The OGL: Why is this really happening, and what to do now...

[Aspirinsmurf]

I'm not a 3pp, so I'm not going to advocate this - it really doesn't sit right for me to push others to take a big risk when I'm not sharing it. That said, if anyone does go this route, I know where my sympathies would lie.

To reduce individual risk, this strategy would involve pledging money for a mutual legal defense fund in a "three musketeers" clause, like NATO's article 5.

 

[delericho]

For me, the problem with a hypothetical "OGL 1.0b" is, it would have Hasbro-WotC being its steward − which is the problem in the first place.

As I have suggested before, they should transfer their copyright and section 9 powers over the OGL irrevocably to a non-profit third party, ideally one set up for the purpose. The ORC could be the start of an industry association capable of creating such a body.

That way, any ORC license can be an update to the OGL 1.0(a). Everything would then be grandfathered into the new ecosystem, at least the way I understand section 9 to work.

Yeah, that would solve the problem. In that scenario ORC might need renamed (to OGL x.,x), but otherwise I don't see a problem. (And if anyone does feel it's a problem, the "you can publish under any authorized version" clause covers them. Or at least it does if WotC are no longer able to try their "no longer authorized" shenanigans.)

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Yeah, that would solve the problem. In that scenario ORC might need renamed (to OGL x.,x), but otherwise I don't see a problem. (And if anyone does feel it's a problem, the "you can publish under any authorized version" clause covers them. Or at least it does if WotC are no longer able to try their "no longer authorized" shenanigans.)

I don't see why it needs to be renamed. It probably should be. The OGL name is tarnished. The new license just needs to specify that it is, in fact, an update of the OGL 1.0(a). And it would need to be compatible in operation, unlike the joke that Wizards is currently trying to coerce people into accepting.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, that would solve the problem. In that scenario ORC might need renamed (to OGL x.,x), but otherwise I don't see a problem. (And if anyone does feel it's a problem, the "you can publish under any authorized version" clause covers them. Or at least it does if WotC are no longer able to try their "no longer authorized" shenanigans.)

ORC hasnt been written yet, it doesnt have a number.

And its name is neutral: "Open RPG Creative".

 

[delericho]

I don't see why it needs to be renamed. It probably should be. The OGL name is tarnished. The new license just needs to specify that it is, in fact, an update of the OGL 1.0(a).

I'm not sure such a statement would be sufficient. But that's one for the legal minds drafting the thing.

And it would need to be compatible in operation, unlike the joke that Wizards is currently trying to coerce people into accepting.

Of course.

 

[Enrahim2]

Support Alternate Efforts: Support whatever Levelup, Kobold etc... do to keep a 5E compatible ecosystem alive. We will have to redouble this if Wizards thinks it can go into silent mode, or release the OGL 1.2 without ending its attack on the 1.0(a).

This has got me thinking. The big challenge with supporting alternatives is that most players are not playing alternatives due to not really seeing anything but the "defaults". I checked some of the big public LFG forums like Roll20 and reddit/lfg. There seem to be some more alternative games there now than when I previously checked, but they are still (vanilla) 5ed dominated.

I don't think a blanket recommendation to prioritise other efforts is going to have a big effect on its own. There are to much love and investments put into the system by very many. However limited campaigns with wide appeal might be able to give much more visible effect.

For instance "Dark March": Encourage GMs to not post new lfgs for 5ed and PF2 for a week or month (excluding more important things like filling ongoing campaign or if you are a doing DMing for a living). The idea being to give the smaller systems some time to shine, like stars at the night sky at a dark place far from the lights of the civilization.

 

[Vivificient]

When we drove the Sky People off Pandora, we thought the battle was over. But nothing good lasts forever.

It took them years, but they returned to try again, with 10 times the resources.

At first, we couldn't understand what they were doing. Why would they destroy an entire ecosystem, just for unobtanium?

But it turned out, they didn't care about the unobtanium. This time, they were hunting whales.

As for me and my family, it wasn't safe to stay in the forest any longer. Our only choice was to withdraw to the islands of the Ou'ar Sea. We had to leave behind everything we knew, and start over, adapting to new rules and a new way of life...

Uh, sorry, never mind, what were we talking about?

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, I know.

Everyone who is enthusiastic about the CC and how it forces one to distinguish between CC open content versus normal copyright protection, is creating this problem too.

Copyright is murky, and less useful for a gaming community. It sucks where the CC forces this kind of ultimatum.

By contrast, the OGL 1.0a actually creates protection for whatever the user doesnt want to give to the open content.

If SRDs are used for each product, and only CC-BY is used on the SRDs (big ifs), does it work vaguely like 1.0a in terms of having open and protected content?

Is this correct?

XY-publishing's Z-Hero game could come with a Z-SRD giving the parts they wanted CC-BY, but then have the actual Z-Hero rule book closed (except as far as Z-SRD was CC-BY).

AB-publishing could make a C-Warriors game that adapted the Z-SRD. They would have to make sure they gave attribution to the Z-SRD (and make sure they didn't submit C-Warrior to any electronic copyright protection checkers that would flag other people using Z-SRD material) but could have whatever protection they wanted on C-Warrior as long as it was at least as strict as CC-BY. In particular, the new stuff and even their specific adaptation could be copyrighted (except for making no claim on Z-SRD). They could make a C-SRD that was CC-BY if they wanted some of their new stuff "open".

(CC-BY-SA would be very different).

 

[Dustin_00]

1. Never buying WotC anything. Period. They are to never be trusted again.
2. I'm not going to see the DnD movie.
3. Buy 3PP content + my wallet is ready for #ORC content.
4. I don't pre-order anything by rule, but I will pay to pre-order #ORC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1. Never buying WotC anything. Period. They are to never be trusted again.
2. I'm not going to see the DnD movie.
3. Buy 3PP content + my wallet is ready for #ORC content.
4. I don't pre-order anything by rule, but I will pay to pre-order #ORC.

I instead will tell everyone I know to see that movie if it is actually good.
Having the movie tank does not only affect WotC.

I so however support and have supported the subscription cancellation if I think it can have an effect. Like stop pulling rugs under competitors who put trust in them.

I do not support actions out of spite however. I mean, WotC is not the evil corporation. It is just a corporation trying to trade services against money... like every corporation does.


So having an adult dialogue before taking ultimate actions seems more healthy.
Demonizing people (even those that lead corporations) is something you should be very wary of.
If game of thrones has taught us something, that most actions are evil or good depending on your point of view.