Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous vs BG3

They are also doing ridiculous things like this: https://globalnews.ca/news/7103563/dungeons-dragons-evil-race-stereotypes/

It looks like the new open gaming license could kill the development of future games.

https://twitter.com/lincodega/status/1611021434553339906

https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634

I've been enjoying Wrath more than I've been enjoying BG3. Not that I'm hating on BG3 - it's a fun game, just not the game I wanted as a successor to BG2. But Wrath has a 6 player party, it's not burdened by the terrible chain system and WOTR, unlike BG3, Wrath has alignment . . .

Up until now I'd been saying to myself - it's fine if BG3 doesn't live up to your expectations, you can just play WOTR and Solasta. But it looks like the new OGL will kill both both games.

Sad, really. I wish I were lawyer enough to know if someone could make a new ruleset that was *reallly* close to DnD 2nd or 3rd edition.

I really wonder what this means for BG3. I imagine this might kill any talk about any expansion DLC or a sequel. I think the thought process behind this is that WotC is hoping to luck their way into someone making another Critical Role-style hit, and getting a much larger slice of the pie from here on out.

I asked a couple friends more knowledgeable about this topic as it pertains to video games, and supposedly game systems are not protected by copyright law, so a developer creating a DnD game without WotC's blessing could get around this by removing all direct references to the DnD franchise in regards to characters, lore, and terminology. Basically the Solasta solution, except everything else down to the classes, spells, and abilities would have to be 100% homebrew, only the actual rules wouldn't have to. Of course, WotC could still whine and sue, and they could end up getting a sympathetic and/or idiot judge, so it's probably open season for all future video game developers considering making a DnD game to move to a far less restrictive system instead.

EDIT: Found people on Twitter basically saying the same thing too.

https://twitter.com/kingdomfantasy6/status/1611060733072052224

BG3 has a full (or whatever) license, so this theoretically means nothing for it. Solasta and TA, however, might have a serious problem if they wanted to make more D&D content.

The Alexandrian has a detailed article about the (old) OGL and copyright https://thealexandrian.net/wordpres...do-i-need-to-use-the-open-gaming-license

Btw, Hasbro/WotC also cancelled 5 or 6 video games they had people working on.

Seems like another 4E disaster in the making. Not that I mind, D&D has gone down the drain after 3E and it failing (which sadly won't happen) would be a good thing.

The "updated" OGL very obviously looks like it is specifically targeting Paizo/Pathfinder as a competitor to WotC/D&D. Gawd, WotC are a bunch of giant a--holes. I hope all across the gaming industry people start blacklisting WotC and refuse to have anything to do with them.

My only hope for the future of D&D is for someone like Microsoft to buy WotC away from Hasbro, even including through a hostile takeover.

Holy crap, this is really dangerous, because it can be wielded against anyone who is a "bigot" through the eyes the beholder. You don't have zim/zir pronounds? Bigot, contract cancelled.

Does it actually work like this? Like, Paizo has been publishing Pathfinder for over a decade now, and even has an entire new edition. And they *already* created Pathfinder's base rules (the part that is based on D&D via OGL), so won't any new content (new subclasses, weapons, feats, etc) they make for Pathfinder 2e be entirely new, non copyright-infringing material?

And/or would Paizo no longer be able to even sell the Pathfinder 2e source books, because some of that material is (might be judged) reliant on the OGL?

All good questions. Paizo has refused to publicly comment thus far to all the gaming publications that have asked them for comment. But a former WotC high level exec has said on social media that in his opinion as a lawyer WotC has gone too far here and will likely lose any legal challenge. In his view, WotC can create new rules for their license going forward, but cannot unilaterally and retroactively take away the OGL 1.0 license from anyone who's been using it for years to create their own content. I'm guessing Paizo is currently having a bunch of lawyers going over these very issues before they will comment.

But regardless, just the very act of WotC trying to do these things makes them huge a--holes. In fact, in their own public statements they acknowledge that they could potentially have a PR problem from all of this. So they know what they're doing is wrong. But they're looking for a way to get away with it.

And btw, since Bloomberg broke the story about the game cancellations, Hidden Path has officially stated they have not received any word from WotC and so they consider their game still going forward. So the Bloomberg reporter went back to WotC and asked again, and the WotC spokesperson again said to Bloomberg the Hidden Path and OtherSide games are among those cancelled. So at a minimum, WotC cancelled these games but didn't even bother to tell those studios about it first, and made it so they learn about it from the press. I hope the entire gaming industry will now blacklist WotC/Hasbro from all future ventures.

Makes sense. You shouldn't be able to retroactively revoke an agreement, especially when the agreement had the words "perpetual...license." I guess the muddying factor here is that there was never a signed agreement between two parties, just a statement from one saying "it's fine to use our stuff." At least Paizo has gotten big enough to be able to fight back.

Yup.

Perhaps this is part of the new trend for companies to initially put out something absolutely terrible -> public gets outraged -> company "fixes" their problem and is thus looked on more favorably than they would be had they just released something decent originally (my conspiracy theory regarding the Sonic movie.)

Alternatively, it's part of the trend for companies to try to do things as shittily/greedily as possible, and will only backtrack if public outrage is high enough (e.g., NFTs).

Wasn't it a leaked draft rather than a public statement ... ooh, or maybe the conspiracy theory is they leaked it on purpose to generate the debate you mention .

Unpopular opinion here, I'm sure, but I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with WotC wanting to get a share of profits that other companies are making from their intellectual property. Though I agree that specific wording of parts of the draft OGL give some cause for concern, and if implemented badly could stifle investment in alternative, competing products, I think WotC would be shooting themselves in the foot if so as those competitors can help increase interest in their own properties as well as bring them in another potential revenue stream. So while of course they might not be acting in good faith, and I'm aware they don't have a great reputation as a collaborative partner, I don't think it's necessary to assume the worst at this point.

hasbro is the reason we don't have any good transformers games as well.

Are you serious? It's WotC and Hasbro we're talking about, of course it's necessary to assume the worst.

Sorry to say but the only interesting aspect of an IP is the Lore and Fluff.
Most tabletop Rules need a GM which a PC doenst have and with so much Compute Power you can simulate original rules without use them.
I cant use a d20 system? Behold my d21-1 dice!

I see your d21 -1 die, and raise you a system where it's contested die rolls/dice rolls with a die that WotC can't claim any type of ownership over, a d6. Player A is attacking Mob B, Player A rolls 2 d6, Mob B rolls 2 d6. Highest roll wins.

The D&D OGL forbid material thats

“blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.”

means you can only fight in self defense? I mean drow and evil? Thats a racist attitude.
With this wording you can delete humanoid enemys from your game.

There's no way they mean that characters can't be any of those things, that would be ridiculous, you'd be forced to roleplay in a utopian society

I have many criticisms of 6th edition but one thing I think thy are doing right is changing the word "race" to "species".

Should clear up sincere confusion and faux confusion intended to troll. The drow are not a 'race' they are a species.

They are just switching one confusion for another ...

Yes, Humans and Elves are different species ...
But Wood Elves, High Elves and Drow are just different races of same species ...

And how is that possible that Half-Elves (mixed with non-elves species, Humans for example) are still able to replicate futher, since crossbreed species are practialy allways (except REALLY, REALLY, REALLY rare exceptions) sterile?

Dunno ...
Feels like empty effort to satisfy modern culture with no actual value.
Not that i wouldnt apreciate effort ... but i see no solid effect in this particular case. :-/

Are they keeping the word race for wood elves et al? I hadn't heard that.

How can you have two species interbreed? Magic.

To my mind it's a improvement because 'racism' has come to mean racial discrimination and not "the belief that the human race is divided into different species or subspecies". And, from an anti-racist perspective, I hate that it has done so. When we lose the original meaning we don't understand why some ideas being promoted by racist (in both terms) medical doctors and geneticists are deeply problematic . . .

But I digress . . .

In DnD 'race' has always meant species and this change just clarifies that. Do I wish that they had kept to half elves and half orcs? Yes. Does it ruin the game? No.