Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General What's going to happen to BG3?

If anything.

Wizards is changing their ogl 1.0 and it's going to put a strangle on the rpg community. Is BG3 going to be affected?

https://geektyrant.com/news/over-26...n-open-letter-condemning-the-new-license

BG3 is not using the OGL, it falls under a separate agreement with WotC, so no impact.

Some other forum members have been discussing its potential impact on other, non-Larian, properties in, eg, the last few pages of https://forums.larian.com/ubbthread...s=pathfinder&Search=true#Post840967.

I'm surprised it's taken this long for WotC to properly monetize their DnD IP.

To be clear, I don't condone OGL1.1, but the entertainment industry has become a huge multi-faceted monster over the last few decades, where there is a lot of money to be made, and owners of original IP increasingly want to ensure they have a share of derivative income, as well as some control over how their IP is presented by other parties.

Like anything else, if you don't want commercial imperatives to dominate ( WotC and other companies first duty is to their owners/shareholders, not their customers ), then you need to create entertainment content using permissive licences like Creative Commons.

Realistically, this means cooperatively creating new game systems that anyone can build on; the question then becomes, can players and content creators be persuaded to abandon their existing games systems? There is a lot of tribalism and "stickiness" involved, so it is unlikely that players will abandon WotC in droves.

Sad, but probably inevitable.

The thing is, the OGL didn't cover IPs. That's why we don't have 3000 Baldur's Gate/Dragon Lance games right now. Those require a separate license to use from the OGL. Hasbro is attempting to monetize the background systems. While I agree that they should be able to monetize those, I see that as the same as licensing an engine, like Unreal Engine for a game, what they're doing is almost criminal.

Hi robertthebard.

The background systems can be protected as IP, just as much as anything else that can be shown to be an "original" idea.

So, an "elf" is not an original concept, per se ( based in European myth, with multiple fantasy renderings ), but a "DnD elf", as described in any WotC-owned material is an original IP that others should not reflect too closely in their own fantasy material.

IP law originated in technical invention and innovation ( I had to deal with it concerning early smart-phones and their software ) , but has expanded to all forms of "products of the mind", including design patents ( Apple has one for "rounded corners" in smartphones, for example ), and even business processes ( Amazon has a patent on "one-click" web shopping ).

Because IP is quite "squishy" in determining what is ( and is not ) genuinely worthy of protection, it tends to favour the rich businesses that can afford to apply for many patents or other protections, which can then be used to coerce smaller businesses and individuals, that could not afford to defend against legal actions.

I believe that many granted patents worldwide are actually bogus, because patent offices get paid to issue patents, so they have little incentive to disprove patent claims. Most patents seem to be overturned when challenged at patent offices, or when tested in court.

In the case of WotC, the original OGL will have granted certain rights to use and derive from the systems the OGL covered; and these rights may not be revokable after the fact ( depends on what the OGL itself says, I don't care to read it ). I'd like to think that no-one would have relied on the OGL if it could be trivially revoked.

Assuming the OGL persists, a game like Pathfinder would be unaffected, as it has branched away from subsequent WotC IP. However, any company that wants to produce content that tracks new WotC IP will be in a difficult position, as they will need to agree to the new terms.

In respect of your example of the Unreal Engine, I would guess that Epic have applied for patents on anything within the engine they consider to be unique ( Lumen and Nanite are probably just implementations of known ideas, but specific elements within the implementations may be new ), while the engine itself is protected by copyright law. You could code a new game engine yourself ( assuming you have the skills needed ) that is functionally similar to the Unreal Engine, and which would be entirely legal so long as you don't use Epic's code or Epic's legally protected ideas.

Nothing WotC are proposing is criminal, but it is certainly distasteful, as well as not really being in the interests of their customers.

I think WotC will be in trouble if this is challenged in court. Too much of DnD is too generic, too based on older concepts of fantasy, too based on other modern gaming implementations or too simply common sense games mechanisms. For example, look at armor class - they used to have armor class being low as good (remember THAC0?) but changed it to be like all the other implementations. Or look at DnD elves and tell me they are not heavily based on Tolkien. The rolling of dice to decide outcomes is far too generic to claim for themselves, even if they have more sides. Wizards, thieves, knights and bards are too ingrained in European culture to be claimed. How many of the ideas in DnD are so strongly DnD that they can't be used elsewhere.

I suspect we will just see lots of "new" roleplaying implementations that are far enough away from DnD terminology to avoid copyright, but not really any different in practice.

Legal Eagle posted a video on the subject and he brings a point that I haven't thought about - mainly that game mechanics might not be copyrightable as such.

What is a "DnD Elf"? Tall elves? That would be a Tolkien thing. Drow, maybe by name, but Dark Elves go back to Norse Mythology. None of the races, if used generically, dark elf instead of Drow, and don't use "the Underdark", are property of WotC. They're treading on thin ice trying to nail any of that stuff down, because other than specific named dragons/or specific races, the aforementioned Drow, for example, are things that they specifically created. Imagine, if you will, a world where The Elder Scrolls series had to have an OGL because they have Elves, Orcs and Dragons in the games. There's a reason they don't have to, because despite what some may think, Hasbro/WotC doesn't own them. It's relatively easy to stay away from WotC actual IPs and create systems that can compete with DnD. Some of the creators that I've been watching since this started only used the license because it was convenient. But they indicated that not only could they step away from it, but they already are.

Well and I have 0 % interest of DND 5.5 (race does not matter in DND5.5 and it does not give any attributes)... as an addition to that whatever will be decided to worse. The only way I could think play any DND 5.5 content is if it is computer game.
Well and I continue to play distance roleplay DND 5 not often or continually but sometimes. Well and I do not trust Wizards of the Coast at all that the final published new license will be even near fair. There is also possible same kind of what happened when DND 4.0 was released as a protest (and I understand why) Pathfinder was created.

My point being if license and DND 5.5 is CRAP then I would not be surprised if something else will be created (remember when Pathfinder was created?). As for computer games DND 5.5 whatever I just ignore the annoying changes and play it I even have played computer games with DND 4.0 though I have never played DND 4 paper and pen or distance play example Discord and RollD20.

Good news, you don't have to give WoTC any money to actually play DnD. I certainly won't be until they stop treating their community like faceless money machines.

Good to hear it won't affect bg3 but yeah, it's going to absolutely wreck some companies. Paizo is likely to play "fuck around and find out".

Well, the "elf" name is certainly derived mainly from the "Alfar" of Norse tales ( mostly derived from the writings of the Icelandic Skald, Snorri Sturluson in the 1200s ), and there were certainly "light" "dark" and "black" elves mentionend. Similarly the name Drow is an Orkney/Shetland name, sometimes spelt Trow, which derives from Troll, as the existing Orkney/Shetland population was settled from Norway in the Viking era.

But none of these ( or other ) folklore renditions of an elf look like Tolkein elves at all, nor Gygax's dark elves, or DnD elves in general.

As I said, IP is squishy, but it is generally clear if something is a knock-off rather than orignal creation. Gygax and Arneson learnt this themselves when they published the original DnD with the "Hobbit" race, but immediately received a cease-and-desist from the Tolkein estate for IP theft. The replacement race was obviously the Halfling, which is definitely similar to, and inspired by, Hobbits, but had its own descriptions & lore which are different enough to not infringe on Tolkein's IP.

From what I have read about OGL1.1, it seems like the draft sent to creators for comment was probably drafted by WotC lawyers as a maximalist position for advancing the company's interests. It seems likely that WotC didn't properly explain what they were trying to achieve by the changes, so the draft was leaked as an assault on the community without context, and the community reacted in a predictable manner.

Whether or not you believe the subsequent "mea culpa" WotC published on DND Beyond doesn't particularly matter; but the reasons they gave for wanting to change the terms of OGL going forward are all valid. Unexpected uses and abuses of licence terms are inevitable as technology and society evolve, so licences do need to adapt; but this was a good example of how NOT to do it.

The drama shouldn't affect BG3, but it'll probably leave a bad enough taste in Larian's mouth that it may result in them deciding a sequel isn't worth it.


If WotC tries to use this to go after Paizo, WotC is going to be the ones finding out, not Paizo.

The head of Paizo's legal team is the former head of WotC's legal team. Not only does he know all the OGL inside and out, they've had 14 years to prepare for any legal nonsense.

so I wish to boycot WotC, would they get a percentage of the sale?

Is that Nalia?

You mean from BG3?

As far as I know...we don't know. Most probably. It's clear that Larian and Wotc has kept a close partnership during the development but the details around their agreement regarding the BG Ip and revenue is not public knowledge.

Boycotting BG3 over something WoTC decided, I would advise against this. Why punish Larian for something done by a company they have no control over. You would only hurt Larian, not WOTC.

Because the only way you're going to affect a change is to directly impact Hasbro/WotC's bottom line. Atari released NWN 2 with a DRM scheme that was so aggressive that it was blocking things that weren't even connected to NWN 2. In my case, the DRM blocked me from burning CDs, even though the music I was burning wasn't connected to Atari at all. So I, and a whole lot of other people, quit buying things for NWN 2. Atari wound up patching the DRM out. It wasn't altruistic, it was "well, this is costing us more money than we want to lose", so they fixed it. It had to suck for Obsidian, but it got the message across.