Crossing the copyright line….

[Troo]

31 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

I literally had someone in Oro, in local chat, tell me the AT and powersets I chose for a particular homage character were not only incorrect, but then spent the next 5 mins explaining why.

I was like "Bish, please go bother someone else with this nonsense."

 

going for that second generic in a week.. that could lead to a timeout. hope you've got other plans this weekend.

[Snarky]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

You've also got quite a few anal retentive types who have absolutely no qualms about expressing their complete disdain of anyone who doesn't meet their utterly distorted views on creativity and originality and love to belittle and badger those who disagree.  They just can't help themselves from being total aholes. 

I read this and I feel so judged.    It saddens me that I am such an old vampire I no longer care enough to belittle and badger those who disagree with me.  Sigh.   Where has the passion gone.  I am sorry.  I know I have let you all down.  But it is time for the truth.  I just dont give a shit about you.

[Luminara]

2 minutes ago, Snarky said:

I just dont give a shit about you.

 

No-one on a liquid diet gives a shit.  A dribble.  A squirt, perhaps.  If you were taking in more fiber, you wouldn't have vampirrhea.

[Snarky]

42 minutes ago, Luminara said:

vampirrhea.

and you have added a new character to vampire lore.  Dracula, Shreck, Vampirella, and now Vampirrhea

Edited January 13, 2023 by Snarky

[biostem]

4 minutes ago, Snarky said:

Dracula, Shreck, Vampirella, and now Vampirrhea

Everyone knows there are only 3 "real" monsters - Dracula, Blackula, and Son of Kong...

[Rishidian]

I heard Micky is trying to compensate for something...

 

[biostem]

11 minutes ago, Rishidian said:

I heard Micky is trying to compensate for something...

Mouse needs his cheddar!

[Excraft]

17 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

I literally had someone in Oro, in local chat, tell me the AT and powersets I chose for a particular homage character were not only incorrect, but then spent the next 5 mins explaining why.

I was like "Bish, please go bother someone else with this nonsense."

 

Yeah, sadly this happens more often than not.  There's quite a lot of people here who want to judge others.  It's doing more harm than good for player retention nor is it helping attract new people.  Word of stuff like this gets around for sure.  Sorry you had to experience it first hand.

 

17 hours ago, Snarky said:

I read this and I feel so judged.    It saddens me that I am such an old vampire I no longer care enough to belittle and badger those who disagree with me.  Sigh.   Where has the passion gone.  I am sorry.  I know I have let you all down.  But it is time for the truth.  I just dont give a shit about you.

 

Can't say I really give a crap about you either.  I do find your thread here hysterical though.  I mean, it's hilariously hypocritical making a thread criticizing a fellow player for their lack of imagination and creativity in making a clone of a favorite character while saying you "get as close as you can" to your favorite character.  "Rules for thee but not for me" is alive and well here for sure.  I get it though, it's only bad if someone does it.  😉

[Excraft]

15 hours ago, Rishidian said:

I heard Micky is trying to compensate for something...

 

 

Probably trying to make up for the abysmal crap they've been putting out of late.  lol

[Snarky]

2 hours ago, Excraft said:

Can't say I really give a crap about you either.  I do find your thread here hysterical though.  I mean, it's hilariously hypocritical making a thread criticizing a fellow player for their lack of imagination and creativity in making a clone of a favorite character while saying you "get as close as you can" to your favorite character.  "Rules for thee but not for me" is alive and well here for sure.  I get it though, it's only bad if someone does it.  😉

I am sorry I cannot help you at this time.  You are either too stupid or too ignorant to understand,

 

1) Never criticized in the OP.  Was asking players (and staff) what they thought.  Got anwers.

 

2) Even though your follow up point is negated by your lack of understanding of the premise.... here goes:  We are talking about the legal right to use something.  Not making artistic criticisms.  

 

2a) I have studied art.  I am sure you do not care, nor will you understand.  But here goes....when studying art you start out by...."copying people"

 

3) Go back to flying off your spindle.  I am not ignoring you.  I dont have the space in m y unlife for that.  I just am no longer going to respond to anything you say.  

 

4) Cheers!

[Seed22]

On 1/13/2023 at 4:18 PM, Captain Fabulous said:

I literally had someone in Oro, in local chat, tell me the AT and powersets I chose for a particular homage character were not only incorrect, but then spent the next 5 mins explaining why.

I was like "Bish, please go bother someone else with this nonsense."

I woulda just sent a picture of grass or the outdoors and told them your prescription is out go refill it.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Seed22

[Captain Fabulous]

1 hour ago, Seed22 said:

I woulda just sent a picture of grass or the outdoors and told them your prescription is out go refill it.

It just struck me as so odd. Like, why would you say that to someone? Mindyobizniz.

[Excraft]

18 hours ago, Snarky said:

I just am no longer going to respond to anything you say.  

 

Best news I've heard all week.  This made my day.  Thanks! 😉

[Excraft]

13 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

It just struck me as so odd. Like, why would you say that to someone? Mindyobizniz.

 

Like I said above, some people just can't help themselves.  They're all over the place too.  Sad really.  Just /ignore them and move on.

[tidge]

This just dropped, thanks WotC!

Edited January 16, 2023 by tidge
Check ~6 mins for trademark v. copyright

[Captain Fabulous]

31 minutes ago, tidge said:

This just dropped, thanks WotC!

People are losing their goddamned minds over nothing. As usual. Seriously kids, go outside and get some sun or something.

[srmalloy]

11 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

People are losing their goddamned minds over nothing.

It's not 'nothing'. The new license explicitly gave WotC full rights to use any content created under it for any purpose, which would have allowed them to take anything 3rd party publishers created and sell it as their own, and it imposed a 25% fee for companies making over $750,000 on OGC content, with the fee based on revenue, not profits -- the profit margin for game companies is typically less than 10%, so the terms would wipe out their profit, and make them lose more money the more sales they had.

[Captain Fabulous]

4 hours ago, srmalloy said:

It's not 'nothing'. The new license explicitly gave WotC full rights to use any content created under it for any purpose, which would have allowed them to take anything 3rd party publishers created and sell it as their own, and it imposed a 25% fee for companies making over $750,000 on OGC content, with the fee based on revenue, not profits -- the profit margin for game companies is typically less than 10%, so the terms would wipe out their profit, and make them lose more money the more sales they had.

So you expect to be able to use an established IP for your own profit without any compensation to the IP holder?

[laudwic]

1 hour ago, Captain Fabulous said:

So you expect to be able to use an established IP for your own profit without any compensation to the IP holder?

 

When the company creates a license that allows exactly that, absolutely!  The Open Gaming License that WoTC is seeking to replace allows the use of parts of the DnD rule set and certain IP for free.  Frankly, while I do not do IP work and I'm interesting to hear from someone that does, I don't see how they get out of the OGL for 3e and 5e products.  If WoTC continues their current direction for 6e, I think they are going to take a decent sales hit.  Creating the onerous new version of the OGL at the same time Hasbro has been pretty vocal that DnD is not monetized enough is a fine example of bad timing. 

[Captain Fabulous]

58 minutes ago, laudwic said:

 

When the company creates a license that allows exactly that, absolutely!  The Open Gaming License that WoTC is seeking to replace allows the use of parts of the DnD rule set and certain IP for free.  Frankly, while I do not do IP work and I'm interesting to hear from someone that does, I don't see how they get out of the OGL for 3e and 5e products.  If WoTC continues their current direction for 6e, I think they are going to take a decent sales hit.  Creating the onerous new version of the OGL at the same time Hasbro has been pretty vocal that DnD is not monetized enough is a fine example of bad timing. 

And that's the thing, just because they once allowed you to play in their sandbox for free doesn't mean they're required to do so forever. Licenses can change at any time. Privileges once granted can be revoked at any time. People profiting off the IP without any compensation did so solely by WoTC's and Hasbro's grace. The changes would have affected only a tiny percentage of people who make and sell D&D content. They're not coming for you or the campaigns you and your buddies create to play on weekends, nor are they expecting you to pay any royalties to do so.

Kinda a moot point now as they've rolled back the proposed changes anyway. But if Hasbro is really intent on doing more to monetize D&D they're gonna find a way, and the next time it might be even less palatable and affect more people. And they're probably going to be less inclined to roll back the next one regardless of how much people who don't have a lick of understanding about what they're complaining about complain anyway.

Y'all can dislike my statements all you want, but the funny thing about facts is that they're not going to change no matter how much you dislike them. Devin's video does a good job of explaining why all the moaning, groaning, crying, wailing, and hand-wringing was over a big fat nothingburger.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Captain Fabulous

[srmalloy]

6 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

Licenses can change at any time. Privileges once granted can be revoked at any time.

From the OGL 1.0: "in consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content". In 2004, WotC clarified what would occur if the license was changed; it "already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway". The recent release of the 'draft' of the new OGC license specifically stated that it 'de-authorized' the original OGL -- an action not permitted under the terms of the original OGL -- and would immediately subject anyone continuing to publish OGC content to the terms of the new license, including material already published under the original OGL.

 

[dtj714]

This is funny considering it's in the context of a project that is one giant copyright infringement...

[Captain Fabulous]

3 hours ago, Krimson said:

That's the nice thing about Capitalism. Hasbro's control does not extend to anyone's wallet. So the market will decide D&Ds fate. 

Indeed. I'm not "defending" Hasbro. I'm merely providing a non-kneejerk unbiased commentary. Hasbro is free to change the license in an attempt to monetize D&D. Content creators and consumers are free to patronize another game. That's exactly how it works.

Another thing that no one points out, a draft proposal is just that, a *draft*. A work in progress. Subject to change at any time. It wasn't the a final revision.

[Captain Fabulous]

3 hours ago, srmalloy said:

From the OGL 1.0: "in consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content". In 2004, WotC clarified what would occur if the license was changed; it "already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway". The recent release of the 'draft' of the new OGC license specifically stated that it 'de-authorized' the original OGL -- an action not permitted under the terms of the original OGL -- and would immediately subject anyone continuing to publish OGC content to the terms of the new license, including material already published under the original OGL.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment, but it's not for me to decide.

[Player2]

21 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

And that's the thing, just because they once allowed you to play in their sandbox for free doesn't mean they're required to do so forever. Licenses can change at any time. Privileges once granted can be revoked at any time. People profiting off the IP without any compensation did so solely by WoTC's and Hasbro's grace. The changes would have affected only a tiny percentage of people who make and sell D&D content. They're not coming for you or the campaigns you and your buddies create to play on weekends, nor are they expecting you to pay any royalties to do so.

Kinda a moot point now as they've rolled back the proposed changes anyway. But if Hasbro is really intent on doing more to monetize D&D they're gonna find a way, and the next time it might be even less palatable and affect more people. And they're probably going to be less inclined to roll back the next one regardless of how much people who don't have a lick of understanding about what they're complaining about complain anyway.
 

The best part is that the OGL is completely unnecessary for anyone who wants to create D&D compatible content.  The rules cannot be copyrighted, just the expressions (the specific writing of them), as well as any unique creations that may fall under copyright and trademark laws that were never released as open game content.  The OGL was an easy to use thing for people to get on board publishing new content, giving them clearly defined rules and a system reference document to build off of.  But the OGL is unnecessary and third party publishers could, can, and always WILL be able to "play in their sandbox for free" as long as they're mindful of the legal challenges and don't cross them.

 

 

15 hours ago, Krimson said:

The problem here is that the writers of the original OGL had intended for the licence to be perpetual. So go ahead and defend Hasbro. They're losing online subs over this. 

 

The fact is that there is now zero incentive to create content for D&D because if Hasbro can change the nature of the OGL whenever they want, then they will probably do it again. 

 

Meanwhile, game MECHANICS falls under neither Copyright nor Trademark law, and Hasbro's customer base has a hobby that involves interpreting rules. 

 

So the next step is game engines that are not under Hasbro's control even a little bit. 

 

Anyhow, casuals will pad their larder and worse comes to worse, Hasbro doesn't have to make RPGs at all in order to use the IP. They can just slap the brand on Hasbro games and toys and call it a day. 

 

That's the nice thing about Capitalism. Hasbro's control does not extend to anyone's wallet. So the market will decide D&Ds fate. 

Correct on all counts.  Fortunately, as I stated above, the OGL is not necessary for third party publishers to continue doing their thing.  But there is now a new alternative with Paizo releasing their own Open RPG license and stating blatantly up front that it is irrevocable and their intent is to place stewardship of it into non-profit third party hands, guaranteeing that no one ever need worry about Hasbro and corporate greed if they don't mind adapting to the differences between Pathfinder and D&D.  And given the outrage that WotC's OGL 1.1 sparked, I can believe that a lot of people will be moving away from D&D as a recognizable brand and either doing their own thing or jumping on board Paizo's ship.  Either way, WotC shot themselves in the foot and it's going to take an awful lot for them to build up trust and goodwill in a community that feels betrayed.

 

 

15 hours ago, srmalloy said:

From the OGL 1.0: "in consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content". In 2004, WotC clarified what would occur if the license was changed; it "already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway". The recent release of the 'draft' of the new OGC license specifically stated that it 'de-authorized' the original OGL -- an action not permitted under the terms of the original OGL -- and would immediately subject anyone continuing to publish OGC content to the terms of the new license, including material already published under the original OGL.

 

You are correct in that this was the intent of the original OGL when it was introduced, as confirmed by Ryan Dancey himself.  However, whether or not WotC and Hasbro have the right to deauthorize the OGL is ultimately up to a court to decide.

 

 

11 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

Indeed. I'm not "defending" Hasbro. I'm merely providing a non-kneejerk unbiased commentary. Hasbro is free to change the license in an attempt to monetize D&D. Content creators and consumers are free to patronize another game. That's exactly how it works.

Another thing that no one points out, a draft proposal is just that, a *draft*. A work in progress. Subject to change at any time. It wasn't the a final revision.

The OGL is indeed a work in progress, and was always presented as having the potential for changes.  However, the original intent was that people could use earlier drafts of the OGL if changes introduced in later versions didn't suit them.  But WotC comes along and capitalized on the wording of the previous version about "authorized versions" and attempted to deauthorize the 1.0a version.  Considering the changes in the new version they presented, and the heavy-handed way they initially tried to gain conformity to it, it's no wonder that there was as much backlash as we saw (and continue to see).  And I say good... let the backlash run wild.  The OGL as it has been for two decades has been profitable for both WotC and third party publishers and benefits everyone by making more content available for everyone.  Trying to change it isn't going to be well-received... ever... and fans of the game want the corporate overlords to know they won't take it lightly.

 

 

11 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment, but it's not for me to decide.

All too true.  It is ultimately up to a court to decide... if it comes to that.  For now, that fate has been postponed by WotC backing off the OGL 1.1 changeover, not to mention the Paizo Open RPG license I mentioned above.