VTTs themselves are fine, but how many features can you add before they just become a video game? And the OGL is not meant to subsidize video games. If you want to make a D&D video game, that's fine, put on your big boy pants and go get a custom license like Interplay and Larian did.
Why? Why can't a VTT become too close to a video game? If there is a market for that and people want it, why does WotC need to stop people from doing that?
There is nothing stopping someone from making a video game under ogl 1.0a.. short of using Intellectual property / expressions, like literally everything else made under the ogl from my understanding. So why do VTTs need to abide by some arbitrary line?
WotC wanted to axe everything, now they are settling for VTTs, because they are late to the game. We wouldn't have these cool tools if we relied on WotC, or we'd have them a decade after people wanted it (and already had it)... like with their VTT lol... Don't you just LOVE D&D beyond and how it worked great with Roll 20.. OGL 1.0a BABBYYYY!!!
I don't want nerf any creative community who comes up with these amazing things. Its a free market of ideas, why do we need to limit it?
Why? Why can't a VTT become too close to a video game? If there is a market for that and people want it, why does WotC need to stop people from doing that?
They're not "stopping" people. They're just requiring that it be a custom license. Larian, Interplay, Gearbox, and Daybreak all got one. It's not impossible.
There is nothing stopping someone from making a video game under ogl 1.0a.. short of using Intellectual property / expressions, like literally everything else made under the ogl from my understanding.
That's literally one of the big reasons behind deauthorizing it.
Why? Why can't a VTT become too close to a video game? If there is a market for that and people want it, why does WotC need to stop people from doing that?
They're not "stopping" people. They're just requiring that it be a custom license. Larian, Interplay, Gearbox, and Daybreak all got one. It's not impossible.
There is nothing stopping someone from making a video game under ogl 1.0a.. short of using Intellectual property / expressions, like literally everything else made under the ogl from my understanding.
That's literally one of the big reasons behind deauthorizing it.
Are you in support of this? why? What's wrong with getting pathfinder games to enjoy? Which will be unaffected by this change. With the ORC these video games will have a different avenue to pursue.
Looking at Baulder's Gate II it was released in 2000, obviously they were "Enhanced" lol.. Then Bauder's Gate 3 came out in 2020, oh wait its still 'early access'. Again, you want to rely on a company like this to make interesting content based around the system you like?
They are behind on a lot of things, the only reason we have nice toys is because of the OGL 1.0a. I'm struggling to understand how anyone is fervently against protecting our creative community.
Edit: Want to amend this but leave my language as it was in both previous posts. In hindsight I am being way too critical on the creative teams at WotC. But there is a pretty clear Symbiotic relationship here. Community comes up with cool new thing, WotC makes it more robust and easier to access which leads to great profits. Its like a kick in the ass it feels like. The suits see money sitting on the table and the creative team finally gets to do the cool things they probably talked about a while ago.
Why? Why can't a VTT become too close to a video game? If there is a market for that and people want it, why does WotC need to stop people from doing that?
They're not "stopping" people. They're just requiring that it be a custom license. Larian, Interplay, Gearbox, and Daybreak all got one. It's not impossible.
There is nothing stopping someone from making a video game under ogl 1.0a.. short of using Intellectual property / expressions, like literally everything else made under the ogl from my understanding.
That's literally one of the big reasons behind deauthorizing it.
You're really over here arguing that WotC/Hasbro should be allowed to decide if their direct competition should be allowed to improve their product?
I can see how that conversation will go.
Foundary: "Please, Mr. WotC sir, may I add a sound board to my feature set?"
Wotc/Hasbro: "LOL! No. And just for asking, we not consider dynamic lighting too videogamey. Remove it or we'll revoke your license. Now, we have to go swim in our 3 Cubic Acres of gold coins."
You can say it's biased, but could you elucidate the benefits that ogl 1.2 has over ogl 1.0a and how the community at large would benefit from the removal of 1.0a?
1.2 doesn't allow creators publish harmful content (such as TSR's Star Frontiers).
The removal of 1.0a doesn't have any inherent benefits, but it's necessary to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen.
You can say it's biased, but could you elucidate the benefits that ogl 1.2 has over ogl 1.0a and how the community at large would benefit from the removal of 1.0a?
1.2 doesn't allow creators publish harmful content (such as TSR's Star Frontiers).
The removal of 1.0a doesn't have any inherent benefits, but it's necessary to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen.
Don't call people shills next time.
But it's a blatant lie that the OGL would have any relation to protecting form that. Star Frontiers was lost on trademark infringement. They can't protect pure mechanics like the OGL protects anyway in court. no matter what OGL they have mechanics can't be copywritten so re-wording avoid that. The OGL existed because of a pile of frivolous law suits from TSR as a sort of community promise. Things like forgotten realms, characters in forgotten realms, star frontiers, and spelljammer would go to court for trademark not copy right because they can easily win a trademark suit.
To most people it's blatantly obvious that the new OGL legally wouldn't relate to harmful content because anything using trademarked items would be easier to fight in court for the trademark and anything using nothing that involves a trademark is hard to defend even with the community promise the OGL provides. Because of that it takes someone very gullible to believe their blatant morality lies. Shill is the better option to call people at that point. Why else would you believe such a low effort blatant lie from wizards if you didn't want to?
Also morality clauses are tricky. Many platforms that can police content easier then a set of rules can use it to attack the LGBT community. Videos mentioning the existence of gay people on youtube general become adult or sexual and don't show up as easily and don't monetize as well. They also frequently demonetize LGBT content. The people you see in wizards aren't the people you'll see in ten years and the people you see can't the people who run it. No corporation can be trusted to self manage a morality ruleset that isn't directly written out in terms with protections.
Also morality clauses are tricky. Many platforms that can police content easier then a set of rules can use it to attack the LGBT community. Videos mentioning the existence of gay people on youtube general become adult or sexual and don't show up as easily and don't monetize as well. They also frequently demonetize LGBT content. The people you see in wizards aren't the people you'll see in ten years and the people you see can't the people who run it. No corporation can be trusted to self manage a morality ruleset that isn't directly written out in terms with protections.
Correct. How people who would be targeted with such clauses in more than half the world are defending them just because they assume the authors are putting them in to target a common enemy now is beyond me. And WotC/Hasbro is a publicly traded company. They are supposed to target people that hurt their bottom line and not their feelings (by law and if it becomes relevant their investors will make sure they do). They won't protect you unless being required by law if it does not align with their bottom line. Any kind of morality clause just gives them another tool to control. That is pretty much never a good thing in the hands of any corporation.
Why? Why can't a VTT become too close to a video game? If there is a market for that and people want it, why does WotC need to stop people from doing that?
There is nothing stopping someone from making a video game under ogl 1.0a.. short of using Intellectual property / expressions, like literally everything else made under the ogl from my understanding. So why do VTTs need to abide by some arbitrary line?
WotC wanted to axe everything, now they are settling for VTTs, because they are late to the game. We wouldn't have these cool tools if we relied on WotC, or we'd have them a decade after people wanted it (and already had it)... like with their VTT lol... Don't you just LOVE D&D beyond and how it worked great with Roll 20.. OGL 1.0a BABBYYYY!!!
I don't want nerf any creative community who comes up with these amazing things. Its a free market of ideas, why do we need to limit it?
They're not "stopping" people. They're just requiring that it be a custom license. Larian, Interplay, Gearbox, and Daybreak all got one. It's not impossible.
That's literally one of the big reasons behind deauthorizing it.
Are you in support of this? why?
What's wrong with getting pathfinder games to enjoy? Which will be unaffected by this change. With the ORC these video games will have a different avenue to pursue.
Looking at Baulder's Gate II it was released in 2000, obviously they were "Enhanced" lol.. Then Bauder's Gate 3 came out in 2020, oh wait its still 'early access'. Again, you want to rely on a company like this to make interesting content based around the system you like?
They are behind on a lot of things, the only reason we have nice toys is because of the OGL 1.0a. I'm struggling to understand how anyone is fervently against protecting our creative community.
Edit: Want to amend this but leave my language as it was in both previous posts. In hindsight I am being way too critical on the creative teams at WotC. But there is a pretty clear Symbiotic relationship here. Community comes up with cool new thing, WotC makes it more robust and easier to access which leads to great profits. Its like a kick in the ass it feels like. The suits see money sitting on the table and the creative team finally gets to do the cool things they probably talked about a while ago.
You're really over here arguing that WotC/Hasbro should be allowed to decide if their direct competition should be allowed to improve their product?
I can see how that conversation will go.
Foundary: "Please, Mr. WotC sir, may I add a sound board to my feature set?"
Wotc/Hasbro: "LOL! No. And just for asking, we not consider dynamic lighting too videogamey. Remove it or we'll revoke your license. Now, we have to go swim in our 3 Cubic Acres of gold coins."
1.2 doesn't allow creators publish harmful content (such as TSR's Star Frontiers).
The removal of 1.0a doesn't have any inherent benefits, but it's necessary to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen.
Don't call people shills next time.
[REDACTED]
But it's a blatant lie that the OGL would have any relation to protecting form that. Star Frontiers was lost on trademark infringement. They can't protect pure mechanics like the OGL protects anyway in court. no matter what OGL they have mechanics can't be copywritten so re-wording avoid that. The OGL existed because of a pile of frivolous law suits from TSR as a sort of community promise. Things like forgotten realms, characters in forgotten realms, star frontiers, and spelljammer would go to court for trademark not copy right because they can easily win a trademark suit.
To most people it's blatantly obvious that the new OGL legally wouldn't relate to harmful content because anything using trademarked items would be easier to fight in court for the trademark and anything using nothing that involves a trademark is hard to defend even with the community promise the OGL provides. Because of that it takes someone very gullible to believe their blatant morality lies. Shill is the better option to call people at that point. Why else would you believe such a low effort blatant lie from wizards if you didn't want to?
Also morality clauses are tricky. Many platforms that can police content easier then a set of rules can use it to attack the LGBT community. Videos mentioning the existence of gay people on youtube general become adult or sexual and don't show up as easily and don't monetize as well. They also frequently demonetize LGBT content. The people you see in wizards aren't the people you'll see in ten years and the people you see can't the people who run it. No corporation can be trusted to self manage a morality ruleset that isn't directly written out in terms with protections.
Correct. How people who would be targeted with such clauses in more than half the world are defending them just because they assume the authors are putting them in to target a common enemy now is beyond me. And WotC/Hasbro is a publicly traded company. They are supposed to target people that hurt their bottom line and not their feelings (by law and if it becomes relevant their investors will make sure they do). They won't protect you unless being required by law if it does not align with their bottom line. Any kind of morality clause just gives them another tool to control. That is pretty much never a good thing in the hands of any corporation.