Caught wind of this on the usual haunts, curious to hear what sort of system it is. I assume some variation of d20/5e, since KP has been a 3rd party publisher for everything form 3.x to 5e, but will have to wait to hear more.
Kobold Press: new game system due to OGL1.1
-
Necron 99
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 2092
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 1:43 pm
- Location: Jacksonville, FL
“He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.” - Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
-
Ancalagon
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 5:42 pm
- Location: Bellevue, NE
Here's a link I pulled from K&KA pertaining to the new WotC OGL leak
https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/ ... ry-of-wotc
https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/ ... ry-of-wotc
“Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” - Carl Sagan
-
Necron 99
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 2092
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 1:43 pm
- Location: Jacksonville, FL
Damn, and here comes Paizo off the top rope, bringing the pain. I tell ya, I never thought I'd see a day when WotC would start to burn. The table-top hobby buzz across the internet and social media is wild right now.
Paizo Announcement
Paizo Announcement
We believe that any interpretation that the OGL 1.0 or 1.0(a) were intended to be revocable or able to be deauthorized is incorrect, and with good reason.
We were there.
Paizo owner Lisa Stevens and Paizo president Jim Butler were leaders on the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards at the time. Brian Lewis, co-founder of Azora Law, the intellectual property law firm that Paizo uses, was the attorney at Wizards who came up with the legal framework for the OGL itself. Paizo has also worked very closely on OGL-related issues with Ryan Dancey, the visionary who conceived the OGL in the first place.
Paizo does not believe that the OGL 1.0a can be “deauthorized,” ever. While we are prepared to argue that point in a court of law if need be, we don’t want to have to do that, and we know that many of our fellow publishers are not in a position to do so.
We have no interest whatsoever in Wizards’ new OGL. Instead, we have a plan that we believe will irrevocably and unquestionably keep alive the spirit of the Open Game License.
As Paizo has evolved, the parts of the OGL that we ourselves value have changed. When we needed to quickly bring out Pathfinder First Edition to continue publishing our popular monthly adventures back in 2008, using Wizards’ language was important and expeditious. But in our non-RPG products, including our Pathfinder Tales novels, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, and others, we shifted our focus away from D&D tropes to lean harder into ideas from our own writers. By the time we went to work on Pathfinder Second Edition, Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content was significantly less important to us, and so our designers and developers wrote the new edition without using Wizards’ copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics. While we still published it under the OGL, the reason was no longer to allow Paizo to use Wizards’ expressions, but to allow other companies to use our expressions.
We believe, as we always have, that open gaming makes games better, improves profitability for all involved, and enriches the community of gamers who participate in this amazing hobby. And so we invite gamers from around the world to join us as we begin the next great chapter of open gaming with the release of a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).
The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.
In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.
The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).
“He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.” - Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
-
Ancalagon
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 5:42 pm
- Location: Bellevue, NE
I never thought I'd have anything positive to say about Paizo other than they make excellent maps... but that's some good talky-talky right there.
“Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” - Carl Sagan
-
Necron 99
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 2092
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 1:43 pm
- Location: Jacksonville, FL
And we now have a response from WotC after it all hit the proverbial fan. So basically, they want to ensure that D&D stays as woke as possible and they don't want other businesses profiting off of D&D, that's like the majority of what I get out of that entire spiel.
OGL Respons from WotC
OGL Respons from WotC
“He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.” - Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
-
Ancalagon
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 5:42 pm
- Location: Bellevue, NE
The WotC response... with commentary:
When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
WotC owns the D&D brand so they can control the usage of non-open game content (beholders, illithids, etc.) as they see fit with regard to however they choose to define "hateful and discriminatory" but the open game portion is just that: open. Folks should be free to create as they see fit. From what I saw of the snippets of 1.1, the limits proposed above (tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements) were not specified. Same for 1.1 being for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations. This first paragraph is a bullshit spin job.
Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
Language in 1.1 contradicts both stated "simple principles". WotC's job is to generate revenue for Hasbro, its coporate parent. More bullshit spin for damage control.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.
Horse. Shit. If WotC were serious about seeking feedback then 1.1 would've been posted on the WotC website and FB page, etc. with the express purpose of asking for feedback. More bullshit spin for damage control.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.
Rolling a 1 is like an accidental fumble. They deliberately crafted draconian language for usurping others' ideas, posing the very real threat of shutting down businesses, and increasing the "monetization" by taking percentages of incomes from outside entities like taxation. Trying to equate this to rolling a 1 is just more bullshit spin.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs.
They're free to do that with the D&D brand since they own it but should not have the power to dictate to others their definition of "inclusive environment" with regard to open content. E.g. The Roman Empire and European Feudal era could be pretty harsh by today's standards but if players want to game in those settings, no outside entity should be able to impose its will to the contrary.
That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds.
Horse. Shit. The language specifically stated WotC could use the work created via 1.1 as they saw fit. Serious backpedaling of an outright lie.
Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point.
Isn't that a novel approach? And the language in 1.1 was crystal clear and unequivocal.
The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities.
That is not what the language in 1.1 said. I find it highly unlikely that attorneys in applicable fields of practice weren't utilized in the crafting of 1.1. and that the language was a mistake. WotC knew what it was saying and got blown up in the court of public opinion.
As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.
Isn't that a novel approach?
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming.
I get that. When what was created and "leaked" as opposed to released for honest feedback and then universally loathed then you pretty much have to burn it down and rebuild it.
Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are.
Horse. Shit. I addressed this above. Another spin move. They must be getting dizzy by now.
Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles.
WotC just admitted they don't know their audience.
Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
Too late by 22.5 years.
When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
WotC owns the D&D brand so they can control the usage of non-open game content (beholders, illithids, etc.) as they see fit with regard to however they choose to define "hateful and discriminatory" but the open game portion is just that: open. Folks should be free to create as they see fit. From what I saw of the snippets of 1.1, the limits proposed above (tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements) were not specified. Same for 1.1 being for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations. This first paragraph is a bullshit spin job.
Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
Language in 1.1 contradicts both stated "simple principles". WotC's job is to generate revenue for Hasbro, its coporate parent. More bullshit spin for damage control.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.
Horse. Shit. If WotC were serious about seeking feedback then 1.1 would've been posted on the WotC website and FB page, etc. with the express purpose of asking for feedback. More bullshit spin for damage control.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.
Rolling a 1 is like an accidental fumble. They deliberately crafted draconian language for usurping others' ideas, posing the very real threat of shutting down businesses, and increasing the "monetization" by taking percentages of incomes from outside entities like taxation. Trying to equate this to rolling a 1 is just more bullshit spin.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs.
They're free to do that with the D&D brand since they own it but should not have the power to dictate to others their definition of "inclusive environment" with regard to open content. E.g. The Roman Empire and European Feudal era could be pretty harsh by today's standards but if players want to game in those settings, no outside entity should be able to impose its will to the contrary.
That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds.
Horse. Shit. The language specifically stated WotC could use the work created via 1.1 as they saw fit. Serious backpedaling of an outright lie.
Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point.
Isn't that a novel approach? And the language in 1.1 was crystal clear and unequivocal.
The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities.
That is not what the language in 1.1 said. I find it highly unlikely that attorneys in applicable fields of practice weren't utilized in the crafting of 1.1. and that the language was a mistake. WotC knew what it was saying and got blown up in the court of public opinion.
As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.
Isn't that a novel approach?
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming.
I get that. When what was created and "leaked" as opposed to released for honest feedback and then universally loathed then you pretty much have to burn it down and rebuild it.
Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are.
Horse. Shit. I addressed this above. Another spin move. They must be getting dizzy by now.
Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles.
WotC just admitted they don't know their audience.
Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
Too late by 22.5 years.
“Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” - Carl Sagan
-
Necron 99
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 2092
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 1:43 pm
- Location: Jacksonville, FL
Well, it looks like Paizo is, once again, leading the charge in the industry when WotC's incompetence rears it's head. We saw what happened when WotC tried to shill the OGL the first time by moving to D&D 4e. Paizo SOARED to the top of the industry with the original Pathfinder RPG. Granted, Pathfinder wasn't the sort of game system I enjoyed, just like I didn't like D&D 3.x, but I will say, Paizo did and still does, put out quality, detailed products, in general.
Now Chaosium has released a statement that they, too, will rally under the Paizo ORC banner, ORC being the acronym for their Open RPG Creative license.
Article HERE.
Now Chaosium has released a statement that they, too, will rally under the Paizo ORC banner, ORC being the acronym for their Open RPG Creative license.
Article HERE.
“He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.” - Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
-
Necron 99
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 2092
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 1:43 pm
- Location: Jacksonville, FL
Wow, so I just saw a video pop up this morning about some news related to WotC's D&D Beyond service that has the pay tiers for this online-play business. The video on Youtube that has this info, stated that the $30/mo tier has players interacting with an A.I. driven Dungeon Master, rather than another "player" sitting in the DM seat. In my opinion, at this point, if you're playing with a computer, you're no longer playing a table-top RPG, you're playing a computer game. But the biggest balk I have with this, is the fact that WotC thinks it can get $30 a month from players for this, when an online game like World of Warcraft only costs $15 a month. Streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, etc. only run $15-20. Pretty unbelievable if this info is true.
Entire video: HERE.
Entire video: HERE.
“He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.” - Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien
-
Ancalagon
- Level 8: Noble
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: December 5th, 2018, 5:42 pm
- Location: Bellevue, NE
Emphasis mine.Necron 99 wrote: ↑January 17th, 2023, 7:30 am Wow, so I just saw a video pop up this morning about some news related to WotC's D&D Beyond service that has the pay tiers for this online-play business. The video on Youtube that has this info, stated that the $30/mo tier has players interacting with an A.I. driven Dungeon Master, rather than another "player" sitting in the DM seat. In my opinion, at this point, if you're playing with a computer, you're no longer playing a table-top RPG, you're playing a computer game. But the biggest balk I have with this, is the fact that WotC thinks it can get $30 a month from players for this, when an online game like World of Warcraft only costs $15 a month. Streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, etc. only run $15-20. Pretty unbelievable if this info is true.
<snip>
True that.
Also true: Fools and their money are soon parted.
... which is what WotC is counting on.
“Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” - Carl Sagan