The restrictions under the virtual tabletop policy are what I find most concerning. There are plenty of small creators who have made animations for use in VTT spaces, and their discord servers are understandably "concerned" with the following:
"What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."
I'm really hoping my hundreds and hundreds of pounds spent on Beyond aren't about to go up in smoke, because from what I can see all the third party creators I use and all the asset creators I follow are about to jump ship entirely.
The restrictions under the virtual tabletop policy are what I find most concerning. There are plenty of small creators who have made animations for use in VTT spaces, and their discord servers are understandably "concerned" with the following:
"What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."
I'm really hoping my hundreds and hundreds of pounds spent on Beyond aren't about to go up in smoke, because from what I can see all the third party creators I use and all the asset creators I follow are about to jump ship entirely.
My favorite part is that right above that they're very clear that while you can't use their images, but you can absolutely use your own.
But animations? No animations, no matter who made them!
Saying you couldn't use their animations would be pretty reasonable, but acting as if anything they determine is 'too video gamey', even if you made it yourself/purchased it yourself is off the table is patently absurd.
I am eighty percent certain that the VTT thing does not and cannot apply to generic animations. Things like TaleSpire's Red Laser, Green Laser, and Arcane Missile animations that are not attached to D&D content are perfectly fine. What Wizards is saying is you can't put a button labeled "Magic Missile" in your VTT, attach the SRD information on Magic Missile to it, integrate that button into a character sheet, and then play a specific animation of darts spewing at an enemy that is exclusive to the Magic Missile spell. That crosses a line they don't want crossed without a custom agreement. Generic "Spell Attack!", "Melee Attack!", "Shoot my Arquebus!" animations should be perfectly fine.
The restrictions under the virtual tabletop policy are what I find most concerning. There are plenty of small creators who have made animations for use in VTT spaces, and their discord servers are understandably "concerned" with the following:
"What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."
I'm really hoping my hundreds and hundreds of pounds spent on Beyond aren't about to go up in smoke, because from what I can see all the third party creators I use and all the asset creators I follow are about to jump ship entirely.
The animation thing is weird. Your VTT can't have animations, but D&D Beyond can have its dice explode and do shit on nat 20s? It's the same concept.
The animation bit just seems oddly specific, and I can't think of a reason they'd have a problem with it, other than wanting to reduce competition for their eventual in house VTT?
The animation bit just seems oddly specific, and I can't think of a reason they'd have a problem with it, other than wanting to reduce competition for their eventual in house VTT?
This is my assumption. They want a big chunk o' dat sweet VTT pie, and are trying to kneecap competitors. Which maybe not a great look but also pretty standard business f**kery.
What I do not like about the new draft is that none of the old 3rd party content previously produced under 1.0 is allowed to be updated to include 6e unless they agree to the new draft 1.2 OGL. Even if they just change a few numbers, artwork or a single word it MUST come under the new contract. This essentially takes control of all old content if it gets reprinted to include 6e.
They keep talking about 3PC creators being able to use 'a' D&D logo. That is already covered by copy write laws. And if the third party wants to put their own logo on their own product they must submit it for approval. If I went as far as to create content I would already have my own logo copy written. WoTC do not have any right to keep me from placing it on my own products.
As for the old excuse of 'objectionable material' I have never heard of 3PC creators actually creating any that WotC objected to. Any examples that do not include a Gygax? In my experience objectionable material has almost no audience and will not make as many sales as needed to keep going. They will just fade away. (If you personally do not like the content just do not buy it.)
I am NOT saying any one can produce objectionable content AND place the WotC or D&D logo on it or use any content taken directly out of WotC products.
The animation bit just seems oddly specific, and I can't think of a reason they'd have a problem with it, other than wanting to reduce competition for their eventual in house VTT?
This is 100% the reason. I challenge them to deny it.
I must say the VTT situation is something of a mess, because plugins exist. The core problem is:
Let's say you have a framework VTT that contains tools to handle mapping, messaging, die rolling, and so on, and also has a way of implementing extensions, such as a scripting language. This basic VTT does not implement the SRD and is unaffected by the OGL, but I have two plugins (I could have more, but that just makes it more complicated)
A D&D character sheet that lets you do... whatever the VTT rules let you do (unclear, because it's not a static electronic file so the OGL doesn't apply).
An animation plugin, that includes both animations and hooks to allow other plugins to execute those animations.
The core VTT does not require any licensing from WotC, nor does the animation plugin (at least, if you don't have animations that are clearly distinctive D&D FX, or where their internal names makes it obvious -- but I can't actually think of any D&D spells with FX that would be unique to D&D). The character sheet is legal under the VTT policy.
If I include only (1) in a game, I'm in compliance with the VTT policy. If I include only (2) in a game, I don't need to be in compliance because I have no SRD content. If I include both (1) and (2), I'm not in compliance, but I'm an end user, not a publisher. So how's that supposed to work? WotC starts issuing DMCA takedown notices against anyone trying to combine them?
On what planet does WotC think it has the right to baby-sit my own personal conduct?
Absolutely NO WAY in Hades am I ever going to use this OGL or support WotC D&D in any form whatsoever after this fiasco.
Dear Wizards of the Coast,
I have reviewed your harmful conduct. I have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is harmful, and therefore, I have decided to terminate your license to sell me your junk.
Sincerely,
John D. Customer
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Be careful what you Wish for... your DM may just give it to you!
Then, he's a real world example to work with. Foundry VTT itself has only the SRD as part of their 5e system. Any none SRD content you need to input manually.
External creators then create animations for spells, which can be used as macros. Most spells in the PHB have been animated by this point.
Further creators then make modules, that automatically trigger the macro, calling the originally created animation, when you click the "Magic Missiles" button on your character sheet.
Under this OGL, that wouldn't be permitted, making Foundry (if you use those modules) less attractive, and the asset creators work useless, and the module creators work illegal.
That's just one example of hundreds of small creators who have grown grass roots around VTT's, especially over the last two years, who are now concerned that they will be unable to support 5e going forwards.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
I will say there is a LOT of dispute over this amongst lawyers and you may not find it persuasive but a lot of people do.
As a lawyer I can tell you there is always dispute amongst lawyers, it's our job. I'm trying to approach my take on this from a pure reading of the law and the agreements, but I admit I'm not infallible and could be wrong. in every case at least one lawyer has to present a losing argument.
Reliance is a thing and would come up in terms of promissory estopple typically. The key element though is the aggrieved party must have reasonably relied on something to it's detriment. I don't think it would be reasonable to say anyone believed OGL 1.0a would continue in perpetuity, largely because it doesn't say that. Courts are typically hesitant to read something so substantial into a contract. And if WotC is leaving 1.0a in place for already existing content it would be difficult to argue any detriment occurred.
Like I said the law in general is hesitant with anything involving perpetuity. The rule against perpetuities, incredibly difficult to explain and not really relevant here because it deals with different areas of law, is an example of that. Contracts can be similar and as I said courts don't like reading adding such terms if they are not expressly stated.
Uh, not a lawyer, but...
Given that you can't really copyright game mechanics anyway, isn't it explicitly to a company's detriment to publish under a license that limits their use and rights related to the content they're creating?
The OGL was an agreement that no one was gonna get sued - not an actual requirement based on precedent that game mechanics can't be copyrighted (which I've seen repeated everywhere, including by actual lawyers).
So companies publishing under the OGL handicapped themselves, relying on an assurance they wouldn't be litigated against for doing so, even though they technically probably didn't need to do so...
Sounds like detriment to me.
But WotC is saying anything already published under 1.0a will remain under 1.0a. So how is a 3pp harmed by it's revocation going forward?
As to the comments about game mechanics and the OGL I believe you are correct. The OGL only covers what is copyrightable anyway. If a publisher wishes to use the D20 system and rules to publish something they can. It's the expressions contained within WotC publishings they can't use freely. An example would be publishing an adventure using the rules and mechanics with entirely my own expressions of classes, characters, and monsters. WotC wouldn't likely win a suit against that publisher regardless of the existence of any OGL. If the publisher included say the Tarrasque, WotC would have grounds to sue for the removal of that material specifically or money damages as the case may be.
Wizards does not have to actively facilitate competitors to its products. They want VTTs to stick to the spirit of the OGL - a resource for creating new products for your tabletop game. VTTs do not need to be halfway to video game to recreate the tabletop experience, and if they want to be halfway to video game they need to seek license above and beyond the OGL to do it.
Is it a great look for Wotsee? No. Is it great news for VTT people who keep trying to sell blingier, flashier bullshit to wow people with how Video Game-y their service is? No. Is it anti-consumer? Eh. Is it worth spiking the entire process over? **** nah.
I am eighty percent certain that the VTT thing does not and cannot apply to generic animations. Things like TaleSpire's Red Laser, Green Laser, and Arcane Missile animations that are not attached to D&D content are perfectly fine. What Wizards is saying is you can't put a button labeled "Magic Missile" in your VTT, attach the SRD information on Magic Missile to it, integrate that button into a character sheet, and then play a specific animation of darts spewing at an enemy that is exclusive to the Magic Missile spell. That crosses a line they don't want crossed without a custom agreement. Generic "Spell Attack!", "Melee Attack!", "Shoot my Arquebus!" animations should be perfectly fine.
This is my take as well, I believe that's why there use to be two versions of certain spells on dndbeyond. The specific expression Agnazar's Scorcher is copyrightable, but simple Scorcher is not.
EDIT: this is still the case as both Melf's Acid Arrow and Acid Arrow are still in the list. Scorcher was just the first one I thought of when I looked to see if it was still there.
Wizards does not have to actively facilitate competitors to its products. They want VTTs to stick to the spirit of the OGL - a resource for creating new products for your tabletop game. VTTs do not need to be halfway to video game to recreate the tabletop experience, and if they want to be halfway to video game they need to seek license above and beyond the OGL to do it.
Is it a great look for Wotsee? No. Is it great news for VTT people who keep trying to sell blingier, flashier bullshit to wow people with how Video Game-y their service is? No. Is it anti-consumer? Eh. Is it worth spiking the entire process over? **** nah.
Ok, fair enough. If that's the angle we're playing, and Wizards just doesn't like people who play online with bells and whistles, then I'm just not their target audience anymore. Luckily plenty of alternatives are cropping up now - my legendary bundle is now useless because I don't want to play the way Wizards wants me to, but I'm not going to be tied down to a sunk cost fallacy.
I'm glad it doesn't affect you. Unfortunately it does affect a lot of other people, and time will tell whether those people taking their money elsewhere was worth it to WotC's bottom line.
This is my take as well, I believe that's why there use to be two versions of certain spells on dndbeyond. The specific expression Agnazar's Scorcher is copyrightable, but simple Scorcher is not.
The 'Named' versions of those spells are Product Identity for Wizards, controlled by their copyrights and unavailable for OGL use. The 'Generic' versions are in the SRD and can freely be used by OGL resources and supplements. So...basically yes, but mleghme.
I am eighty percent certain that the VTT thing does not and cannot apply to generic animations.
That would render it a dead letter, there aren't really any animations that are unique to D&D. It might be fine as long as you don't attach the animation to the spell, but any half decent macro language will just let you attach them by hand.
This is my take as well, I believe that's why there use to be two versions of certain spells on dndbeyond. The specific expression Agnazar's Scorcher is copyrightable, but simple Scorcher is not.
The 'Named' versions of those spells are Product Identity for Wizards, controlled by their copyrights and unavailable for OGL use. The 'Generic' versions are in the SRD and can freely be used by OGL resources and supplements. So...basically yes, but mleghme.
Then, he's a real world example to work with. Foundry VTT itself has only the SRD as part of their 5e system. Any none SRD content you need to input manually.
External creators then create animations for spells, which can be used as macros. Most spells in the PHB have been animated by this point.
Further creators then make modules, that automatically trigger the macro, calling the originally created animation, when you click the "Magic Missiles" button on your character sheet.
Under this OGL, that wouldn't be permitted, making Foundry (if you use those modules) less attractive, and the asset creators work useless, and the module creators work illegal.
That's just one example of hundreds of small creators who have grown grass roots around VTT's, especially over the last two years, who are now concerned that they will be unable to support 5e going forwards.
It seems even worse than that. As you said, Foundry is using the 5E rules SRD 5.0. It seems the new OGL will be invalidating all content prior to SRD 5.1, which would mean ALL older versions currently in use (and by old, I include the current one) will be null and void and foundry would be forced to not support them.
I hope I'm wrong but that's how I'm seeing it. They are attempting to de-authorize the license applicable to older SRDs (including 5.0) and are only licensing 5.1 and subsequent versions for the new OGL, effectively killing anything before 5.1.
I really don't much care what they do with their future versions of the game. It's their right to change the OGL for stuff that's not released under previous versions but this seems to be an attempt to kill the OSR and VTTs that are not WotC. I hope they address these concerns and put provisions in that protect old SRDs but I'm expecting the worst.
I get the distinct feeling the rules aren't in place to stop every possible conceivable instance of animated whatsabangles in third-party VTTs. Prosecuting that would take every hour and dollar Wotsee has. I'm figuring the rule is in place to stop third-party VTTs from directly integrating that crap into their core product and using it to boost their sales, advertising "PLAY D&D LIKE YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT BEFORE" and trying to glam people with their distracting and completely unnecessary bells and whistles.
Modders making crap they offer as free share-alike junk isn't really OGL anyways, it's probably Fan Content policy, and it's also likely beneath Wizards' notice or give-a-****s. They just don't want a VTT turning itself into eighty percent of a D&D video game without permission and proper licensing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The restrictions under the virtual tabletop policy are what I find most concerning. There are plenty of small creators who have made animations for use in VTT spaces, and their discord servers are understandably "concerned" with the following:
"What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."
I'm really hoping my hundreds and hundreds of pounds spent on Beyond aren't about to go up in smoke, because from what I can see all the third party creators I use and all the asset creators I follow are about to jump ship entirely.
My favorite part is that right above that they're very clear that while you can't use their images, but you can absolutely use your own.
But animations? No animations, no matter who made them!
Saying you couldn't use their animations would be pretty reasonable, but acting as if anything they determine is 'too video gamey', even if you made it yourself/purchased it yourself is off the table is patently absurd.
I am eighty percent certain that the VTT thing does not and cannot apply to generic animations. Things like TaleSpire's Red Laser, Green Laser, and Arcane Missile animations that are not attached to D&D content are perfectly fine. What Wizards is saying is you can't put a button labeled "Magic Missile" in your VTT, attach the SRD information on Magic Missile to it, integrate that button into a character sheet, and then play a specific animation of darts spewing at an enemy that is exclusive to the Magic Missile spell. That crosses a line they don't want crossed without a custom agreement. Generic "Spell Attack!", "Melee Attack!", "Shoot my Arquebus!" animations should be perfectly fine.
Please do not contact or message me.
The animation thing is weird. Your VTT can't have animations, but D&D Beyond can have its dice explode and do shit on nat 20s? It's the same concept.
The animation bit just seems oddly specific, and I can't think of a reason they'd have a problem with it, other than wanting to reduce competition for their eventual in house VTT?
This is my assumption. They want a big chunk o' dat sweet VTT pie, and are trying to kneecap competitors. Which maybe not a great look but also pretty standard business f**kery.
What I do not like about the new draft is that none of the old 3rd party content previously produced under 1.0 is allowed to be updated to include 6e unless they agree to the new draft 1.2 OGL. Even if they just change a few numbers, artwork or a single word it MUST come under the new contract.
This essentially takes control of all old content if it gets reprinted to include 6e.
They keep talking about 3PC creators being able to use 'a' D&D logo. That is already covered by copy write laws.
And if the third party wants to put their own logo on their own product they must submit it for approval. If I went as far as to create content I would already have my own logo copy written. WoTC do not have any right to keep me from placing it on my own products.
As for the old excuse of 'objectionable material' I have never heard of 3PC creators actually creating any that WotC objected to. Any examples that do not include a Gygax?
In my experience objectionable material has almost no audience and will not make as many sales as needed to keep going. They will just fade away. (If you personally do not like the content just do not buy it.)
I am NOT saying any one can produce objectionable content AND place the WotC or D&D logo on it or use any content taken directly out of WotC products.
This is 100% the reason. I challenge them to deny it.
I must say the VTT situation is something of a mess, because plugins exist. The core problem is:
Let's say you have a framework VTT that contains tools to handle mapping, messaging, die rolling, and so on, and also has a way of implementing extensions, such as a scripting language. This basic VTT does not implement the SRD and is unaffected by the OGL, but I have two plugins (I could have more, but that just makes it more complicated)
The core VTT does not require any licensing from WotC, nor does the animation plugin (at least, if you don't have animations that are clearly distinctive D&D FX, or where their internal names makes it obvious -- but I can't actually think of any D&D spells with FX that would be unique to D&D). The character sheet is legal under the VTT policy.
If I include only (1) in a game, I'm in compliance with the VTT policy. If I include only (2) in a game, I don't need to be in compliance because I have no SRD content. If I include both (1) and (2), I'm not in compliance, but I'm an end user, not a publisher. So how's that supposed to work? WotC starts issuing DMCA takedown notices against anyone trying to combine them?
On what planet does WotC think it has the right to baby-sit my own personal conduct?
Absolutely NO WAY in Hades am I ever going to use this OGL or support WotC D&D in any form whatsoever after this fiasco.
Be careful what you Wish for... your DM may just give it to you!
Then, he's a real world example to work with. Foundry VTT itself has only the SRD as part of their 5e system. Any none SRD content you need to input manually.
External creators then create animations for spells, which can be used as macros. Most spells in the PHB have been animated by this point.
Further creators then make modules, that automatically trigger the macro, calling the originally created animation, when you click the "Magic Missiles" button on your character sheet.
Under this OGL, that wouldn't be permitted, making Foundry (if you use those modules) less attractive, and the asset creators work useless, and the module creators work illegal.
That's just one example of hundreds of small creators who have grown grass roots around VTT's, especially over the last two years, who are now concerned that they will be unable to support 5e going forwards.
But WotC is saying anything already published under 1.0a will remain under 1.0a. So how is a 3pp harmed by it's revocation going forward?
As to the comments about game mechanics and the OGL I believe you are correct. The OGL only covers what is copyrightable anyway. If a publisher wishes to use the D20 system and rules to publish something they can. It's the expressions contained within WotC publishings they can't use freely. An example would be publishing an adventure using the rules and mechanics with entirely my own expressions of classes, characters, and monsters. WotC wouldn't likely win a suit against that publisher regardless of the existence of any OGL. If the publisher included say the Tarrasque, WotC would have grounds to sue for the removal of that material specifically or money damages as the case may be.
Wizards does not have to actively facilitate competitors to its products. They want VTTs to stick to the spirit of the OGL - a resource for creating new products for your tabletop game. VTTs do not need to be halfway to video game to recreate the tabletop experience, and if they want to be halfway to video game they need to seek license above and beyond the OGL to do it.
Is it a great look for Wotsee? No. Is it great news for VTT people who keep trying to sell blingier, flashier bullshit to wow people with how Video Game-y their service is? No. Is it anti-consumer? Eh. Is it worth spiking the entire process over? **** nah.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is my take as well, I believe that's why there use to be two versions of certain spells on dndbeyond. The specific expression Agnazar's Scorcher is copyrightable, but simple Scorcher is not.
EDIT: this is still the case as both Melf's Acid Arrow and Acid Arrow are still in the list. Scorcher was just the first one I thought of when I looked to see if it was still there.
Ok, fair enough. If that's the angle we're playing, and Wizards just doesn't like people who play online with bells and whistles, then I'm just not their target audience anymore. Luckily plenty of alternatives are cropping up now - my legendary bundle is now useless because I don't want to play the way Wizards wants me to, but I'm not going to be tied down to a sunk cost fallacy.
I'm glad it doesn't affect you. Unfortunately it does affect a lot of other people, and time will tell whether those people taking their money elsewhere was worth it to WotC's bottom line.
The 'Named' versions of those spells are Product Identity for Wizards, controlled by their copyrights and unavailable for OGL use. The 'Generic' versions are in the SRD and can freely be used by OGL resources and supplements. So...basically yes, but mleghme.
Please do not contact or message me.
That would render it a dead letter, there aren't really any animations that are unique to D&D. It might be fine as long as you don't attach the animation to the spell, but any half decent macro language will just let you attach them by hand.
Not copyrighted, trademarked.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It seems even worse than that. As you said, Foundry is using the 5E rules SRD 5.0. It seems the new OGL will be invalidating all content prior to SRD 5.1, which would mean ALL older versions currently in use (and by old, I include the current one) will be null and void and foundry would be forced to not support them.
I hope I'm wrong but that's how I'm seeing it. They are attempting to de-authorize the license applicable to older SRDs (including 5.0) and are only licensing 5.1 and subsequent versions for the new OGL, effectively killing anything before 5.1.
I really don't much care what they do with their future versions of the game. It's their right to change the OGL for stuff that's not released under previous versions but this seems to be an attempt to kill the OSR and VTTs that are not WotC. I hope they address these concerns and put provisions in that protect old SRDs but I'm expecting the worst.
I get the distinct feeling the rules aren't in place to stop every possible conceivable instance of animated whatsabangles in third-party VTTs. Prosecuting that would take every hour and dollar Wotsee has. I'm figuring the rule is in place to stop third-party VTTs from directly integrating that crap into their core product and using it to boost their sales, advertising "PLAY D&D LIKE YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT BEFORE" and trying to glam people with their
distracting and completely unnecessarybells and whistles.Modders making crap they offer as free share-alike junk isn't really OGL anyways, it's probably Fan Content policy, and it's also likely beneath Wizards' notice or give-a-****s. They just don't want a VTT turning itself into eighty percent of a D&D video game without permission and proper licensing.
Please do not contact or message me.