Home of Microlite20 and Other Rules-Lite RPGs
https://ruleslightrpgs.com/community/
https://ruleslightrpgs.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=357
I think it depends upon how seriously WotC is committed to stamping out prior and future use of the OGL 1.0. I don't know. I think it should be fairly easy to produce satisfactory clones of Microlite20 and Microlite2020 without the OGL.
quaffeine wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:31 pmSo the usual "I am not a lawyer" applies... in fact, I rarely know what I'm talking about most of the time in general. But what I've gathered from all the web articles, forum posts, and YouTube videos I've watched on this to date (which is not all that much TBH), the answer is... definitely maybe.
But seriously, two main things could occur to impact m20 in a material way:
- WotC could try to assert ownership over key gaming terms or, more importantly, mechanics. As I mention above, from some things I've heard the new license may term "processes" like "roll a 20-sided die" as Product Identity somehow. Again, I haven't read the current license in great detail, but it does make reference to disallowing "processes" like describing how to create a character or how to apply experience to a character. I think this was their way of allowing 3PP to create content while requiring everyone needed the core books to use them.
- It seems WotC is definitely trying to invalidate/revoke/de-authorize/whatever the existing OGL versions 1.0 and 1.0a.
If either of these things occur, then conceivably WotC could send cease and desists to m20 publishers, since IIRC m20 versions going all the way back to the original one from Robin Stacey are based on the 3.x SRD, which is possible of course because it's licensed under the OGL. They could also require/threaten/cajole these publishers to "upgrade" to the new 1.1 version of the license, which brings with it royalties (though I don't think m20 projects meet the $750k threshold that's being discussed for that) as well granting WotC license to use any content created under it forever, for whatever purpose they deem fit. It's this last part that's the most problematic IMO.
Here's hoping that a system that doesn't use OGL-licensed content (Worlds Without Number was mentioned as one, and I believe Chris Gonnerman is looking to excise all OGC from Basic Fantasy). If someone manages to do this and it holds up against whatever steps WotC may take to stop it, m20 could sort of "rebase" itself off one of these systems.
Alternately, publishers could re-write all the rules from scratch, and see if the traditional "you can't copyright an idea, only its presentation" defense holds up. Again, WotC has already taken steps to try to ensure reliance on the core rulebooks. If it's successful in establishing that any derivative work based on concepts/mechanics they're known for, such as "character levels" achieved by "earning XP" or "rolling for attributes," then publishers could start having a hard time avoiding the new OGL unless they want to use very different mechanics created from scratch or can find ones that are licensed in an open way.
I, for one, like the basic mechanics that I've used since B/X and 1E, and if they're not available for free use after all's said and done I will be, to quote Prince Humperdink, "very put out..."
WotC has tried to argue that the Character Creation process they use is proprietary and protected... However... that only really works BECAUSE of the OGL 1.0a. When you accept the OGL 1.0a WotC actually gets greater IP protection than it would have received under copyright law. So if you use the OGL 1.0a and then use anything from WotC that is NOT in the SRDs... you are asking for trouble. The secret here is to get rid of the OGL. In the case of Microlite and derivatives I really don't see very much work in 'cleansing' them of the OGL.
sycarion wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:48 pmIANAL, this is my understanding.
In short, Microlite was published under a license that Hasbro wants to revoke. They have said that you must change to the new license because the old license will be gone. If it isn't changed to the new license, it is unlicensed content and bad things might happen. To me, that means that IF the new license comes into effect, Microlite20 is out of compliance and bad things may happen like takedown notices or letters from lawyers.
There is an argument that they can't revoke the old license, but its a grey area to me. (That Washington Company uses a more specific legal term than revoke that is escaping me at the moment.)
Some folks like Troll Lord Games are rewriting the rules so that it has no srd content. Some are changing systems (like the Cypher System by Monte Cook) to a different open license. I don't imagine anyone would want to switch systems, so my personal opinion would be there might need to be a review of the original document to remove anything from the d20 SRD in it. This would need to happen in derivative works as well, especially the 5th edition clone.
Not a fan of That Washington Company right now because the OGL made it so easy to create and modify games like Microlite 20. That's my 2 cents.
I don't think that WotC can cancel, revoke, or 'unauthorize' (whatever that means) the OGL 1.0a. Just because they say so does not make it so. It is clear they cannot retroactively go back revoke the license of prior works: The language of the OGL is clear, WotC has made many statements in the past that the OGL cannot be revoked, and under the doctrine of 'reliance' you cannot say one thing, change your mind, and then punish people who relied upon your statements. Moving forward is also unlikely, but for me I am not going to fight the Man. I am going to stop using any OGL, any word for word usage from anything related to WotC, etc. The OGL is not required to create compatible content.
In regards to Microlite it will just be a matter of coming up with another set of rules that do not include the OGL, remove word for word usage, and voila!
I forgot who made the joke about 20 years ago about how the OLG 1.0 was a trap, but he made a comparison to the one ring: One OGL to rule them all....
He was right. Even if WotC cannot 'legally' do some of the things people are worried about, by becoming dependent upon t he OGL we put ourselves under the control of Mordor!
Best analysis of the situation so far, by actual lawyers:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/b ... p-creators
A highlight for me was this:
As the community has scrutinized Wizards of the Coast's past statements, it's become very clear that Wizards always thought of this as a contract with obligations for both sides (for instance their 2001 OGL FAQ v 1.0). Unlike a bare license without consideration, an offer to contract like this cannot be revoked unilaterally once it has been accepted, under the law of Washington (where they are located) and other states. Since the contract is accepted when someone “uses” the licensed material, then people who relied on the OGL 1.0a have a good argument under contract law that Wizards of the Coast cannot unilaterally withdraw the value that it offered under the contract. This would apply to people who “accepted” the OGL 1.0a by using the relevant material prior to receiving notice that Wizards is rescinding that offer. In short, games that held up their end of the bargain under the OGL 1.0a are entitled to the benefit Wizards of the Coast promised them under that contract. But Wizards can revoke the offer of the OGL 1.0a as to new potential users who haven't yet accepted its terms.
It looks like WotC not only walked it back, but fell on their sword pretty completely:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an ... icense-ogl
After I borked something at work once, someone said to me, "Its not about whether you make a mistake, it's about how you respond afterwards." IMO the above is a not-entirely-terrible attempt at moving forward if they hold true to their statements. Although I'm having a hard time imagining how they can "better monetize" without royalties.
If nothing else, I'm happy to see the non-WotC players back in the spotlight, and am glad for a way to hedge my bets as needed with the ORC license or something similar.
Hmmm, although this from EnWorld makes a good point that the post doesn't completely walk back the "de-authorization" of OGL 1.0a. It appears to for existing content, but not for new content. Which in the presence of the ORC license and similar is not a big deal unless you're targeting 5E and only 5E.
quaffeine wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 2:59 pmHmmm, although this from EnWorld makes a good point that the post doesn't completely walk back the "de-authorization" of OGL 1.0a. It appears to for existing content, but not for new content. Which in the presence of the ORC license and similar is not a big deal unless you're targeting 5E and only 5E.
I think the OGL is dead for future work simply because no one is ever going to trust WotC again. As for OGL 1.1, I cannot imagine anyone being stupid enough to accept that without substantial changes; particularly in the ability of WotC to terminate it at any time for any user, and that WotC effectively owns the work product of users. Unless I had some kind of side agreement privately negating these types of terms I would never sign off on it.
My question since the beginning of this stuff was, "What does WotC want?" I can imagine them being 'satisfied' that the OGL 1.0 is dead in the future. They really don't have to go back and kill past works since that would be very risky, since they might fail if anyone stood up to them in court, and they may not even care. It would seem that everything is about the VTT, and I could see how wishful thinking and corporate same-think could see destroying the usefulness of the OGL 1.0a in regards to the future as a way of removing potential competitors. Of course this is just stupid. All they had to do is say, "If you want your stuff on the VTT you need to comply with the OGL 1.1 or get a side deal with us." Crazy. Now they have lost a generation of good work in less than a month.
Oh, by the way I have completed my re-work of Microlite20 into a non-OGL form. It is bigger and longer than Microlite20 since, just as I have a problem with rules so bloated that no one can figure out what anything means without a ouija board, I also dislike rules that are so 'lite' that they leave out important parts that are required to make the game playable.
I think my set of rules hits the sweet spot. Not including the sections on wealth, weapons and equipment; monsters; and spell; the rules come out to 17 pages on 6"x9" pages using friendly font sizes. My problem now is the name. the name I put on it sucks beyond all suckittoood. I am terrible at coming up with good names. hmmmmm.
squirewaldo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:40 pmOh, by the way I have completed my re-work of Microlite20 into a non-OGL form. It is bigger and longer than Microlite20 since, just as I have a problem with rules so bloated that no one can figure out what anything means without a ouija board, I also dislike rules that are so 'lite' that they leave out important parts that are required to make the game playable.
I think my set of rules hits the sweet spot. Not including the sections on wealth, weapons and equipment; monsters; and spell; the rules come out to 17 pages on 6"x9" pages using friendly font sizes. My problem now is the name. the name I put on it sucks beyond all suckittoood. I am terrible at coming up with good names. hmmmmm.
Please share your work when you're done! I'd love to see how someone else de-OGL-ified their Microlite-derived game, and I think it'll be very good for the Microlite20 community to have a few examples out there of non-OGL games.
