D&D 5E L&L for 6/2

[Mistwell]

but if you find the mechanics they are using in other, pre-existing d20 products by other companies, or within the OGL itself there is not much they can do about it.

>> points to castles and crusades for attributes as saves

Of course there is. They can challenge the OGL itself (I can think of two legal means of doing that), for instance. I am not saying they'd win, or that it would be easy. I am saying there are grounds to try, and they have a lot of money backing them. I don't think anyone wants to wake that sleeping giant. It was one thing to support an edition they already abandoned. It's entirely another to try and directly strongly challenge them with the stuff they just spent the last two years developing and playtesting. That would result in, at best, a costly and long lawsuit I think.

I think a couple small guys might be able to get away with it. But Paizo doing it? No, I do not think that would go well. Gloves would come off at that point.

 

[Dausuul]

Of course there is. They can challenge the OGL itself (I can think of two legal means of doing that), for instance. I am not saying they'd win, or that it would be easy. I am saying there are grounds to try, and they have a lot of money backing them. I don't think anyone wants to wake that sleeping giant. It was one thing to support an edition they already abandoned. It's entirely another to try and directly strongly challenge them with the stuff they just spent the last two years developing and playtesting. That would result in, at best, a costly and long lawsuit I think.

I think a couple small guys might be able to get away with it. But Paizo doing it? No, I do not think that would go well. Gloves would come off at that point.

Curious - have you been following the Hex Entertainment lawsuit at all? If so, what's your opinion on it?

 

[Morrus]

That aside, it's not a realistic concern - it is in no way Paizo's interests to do that. Why would they want to try and have a portion of D&D's market when they can build up the whole of their own?

They might conceivably support 5E (they won't; no point, and their resources are better spent on their own game) but they aren't going to compete with the same game with the owners of the brand of that very game while the brand owners are producing the game themselves. That's just silly talk.

 

[Cybit]

Curious - have you been following the Hex Entertainment lawsuit at all? If so, what's your opinion on it?

Not asked the question; but because it pertains to my interests...

Basically, game mechanics have had really broad protection under copyright law from a few older cases. Cryptozoic basically went "hey, we could make Magic online not suck and make a crap ton of money", and they more or less did so. They've added some changes to the mix (the ability to permanently modify cards), but it is a lot cheaper for them to yoink the card design from MtG and not have to spend all the money Wizards has in learning why a 6/4 creature for 3 is too powerful, but for 5 is too weak, etc etc.

That's the point that got Wizards upset; they're spending a lot of game design money to learn these things, and Cryptozoic is trying to use it and claim protection under the rather nebulous and currently broad copyright laws that exist for games.

That said, I think Hex was too blatant about the entire process (a green dragon like 6/4 creature for the same mana cost as the MtG equivalent? Doing this dozens if not hundreds of times?) and runs the risk of setting a much more stringent game copyright law in place.

Also, it means that the Cryptozoic folks may not know why Magic is balanced the way it is; which speaks poorly as to the longevity of their game.

 

[Henry]

The more talk I hear about a "curated" D&D5' the less enthused I get, because I'm old enough to remember the absolutely crappy TSR file server from the early 90's, and the absolutely adversarial relation that TSR took with their fans, then the much more open tone of WotC and 3e, followed by the return to lockdown of the 3.5 and 4E timeframes brought on by the new management of the time. A "gatekeeper" of D&D I and a lot of other fans don't need, and, like Matt Finch's editorial, it's starting to put me off all the good work and good will that's been built to date.

 

[Rygar]

Not asked the question; but because it pertains to my interests...

Basically, game mechanics have had really broad protection under copyright law from a few older cases. Cryptozoic basically went "hey, we could make Magic online not suck and make a crap ton of money", and they more or less did so. They've added some changes to the mix (the ability to permanently modify cards), but it is a lot cheaper for them to yoink the card design from MtG and not have to spend all the money Wizards has in learning why a 6/4 creature for 3 is too powerful, but for 5 is too weak, etc etc.

That's the point that got Wizards upset; they're spending a lot of game design money to learn these things, and Cryptozoic is trying to use it and claim protection under the rather nebulous and currently broad copyright laws that exist for games.

That said, I think Hex was too blatant about the entire process (a green dragon like 6/4 creature for the same mana cost as the MtG equivalent? Doing this dozens if not hundreds of times?) and runs the risk of setting a much more stringent game copyright law in place.

Also, it means that the Cryptozoic folks may not know why Magic is balanced the way it is; which speaks poorly as to the longevity of their game.

The implications of this are very far reaching. Depending on how this falls out, it could make the gaming industry come to a screaming halt overnight. If Wizards wins, it could cause video games which share a common base design to become lawsuit targets, and that's pretty much all of them. If Wizards were to establish that game mechanics or the numbers used in a game are copyright, no one could make any further video games without first sorting out who first implemented which game mechanics and who used what numbers. It would take years of work to figure out who originated common design, during which no one would release a game because you'd risk a lawsuit whose penalties exceed the total revenues if the game sells poorly.

Now I'm not saying Wizards is wrong in any way, just that any ruling that isn't very, very, carefully worded is going to have vast reprocussions.

Also, minor nitpick: Balance in Mtg is relative. 6/4 for 5 isn't inherently bad, it's only bad if you can cast a 5/5 for 3. 6/4 for 5 is just fine in 4th edition with Ice Age, very slow sets, and is fine in Zendikar where you can hit 5 mana by the second turn with ease. For example, Primeval Titan was 6/6 for 6 and I could hardcast him on the third turn reliably in certain decks and summoning trap him out on the first turn if someone wasn't playing well.

 

[MerricB]

The implications of this are very far reaching. Depending on how this falls out, it could make the gaming industry come to a screaming halt overnight. If Wizards wins, it could cause video games which share a common base design to become lawsuit targets, and that's pretty much all of them. If Wizards were to establish that game mechanics or the numbers used in a game are copyright, no one could make any further video games without first sorting out who first implemented which game mechanics and who used what numbers. It would take years of work to figure out who originated common design, during which no one would release a game because you'd risk a lawsuit whose penalties exceed the total revenues if the game sells poorly.

Note that Wizards also holds a patent on the mechanics in Magic. That is a lot more effective than just relying on copyright.

 

[Dausuul]

The more talk I hear about a "curated" D&D5' the less enthused I get, because I'm old enough to remember the absolutely crappy TSR file server from the early 90's, and the absolutely adversarial relation that TSR took with their fans, then the much more open tone of WotC and 3e, followed by the return to lockdown of the 3.5 and 4E timeframes brought on by the new management of the time. A "gatekeeper" of D&D I and a lot of other fans don't need, and, like Matt Finch's editorial, it's starting to put me off all the good work and good will that's been built to date.

I agree with you, obviously, but do let's bear in mind that 90% of this is speculation. It's based on a few very vague posts from the WotC crew, none of which said anything about curating stuff. We all leaped to the conclusion that they intend to build an "app store" and exert editorial control over its content. They never said that was their plan, only that they have "a program" in mind.

I didn't like the tone of Mearls's L&L piece last week, but tone on the Internet is a very slippery thing. There's only one concrete thing to take issue with right now, which is the decision to postpone third-party licensing till next year. If they were hoping to win back the goodwill of the 3PP community, it's a hell of a way to start.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, the patent is a slightly different argument than copyright. No less of a messed up world (oh patents for obvious things), but definitely a different conversation to have.

 

[God]

I'm disappointed that WotC is so blatantly delaying the "OGL /no OGL" reveal until so long after the release window. OGL-friendliness is an important factor for me and, I suspect, others (while I'm impressed by much of what I've seen of 5E so far, past experience has left me with a mixed opinion of their ability to produce and support a quality game. If they drop the ball again, I'd like someone else to be able to pick up the pieces). But WotC wants my money before revealing whether or not the product they're offering will be what I want it to be.

The cynic in me thinks that's intentional, because they know their plans could negatively impact sales if known. I think it's also possible that they are delaying a decision so they can adapt. If initial sales are gangbusters, they'll go with a restrictive license. If sales are mediocre, they may go with an open (or open-ish) license in an effort to persuade reluctant gamers and Pathfinder/open gaming fans.

Either way, I think I'll hold onto my money until WotC is more transparent about their plans. Which is, as I said, disappointing.