D&D General Interview with Chris Cocks on D&D AI, the OGL, and more

[Clint_L]

I'm sorry but this sounds terrifingly dystopian to me. The day I use monstrous LLMs to replace the beautiful and organic "last session recap" where all players get to contribute and reminisce, getting us all pump up for the upcoming session, is the day I'll stop playing RPGs

Dystopian? Monstrous? Really? You think Mistwell's group's use of AI to recap their last session is comparable to Oceania or something? If it's working for them, it's working for them. There's a big difference between "that's not my thing" and "what you are doing is basically evil."

There's a lot of judging happening around how other people choose to use technology.

 

[mamba]

You left out a pretty important reason to go with the ones that you mentioned for why people are justifiably skeptical over a statement like "we did wrong" ... Namely the fact that this was the second time they tried to kill the OGL. The GSL was their first failure at doing it right.

I’d say it was the only way to do it ‘right’, that it did not work does not mean that there is any other way. The OGL 1.1 attempt was straight up illegal

Saying "we did it wrong" implies that there is a right way and leaves open the door for a third try at figuring out how to accomplish the goal of murdering d&D's open license "right".

there won’t be a third attempt, the SRD is now in CC, the OGL is of no interest to WotC any more. All they can do now is try a GSL 2.0 again for a future 6e

 

[tetrasodium]

there won’t be a third attempt, the SRD is now in CC, the OGL is of no interest to WotC any more. All they can do now is try a GSL 2.0 again for a future 6e

Oh I'm sure that given enough time we will see someone from Hasbro or wotc decide that this time they figured out the perfect way to kill off all that open licensing stuff the right way and they will muster the support to show everyone how it should have been done the last couple tries.

 

[mamba]

Oh I'm sure that given enough time we will see someone from Hasbro or wotc decide that this time they figured out the perfect way to kill off all that open licensing stuff the right way and they will muster the support to show everyone how it should have been done the last couple tries.

I am not saying they won’t, only that they have a limited range of options

 

[tetrasodium]

I am not saying they won’t, only that they have a limited range of options

They've already started. Remember when all of that talk about how the physical books would probably just be collectable curiosities with most everyone going with the digital stuff?

 

[TiQuinn]

They've already started. Remember when one of the higher ups started taking about how the physical books would probably just be collectable curiosities with most everyone going with the digital stuff?

Cite?

 

[mamba]

They've already started. Remember when one of the higher ups started taking about how the physical books would probably just be collectable curiosities with most everyone going with the digital stuff?

they are a long way from getting there and it has no impact on the SRD and its purpose

 

[tetrasodium]

they are a long way from getting there and it has no impact on the SRD and its purpose

Indeed. It takes a long time to build a walled garden and convince a critical mass to buy into it so all the walls require is locking the gate.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm sorry but this sounds terrifingly dystopian to me. The day I use monstrous LLMs to replace the beautiful and organic "last session recap" where all players get to contribute and reminisce, getting us all pump up for the upcoming session, is the day I'll stop playing RPGs

Saying "Cool. That's not for us because we enjoy..." is one thing. Saying a thing one of your peers is doing "sounds terrifyingly dystopian" is not something you're "sorry" about. It's the sort of hyperbolic language used to take a shot at someone for liking something you don't. Not necessary. It's just a game summary, not Soylent Green.

I get it's not for everyone (though I hope you will read the thread and see it's not quite what you think it is - people absolutely reminisce over it, and I think perhaps even more because it provides actual player quotes). We also definitely get pumped up from it - more than we used to, where there was a lot of searching memories and blank faces sometimes if there was a lot of time between sessions.

 

[Staffan]

A new OGL does nothing for prior releases, unless those companies/people re-release under the new version. Which they could already do right now with the CC. In other worse, there is NOTHING that can return the situation to the status quo prior to what happened. You can't make people re-release material under the new OGL. Releasing a new OGL doesn't return all those prior books to being under the that new OGL. Some of those companies don't even exist anymore or involve people no longer in the industry.

The OGL has this clause in it:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

To me, that reads that should they create an OGL 1.2 with the word "irrevocable" added to clause 4, future users could use the irrevocable version of the license to copy, modify, and distribute any OGC originally distributed under 1.0 (a). But I'm not a lawyer.

You left out a pretty important reason to go with the ones that you mentioned for why people are justifiably skeptical over a statement like "we did wrong" ... Namely the fact that this was the second time they tried to kill the OGL. The GSL was their first failure at doing it right. OGL 1.1 was the second and some of the initial reports on it were dismissed on the idea that nobody at such a large company would be stupid enough to try a second bite at it after the GSL did so much to help drag 4e down. Saying "we did it wrong" implies that there is a right way and leaves open the door for a third try at figuring out how to accomplish the goal of murdering d&D's open license "right".

The major difference between the GSL and this is that the GSL was fair. Well, the license itself was bad, but it was handled in a pretty fair way. The d20STL (the license allowing you to use the d20 logo to indicate compatibility with D&D) was never promised to be permanent, and had its terms changed multiple times as the need arose, and even included provisions for what'd happen if it was canceled. They didn't touch the actual OGL or SRD, that remained sacrosanct – they probably never expected that anyone would manage to produce a viable alternative based on the SRD (likely the expectations was that someone might make a game about as successful as Arcana Unearthed or Mutants & Masterminds – fine for a smaller company, but wholly beneath WOTC's notice), but Paizo sure did.

And from what I recall at the time, the overall reaction was more "Well, that sucks" than the "How DARE they" the latest attempt provoked.