Reviewing OGL 1.2 draft and communications surrounding it...
Firstly, deauthorizing 1.0a is a non-starter. It freezes updates and expansions to content published in good faith under the offer of 1.0a. It shows continued rampant disrespect for the community, players and publishers that have contributed to the broader D&D ecosystem. At a time when WotC has repeatedly burned trust and good faith with us, it does nothing but stick your thumb in our eyes. The only defence of this stance proposed by Kyle Brink is effectively that it allows WotC to act as the policeman of what content is "harmful, discriminatory, or illegal". Indeed this is curious. As far as content which is "harmful" or "illegal", appropriate measures exist in statute or in common law to judge and prohibit such material. As for content that is "discriminatory," given WotC's past history on this subject, it should rather be leading a collaborative attempt to freeze out such content from the community than wagging its finger at publishers. We will address discriminatory content in the marketplace and in the community, rather than in legalistic contractual arguments before the courts.
As to VTT content, clause 1(b) is altogether too poorly worded as to be entirely unacceptable. It is also contradictory with the content of the attached "Virtual Tabletop Policy". Given that WotC has more flexibility to modify the Virtual Tabletop Policy than the OGL 1.2 (due to Section 7), and given WotC's utter squandering of whatever trust and goodwill it has built with the community, this state of affairs must be addressed.
Clause 1(b) defines what 3rd party published works are covered under the terms of the OGL:
"This license only applies to printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs) you create for use in or as tabletop roleplaying games and supplements (“TTRPGs”) and in virtual tabletops in accordance with our Virtual Tabletop Policy (“VTTs”)."
This is a poorly formed compound sentence, but is grammatically equivalent to the following:
This license only applies to the following: - printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs) you create for use in or as tabletop roleplaying games and supplements (“TTRPGs”) and - printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs) you create for use in virtual tabletops in accordance with our Virtual Tabletop Policy (“VTTs”).
Contrast this with the example provided in the "Virtual Tabletop Policy":
And automating Magic Missile’s damage to replace manually rolling and calculating is also fine. The VTT can apply Magic Missile’s 1d4+1 damage automatically to your target’s hit points. You do not have to manually calculate and track the damage.
The example provided of "automating Magic Missile's damage" is clearly an example that is a derivative work of the copyrighted content of "Magic Missile", but is not an example of "printed media [or] static electronic files." So while WotC is saying that currently, under its "Virtual Tabletop Policy" (which it can change at any time), it wont take action if you do this, it certainly could in the future, as your ability to publish the content in this way is not directly permitted under the license.
FWIW, if WotC wanted to fix this wording, it maybe could do so with wording like:
Definitions:
"automation helpers" - software designed to automate aspects of interactions (e.g. simulating dice rolls and substituting bonuses / AC's / etc. to calculate result of an attack) between game mechanics (e.g. attack or damage resolution) and the licensed content (e.g. stat blocks of monsters/spells/weapons) ... This license only applies to the following: - printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs) you create for use in or as tabletop roleplaying games and supplements (“TTRPGs”) and - printed media, static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs) and automation helpers you create for use in virtual tabletops in accordance with our Virtual Tabletop Policy (“VTTs”).
It's fairly clear at this point that WotC is hoping to set up scaffolding from which they can make it financially impossible to viably exist in the D&D ecosystem without their specific approval and paid obeisance. Providing protections that rely solely on their goodwill is a valuable tool towards that end.
They want to make sure any VTT cannot compete with whatever their budget can produce. They don't want to (or can't) compete on the open market so they will do it by force.
The 'VTT Policy' is not part of the OGL draft.. but agreeing to the OGL means you agree to the VTT policy... It's a policy which can change, in any way, at any time.
Also, anybody that things a Computer Role Playing Game (CRPG) is the same as the Table Top Role Playing Game experience (TTRPG) has never played both. The claim that 'it's hard to tell' where the line between a video game and a VTT lies is either a total lack of understanding of how people who play TTRPGs engage with D&D (and other systems) or a smoke screen 'pretending' not to understand to excuse their attempts to 'force' other VTTs to be calculators with static 2-d maps and tokens.
The claim that 'it's hard to tell' where the line between a video game and a VTT lies is either a total lack of understanding of how people who play TTRPGs engage with D&D (and other systems) or a smoke screen 'pretending' not to understand to excuse their attempts to 'force' other VTTs to be calculators with static 2-d maps and tokens.
It's not hard to tell for current versions, but line drawing isn't totally straightforward (though animation is a poor choice, both in terms of line drawing and in terms of actually making sense with respect to how VTTs are implemented), and the actual likely outcome is forcing other VTTs to just not incorporate the protected parts of the SRD, which would be a mild annoyance.
I do think people who are complaining are to some degree overestimating how much all of this matters (and Wizards is also overestimating what it will do)
Let's say I have a VTT. It includes maps, tokens, and a digital character sheet which you can attach to a token (and handles things like rolling dice). We want to play D&D with it.
I can, without engaging with the OGL, create a D&D compatible character sheet, because all of that stuff is what they identified as game mechanics that's at worst creative commons. The difference comes later:
If someone creates a character, I cannot automatically fill in things like class abilities -- they have to do that by hand.
If someone wants to add spells or items to a character, I cannot provide a library of objects that they can select from -- again, they have to do that by hand.
If the DM wants to add a monster an encounter, I cannot provide a D&D-specific token (but 95% of the monsters in the SRD are generic so I can provide a generic token), nor can I provide a filled in character sheet -- the DM has to do that for himself. Note that I can provide custom monsters with filled-in character sheets, I just can't do that for SRD creatures (maybe... it's debatable whether monster character sheets are copyrightable, particularly for generic monsters).
These are... not exactly demanding limitations. Honestly, I have to fill in lots of stuff by hand already.
The claim that 'it's hard to tell' where the line between a video game and a VTT lies is either a total lack of understanding of how people who play TTRPGs engage with D&D (and other systems) or a smoke screen 'pretending' not to understand to excuse their attempts to 'force' other VTTs to be calculators with static 2-d maps and tokens.
It's not hard to tell for current versions, but line drawing isn't totally straightforward (though animation is a poor choice, both in terms of line drawing and in terms of actually making sense with respect to how VTTs are implemented), and the actual likely outcome is forcing other VTTs to just not incorporate the protected parts of the SRD, which would be a mild annoyance.
I do think people who are complaining are to some degree overestimating how much all of this matters (and Wizards is also overestimating what it will do)
Let's say I have a VTT. It includes maps, tokens, and a digital character sheet which you can attach to a token (and handles things like rolling dice). We want to play D&D with it.
I can, without engaging with the OGL, create a D&D compatible character sheet, because all of that stuff is what they identified as game mechanics that's at worst creative commons. The difference comes later:
If someone creates a character, I cannot automatically fill in things like class abilities -- they have to do that by hand.
If someone wants to add spells or items to a character, I cannot provide a library of objects that they can select from -- again, they have to do that by hand.
If the DM wants to add a monster an encounter, I cannot provide a D&D-specific token (but 95% of the monsters in the SRD are generic so I can provide a generic token), nor can I provide a filled in character sheet -- the DM has to do that for himself. Note that I can provide custom monsters with filled-in character sheets, I just can't do that for SRD creatures (maybe... it's debatable whether monster character sheets are copyrightable, particularly for generic monsters).
These are... not exactly demanding limitations. Honestly, I have to fill in lots of stuff by hand already.
I am with you to a point. The language of the VTT policy does seem to call out some asset features specifically spell animations that would not be allowed. I believe that there are already some spell animation options on existing VTTs. So if you create an animated token or macro that animates the casting of a spell that looks like it runs afoul of the VTT policy.
I am with you to a point. The language of the VTT policy does seem to call out some asset features specifically spell animations that would not be allowed. I believe that there are already some spell animation options on existing VTTs. So if you create an animated token or macro that animates the casting of a spell that looks like it runs afoul of the VTT policy.
You are only affected by the VTT policy if you incorporate the SRD (or other covered content).
I am with you to a point. The language of the VTT policy does seem to call out some asset features specifically spell animations that would not be allowed. I believe that there are already some spell animation options on existing VTTs. So if you create an animated token or macro that animates the casting of a spell that looks like it runs afoul of the VTT policy.
You are only affected by the VTT policy if you incorporate the SRD (or other covered content).
Which any VTT who caters to a marketplace that includes SRD content would.
Which any VTT who caters to a marketplace that includes SRD content would.
I just demonstrated how much a VTT can do without incorporating the SRD. If a VTT includes distribution networks (either as a store, or for free content) and they contain protected content they would be subject to DMCA takedowns, but that doesn't affect the core VTT.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reviewing OGL 1.2 draft and communications surrounding it...
Firstly, deauthorizing 1.0a is a non-starter. It freezes updates and expansions to content published in good faith under the offer of 1.0a. It shows continued rampant disrespect for the community, players and publishers that have contributed to the broader D&D ecosystem. At a time when WotC has repeatedly burned trust and good faith with us, it does nothing but stick your thumb in our eyes. The only defence of this stance proposed by Kyle Brink is effectively that it allows WotC to act as the policeman of what content is "harmful, discriminatory, or illegal". Indeed this is curious. As far as content which is "harmful" or "illegal", appropriate measures exist in statute or in common law to judge and prohibit such material. As for content that is "discriminatory," given WotC's past history on this subject, it should rather be leading a collaborative attempt to freeze out such content from the community than wagging its finger at publishers. We will address discriminatory content in the marketplace and in the community, rather than in legalistic contractual arguments before the courts.
As to VTT content, clause 1(b) is altogether too poorly worded as to be entirely unacceptable. It is also contradictory with the content of the attached "Virtual Tabletop Policy". Given that WotC has more flexibility to modify the Virtual Tabletop Policy than the OGL 1.2 (due to Section 7), and given WotC's utter squandering of whatever trust and goodwill it has built with the community, this state of affairs must be addressed.
Clause 1(b) defines what 3rd party published works are covered under the terms of the OGL:
This is a poorly formed compound sentence, but is grammatically equivalent to the following:
Contrast this with the example provided in the "Virtual Tabletop Policy":
The example provided of "automating Magic Missile's damage" is clearly an example that is a derivative work of the copyrighted content of "Magic Missile", but is not an example of "printed media [or] static electronic files." So while WotC is saying that currently, under its "Virtual Tabletop Policy" (which it can change at any time), it wont take action if you do this, it certainly could in the future, as your ability to publish the content in this way is not directly permitted under the license.
FWIW, if WotC wanted to fix this wording, it maybe could do so with wording like:
The vagueness is intentional, imo.
It's fairly clear at this point that WotC is hoping to set up scaffolding from which they can make it financially impossible to viably exist in the D&D ecosystem without their specific approval and paid obeisance. Providing protections that rely solely on their goodwill is a valuable tool towards that end.
They want to make sure any VTT cannot compete with whatever their budget can produce. They don't want to (or can't) compete on the open market so they will do it by force.
The OGL playtest is a sham
https://youtu.be/2DKTKI_Kr5k
The 'VTT Policy' is not part of the OGL draft.. but agreeing to the OGL means you agree to the VTT policy...
It's a policy which can change, in any way, at any time.
Also, anybody that things a Computer Role Playing Game (CRPG) is the same as the Table Top Role Playing Game experience (TTRPG) has never played both.
The claim that 'it's hard to tell' where the line between a video game and a VTT lies is either a total lack of understanding of how people who play TTRPGs engage with D&D (and other systems) or a smoke screen 'pretending' not to understand to excuse their attempts to 'force' other VTTs to be calculators with static 2-d maps and tokens.
It's not hard to tell for current versions, but line drawing isn't totally straightforward (though animation is a poor choice, both in terms of line drawing and in terms of actually making sense with respect to how VTTs are implemented), and the actual likely outcome is forcing other VTTs to just not incorporate the protected parts of the SRD, which would be a mild annoyance.
I do think people who are complaining are to some degree overestimating how much all of this matters (and Wizards is also overestimating what it will do)
Let's say I have a VTT. It includes maps, tokens, and a digital character sheet which you can attach to a token (and handles things like rolling dice). We want to play D&D with it.
I can, without engaging with the OGL, create a D&D compatible character sheet, because all of that stuff is what they identified as game mechanics that's at worst creative commons. The difference comes later:
These are... not exactly demanding limitations. Honestly, I have to fill in lots of stuff by hand already.
I am with you to a point. The language of the VTT policy does seem to call out some asset features specifically spell animations that would not be allowed. I believe that there are already some spell animation options on existing VTTs. So if you create an animated token or macro that animates the casting of a spell that looks like it runs afoul of the VTT policy.
You are only affected by the VTT policy if you incorporate the SRD (or other covered content).
Which any VTT who caters to a marketplace that includes SRD content would.
I just demonstrated how much a VTT can do without incorporating the SRD. If a VTT includes distribution networks (either as a store, or for free content) and they contain protected content they would be subject to DMCA takedowns, but that doesn't affect the core VTT.