Legal Eagle has entered the chat, about OGL 1.1

[overgeeked]

Well he doesn't talk about the main thing that concerns us - purported revocation of OGL 1.0. He does give a reasonable presentation on the limits of copyright, making pretty clear that while you can potentially publish D&D adventures without a licence, you can't do something like Pathfinder 1e without a licence.

Words with Friends exists because you cannot copyright the rules to Scrabble. PlayDiplomacyOnline and Backstabbr are VTTs for Diplomacy, a Hasbro board game. They can exist because you cannot copyright the rules to Diplomacy.

 

[darjr]

Yea. If this turns out like board games I think WotC won’t be happy.

If it turns out like software we might be in a whole new world.

 

[darjr]

OGL - Legal Eagle ft Matt Colville on the OGL

Dungeons & Dragons Rolls a 1 on New License (OGL 1.1) ft. Matt Colville

www.enworld.org

 

[Scribe]

It just keeps getting better.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Legal Eagle ft. Matt Colville

I thought this should maybe have its own thread for discussion?

 

[fjw70]

Gotta listen to this one. Love the channel.

 

[darjr]

OGL - Legal Eagle ft Matt Colville on the OGL

Dungeons & Dragons Rolls a 1 on New License (OGL 1.1) ft. Matt Colville

www.enworld.org

 

[Steel_Wind]

If you are looking for greater insight from such pieces than has been available on ENWorld for the past week, the expectations that will be met are low.

For one, this stuff is complicated, even for lawyers. It takes time and a fair bit of detail and effort to wade through it all.

For another, one of these threads has had ... 6... (7?) lawyers participate in the minutiae, ultimately rejecting the initial premise -- hailing from various common law jurisdictions: the UK, USA, Canada and Australia, coming from academia as well as practitioners over the past week. You won't find a more in-depth or complete discussion on this topic anywhere else on the internet than right here on ENworld. It took that group of lawyers probably 4 or 5 days before we seem to have arrived at a guarded consensus on the topic.

I know an 86 page thread is not easily digestible; still, the point to take away is that this stuff is complicated even for lawyers and that if you are looking for certainty and clarity, you are not likely to find it anywhere. We can speak only in terms of probabilities, not certainties. This sort of answer can be disappointing to some, but it's where we are, just the same.

 

[mhd]

Words with Friends exists because you cannot copyright the rules to Scrabble. PlayDiplomacyOnline and Backstabbr are VTTs for Diplomacy, a Hasbro board game. They can exist because you cannot copyright the rules to Diplomacy.

What I'm wondering is where things like stat blocks are in this spectrum. They collect rules terms, but in a rather specific manner. And being able to print NPC and monster stats exactly like people expect them is a huge benefit.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you are looking for greater insight from such pieces than has been available on ENWorld for the past week, the expectations that will be met are low.

I'm not sure if I should feel bad I wasted 22 mins on the same info we already had, or if I should be proud of Enworld for getting there faster then him.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What I'm wondering is where things like stat blocks are in this spectrum. They collect rules terms, but in a rather specific manner. And being able to print NPC and monster stats exactly like people expect them is a huge benefit.

No one needs to use the WotC stat blocks as-is. Even WotC has changed their stat blocks mid-edition, because no stat block expression is perfect.

Look at the stat blocks on the upcoming Monster Overhaul. That's not the layout for any existing rule set, but any OSR DM could use it instantly and I'd say that most WotC-era DMs who were inclined to could use it without much effort as well. (Hit points look like the only major issue for WotC-era versions of D&D.)

If you want to make a 5E-compatible stat block, it doesn't have to look anything like WotC's expression of it. I daresay you could probably come up with a better one than they use. (They all have too few passive abilities pre-figured for my tastes, and I'd like to see monsters' initiative scores pre-filled as well.)

 

[S'mon]

What I'm wondering is where things like stat blocks are in this spectrum. They collect rules terms, but in a rather specific manner. And being able to print NPC and monster stats exactly like people expect them is a huge benefit.

Well I know a bit about copyright, and I advised my friend with a 5e Kickstarter project best not to use WoTC's stat block format. She & her team have been developing a new stat block format I think looks good.

If it needs saying, reprinting an actual WoTC stat block (eg the orc or owlbear) without a licence is a no-no. Whatever that guy said in 2019.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well I know a bit about copyright, and I advised my friend with a 5e Kickstarter project best not to use WoTC's stat block format. She & her team have been developing a new stat block format I think looks good.

If it needs saying, reprinting an actual WoTC stat block (eg the orc or owlbear) without a licence is a no-no. Whatever that guy said in 2019.

I know there are DMs who grumble about it, but just saying "look up the owlbear in your monster book of choice" is fine. I have done that kind of thing for decades.

 

[CleverNickName]

I know there are DMs who grumble about it, but just saying "look up the owlbear in your monster book of choice" is fine. I have done that kind of thing for decades.

This is the way.

 

[mhd]

No one needs to use the WotC stat blocks as-is. Even WotC has changed their stat blocks mid-edition, because no stat block expression is perfect.

I remember the big 3.x stat block switch up, and the confusion it created. In user interfaces, "expected" is usually the best you can go for . But yeah, for 5E deviation isn't that important, not that many stats. For PF1, I would hurt badly if I couldn't use the default version.

Well I know a bit about copyright, and I advised my friend with a 5e Kickstarter project best not to use WoTC's stat block format.

Noted.

It's going to be an interesting time to see how far people will go to obfuscate their third party, license-free products. I don't expect all out Judges Guild, but re-ordering stats, changed spell names…

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well I know a bit about copyright, and I advised my friend with a 5e Kickstarter project best not to use WoTC's stat block format. She & her team have been developing a new stat block format I think looks good.

I think that's for the best for 2 reasons... 1 better safe then sorry and 2 I don't like the wotc stat blocks

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's going to be an interesting time to see how far people will go to obfuscate their third party, license-free products. I don't expect all out Judges Guild, but re-ordering stats, changed spell names…

I totally expect someone will kick start a system with Muscle Agility Health Knowledge Wits and Personality someday...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I remember the big 3.x stat block switch up, and the confusion it created. In user interfaces, "expected" is usually the best you can go for . But yeah, for 5E deviation isn't that important, not that many stats. For PF1, I would hurt badly if I couldn't use the default version.

I would bet money that, even at PF1's height, there were multiple competing versions of the stat block floated inside Paizo, with smart people arguing for each one.

 

[jgsugden]

This is what I've been saying for a bit here - the OGL gave people a license to use things - but most of what people were using were available without the license. WotC/Hasbro's free license was mostly unnecessary. People may have needed to tweak things here or there, but not a lot.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is protected, and what can't be protected.

 

[el-remmen]

This is what I've been saying for a bit here - the OGL gave people a license to use things - but most of what people were using were available without the license. WotC/Hasbro's free license was mostly unnecessary. People may have needed to tweak things here or there, but not a lot.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is protected, and what can't be protected.

I am not saying you're wrong. I think you're right, but. . .

. . .emerging from the overly-litigious TSR era, more than anything the OGL gave 3PP a sense of re-assurance about publishing stuff for D&D that they never had back when C&D letters were sent out when even a whiff of something claiming to be compatible with D&D made its way to the Lake Geneva authorities - and even when it didn't. Being the big fish in a little pond meant that TSR could push around other companies even when they didn't necessarily have a legal leg to stand on. WotC/Hasbro is an even bigger fish.

So yeah, folks were over-zealous in using it, but since it seemed like (and was sold as) cover, I hardly blame folks (esp. the basement heartbreak presses) for latching on to it.