WotC solely owns their trademark and name. The only person who owns the contents of what is published is the publisher. All WotC can say is don't call it D&D, but they cannot legally own a ruleset or practices or processes as they are not copyrightable. Baker v Selden (1880) and US Copyright Act of 1976.
Also, whilst legal censorship is only truly soething that is seen through government rather than private entity, I think there's a case to make that if a private entity becomes a Monopoly they essentially become a government in itself. Governments and corporations are more than capable of achieving the same end result for consumers and users and Hasbro as a Monopoly over the TTRPG space has a moral responsibility over the space.
But hey I'm a Social Entrepreneur so there's that.
As for AI DMs, it will be a flop. It's not possible for a computer to account for permutations that don't follow the predetermined options available. The whole reason a DM exists in the first place is to do this very thing.
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
It really sounds like you're against the concept of open gaming. This isn't a criticism in and of itself even I disagree with the sentiment. There has been a culture built around the concept for the past two+ decades that is upset that its all going away and going away in as dumb of a way as possible. As Bob Tarantino said, this is about the control of IP more than it is about money and that is the issue here. Hasbro is trying very hard to move away from open gaming into a more standard view of IP while also dressing it up like they were actually commited to it.
As for AI DMs, it will be a flop. It's not possible for a computer to account for permutations that don't follow the predetermined options available. The whole reason a DM exists in the first place is to do this very thing.
An AI DM will never be capable of reading the room and adjusting as needed based upon the makeup of the players in the party. At the table, there are the characters and there are the players, and a good DM knows and understands each individual character, their motivations, and the player that plays the character. We are a long way from any AI being capable of doing that. I've been DMing for 45 years and it's the most important part of being a DM. You can have the rules memorized and understand the permutations, then create a perfect campaign with adventures, but if you do now know your players and their characters on a human level, your game, at best, will be "meh".
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
1.Hasbro who owns them makes NFTs already and loves blockchain. So no it wasn't to stop NFTs it was so only they could make them. 2. The original OGL allowed them to do this. They could remove the right from creators who did bad things already so that reasoning is bunk.
Also as it is the rules set for Dnd can't be copyrighted/trade marked unless it is an image or specific name/unique race/place they created like Drow, Tasha's hidious laughter and region maps of locations in dnd settings. The wording of the OGL let people use DnD races and say. "For Dnd X edition." Fun fact 4th ed which failed didn't fall under the OGL.
No its not the same, it needs to improvise relentlessly within a framework, crpgs do not do that, they are mostly scripted.
That's the part where the AI is bad. The technological requirements for an AI DM are identical to the requirements for a cRPG, the reason they don't exist is because we don't have the ability to build them.
No its not the same, it needs to improvise relentlessly within a framework, crpgs do not do that, they are mostly scripted.
That's the part where the AI is bad. The technological requirements for an AI DM are identical to the requirements for a cRPG, the reason they don't exist is because we don't have the ability to build them.
Not yet, but there was a time when even something rudimentary like ChatGPT would have seemed impossible too.
WotC solely owns their trademark and name. The only person who owns the contents of what is published is the publisher. All WotC can say is don't call it D&D, but they cannot legally own a ruleset or practices or processes as they are not copyrightable. Baker v Selden (1880) and US Copyright Act of 1976.
Also, whilst legal censorship is only truly soething that is seen through government rather than private entity, I think there's a case to make that if a private entity becomes a Monopoly they essentially become a government in itself. Governments and corporations are more than capable of achieving the same end result for consumers and users and Hasbro as a Monopoly over the TTRPG space has a moral responsibility over the space.
But hey I'm a Social Entrepreneur so there's that.
As for AI DMs, it will be a flop. It's not possible for a computer to account for permutations that don't follow the predetermined options available. The whole reason a DM exists in the first place is to do this very thing.
They can't own game mechanics, but they can own expression.
And not every group NEEDS all the permutations of a human. Sometimes you just want to, say, try out a build against some interesting monsters, disarm a few traps etc.
It really sounds like you're against the concept of open gaming. This isn't a criticism in and of itself even I disagree with the sentiment. There has been a culture built around the concept for the past two+ decades that is upset that its all going away and going away in as dumb of a way as possible. As Bob Tarantino said, this is about the control of IP more than it is about money and that is the issue here. Hasbro is trying very hard to move away from open gaming into a more standard view of IP while also dressing it up like they were actually commited to it.
I have nothing against open gaming. I just think it's unrealistic to expect the #1 player in the space, the for-profit corporation, to throw all their eggs into that particular basket. In my view, markets benefit most when there is an open option and a major player or players challenging each other. Think of Adobe Photoshop vs. GIMP, or Libre vs. Microsoft Office vs Google Docs, or Linux vs. Windows vs. iOS, or Firefox vs. Chrome vs. Safari, on and on. The folks willing to pay for convenience have their option, and the ones who aren't have theirs.
Imagine a D&D AI combing over every data point of every D&D product, blog, livestream, 3PP product, or homebrew ever created in the past 50 years and suddenly generating something completely inappropriate and unacceptable under the new moral principles of the game, like the time Microsoft created a teenage AI chat bot that became racist within hours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Imagine a D&D AI combing over every data point of every D&D product, blog, livestream, 3PP product, or homebrew ever created in the past 50 years and suddenly generating something completely inappropriate and unacceptable under the new moral principles of the game, like the time Microsoft created a teenage AI chat bot that became racist within hours.
It could happen. Gygax said some pretty wild stuff publicly for instance (like the "nits make lice" comment.). But that fear isn't a reason to not try innovation.
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
Should or shouldn't is irrelevant. As I said, it's just not how life works.
And from Wikipedia.org: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
If WotC can create an AI DM that's worth $30/month... what's wrong with that? I consider it unlikely because Hasbro isn't exactly an established player in the AI space and acquiring the tech skills to do it is neither fast nor cheap, but there's nothing inherently wrong with offering AI DMs.
Imagine a D&D AI combing over every data point of every D&D product, blog, livestream, 3PP product, or homebrew ever created in the past 50 years and suddenly generating something completely inappropriate and unacceptable under the new moral principles of the game, like the time Microsoft created a teenage AI chat bot that became racist within hours.
It could happen. Gygax said some pretty wild stuff publicly for instance (like the "nits make lice" comment.). But that fear isn't a reason to not try innovation.
I'm just saying it would be incredibly ironic given the supposed moral goals of OneDND.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
Should or shouldn't is irrelevant. As I said, it's just not how life works.
And from Wikipedia.org: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.
By this definition, the Site Rules and Guidelines of this very forum constitute "censorship." How soon will you be deleting your account?
Imagine a D&D AI combing over every data point of every D&D product, blog, livestream, 3PP product, or homebrew ever created in the past 50 years and suddenly generating something completely inappropriate and unacceptable under the new moral principles of the game, like the time Microsoft created a teenage AI chat bot that became racist within hours.
It could happen. Gygax said some pretty wild stuff publicly for instance (like the "nits make lice" comment.). But that fear isn't a reason to not try innovation.
I'm just saying it would be incredibly ironic given the supposed moral goals of OneDND.
I have nothing against open gaming. I just think it's unrealistic to expect the #1 player in the space, the for-profit corporation, to throw all their eggs into that particular basket. In my view, markets benefit most when there is an open option and a major player or players challenging each other. Think of Adobe Photoshop vs. GIMP, or Libre vs. Microsoft Office vs Google Docs, or Linux vs. Windows vs. iOS, or Firefox vs. Chrome vs. Safari, on and on. The folks willing to pay for convenience have their option, and the ones who aren't have theirs.
Plenty of for profit corporations have and continue to rely heavily on open source software to get where they are. Hell Microsoft is now a member of the Linux Foundation and contributes heavily to the development of Linux.
As I've said before Hasbro seems to be going in a more closed off and controlling path than Microsoft vis a vis open source philosophy which is mind boggling but anyway. This is despite the fact that, from all the anecdotal evidence I can gather, they have thrived by embracing the spirit of open source for more than two decades. You obviously don't agree with that idea, or that view of history, and now believe that Hasbro controlling the IP as much as possible is their best be or at least is inevitable. I think it's a bad idea both to their bottom line and the community as a whole. As the meme says we are not the same lol. Let's leave it at that. Happy gaming with whatever you use I'm going to snag that discounted Pathfinder rulebook and restart my Scarred Lands campaign for the first time in 17 years. Can't wait!
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
Should or shouldn't is irrelevant. As I said, it's just not how life works.
And from Wikipedia.org: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.
By this definition, the Site Rules and Guidelines of this very forum constitute "censorship." How soon will you be deleting your account?
They sure do. The world is full of bad ideas and the people using them. What that has to do with me deleting my account is anyone's guess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
They sure do. The world is full of bad ideas and the people using them. What that has to do with me deleting my account is anyone's guess.
You agreed to that kind of "censorship" to post here, despite your free speech absolutist views. Maybe you weren't aware of that, or maybe it's hypocrisy, I can't say.
I have nothing against open gaming. I just think it's unrealistic to expect the #1 player in the space, the for-profit corporation, to throw all their eggs into that particular basket. In my view, markets benefit most when there is an open option and a major player or players challenging each other. Think of Adobe Photoshop vs. GIMP, or Libre vs. Microsoft Office vs Google Docs, or Linux vs. Windows vs. iOS, or Firefox vs. Chrome vs. Safari, on and on. The folks willing to pay for convenience have their option, and the ones who aren't have theirs.
Plenty of for profit corporations have and continue to rely heavily on open source software to get where they are. Hell Microsoft is now a member of the Linux Foundation and contributes heavily to the development of Linux.
As I've said before Hasbro seems to be going in a more closed off and controlling path than Microsoft vis a vis open source philosophy which is mind boggling but anyway. This is despite the fact that, from all the anecdotal evidence I can gather, they have thrived by embracing the spirit of open source for more than two decades. You obviously don't agree with that idea, or that view of history, and now believe that Hasbro controlling the IP as much as possible is their best be or at least is inevitable. I think it's a bad idea both to their bottom line and the community as a whole. As the meme says we are not the same lol. Let's leave it at that. Happy gaming with whatever you use I'm going to snag that discounted Pathfinder rulebook and restart my Scarred Lands campaign for the first time in 17 years. Can't wait!
And when whatever foundation made to administer ORC gets made and the license exists, WotC will probably contribute to it too. As I said, the open alternative is a good thing; I for one plan to check out any systems or content released under it, given that doing so will be free. Again, I'm not against open-source, but everything being open-source is just not realistic, especially if high production values are to be desired.
What's laughable is believing that the owner of a piece of property shouldn't have a say in how it's used.
And censorship refers to the government controlling your speech, not a private entity controlling their own platforms.
What's even more laughable is calling WotC the "owner" of the OGL 1.0a when EVERYTHING SAID MORE THAN TWNETY YEARS AGO was they were the caretaker who would keep it unchanged FOREVER.
Then those caretakers should have put "irrevocable" in the license while they were running the show.
It was based on other similar things that existed at the same time. And simply putting a "magic word" would not have stopped another lawyer from trying to find a way around it. The original OGL predates even the Creative Commons license, though not the GPL.
The OGL is used in games that have nothing to do with D&D, including ICONS (a superhero game), GUMSHOE, Low Fantasy Gaming and many others. They chose to use this because it was an industry standard and for some reason WotC managed to convince everyone that the OGL was here to stay.
They even convinced their then largest competitor, White Wolf, to make products for D&D, of course they ruined a lot of good will when they decided to release 3.5 with little warning. A first rug pull, the second was the GSL and this whole revocation is probably the final one.
What I, and they, are against is a predatory and overstepping change. Money, rather than the product or the consumer, has become the main goal of Wizards, and that was reflected in 1.1 (which was absolutely not a draft. Do not buy into that corporate backpedaling.)
They have all the money, lawyers, and data needed to know what they're attempting and the impact that would have on the game.
When GP is valued over XP, you have a shitty game.
What I, and they, are against is a predatory and overstepping change. Money, rather than the product or the consumer, has become the main goal of Wizards, and that was reflected in 1.1 (which was absolutely not a draft. Do not buy into that corporate backpedaling.)
They have all the money, lawyers, and data needed to know what they're attempting and the impact that would have on the game.
When GP is valued over XP, you have a shitty game.
I've literally said I am against any update. At least with regard to any of their stated goals.
Also gold for XP is a fantastically fun way to play :)
You agreed to that kind of "censorship" to post here, despite your free speech absolutist views. Maybe you weren't aware of that, or maybe it's hypocrisy, I can't say.
True, you really can't say, and it would be irrelevant in any case - a mere ad hominem. And please, let's not also twist definitions beyond recognition? Even if I was the "free speech absolutist" you paint me as, "hypocrisy" would actually require that I am the moderator here.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Again, I'm not against open-source, but everything being open-source is just not realistic, especially if high production values are to be desired.
Let's not get irrational in the heat of debate, please. If high production values are desired, open source is desirable. Collaboration, the exchange of ideas, different points of view, etc... are essential to achieve high-value products. That's not to say that proprietary code can't achieve good things too, but proprietary code doesn't mean higher production values.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
WotC solely owns their trademark and name. The only person who owns the contents of what is published is the publisher. All WotC can say is don't call it D&D, but they cannot legally own a ruleset or practices or processes as they are not copyrightable. Baker v Selden (1880) and US Copyright Act of 1976.
Also, whilst legal censorship is only truly soething that is seen through government rather than private entity, I think there's a case to make that if a private entity becomes a Monopoly they essentially become a government in itself. Governments and corporations are more than capable of achieving the same end result for consumers and users and Hasbro as a Monopoly over the TTRPG space has a moral responsibility over the space.
But hey I'm a Social Entrepreneur so there's that.
As for AI DMs, it will be a flop. It's not possible for a computer to account for permutations that don't follow the predetermined options available. The whole reason a DM exists in the first place is to do this very thing.
It really sounds like you're against the concept of open gaming. This isn't a criticism in and of itself even I disagree with the sentiment. There has been a culture built around the concept for the past two+ decades that is upset that its all going away and going away in as dumb of a way as possible. As Bob Tarantino said, this is about the control of IP more than it is about money and that is the issue here. Hasbro is trying very hard to move away from open gaming into a more standard view of IP while also dressing it up like they were actually commited to it.
An AI DM will never be capable of reading the room and adjusting as needed based upon the makeup of the players in the party. At the table, there are the characters and there are the players, and a good DM knows and understands each individual character, their motivations, and the player that plays the character. We are a long way from any AI being capable of doing that. I've been DMing for 45 years and it's the most important part of being a DM. You can have the rules memorized and understand the permutations, then create a perfect campaign with adventures, but if you do now know your players and their characters on a human level, your game, at best, will be "meh".
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
1.Hasbro who owns them makes NFTs already and loves blockchain. So no it wasn't to stop NFTs it was so only they could make them.
2. The original OGL allowed them to do this. They could remove the right from creators who did bad things already so that reasoning is bunk.
Also as it is the rules set for Dnd can't be copyrighted/trade marked unless it is an image or specific name/unique race/place they created like Drow, Tasha's hidious laughter and region maps of locations in dnd settings. The wording of the OGL let people use DnD races and say. "For Dnd X edition." Fun fact 4th ed which failed didn't fall under the OGL.
That's the part where the AI is bad. The technological requirements for an AI DM are identical to the requirements for a cRPG, the reason they don't exist is because we don't have the ability to build them.
Not yet, but there was a time when even something rudimentary like ChatGPT would have seemed impossible too.
They can't own game mechanics, but they can own expression.
And not every group NEEDS all the permutations of a human. Sometimes you just want to, say, try out a build against some interesting monsters, disarm a few traps etc.
I have nothing against open gaming. I just think it's unrealistic to expect the #1 player in the space, the for-profit corporation, to throw all their eggs into that particular basket. In my view, markets benefit most when there is an open option and a major player or players challenging each other. Think of Adobe Photoshop vs. GIMP, or Libre vs. Microsoft Office vs Google Docs, or Linux vs. Windows vs. iOS, or Firefox vs. Chrome vs. Safari, on and on. The folks willing to pay for convenience have their option, and the ones who aren't have theirs.
Imagine a D&D AI combing over every data point of every D&D product, blog, livestream, 3PP product, or homebrew ever created in the past 50 years and suddenly generating something completely inappropriate and unacceptable under the new moral principles of the game, like the time Microsoft created a teenage AI chat bot that became racist within hours.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
It could happen. Gygax said some pretty wild stuff publicly for instance (like the "nits make lice" comment.). But that fear isn't a reason to not try innovation.
Should or shouldn't is irrelevant. As I said, it's just not how life works.
And from Wikipedia.org: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieIf WotC can create an AI DM that's worth $30/month... what's wrong with that? I consider it unlikely because Hasbro isn't exactly an established player in the AI space and acquiring the tech skills to do it is neither fast nor cheap, but there's nothing inherently wrong with offering AI DMs.
I'm just saying it would be incredibly ironic given the supposed moral goals of OneDND.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
By this definition, the Site Rules and Guidelines of this very forum constitute "censorship." How soon will you be deleting your account?
Yeah, and if it happens they'll fix it. So what?
Plenty of for profit corporations have and continue to rely heavily on open source software to get where they are. Hell Microsoft is now a member of the Linux Foundation and contributes heavily to the development of Linux.
As I've said before Hasbro seems to be going in a more closed off and controlling path than Microsoft vis a vis open source philosophy which is mind boggling but anyway. This is despite the fact that, from all the anecdotal evidence I can gather, they have thrived by embracing the spirit of open source for more than two decades. You obviously don't agree with that idea, or that view of history, and now believe that Hasbro controlling the IP as much as possible is their best be or at least is inevitable. I think it's a bad idea both to their bottom line and the community as a whole. As the meme says we are not the same lol. Let's leave it at that. Happy gaming with whatever you use I'm going to snag that discounted Pathfinder rulebook and restart my Scarred Lands campaign for the first time in 17 years. Can't wait!
They sure do. The world is full of bad ideas and the people using them. What that has to do with me deleting my account is anyone's guess.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieYou agreed to that kind of "censorship" to post here, despite your free speech absolutist views. Maybe you weren't aware of that, or maybe it's hypocrisy, I can't say.
And when whatever foundation made to administer ORC gets made and the license exists, WotC will probably contribute to it too. As I said, the open alternative is a good thing; I for one plan to check out any systems or content released under it, given that doing so will be free. Again, I'm not against open-source, but everything being open-source is just not realistic, especially if high production values are to be desired.
It was based on other similar things that existed at the same time. And simply putting a "magic word" would not have stopped another lawyer from trying to find a way around it. The original OGL predates even the Creative Commons license, though not the GPL.
The OGL is used in games that have nothing to do with D&D, including ICONS (a superhero game), GUMSHOE, Low Fantasy Gaming and many others. They chose to use this because it was an industry standard and for some reason WotC managed to convince everyone that the OGL was here to stay.
They even convinced their then largest competitor, White Wolf, to make products for D&D, of course they ruined a lot of good will when they decided to release 3.5 with little warning. A first rug pull, the second was the GSL and this whole revocation is probably the final one.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
No one I know is against an update.
What I, and they, are against is a predatory and overstepping change. Money, rather than the product or the consumer, has become the main goal of Wizards, and that was reflected in 1.1 (which was absolutely not a draft. Do not buy into that corporate backpedaling.)
They have all the money, lawyers, and data needed to know what they're attempting and the impact that would have on the game.
When GP is valued over XP, you have a shitty game.
I've literally said I am against any update. At least with regard to any of their stated goals.
Also gold for XP is a fantastically fun way to play :)
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieLet's not get irrational in the heat of debate, please. If high production values are desired, open source is desirable. Collaboration, the exchange of ideas, different points of view, etc... are essential to achieve high-value products. That's not to say that proprietary code can't achieve good things too, but proprietary code doesn't mean higher production values.