Single player or multi player, having a computer run the game kinda seems to me like a video game. So I guess WOTC just wants to be sure that a VTT that integrates such a feature, or can link up with an external AI to do that gets called a video game and has to pay royalties under that premise?
The current chatbot-based AIs are a subset of AIs tentatively called "Algorithmic Authors" by some people which take existing content to formulate a response. This recent, massive revival of the technology is currently creating debate on the ownership of content used by algorithms. People want to try to get ahead of this concern (on both sides of that discussion).
Even ChatGPT claims that it is supposed to use open licensed, specifically licensed, and public domain content with the specific stipulation that it is unable to verify if that is truly the case being only able to analyze the data with which it was trained that claims to be using data that is licensed properly. Quite inciteful for an algorithm.
The discussion whether it is a video game is not on the table. The discussion of ownership of the source of the content and resulting response from that content is on the table.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Single player or multi player, having a computer run the game kinda seems to me like a video game. So I guess WOTC just wants to be sure that a VTT that integrates such a feature, or can link up with an external AI to do that gets called a video game and has to pay royalties under that premise?
They want people to believe that they have the right and ability to determine who can make video games with DnD mechanics, and that Video Games can't use the OGL (true under 1.2, not true under 1.0a). They're also trying to rewrite the history of the OGL to claim that it never was intended to video games - which is a lie, since their own FAQs said this was fine for nearly two decades.
It doesn't really matter, since they cannot and never have been able to use the OGL to prevent people from using game mechanics. They can leverage it as intimidation, to imply they'll sue you for doing so - but precedent says they should lose, so long as whoever is using the mechanics doesn't use Wizards expression (pretty easy since its a video game and not a tabletop roleplaying game - their expression will almost certainly be distinct) or IP (which the OGL reserves as Product Identity separately anyway).
The key is, none of the restrictions they're discussing are intended to apply to themselves, they're just trying to stifle the development of potential alternatives to whatever VTT they're planning on bringing out.
Their VTT policy is a naked attempt at anti-competitive behavior, and is essentially intimidation. "We're altering the deal. Comply, or we'll sue you. Pray we don't alter it further."
The whole AI angle isn't really relevant - its a distraction.
Single player or multi player, having a computer run the game kinda seems to me like a video game. So I guess WOTC just wants to be sure that a VTT that integrates such a feature, or can link up with an external AI to do that gets called a video game and has to pay royalties under that premise?
The current chatbot-based AIs are a subset of AIs tentatively called "Algorithmic Authors" by some people which take existing content to formulate a response. This recent, massive revival of the technology is currently creating debate on the ownership of content used by algorithms. People want to try to get ahead of this concern (on both sides of that discussion).
Even ChatGPT claims that it is supposed to use open licensed, specifically licensed, and public domain content with the specific stipulation that it is unable to verify if that is truly the case being only able to analyze the data with which it was trained that claims to be using data that is licensed properly. Quite inciteful for an algorithm.
The discussion whether it is a video game is not on the table. The discussion of ownership of the source of the content and resulting response from that content is on the table.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
They want people to believe that they have the right and ability to determine who can make video games with DnD mechanics, and that Video Games can't use the OGL (true under 1.2, not true under 1.0a). They're also trying to rewrite the history of the OGL to claim that it never was intended to video games - which is a lie, since their own FAQs said this was fine for nearly two decades.
It doesn't really matter, since they cannot and never have been able to use the OGL to prevent people from using game mechanics. They can leverage it as intimidation, to imply they'll sue you for doing so - but precedent says they should lose, so long as whoever is using the mechanics doesn't use Wizards expression (pretty easy since its a video game and not a tabletop roleplaying game - their expression will almost certainly be distinct) or IP (which the OGL reserves as Product Identity separately anyway).
The key is, none of the restrictions they're discussing are intended to apply to themselves, they're just trying to stifle the development of potential alternatives to whatever VTT they're planning on bringing out.
Their VTT policy is a naked attempt at anti-competitive behavior, and is essentially intimidation. "We're altering the deal. Comply, or we'll sue you. Pray we don't alter it further."
The whole AI angle isn't really relevant - its a distraction.