Reminder; making objectively false claims about things said (seriously, the video is right there) in order to illicit negative responses is trolling and against site rules.
Only it isn't. It's true, and true. Without ironclad legalwork, IP's are tricky, and it's very easy to exploit loopholes and make something that the courts cannot actually force you to pay license fees or royalties for. My example is the VTT's, but that's just a simple illustration: Make a game like Baldur's Gate 3 co-op with a GM, call it a VTT, and you've just produced a major D&D title license free. Yay.
This is the very crux of the issue: Without the hammered down legal work, WoTC/Hasbro cannot protect their IP, which is why the new OGL in the first place. Only the language of such work is extremely harsh by nature, and sent the community into a panic - understandably, but the OGL was never aimed at them. Could be applied to them, sure, but was really only aimed at keeping major corporations from simply leeching D&D for free.
Don't take my word for it, tho. Take Kyle's.
A) Kyle didn't say any of what you just said, so I can't "take his word on it." Nor am I likely to. He's been in his position for 3 months, I don't know him from Adam, and he appears to be incapable of reading a legal document, if his statements on 1.2 are anything to go by. B) A VTT is not a video game. A cooperative game that involved a GM is already a significantly different product to what Bauldor's gate is. C) Regardless, Bauldor's gate is protected IP, so your master plan doesn't work. Not unless what you mean to say is "copy the art style, the primary story beats, the generic fantasy setting and make your own legally distinct IP that is NOT Bauldor's gate and NOT violating wizard's copyrights. If that's what you meant then OGL is irrelevant to this plan. VTTs do not exist because the of the OGL, and calling a video game a VTT certainly doesn't magically change how legal, or illegal someone's plagiarism is. Copyright law is a whole thing that you should look into.
No, it's a great example, because you know exactly what I mean. Could they do BG3 that way? No, but the principle holds none the less. And they could do it with someone else. Which, by the way, people do. Also, I'm not so sure. VTT's use all those rules. Maybe not setting specific, but classes, races, spells, mechanics. Sure, you cannot simply wholesale copy BG3, but you can copy everything else. Then call your AAA D&D game a VTT - call the game itself a 'module' - and you may not precisely get away with it, but you'd have a realistic legal foundation to try.
But what you say opens another flank of the argument: If you cannot offer a product that already has a fan base, you need to come up with something new, and that's risky. Also, if you're obviously just ripping off WoTC, the actual fans may well despise you - enough to not only avoid your product, but to actively fight it. And ... enraged fans can be a real issue, as we've recently had opportunity to witness.
So that's the other side of it: Having a legally watertight license avoids a certain risk - but that risk may in actual fact be neglible, because it's not all that attractive, in reality. I think possibly Pathfinder put a scare in Wizards: What if someone put out a clone that was actually succesful enough to be a real threat?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
No, it's a great example, because you know exactly what I mean. Could they do BG3 that way? No, but the principle holds none the less. And they could do it with someone else. Which, by the way, people do. Also, I'm not so sure. VTT's use all those rules. Maybe not setting specific, but classes, races, spells, mechanics. Sure, you cannot simply wholesale copy BG3, but you can copy everything else. Then call your AAA D&D game a VTT - call the game itself a 'module' - and you may not precisely get away with it, but you'd have a realistic legal foundation to try.
But what you say opens another flank of the argument: If you cannot offer a product that already has a fan base, you need to come up with something new, and that's risky. Also, if you're obviously just ripping off WoTC, the actual fans may well despise you - enough to not only avoid your product, but to actively fight it. And ... enraged fans can be a real issue, as we've recently had opportunity to witness.
So that's the other side of it: Having a legally watertight license avoids a certain risk - but that risk may in actual fact be neglible, because it's not all that attractive, in reality. I think possibly Pathfinder put a scare in Wizards: What if someone put out a clone that was actually succesful enough to be a real threat?
You should really work on reading more than 3 words of the post you are responding to before you respond.
I'm just going to copy this here, because it directly refutes what you appear to think are salient points, but you should not respond to ME, because my response is above. Emphasis, however, is mine.
so, poor example, since Baldur’s Gate contains a significant amount of material they can control and hold onto. The published settings, art (including derivatives), software, trademarks and service marks are all easily and readily protected under existing law, so that specific example would get the person burned. Especially if they said just copy Baldur’s Gate.
game mechanics are not IP — content and settings are, and settings have trade mark, service mark, and trade dress protections, in addition to copyright. While the rules to make a Warforged aren’t IP, the Warforged *is*, as is the setting (the lore), and the big issue Hasbro has is they realized they don’t have effective grasp of what they actually have for IP.
and few companies have more experience and legal muscle around IP than Hasbro, whose entire business is based in either licensed IP or in house IP (they have MLP and GI Joe, for cryin out loud).
they may have wanted to challenge the mechanics bit, but really what they need to do is lock down identifiable IP like FR, Eberron, etc in the same way they have locked down Magic Cards, and ensure they have dominance over trade dress especially, which means limiting the things that say “for forgotten realms” or use setting specific material.
this is part of why they have to yank setting specific aspects of monster listings (other than art): they cannot put core game rules side by side with the IP ( no orcs of the silvery coast, just Orc rules in the mm, then orc cultures in FR).
Because how to make a blood mage or sorcerer can’t be locked down, but the beings they serve in different settings can be.
Christ, that was a tough watch - the primary interviewer is super hostile, bordering on unprofessional. I'm someone who still hasn't renewed my DDB subscription, but it was way too aggressive for my taste. I know a few other D&D YouTubers are going to get interviews with various members of the senior D&D team, I hope it's not all that intense.
seems that the players that just wanted to hate on WotC did so without real foundational knowledge of the reasons here. Kudos to Kyle on this. Always more to the story. Seems for all the greed being tossed around, 3PP aren't too far off. Take the emotions out of it. 3PP are just as greedy since they don't want to pay royalties on what most would typically pay for anyways and they are just doing what they can to increase a fan base to spend more money on their products. I've always asked what would happen if Paizo grew to the same size? Corporate structures happen every day.
"Companies like Meta or Disney or Amazon can, with the OGL, make "D&D Products""
I can understand how the notion that Meta could more-or-less straight up steal your IP...
False, and False.
(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;
If Meta, or anyone else wants to produce "D&D" anything, Wizards/Hasbro will ABSOLUTELY be at that table.
This is a particularly long post for something that completely missed the point of what was being responded to. As used in the post you responded, “D&D Products” was very clearly in quotation marks. Based on contextual clues, it is clear Yeuri was referring to “products that use D&D’s OGL intellectual property but not any of their protected content, and build something that is a D&D product in all but name, so we would use quotes to indicate it is a pseudo-product.”
Now, under 1.0, it is true that Meta doesn’t have to steal Wizards’ IP - but that’s only because Wizards put the content on the curb with a sign reading “Free to anyone who wants it.” But, again, contextual reading is important - steal, as used in the post you’re responding to, clearly is intended to read “a big company who follows the strict meaning of OGL, but not OGL as it was intended—to help actual fans and independent third-party producers, not the multi billion dollar conglomerations Kyle said they were concerned about.”
And, despite what your armchair lawyer analysis might say, there is plenty of protected IP in OGL 1.0 (mechanics are not the only thing OGL 1.0 provides access to). Specific spells, like Cloudkill (something made up by D&D for this specific context), or species like Tieflings (also a D&D creation) would be something Wizards could probably protect if no OGL existed - a lot of the recognisable things that are uniquely D&D are licensed out under 1.0, and those are all things Wizards could otherwise try to protect.
It's absolutely bizarre to me that people seem to consider the OGL/CC license to be arbitrarily selective.
"The OGL/CC license means anybody can make awesome D&D products and Wizards can't sue them!" "So...you're saying Meta could make a D&D virtual dating service and Wizards couldn't do shit about it?" "What? No! Wizards would absolutely sue the shit out of Meta if they did that!" "But you just said - " "I meant Wizards can't sue anybody I don't want sued! If it's somebody I don't care about, they can sue all they like."
Make up your minds - can Wizards use legal recourse to protect D&D from shit nobody wants in D&D or can't they?
It's absolutely bizarre to me that people seem to consider the OGL/CC license to be arbitrarily selective.
"The OGL/CC license means anybody can make awesome D&D products and Wizards can't sue them!" "So...you're saying Meta could make a D&D virtual dating service and Wizards couldn't do shit about it?" "What? No! Wizards would absolutely sue the shit out of Meta if they did that!" "But you just said - " "I meant Wizards can't sue anybody I don't want sued! If it's somebody I don't care about, they can sue all they like."
Make up your minds - can Wizards use legal recourse to protect D&D from shit nobody wants in D&D or can't they?
I think the point is Meta could make a TTRPG dating service if they wanted, and include mechanics from Dungeons and Dragons somehow if it worked (like a roll a d20 plus your "charm" modifier for matches? not sure what this would look like, but it's not my example so...) and Wizards would have no legal recourse.
If they made a dating service with Tieflings or Cloudkill or some other Wizards owned trademark then they would be able to sue Meta if they wanted.
Most people are happy for Wizards to use legal recourse to protect things they own, but don't want them trying to lure third party creators into feeling protected to use certain trademarked properties within the SRD, only to be hit with cease and desist letters or have their permissions revoked down the line.
Christ, that was a tough watch - the primary interviewer is super hostile, bordering on unprofessional. I'm someone who still hasn't renewed my DDB subscription, but it was way too aggressive for my taste. I know a few other D&D YouTubers are going to get interviews with various members of the senior D&D team, I hope it's not all that intense.
Yeah, seriously. Having watched as much of the interview as I could stand, all I really wanted to do at the end was tell 3BH to chill some. Yes, by all means ask hard questions, but this guy went from aggressive to downright hostile in a hurry and went actively fishing for shit to skewer Kyle on. That's not how you conduct an interview, even if you have 'Hard Questions' to ask. This kind of crap is why nobody in development talks to the community.
I think the point is Meta could make a TTRPG dating service if they wanted, and include mechanics from Dungeons and Dragons somehow if it worked (like a roll a d20 plus your "charm" modifier for matches? not sure what this would look like, but it's not my example so...) and Wizards would have no legal recourse.
If they made a dating service with Tieflings or Cloudkill or some other Wizards owned trademark then they would be able to sue Meta if they wanted.
Most people are happy for Wizards to use legal recourse to protect things they own, but don't want them trying to lure third party creators into feeling protected to use certain trademarked properties within the SRD, only to be hit with cease and desist letters or have their permissions revoked down the line.
Well, Tieflings and Cloudkill are both Creative Commons now...
From the interview, Kyle seems to be saying their primary recourse now is to (a) utilize the CC's "please pull our attribution" clause if someone makes something objectionable - and CC requires that your attribution cannot imply or suggest that the IP-holder endorses you or your use of the licensed material in the first place - along with (b) relying on the community to help them ostracize/censure anyone who misuses the license in this way anyway. Will those measures truly be strong enough to avoid a bad actor's damage to the brand or IP, only time will tell, but they're certainly less damaging than 1.1 would have been.
Because I thought this would be valuable to the community I’ve done my best to write some Cliff‘s Notes of this interview (do kids even use Cliff’s Notes these days?). I also tried to do this with no editorialization or additions from me. I’ve concentrated on the OGL stuff because I’m working today although it should be noted Brink talks about the OGL controversy for about half an hour of the hour and a quarter long video.
If this topic interests you I STRONGLY recommend listening to at least the first half hour of this video if not the whole thing.
The motivations around OGL changes were fears about large companies Disney or Meta moving in on D&D territory. The 'Metaverse' is specifically mentioned in relation to D&D though he says this wasn't discussed specifically. Other things mentioned were 'hateful content.'
Brink says explicitly that 1.1 was '...a terrible way to approach the goals we had in mind.' This was why they quickly ditched this version.
It was very clear that even if creators didn't have to pay royalties the scheme contained in 1.1 was 'a huge problem for creators' which is why it was abandoned.
OGL changes had been written and worked on for at least a year as Brink mentions it was being worked on before he began at Hasbro.
People on the D&D game were mostly left out of the decision making process around the OGL to focus on the creative processes. Brink blames himself for not pushing more D&D people 'in the room ' and says this has been corrected going forward.
When asked about meetings that had been made between Wizards and ‘big name’ 3PPs Brink emphasizes that he was not directly involved in these meetings. He does know 3PPs did have meetings but wasn't privy to the details. He lists examples of the ‘big name’ publishers as Paizo, Kobold Press, and Critical Role.
By the time 1.1 had been leaked Wizards had already internally abandoned many of the provisions. This was why 1.2 came out relatively quickly.
3BH mentions the delay between the leak and the response. They then ask if most of 1.1 had missed the mark and had been abandoned, how was a week considered a 'short' period of time before a response.
Brink replies that the decision was made because of the backlash, Wizards felt they were in a 'damned if you do damned if you don't' situation. They decided the wisest thing was to not say anything to avoid fanning the flames. In retrospect, Brink says this was the incorrect decision.
3BH mention that the assumption of much of the community was that communication from Wizards only came out in response to the decline in D&D Beyond subscriptions. Brink replies that it was a coincidence because it takes time to make changes to a legal document especially for an organization as large as Hasbro and it just so happened to coincide with the large amount of unsubscriptions.
3BH discuss the infamous “They Won And So Did We” line. Brink states that he does not know who wrote it, he was not asked about any input at all with that entire statement, and that he read that unsigned statement the same time everyone else did.
Brink adds that he disliked the statement and it brought him around to making sure that his team was deeply involved with any further public communication.
Finally, Brink states that everything with his name on it he wrote although he does acknowledge that there was input from other parties but they were his words and not that of a committee.
Discussion on what exactly a 'draft' is. Brink points out that any draft of a contract will include dates and sign sheets and still be considered a draft.
Discussions about the OGL included people from both within and without Wizards (presumably Hasbro). Brink states that while D&D folks were involved with the discussions for the crafting of 1.1, their dissenting voices were not heard. He states members of his team did not feel that 1.1 was adequate.
According to Brink, the move of the 5e SRD to the creative commons settles this particular question. Brink does say that after this situation the D&D creative team and executives will be more directly involved in any important conversations D&D going forward.
3BH addresses the possibility that OneDND will include a different kind of license going forward while leaving 5.1 where it is. They additionally ask if the goal was to stop ‘bad actors’ what can be done about it in the future now that the SRD is in Creative Commons?
Brink says there are some things that can be done via the Creative Commons by Wizards although he limits it to Wizards pulling their attribution.
The main way Brink says they can deal with unwanted intrusions by ‘bad actors’ is the community who he notes showed itself to be quite vocal about the things they do not like.
For this last comment I thought it would be helpful to use the exact language minus some ‘uhs’ and other extraneous words. The segment begins at 28:00: 3BH: Are there plans to potentially include a new OGL that is specific to OneDND? Brink: I don’t think so. I don’t see the value in it. Creative Commons is such a great open license I think… at such time as we decided to put more stuff out into the public space we’d do it probably through Creative Commons I think.I have no interest in the OGL business. I’d rather be in the D&D business. 3BH: Okay, so just to be clear there are no plans for OneDND becoming like a closed system... Brink: No. We don’t even think of it as a different edition…
Christ, that was a tough watch - the primary interviewer is super hostile, bordering on unprofessional. I'm someone who still hasn't renewed my DDB subscription, but it was way too aggressive for my taste. I know a few other D&D YouTubers are going to get interviews with various members of the senior D&D team, I hope it's not all that intense.
Yeah, seriously. Having watched as much of the interview as I could stand, all I really wanted to do at the end was tell 3BH to chill some. Yes, by all means ask hard questions, but this guy went from aggressive to downright hostile in a hurry and went actively fishing for shit to skewer Kyle on. That's not how you conduct an interview, even if you have 'Hard Questions' to ask. This kind of crap is why nobody in development talks to the community.
Indeed - I'm looking forward to some of the more chill people who've been asking the community for questions to put to WotC interviewing him. With someone like Bob World Builder or Ginny Di - I believe both have upcoming WotC interviews - I think we might get some more insight. Getting your interview subject relaxed & having them talk off guard is alway a good technique. If he's equally as defensive with them, then there'll be a bigger issue. Here I can't tell if he was defensive because of the interviewer or if the questions were on point. And even with the defensive answers, I'll be happy if WotC follow through.
maybe they went right into the Lions den right off the bat. Get the interview with the most notoriously hostile group done, get a guage of what to expect at it's worse. unless someone else brings that type of hostile energy, the remaining interviews are going to feel a lot easier.
Christ, that was a tough watch - the primary interviewer is super hostile, bordering on unprofessional. I'm someone who still hasn't renewed my DDB subscription, but it was way too aggressive for my taste. I know a few other D&D YouTubers are going to get interviews with various members of the senior D&D team, I hope it's not all that intense.
Yeah, seriously. Having watched as much of the interview as I could stand, all I really wanted to do at the end was tell 3BH to chill some. Yes, by all means ask hard questions, but this guy went from aggressive to downright hostile in a hurry and went actively fishing for shit to skewer Kyle on. That's not how you conduct an interview, even if you have 'Hard Questions' to ask. This kind of crap is why nobody in development talks to the community.
Indeed - I'm looking forward to some of the more chill people who've been asking the community for questions to put to WotC interviewing him. With someone like Bob World Builder or Ginny Di - I believe both have upcoming WotC interviews - I think we might get some more insight. Getting your interview subject relaxed & having them talk off guard is alway a good technique. If he's equally as defensive with them, then there'll be a bigger issue. Here I can't tell if he was defensive because of the interviewer or if the questions were on point. And even with the defensive answers, I'll be happy if WotC follow through.
I don't think Kyle was defensive, quite the opposite. I thought the interview went well. And honestly, I don't think 3BH's questions were all that bad either. Sure they harped on the Hadozee thing way longer than they needed to (10 seconds of googling could have cut that whole segment) and I didn't understand their fixation on digging for which creators were involved in the 1.1 conversations, but the interview overall was tough and informative without being a hit job.
I definitely agree that Ginny and Bob's interviews will likely be breezy by comparison.
maybe they went right into the Lions den right off the bat. Get the interview with the most notoriously hostile group done, get a guage of what to expect at it's worse. unless someone else brings that type of hostile energy, the remaining interviews are going to feel a lot easier.
I think that's a really good point - it had real potential to be a car crash interview & he did as well as could be expected, I think. WotC will be happy with it, people like me will forget about it when "softer" interviews come along. Whilst I think they will bring some better insight, they have far less potential for being total train wrecks.
It's absolutely bizarre to me that people seem to consider the OGL/CC license to be arbitrarily selective.
"The OGL/CC license means anybody can make awesome D&D products and Wizards can't sue them!" "So...you're saying Meta could make a D&D virtual dating service and Wizards couldn't do shit about it?" "What? No! Wizards would absolutely sue the shit out of Meta if they did that!" "But you just said - " "I meant Wizards can't sue anybody I don't want sued! If it's somebody I don't care about, they can sue all they like."
Make up your minds - can Wizards use legal recourse to protect D&D from shit nobody wants in D&D or can't they?
Ah, the vagaries of the nature of IP, the way wizards is talking about them for a lay audience, and that people don't really seem to get what counts as IP.
The OGL is one kind of license. It provides an expanded set of materials, with a focus on allowing for supplemental material is available, including some use of certain IP derived from settings.
CC is a different kind of license. Something under CC does not get access to that IP stuff, just the rules.
They are not interchangeable, and have different rules. one easy example of this is just a policy: OGL stuff can be sold on DMsGuild, CC stuff cannot be.
The CC stuff can be used for anything, by anyone, for any reason, in any way, and there is squat anyone can do about it.
But they are focused on the OGL SRD. They are seeking to find a way to influence the content of those who use the OGL, and they can do that. They are two different license structures, not one, and so create two sets of rules for what they can do and what people can do with the same basic information.
Wizards wants to enable anyone to play -- it is a family friendly game. The OGL allows a limited bit of stuff, and that's a problem, because they lose a way to protect certain elements from use that way because there is no mechanism to allow them to use it to shut such things down -- things that can dilute those trademarks and reduce the value of the rest of the brand.It is that dilution that they are working to fix in a bunch of little ways.
However, there is Rule 34. Someone could use the OGL SRD itself to create a whole crapton of **** ttrpg. They could drop in the little "works with D&D 5e' logo, and then sell NFts with the same logo. If a **** company uses Icewind Dale, they can be sued. but *right now*, in terms of law, there isn't a lot that WotC can do about this specific situation.
What I am seeing is a lot of not fully understanding the differences between those two licenses (and I don't blame people; the OGL is currently used to support D&D through DMsGuild, and is less focused on stuff about other publishers (who could do the above example right now), and more about 50 years of IP that is incredibly valuable that hasbro has no clue how to use) and so arguments that cross over the one or the other.
in short: CC SRD they can do nothing about -- taking anything from a setting outside it, they can do something about.
OGL SRD is what they are trying to figure out -- how to keep allowing more or less "approved products" while also not letting people claim material is approved when it is not -- and possibly finding ways to make sure that folks aren't allowed to add back in Racial ASI and similar things which *do* hurt the brand and place them at risk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The OGL is one kind of license. It provides an expanded set of materials, with a focus on allowing for supplemental material is available, including some use of certain IP derived from settings.
CC is a different kind of license. Something under CC does not get access to that IP stuff, just the rules.
They are not interchangeable, and have different rules. one easy example of this is just a policy: OGL stuff can be sold on DMsGuild, CC stuff cannot be.
That's not what the OGL is -- there's a separate license for DMs Guild which comes with extra access to IP and extra limitations on what you can do. There isn't anything doable under the OGL that you can't do under CC.
In which case, therein lies the issue -- they need to find a way to avoid dilution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reminder; making objectively false claims about things said (seriously, the video is right there) in order to illicit negative responses is trolling and against site rules.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
A) Kyle didn't say any of what you just said, so I can't "take his word on it." Nor am I likely to. He's been in his position for 3 months, I don't know him from Adam, and he appears to be incapable of reading a legal document, if his statements on 1.2 are anything to go by.
B) A VTT is not a video game. A cooperative game that involved a GM is already a significantly different product to what Bauldor's gate is.
C) Regardless, Bauldor's gate is protected IP, so your master plan doesn't work. Not unless what you mean to say is "copy the art style, the primary story beats, the generic fantasy setting and make your own legally distinct IP that is NOT Bauldor's gate and NOT violating wizard's copyrights. If that's what you meant then OGL is irrelevant to this plan. VTTs do not exist because the of the OGL, and calling a video game a VTT certainly doesn't magically change how legal, or illegal someone's plagiarism is. Copyright law is a whole thing that you should look into.
No, it's a great example, because you know exactly what I mean. Could they do BG3 that way? No, but the principle holds none the less. And they could do it with someone else. Which, by the way, people do. Also, I'm not so sure. VTT's use all those rules. Maybe not setting specific, but classes, races, spells, mechanics. Sure, you cannot simply wholesale copy BG3, but you can copy everything else. Then call your AAA D&D game a VTT - call the game itself a 'module' - and you may not precisely get away with it, but you'd have a realistic legal foundation to try.
But what you say opens another flank of the argument: If you cannot offer a product that already has a fan base, you need to come up with something new, and that's risky. Also, if you're obviously just ripping off WoTC, the actual fans may well despise you - enough to not only avoid your product, but to actively fight it. And ... enraged fans can be a real issue, as we've recently had opportunity to witness.
So that's the other side of it: Having a legally watertight license avoids a certain risk - but that risk may in actual fact be neglible, because it's not all that attractive, in reality. I think possibly Pathfinder put a scare in Wizards: What if someone put out a clone that was actually succesful enough to be a real threat?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You should really work on reading more than 3 words of the post you are responding to before you respond.
I'm just going to copy this here, because it directly refutes what you appear to think are salient points, but you should not respond to ME, because my response is above. Emphasis, however, is mine.
Christ, that was a tough watch - the primary interviewer is super hostile, bordering on unprofessional. I'm someone who still hasn't renewed my DDB subscription, but it was way too aggressive for my taste. I know a few other D&D YouTubers are going to get interviews with various members of the senior D&D team, I hope it's not all that intense.
seems that the players that just wanted to hate on WotC did so without real foundational knowledge of the reasons here. Kudos to Kyle on this. Always more to the story. Seems for all the greed being tossed around, 3PP aren't too far off. Take the emotions out of it. 3PP are just as greedy since they don't want to pay royalties on what most would typically pay for anyways and they are just doing what they can to increase a fan base to spend more money on their products. I've always asked what would happen if Paizo grew to the same size? Corporate structures happen every day.
This is a particularly long post for something that completely missed the point of what was being responded to. As used in the post you responded, “D&D Products” was very clearly in quotation marks. Based on contextual clues, it is clear Yeuri was referring to “products that use D&D’s OGL intellectual property but not any of their protected content, and build something that is a D&D product in all but name, so we would use quotes to indicate it is a pseudo-product.”
Now, under 1.0, it is true that Meta doesn’t have to steal Wizards’ IP - but that’s only because Wizards put the content on the curb with a sign reading “Free to anyone who wants it.” But, again, contextual reading is important - steal, as used in the post you’re responding to, clearly is intended to read “a big company who follows the strict meaning of OGL, but not OGL as it was intended—to help actual fans and independent third-party producers, not the multi billion dollar conglomerations Kyle said they were concerned about.”
And, despite what your armchair lawyer analysis might say, there is plenty of protected IP in OGL 1.0 (mechanics are not the only thing OGL 1.0 provides access to). Specific spells, like Cloudkill (something made up by D&D for this specific context), or species like Tieflings (also a D&D creation) would be something Wizards could probably protect if no OGL existed - a lot of the recognisable things that are uniquely D&D are licensed out under 1.0, and those are all things Wizards could otherwise try to protect.
It's absolutely bizarre to me that people seem to consider the OGL/CC license to be arbitrarily selective.
"The OGL/CC license means anybody can make awesome D&D products and Wizards can't sue them!"
"So...you're saying Meta could make a D&D virtual dating service and Wizards couldn't do shit about it?"
"What? No! Wizards would absolutely sue the shit out of Meta if they did that!"
"But you just said - "
"I meant Wizards can't sue anybody I don't want sued! If it's somebody I don't care about, they can sue all they like."
Make up your minds - can Wizards use legal recourse to protect D&D from shit nobody wants in D&D or can't they?
Please do not contact or message me.
I think the point is Meta could make a TTRPG dating service if they wanted, and include mechanics from Dungeons and Dragons somehow if it worked (like a roll a d20 plus your "charm" modifier for matches? not sure what this would look like, but it's not my example so...) and Wizards would have no legal recourse.
If they made a dating service with Tieflings or Cloudkill or some other Wizards owned trademark then they would be able to sue Meta if they wanted.
Most people are happy for Wizards to use legal recourse to protect things they own, but don't want them trying to lure third party creators into feeling protected to use certain trademarked properties within the SRD, only to be hit with cease and desist letters or have their permissions revoked down the line.
Yeah, seriously. Having watched as much of the interview as I could stand, all I really wanted to do at the end was tell 3BH to chill some. Yes, by all means ask hard questions, but this guy went from aggressive to downright hostile in a hurry and went actively fishing for shit to skewer Kyle on. That's not how you conduct an interview, even if you have 'Hard Questions' to ask. This kind of crap is why nobody in development talks to the community.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well, Tieflings and Cloudkill are both Creative Commons now...
From the interview, Kyle seems to be saying their primary recourse now is to (a) utilize the CC's "please pull our attribution" clause if someone makes something objectionable - and CC requires that your attribution cannot imply or suggest that the IP-holder endorses you or your use of the licensed material in the first place - along with (b) relying on the community to help them ostracize/censure anyone who misuses the license in this way anyway. Will those measures truly be strong enough to avoid a bad actor's damage to the brand or IP, only time will tell, but they're certainly less damaging than 1.1 would have been.
Creative commons doesn't affect trademarks, but I doubt that trademarks would apply to a dating app anyway (fails the likelihood of confusion test).
Because I thought this would be valuable to the community I’ve done my best to write some Cliff‘s Notes of this interview (do kids even use Cliff’s Notes these days?). I also tried to do this with no editorialization or additions from me. I’ve concentrated on the OGL stuff because I’m working today although it should be noted Brink talks about the OGL controversy for about half an hour of the hour and a quarter long video.
If this topic interests you I STRONGLY recommend listening to at least the first half hour of this video if not the whole thing.
3BH: Are there plans to potentially include a new OGL that is specific to OneDND?
Brink: I don’t think so. I don’t see the value in it. Creative Commons is such a great open license I think… at such time as we decided to put more stuff out into the public space we’d do it probably through Creative Commons I think.I have no interest in the OGL business. I’d rather be in the D&D business.
3BH: Okay, so just to be clear there are no plans for OneDND becoming like a closed system...
Brink: No. We don’t even think of it as a different edition…
Indeed - I'm looking forward to some of the more chill people who've been asking the community for questions to put to WotC interviewing him. With someone like Bob World Builder or Ginny Di - I believe both have upcoming WotC interviews - I think we might get some more insight. Getting your interview subject relaxed & having them talk off guard is alway a good technique. If he's equally as defensive with them, then there'll be a bigger issue. Here I can't tell if he was defensive because of the interviewer or if the questions were on point. And even with the defensive answers, I'll be happy if WotC follow through.
maybe they went right into the Lions den right off the bat. Get the interview with the most notoriously hostile group done, get a guage of what to expect at it's worse. unless someone else brings that type of hostile energy, the remaining interviews are going to feel a lot easier.
I don't think Kyle was defensive, quite the opposite. I thought the interview went well. And honestly, I don't think 3BH's questions were all that bad either. Sure they harped on the Hadozee thing way longer than they needed to (10 seconds of googling could have cut that whole segment) and I didn't understand their fixation on digging for which creators were involved in the 1.1 conversations, but the interview overall was tough and informative without being a hit job.
I definitely agree that Ginny and Bob's interviews will likely be breezy by comparison.
I think that's a really good point - it had real potential to be a car crash interview & he did as well as could be expected, I think. WotC will be happy with it, people like me will forget about it when "softer" interviews come along. Whilst I think they will bring some better insight, they have far less potential for being total train wrecks.
Ah, the vagaries of the nature of IP, the way wizards is talking about them for a lay audience, and that people don't really seem to get what counts as IP.
The OGL is one kind of license. It provides an expanded set of materials, with a focus on allowing for supplemental material is available, including some use of certain IP derived from settings.
CC is a different kind of license. Something under CC does not get access to that IP stuff, just the rules.
They are not interchangeable, and have different rules. one easy example of this is just a policy: OGL stuff can be sold on DMsGuild, CC stuff cannot be.
The CC stuff can be used for anything, by anyone, for any reason, in any way, and there is squat anyone can do about it.
But they are focused on the OGL SRD. They are seeking to find a way to influence the content of those who use the OGL, and they can do that. They are two different license structures, not one, and so create two sets of rules for what they can do and what people can do with the same basic information.
Wizards wants to enable anyone to play -- it is a family friendly game. The OGL allows a limited bit of stuff, and that's a problem, because they lose a way to protect certain elements from use that way because there is no mechanism to allow them to use it to shut such things down -- things that can dilute those trademarks and reduce the value of the rest of the brand.It is that dilution that they are working to fix in a bunch of little ways.
However, there is Rule 34. Someone could use the OGL SRD itself to create a whole crapton of **** ttrpg. They could drop in the little "works with D&D 5e' logo, and then sell NFts with the same logo. If a **** company uses Icewind Dale, they can be sued. but *right now*, in terms of law, there isn't a lot that WotC can do about this specific situation.
What I am seeing is a lot of not fully understanding the differences between those two licenses (and I don't blame people; the OGL is currently used to support D&D through DMsGuild, and is less focused on stuff about other publishers (who could do the above example right now), and more about 50 years of IP that is incredibly valuable that hasbro has no clue how to use) and so arguments that cross over the one or the other.
in short: CC SRD they can do nothing about -- taking anything from a setting outside it, they can do something about.
OGL SRD is what they are trying to figure out -- how to keep allowing more or less "approved products" while also not letting people claim material is approved when it is not -- and possibly finding ways to make sure that folks aren't allowed to add back in Racial ASI and similar things which *do* hurt the brand and place them at risk.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That's not what the OGL is -- there's a separate license for DMs Guild which comes with extra access to IP and extra limitations on what you can do. There isn't anything doable under the OGL that you can't do under CC.
Ah, thanks for that.
In which case, therein lies the issue -- they need to find a way to avoid dilution.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds