|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Dec 23, 2022 9:43:32 GMT -5
There's been a lot of recent talk on youtube about the upcoming OGL version 1.1 for OneD&D. This will be part of the effort to increase the monetization of D&D that Hasbro mentioned recently. Opinions vary a bit, but I think this guy does a good job of explaining some of the possible outcomes. One thing is certain, the OGL isn't going to be quite so open anymore. There will be royalty requirements for certain profit levels and even profit report for levels much lower than that. It will also definitely impact shows like Critical Role as well. Will they pay the royalties? Will they switch to another game? Will they develop their own game rules? I know it may not affect many of us old timers, but I thought the video was worth viewing. What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Dec 23, 2022 11:07:39 GMT -5
There's been a lot of recent talk on youtube about the upcoming OGL version 1.1 for OneD&D. This will be part of the effort to increase the monetization of D&D that Hasbro mentioned recently. Opinions vary a bit, but I think this guy does a good job of explaining some of the possible outcomes. One thing is certain, the OGL isn't going to be quite so open anymore. There will be royalty requirements for certain profit levels and even profit report for levels much lower than that. It will also definitely impact shows like Critical Role as well. Will they pay the royalties? Will they switch to another game? Will they develop their own game rules? I know it may not affect many of us old timers, but I thought the video was worth viewing. What are your thoughts? Kind of surprised that royalties was not introduced a lot sooner. I think it is going to not be done. I think those companies that right now fall into the royalty window are not going to make the switch to the new one. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Dec 24, 2022 8:46:45 GMT -5
I agree, The Perilous Dreamer. Honestly, if some company wanted to basically reproduce the 5E rules (or whatever edition) they could so, and it would be legal. They would have to pay attention to detail and ensure that no trademarks are infringed upon. Certainly, some stuff would be off the table such as "Beholder" and other original content, but many monsters predate gaming, so they are fair game. Some examples include Dragon, Minotaur, Vampire, Werewolf, and other classics. New monsters could be created to fill the gap pretty easily; just look at many blogs, fanzines, and other sources to find examples. If you don't want to use "fighter" as a class name, then use "warrior" or maybe use "knight" for "paladin" or whatever you feel is appropriate. You could always use "Defense" or another term for "Armor Class". You get the idea. All of that can be done. The trick is not getting the attention of Hasbro because they have the money to drag out a legal battle and that's what will most likely take you down. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Dec 24, 2022 13:19:37 GMT -5
IMO (not an IP lawyer) Armor Class predates D&D and is fair game, D&D stole that term from other older games. It would be interesting to do a deep dive and find out how little of the SRD and OGL are anything other than public domain information.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morose on Dec 24, 2022 23:04:08 GMT -5
I think they are trying to get people to voluntarily limit the types of products they make, which are pretty unlimited under the 3E OGL, but I saw something saying they would pretty much limit you to print books and pdfs. No videos or other stuff like that.
|
|
