I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Which is why OGL1.1 is not a big deal, D&D owns Settings, and some monsters (not as many as you would think) They don't even own the names of most spells, classes, species. What the OGL offers is prewritten content and rules, and a limited use of things WotC owns. And in the future, if you want to use those to make money, WotC wants a share based on you using their property.
Ironically if you make a Marvel RPG without Disney licensing it, you will be sued poor.
Quote from Xalthu>>hange their plans from official statements here on dndbeyond they are going to use OGL 1.1 require content creators to:
Even if the ogl gets printed exactly as leaked, it won’t restrict 3rd party creators from doing their thing. It will simply make them, at worst, pay a little for the privilege of piggybacking off a rule system and brand they didn’t create.
But... Why should consumers want WotC to gouge more money out of third parties and competitors? That'd be backing anti-competition practices. From a consumer perspective one company gaining more money from the marketplace by siphoning off competitors and third parties- all without actually producing anything extra themselves is a net negative.
Especially when there's a clause in there that says WotC reserve the right to amend the royalty amount and threshold within 30 days for any reason. So will very likely be gouging more and more money out of third parties as time goes on.
Gouging is a quite alarmist when none of know the terms.
It’s hardly anti-competitive. Wizards made the rule set. They own it. They are letting other people use their product. Their competition is paizo and shadowrun, not people making a supplement for their game, which they invested in the creation of. Wizards are the ones who paid Crawford and company to make these rules, and then paid for the marketing, advertising and distribution of them. And now unless they give it away, they’re anti-competitive? That makes no sense.
So my reply would be, why should consumers care about the business arrangement between two large companies? How would you even notice if 2 of the dollars you spend on a darrington press product goes to wizards? This is one company is charging another company for the use of their product. It happens all the time. This isn’t going to impact Bob and Sarah in their basement posting stuff on dmsguild.
And people like critical role are almost certainly going to cut their own deal outside of the ogl. Matt Mercer and company will be just fine.
Although I agree with what you said, you made a slight error. Shadowrun does not use the D20 system, or any form of the OGL/SRD. Shadowrun has always been a D6 based game, and it's honestly the biggest thing holding that game world back, as D20 Shadowrun would do well. People have cloned Shadowrun in D20, and it's a very common homebrew set up, but the actual game called Shadowrun has always had it's own system. It was a competitor until the 1st OGL in 3rd edition, and has lost a ton of market share since 2002, I think D20 modern almost sank them, as d20 Modern basically made it possible to run Shadowrun in D20.
I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Which is why OGL1.1 is not a big deal, D&D owns Settings, and some monsters (not as many as you would think) They don't even own the names of most spells, classes, species. What the OGL offers is prewritten content and rules, and a limited use of things WotC owns. And in the future, if you want to use those to make money, WotC wants a share based on you using their property.
Ironically if you make a Marvel RPG without Disney licensing it, you will be sued poor.
I don't think that's a fair comparison but sure
How is it not a fair comparison. Way back in 2006 there was a MMORPG called City of Heroes, (one of the best from that era) it allowed players to create custom superheroes, they also had community guidelines forbidding the use of copyrighted material for your character. Marvel Still sued them. (Marvel lost, but that was because Marvel Comics at the time was poor, and NCSoft who published COH was rich). But the thing was, the boundary of fair use was reinforced in US law during that case. It's why people can make MCU careers doing Youtube shows dedicated to just talking Marvel Lore, same with all the Star Wars Channels.
The people complaining and over reacting are Youtube and twitch streamers, because they think this affects them, hint it doesn't. If you stream your games, its allowed under fair use clauses in the USA legal system. The only people who should be nervous are people publishing Content for settings own by WotC or making Video Games using content owned by WotC. Not even Critical Role has much to fear with the change, and they are making the most money off of the OGL.
I would say the folks behind Solasta: Crown of the magister would be the most affected by the changes, and even then I'm sure they'll be just fine.
Firstly, people are talking about a leak of a draft document. That is practically the definition of a what if.
It's far from pure speculation. Assuming it's real, it says a lot about what they recently intended. Of course, interpreting legalese is difficult, and it's easy to read things in the worst light, especially when you've already been primed to expect it, but it's certainly cause for real concern.
Tsr’s failure had nothing to with suing over 3rd party content. They screwed up a lot of things, but enforcing their copyright was not one of them. Tryin to make buck rogers happen and a corporate pissing war forcing Gary out had more to do with the failure.
Probably true, though it was my understanding that Dragon Dice and flooding the bookseller market with product and having to eat returns were also a big factor.
Moreover, there weren’t really any 3rd party publishers to speak of in 1 and 2 e — at least not making D&D supplements. Those that did exist were making their own games. This was pre-internet. Pre-desktop publishing, it took more than a cable modem and a indesign license to make a book. There was a high barrier to entry for publishing a game supplement.
There were quite a few as I recall it. Judges Guild and Role Aids are names that comes to mind, and I think both Mayfair and Games Workshop were doing it early on. (The original Fiend Folio came at least mostly from the pages of White Dwarf magazine.)
They may have been doing it with permission, but there was definitely a market, and TSR were infamously prickly about third-party supplements. (That may have been more during the 2nd edition days. That was a long time ago, and industry news and rumors were far less circulated in public.)
Even if the ogl gets printed exactly as leaked, it won’t restrict 3rd party creators from doing their thing. It will simply make them, at worst, pay a little for the privilege of piggybacking off a rule system and brand they didn’t create.
It will, just by being more restrictive. People who've tied their livelihood to this are understandably nervous.
And yes, they didn't create the rules or the "brand". But the "brand" didn't create itself, either. Nobody who plays D&D is just a passive consumer of media. The "brand" is ultimately built out of all the bits and pieces people put back into it. D&D taps into the same well as open-source, remix, and fanfic cultures, and the OGL was a conscious decision to embrace that.
And everyone who took that decision and ran with it is now looking back over their shoulders at the 800-pound gorilla who now seems to be yelling "No! Not like that!" and threatening to yank them back in to a much more constrained playground. And maybe it's just going to apply to the new stuff, and that's WotC's right, but it's still seen as a betrayal of the spirit of the decision to open things up.
But it's also possible they're going to try to retroactively apply it to everything. It's hard to say how likely, but people don't trust them. And if they do, even if they legally can't, nobody wants to have to fight them over it.
When you use the phrase "assuming its real" You are acknowledging that everything that follows is speculation.
I'd forgotten about those other companies. You are absolutely right about them. Thank you for the correction. But the larger point stands that suing them wasn't what doomed tsr.
I can empathize with people who've tied their living to making D&D supplements. I can absolutely understand how nervous they must be right now. It's got to be a scary time for them, and I truly wish them the best. I've been known to enjoy a 3pp supplement from time to time. I hope they are still around for a long time to come. All that said, no one is owed a successful business. These publishers made a business decision to tie their livelihood to someone else's product. If they got in thinking that nothing would ever change, that's their mistake. If they want total control, they need to invent their own game, then no one gets to tell them what to do. They want to accept the all the risk, they get all the rewards.
Again from the official statement not from "YouTubers and clickbait websites as the gospel"
For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
Gee point one really sounds like if I want to get started I have to register before I make a penny.
As for alienating consumers, I agree they are pissing off some people. And really, the people they’re upsetting are among the most passionate players. It absolutely a PR failure. But the number of D&D players who are buying stuff from 3pp is very small compared to the player base. I’d wager most people who play D&D don’t know kobold press, Goodman games and mcdm even exist. Parents will still pick up starter sets at target for their kids, and won’t know or care about this at all.
I agree with this, the messing with 3rd party publishers only effects the most passionate players. I started playing D&D because it was D&D. I became a fan of D&D because of the 3rd party support that helped me make the game what I enjoy.
Wizards has really dropped the ball in the last year for me, what magic products I have been interested in are either massively overpriced (m30) or under printed (worlds beyond Warhammer 40k).
My concern also comes from what happens to the community next. How many people switch to Pathfinder? How many companies create their own TTRPG? How does this splinter and fracture the community? Look at what happened to Games Workshop when they blew up the Old World and Warhammer Fantasy they are still the giant in industry but they lost market share by pissing off their players.
I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Which is why OGL1.1 is not a big deal, D&D owns Settings, and some monsters (not as many as you would think) They don't even own the names of most spells, classes, species. What the OGL offers is prewritten content and rules, and a limited use of things WotC owns. And in the future, if you want to use those to make money, WotC wants a share based on you using their property.
While it's true that game rules are not copyrightable in the US, the question of what's just the rules and what's a copyrightable creative work is likely extremely fuzzy.
Are you ok with the basic d20 resolution mechanics? Seems likely.
The six stats, the general idea of classes, levels, experience points, etc? Probably.
The specific classes, and their subclasses, with associated mechanics? Eh...
The spell lists in total, with each spell name and its associated numbers and mechanics? I seriously doubt it.
Note: I'm not a lawyer of any kind, much less a copyright lawyer. This stuff is complicated and often non-intuitive, and anyone making simple assertions about what's safe to do and what isn't can very easily be wrong.
Further complicating the question is "fair use". I don't know if the question of whether publishing a supplement for somebody else's RPG is fair use or not. It might be. It might not be. If you got a couple of copyright lawyers in a room, they could probably present you with three or four arguments on how it is and also how it isn't. Lawsuits are expensive, and people usually try to avoid fighting one where the outcome could wreck their business model.
(And copyright law varies from country to country. It could easily be safe to do something in the EU, but not in the US, or vice versa.)
I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Things like task resolution systems are algorithms and not eligible for copyright, but there's more to the SRD than that. There's plenty of copyrightable stuff in the SRD.
I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Which is why OGL1.1 is not a big deal, D&D owns Settings, and some monsters (not as many as you would think) They don't even own the names of most spells, classes, species. What the OGL offers is prewritten content and rules, and a limited use of things WotC owns. And in the future, if you want to use those to make money, WotC wants a share based on you using their property.
Ironically if you make a Marvel RPG without Disney licensing it, you will be sued poor.
I don't think that's a fair comparison but sure
How is it not a fair comparison. Way back in 2006 there was a MMORPG called City of Heroes, (one of the best from that era) it allowed players to create custom superheroes, they also had community guidelines forbidding the use of copyrighted material for your character. Marvel Still sued them. (Marvel lost, but that was because Marvel Comics at the time was poor, and NCSoft who published COH was rich). But the thing was, the boundary of fair use was reinforced in US law during that case. It's why people can make MCU careers doing Youtube shows dedicated to just talking Marvel Lore, same with all the Star Wars Channels.
The people complaining and over reacting are Youtube and twitch streamers, because they think this affects them, hint it doesn't. If you stream your games, its allowed under fair use clauses in the USA legal system. The only people who should be nervous are people publishing Content for settings own by WotC or making Video Games using content owned by WotC. Not even Critical Role has much to fear with the change, and they are making the most money off of the OGL.
I would say the folks behind Solasta: Crown of the magister would be the most affected by the changes, and even then I'm sure they'll be just fine.
It isn't a fair comparison because making a Marvel RPG is using another company's property, while making a third-party supplement for D&D is not.
I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Things like task resolution systems are algorithms and not eligible for copyright, but there's more to the SRD than that. There's plenty of copyrightable stuff in the SRD.
Such as? The species definitely aren't because they're generic fantasy people. I'd doubt the classes are either. The system of rolling a d20 to determine success or failure? That's just rolling a random number from 1-20. The names of each ability or spell? Possibly but wouldn't that defeat the point of having an SRD?
Hey all I am looking to see if we are being silenced for our outrage over the OGL.
Well, there's already a 5-page discussion about it that started in December that's largely negative, so if they are silencing it they haven't gotten around to doing so on DnD Beyond yet.
Don't know if it's true, but it's being reported today on other social that OGL discussions are being shut down on the DDB Discord. Similar moderating is reportedly taking place on Critical Role's and MCDMs' Discords.
I mean, it's plausible, and folks who want to talk about it are going to be upset, while those who don't want metastasizing threads on speculative semi-info may be relieved. This is an unauthorized "leaked" document of unknown status so it's not hard to see mod's spinning this as a way to combat misinformation discussion about things no one "officially" knows about. Of course WotC tends to promote itself by more formally leaking its products out to the community; but I can totally see WotC in some sort of crisis mode and ordering community management to shut down talk with the admonition that "official" language will come out "soon."
All that said, it's not hard to see OGL discussions are taking place on this board if the OP just bothered to look and chiming in there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Which is why OGL1.1 is not a big deal, D&D owns Settings, and some monsters (not as many as you would think) They don't even own the names of most spells, classes, species. What the OGL offers is prewritten content and rules, and a limited use of things WotC owns. And in the future, if you want to use those to make money, WotC wants a share based on you using their property.
While it's true that game rules are not copyrightable in the US, the question of what's just the rules and what's a copyrightable creative work is likely extremely fuzzy.
Are you ok with the basic d20 resolution mechanics? Seems likely.
The six stats, the general idea of classes, levels, experience points, etc? Probably.
The specific classes, and their subclasses, with associated mechanics? Eh...
The spell lists in total, with each spell name and its associated numbers and mechanics? I seriously doubt it.
Note: I'm not a lawyer of any kind, much less a copyright lawyer. This stuff is complicated and often non-intuitive, and anyone making simple assertions about what's safe to do and what isn't can very easily be wrong.
Further complicating the question is "fair use". I don't know if the question of whether publishing a supplement for somebody else's RPG is fair use or not. It might be. It might not be. If you got a couple of copyright lawyers in a room, they could probably present you with three or four arguments on how it is and also how it isn't. Lawsuits are expensive, and people usually try to avoid fighting one where the outcome could wreck their business model.
(And copyright law varies from country to country. It could easily be safe to do something in the EU, but not in the US, or vice versa.)
Mechanics: 100% not copyrightable, hells, Advantage Disadvantage (new for 5th edition) was a thing in other systems long before Next D&D. See Iron Heroes.
Classes, names for classes, description of classes: 100% unable to be copyrighted, since D&D started by using cultural zeitgeists to build their classes. Only the exact wording used to describe the mechanics could be claimed, and only if they are fluffy descriptive words, and not cut and dry mechanics.
Six stats based on earlier games, and other cultural zeitgeist long before TSR made their 1st copyright. Thank you HG Wells for designing it and giving it away for free.
Most of the Subclasses are likewise based on ideas and concepts that can not be copyrighted. Only some of the names might be able to be copyrighted, if and only if they use ideas specific to a setting or a story. Take Paladin Oaths... Most of them are not going to be able to copyrighted, but WotC could make a cased for Oath of the Ancients. It would fail in court, but a case could be made. None of the Wizard Schools, none of the Artificer Specialists, or the rogue Archetypes could be copyrighted, not even Soulknife and WotC could claim they used that term first in 1990 in the Darksun setting.
Spell lists, no, specific names for some of the spells, yes, and the descriptions. Example Bigby's hand totally copyright, Arcane Hand No.
It isn't a fair comparison because making a Marvel RPG is using another company's property, while making a third-party supplement for D&D is not.
It's perfectly reasonable. Most people making OGL material are just making Homebrew items, settings, and stuff, to be played by a small number of people, they will not be affected.
The people like Paizo who are making a d20 but don't use WotC material are likewise not effected either as what they are doing is not covered by copyright laws.
The only people affected, and it's a really small group, are people making content for sale for D&D material that uses Material that is copyrighted by WotC. Ie the people making and selling D&D supplements for Darksun on Drivethrurpg, and they are only affected if they are making a lot of money. In which case, WotC is due some of that money because they are selling WotC property for profit.
I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Things like task resolution systems are algorithms and not eligible for copyright, but there's more to the SRD than that. There's plenty of copyrightable stuff in the SRD.
Such as? The species definitely aren't because they're generic fantasy people. I'd doubt the classes are either. The system of rolling a d20 to determine success or failure? That's just rolling a random number from 1-20. The names of each ability or spell? Possibly but wouldn't that defeat the point of having an SRD?
I'd like to mention that rulesets are legally algorithms and therefore cannot be legally owned or copyrighted
Things like task resolution systems are algorithms and not eligible for copyright, but there's more to the SRD than that. There's plenty of copyrightable stuff in the SRD.
Such as? The species definitely aren't because they're generic fantasy people. I'd doubt the classes are either. The system of rolling a d20 to determine success or failure? That's just rolling a random number from 1-20. The names of each ability or spell? Possibly but wouldn't that defeat the point of having an SRD?
most of the SRD is not copyrightable material, just the sentence descriptions, ie the specific sentences as long as they are not hard mechanics.
Example: (Taken from the SRD ie copy paste)
Tiefling
Tiefling Traits
Tieflings share certain racial traits as a result of their infernal descent.
Ability Score Increase. Your Intelligence score increases by 1, and your Charisma score increases by 2.
Age. Tieflings mature at the same rate as humans but live a few years longer.
Alignment. Tieflings might not have an innate tendency toward evil, but many of them end up there. Evil or not, an independent nature inclines many tieflings toward a chaotic alignment.
Size. Tieflings are about the same size and build as humans. Your size is Medium.
Speed. Your base walking speed is 30 feet.
Darkvision. Thanks to your infernal heritage, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
Hellish Resistance. You have resistance to fire damage.
Infernal Legacy. You know the thaumaturgy cantrip. When you reach 3rd level, you can cast the hellish rebuke spell as a 2nd-level spell once with this trait and regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest. When you reach 5th level, you can cast the darkness spell once with this trait and regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells.
Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and Infernal.
Tiefling as a "species" was designed by TSR (Wolfgang Baur), they could own that, but it wasn't copyrighted as the name is pseudo German for Lowborn. And you can't copyright a common word, even if it's in German.
Ability Score Increase, and the ability scores not subject for copyright, cultural zeitgeist.
Darkvision, the ability can't be copyrighted, but the wording possibly could be, since that contains a bit of story about the Tiefling ancestry.
Hellish Resistance, Infernal Legacy, Grey area, the abilities, and names are no, but the narrative aspect of the abilities, and the way it's presented could count.
Everything about language is no, can't be.
Here is an Example... and god I hate to use Blizzard. But World of Warcraft has Tiefling as a player Race, it's called Dreanai (Copyright) an alien race tied to the history of WarCraft Demons. In WarCraft lore, they are described just like Tieflings in many aspects, but Blizzard changed them just enough that they don't owe a penny to WotC. Even if they published a D20 book. (Which they did.)
In Fact Video Games the world over have just about everything in D&D published without owing one cent to WotC. What can't be used are the flavorful descriptions, and histories from WotC settings. The OGL/SRD allows people to make material for Darksun, Eberron, GreyHawk, and the Forgotten Realms. Even Critical Role, can do what they do without owing WotC a penny. (They however are working with WotC a lot more, so I doubt their arraignment will change)
The only people at risk with the change to the OGL are people making supplements for WotC settings specifically.
Hey all I am looking to see if we are being silenced for our outrage over the OGL.
Well, there's already a 5-page discussion about it that started in December that's largely negative, so if they are silencing it they haven't gotten around to doing so on DnD Beyond yet.
Don't know if it's true, but it's being reported today on other social that OGL discussions are being shut down on the DDB Discord. Similar moderating is reportedly taking place on Critical Role's and MCDMs' Discords.
It's just not worth the aggrevation. Real time discords lead to real time issues and are far more popular these days than this format. Message boards are easier to control, more so this one that essentially is dead people walking. Critical Role probably is having negotiations behind the scenes with Wizards, so they don't want the fan community to temper and potentially aggrevate them.
In short, not shocked at all at this one.
My thought? Lot's of people who just flat out are incorrect on what's happening and espousing it as facts, and lots more people who simply just don't know period. I think conversation is important to show Wizards that an open platform is important but I'd like to see more people being correct, less fanboyism and the need to protect their favorite IPs and in general just more time to see.
Such as? The species definitely aren't because they're generic fantasy people. I'd doubt the classes are either. The system of rolling a d20 to determine success or failure? That's just rolling a random number from 1-20. The names of each ability or spell? Possibly but wouldn't that defeat the point of having an SRD?
The first thing to remember is that 'D&D' is a trademark -- you can't advertise your product as being for use with D&D unless you have an appropriate license.
Aside from that (fairly substantial) point, while an algorithm cannot be copyrighted, an expression of an algorithm can be, as can any flavor text or non-algorithmic content (unless it fails for other reasons), and particular creatures and terminology could also be subject to trademark. There's a lot of stuff in the SRD that you probably don't need permission to use, but it's a big project to make sure whatever you're publishing is clean.
The best way of looking at this is to just look at the situation pre-OGL. People made D&D compatible (being careful not to actually name D&D) products, but you had to be careful, and you were running the risk of a lawsuit if you weren't careful enough, or TSR didn't think you were careful enough.
Considering the extent of the backlash just from speculation alone, I don't think it would be surprising if they totally backed down on this. I don't think they anticipated the damage this could do to the brand.
Considering the extent of the backlash just from speculation alone, I don't think it would be surprising if they totally backed down on this. I don't think they anticipated the damage this could do to the brand.
Doubt it. There are people crying foul over everything these days. There is one Irish Lady on Youtube who's whole career is complaining about every little change in D&D. (I hate that YouTube recommends her channel to me, she's a "Conservatives" who wants everything free, and it's just gross that people can make videos like like.)
I don't think that's a fair comparison but sure
[REDACTED]
Agreed, I just meant shadowrun is a competitor.
How is it not a fair comparison. Way back in 2006 there was a MMORPG called City of Heroes, (one of the best from that era) it allowed players to create custom superheroes, they also had community guidelines forbidding the use of copyrighted material for your character. Marvel Still sued them. (Marvel lost, but that was because Marvel Comics at the time was poor, and NCSoft who published COH was rich). But the thing was, the boundary of fair use was reinforced in US law during that case. It's why people can make MCU careers doing Youtube shows dedicated to just talking Marvel Lore, same with all the Star Wars Channels.
The people complaining and over reacting are Youtube and twitch streamers, because they think this affects them, hint it doesn't. If you stream your games, its allowed under fair use clauses in the USA legal system. The only people who should be nervous are people publishing Content for settings own by WotC or making Video Games using content owned by WotC. Not even Critical Role has much to fear with the change, and they are making the most money off of the OGL.
I would say the folks behind Solasta: Crown of the magister would be the most affected by the changes, and even then I'm sure they'll be just fine.
When you use the phrase "assuming its real" You are acknowledging that everything that follows is speculation.
I'd forgotten about those other companies. You are absolutely right about them. Thank you for the correction. But the larger point stands that suing them wasn't what doomed tsr.
I can empathize with people who've tied their living to making D&D supplements. I can absolutely understand how nervous they must be right now. It's got to be a scary time for them, and I truly wish them the best. I've been known to enjoy a 3pp supplement from time to time. I hope they are still around for a long time to come. All that said, no one is owed a successful business. These publishers made a business decision to tie their livelihood to someone else's product. If they got in thinking that nothing would ever change, that's their mistake. If they want total control, they need to invent their own game, then no one gets to tell them what to do. They want to accept the all the risk, they get all the rewards.
L
Again from the official statement not from "YouTubers and clickbait websites as the gospel"
Gee point one really sounds like if I want to get started I have to register before I make a penny.
I agree with this, the messing with 3rd party publishers only effects the most passionate players. I started playing D&D because it was D&D. I became a fan of D&D because of the 3rd party support that helped me make the game what I enjoy.
Wizards has really dropped the ball in the last year for me, what magic products I have been interested in are either massively overpriced (m30) or under printed (worlds beyond Warhammer 40k).
My concern also comes from what happens to the community next. How many people switch to Pathfinder? How many companies create their own TTRPG? How does this splinter and fracture the community? Look at what happened to Games Workshop when they blew up the Old World and Warhammer Fantasy they are still the giant in industry but they lost market share by pissing off their players.
While it's true that game rules are not copyrightable in the US, the question of what's just the rules and what's a copyrightable creative work is likely extremely fuzzy.
Are you ok with the basic d20 resolution mechanics? Seems likely.
The six stats, the general idea of classes, levels, experience points, etc? Probably.
The specific classes, and their subclasses, with associated mechanics? Eh...
The spell lists in total, with each spell name and its associated numbers and mechanics? I seriously doubt it.
Note: I'm not a lawyer of any kind, much less a copyright lawyer. This stuff is complicated and often non-intuitive, and anyone making simple assertions about what's safe to do and what isn't can very easily be wrong.
Further complicating the question is "fair use". I don't know if the question of whether publishing a supplement for somebody else's RPG is fair use or not. It might be. It might not be. If you got a couple of copyright lawyers in a room, they could probably present you with three or four arguments on how it is and also how it isn't. Lawsuits are expensive, and people usually try to avoid fighting one where the outcome could wreck their business model.
(And copyright law varies from country to country. It could easily be safe to do something in the EU, but not in the US, or vice versa.)
Things like task resolution systems are algorithms and not eligible for copyright, but there's more to the SRD than that. There's plenty of copyrightable stuff in the SRD.
What can Paizo do to avoid any possible issues with the new OGL?
1 shot dungeon master
It isn't a fair comparison because making a Marvel RPG is using another company's property, while making a third-party supplement for D&D is not.
[REDACTED]
I stopped my subscription and I stop all my D&D campaigns, it becomes nonsense, there are many other games.
Such as? The species definitely aren't because they're generic fantasy people. I'd doubt the classes are either. The system of rolling a d20 to determine success or failure? That's just rolling a random number from 1-20. The names of each ability or spell? Possibly but wouldn't that defeat the point of having an SRD?
[REDACTED]
Don't know if it's true, but it's being reported today on other social that OGL discussions are being shut down on the DDB Discord. Similar moderating is reportedly taking place on Critical Role's and MCDMs' Discords.
I mean, it's plausible, and folks who want to talk about it are going to be upset, while those who don't want metastasizing threads on speculative semi-info may be relieved. This is an unauthorized "leaked" document of unknown status so it's not hard to see mod's spinning this as a way to combat misinformation discussion about things no one "officially" knows about. Of course WotC tends to promote itself by more formally leaking its products out to the community; but I can totally see WotC in some sort of crisis mode and ordering community management to shut down talk with the admonition that "official" language will come out "soon."
All that said, it's not hard to see OGL discussions are taking place on this board if the OP just bothered to look and chiming in there.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Nothing they have to worry, they don't use any material owned by WotC.
It's perfectly reasonable. Most people making OGL material are just making Homebrew items, settings, and stuff, to be played by a small number of people, they will not be affected.
The people like Paizo who are making a d20 but don't use WotC material are likewise not effected either as what they are doing is not covered by copyright laws.
The only people affected, and it's a really small group, are people making content for sale for D&D material that uses Material that is copyrighted by WotC. Ie the people making and selling D&D supplements for Darksun on Drivethrurpg, and they are only affected if they are making a lot of money. In which case, WotC is due some of that money because they are selling WotC property for profit.
most of the SRD is not copyrightable material, just the sentence descriptions, ie the specific sentences as long as they are not hard mechanics.
Example: (Taken from the SRD ie copy paste)
Tiefling
Tiefling as a "species" was designed by TSR (Wolfgang Baur), they could own that, but it wasn't copyrighted as the name is pseudo German for Lowborn. And you can't copyright a common word, even if it's in German.
Ability Score Increase, and the ability scores not subject for copyright, cultural zeitgeist.
Age.. nope. Size... Nope, Speed ... nope, basic rules not copyright material,
Darkvision, the ability can't be copyrighted, but the wording possibly could be, since that contains a bit of story about the Tiefling ancestry.
Hellish Resistance, Infernal Legacy, Grey area, the abilities, and names are no, but the narrative aspect of the abilities, and the way it's presented could count.
Everything about language is no, can't be.
Here is an Example... and god I hate to use Blizzard. But World of Warcraft has Tiefling as a player Race, it's called Dreanai (Copyright) an alien race tied to the history of WarCraft Demons. In WarCraft lore, they are described just like Tieflings in many aspects, but Blizzard changed them just enough that they don't owe a penny to WotC. Even if they published a D20 book. (Which they did.)
In Fact Video Games the world over have just about everything in D&D published without owing one cent to WotC. What can't be used are the flavorful descriptions, and histories from WotC settings. The OGL/SRD allows people to make material for Darksun, Eberron, GreyHawk, and the Forgotten Realms. Even Critical Role, can do what they do without owing WotC a penny. (They however are working with WotC a lot more, so I doubt their arraignment will change)
The only people at risk with the change to the OGL are people making supplements for WotC settings specifically.
It's just not worth the aggrevation. Real time discords lead to real time issues and are far more popular these days than this format. Message boards are easier to control, more so this one that essentially is dead people walking. Critical Role probably is having negotiations behind the scenes with Wizards, so they don't want the fan community to temper and potentially aggrevate them.
In short, not shocked at all at this one.
My thought? Lot's of people who just flat out are incorrect on what's happening and espousing it as facts, and lots more people who simply just don't know period. I think conversation is important to show Wizards that an open platform is important but I'd like to see more people being correct, less fanboyism and the need to protect their favorite IPs and in general just more time to see.
The first thing to remember is that 'D&D' is a trademark -- you can't advertise your product as being for use with D&D unless you have an appropriate license.
Aside from that (fairly substantial) point, while an algorithm cannot be copyrighted, an expression of an algorithm can be, as can any flavor text or non-algorithmic content (unless it fails for other reasons), and particular creatures and terminology could also be subject to trademark. There's a lot of stuff in the SRD that you probably don't need permission to use, but it's a big project to make sure whatever you're publishing is clean.
The best way of looking at this is to just look at the situation pre-OGL. People made D&D compatible (being careful not to actually name D&D) products, but you had to be careful, and you were running the risk of a lawsuit if you weren't careful enough, or TSR didn't think you were careful enough.
Considering the extent of the backlash just from speculation alone, I don't think it would be surprising if they totally backed down on this. I don't think they anticipated the damage this could do to the brand.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Doubt it. There are people crying foul over everything these days. There is one Irish Lady on Youtube who's whole career is complaining about every little change in D&D. (I hate that YouTube recommends her channel to me, she's a "Conservatives" who wants everything free, and it's just gross that people can make videos like like.)