have a backup plan waiting in the wings in case there would be a sizable backlash.

Hasbro is a multi-billion dollar corporation. There are a lot of people putting this plan together. They have been thinking about D&D as an Intellectual Property for "branding" and "monetizing" for a while.

Group think & bunker mentality are real things.

Russia is a big important country. They have a lot of people working on policy and strategy. They would never do something really stupid and self destructive. They must have backup plans waiting in the wings in case of backlash. Really?

 

[Branduil]

Each of those Six Abilities by itself − Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma − would not stand as copyrightable.

However the Six altogether as an assemblage feels recognizable enough to be directly from the OGL 1.0a and its SRDs.

I feel like the big thing that would make it hard for WotC to claim copyright on these is they're such common words. Even if it's those 6 specifically, I think it's hard to make the argument no one could come up with those attributes without "plagiarizing."

That said, I have somewhat mixed feelings on this, since I personally wouldn't mind at all if games moved away from the big 6. I think especially the "mental stats" are bad at both

1. Representing modern conceptions of how our brains work and
2. Emulating extremely common fantasy archetypes

Almost all heroes in high fantasy tend to be "charismatic," and the charismatic warrior hero is especially common (Yes, the Paladin exists, but the archetype I'm talking about is not limited to religious boy scouts). Wisdom being both sensory perception and good judgment is also weird. Intelligence is just the concept of "I.Q.," which is arguably a flawed and biased model of human intelligence and probably not the best way to measure something like "good at magic and knowledge." So I think there would be a lot of benefits of moving away from the D&D categorizations. Dexterity should probably also be broken up into different stats instead of being the god stat.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not a lawyer, but absent legal advice to the contrary I would guess that my chances in court would be much better by continuing to use the OGL 1.0a than abandoning the OGL entirely and relying on copyright law and fair use. Using the OGL 1.0a allows me to shield my entire work behind a "perpetual" license (which may or may not be held to include "irrevocable"), which means the case can focus on the question of whether Wizards can revoke/unauthorize the license. That should, ideally, be a rather easy thing for a court to decide. If I drop the OGL, I open up the entire work to a lot of judgments about whether this piece or that, in whole or in aggregate, violate Wizards' copyright.

I'm an academic, teaching Contract & Copyright, among other areas. I agree very strongly with this statement. It really really needs to be emphasised! Discarding the OGL 1.0 is like throwing away your shield because the enemy says they are going to target your shield.

 

[S'mon]

Each of those Six Abilities by itself − Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma − would not stand as copyrightable.

However the Six altogether as an assemblage feels recognizable enough to be directly from the OGL 1.0a and its SRDs.

'Recognisable' is not enough for infringement. Games have been using similar stat arrays since the 1970s. Runequest comes to mind.

 

[jeffh]

I'm not an expert, especially not in US law, but there are many parts that sound really unprofessional to me:

XI. INDEMNITY. If You get in legal trouble, or get Us in legal trouble, here’s what will
happen:
A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You are responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.
B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense.

"Legal trouble"? "Here's what will happen"? "Receiving end"? Is that really considered proper legal language?

On the one hand, my first instinct is to agree with this.

But on the other, the purpose of most "legalese" is to be unambiguous in a way ordinary language often isn't. There's at least some movement - the lawyers here can perhaps speak to whether it's taken hold, all I know is that it exists - to move to ordinary language when the extra precision isn't needed or when using traditional legal language could obscure rather than clarify what is being agreed to. This is a bit on the flippant side even for that, but is it really unclear in a way that's likely to matter legally? If not, why not use more colloquial language?

That's what I think intellectually, anyway, even though on a more emotional level something about this particular implementation of it turns me off.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nevermind, this post didn’t contribute anything positive to the conversation.

 

[Yaarel]

I feel like the big thing that would make it hard for WotC to claim copyright on these is they're such common words. Even if it's those 6 specifically, I think it's hard to make the argument no one could come up with those attributes without "plagiarizing."

Personally, I find the Six Abilities unsatisfactory because, as mechanics, they are powerwise unbalanced and meaningwise muddled. I feel they need a fix. (Increasing to Eight or consolidating to Four solves these issues.)

But the Six are a "Sacred Cow" that inspires zealous conservatism.

Many feel it cannot be "D&D" without these Six.

It is difficult to persuade a majority of D&D players to fix them.

This recognizability shows how ... trademarky ... these Six Abilities are.

The OGL 1.0a gave these Six to "the wild", beyond the control of corporations. This gift is a Property Identity that is the property of the gaming culture.

Without the OGL 1.0a, these Six would be unavailable.