Forum › Posts by Yuki Kitsune

Yuki Kitsune
Pink Ribbon discussion 05 Mar 18:19
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Woohoo! An unexpected extra!

Edit: Took the opportunity to reread it, and I gotta say, is there anything cuter than Lumiao cheering at the v-ball game?

last edited at Mar 5, 2023 7:12PM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

It cannot invalidate the older license. The license itself specifies that it is subject to the laws of the state of Washington.

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.

That's why this whole thing feels like a tempest in a teapot to me.

D&D campaigns hinge on the DM's creativity so it's only natural that even people who don't publish material will still create supplemental material over time.

Agreed.

It's only natural that people who have put a great deal of time and effort into a setting might want to publish it for others to use. Or they might have a supplemental ruleset that expands upon the base ruleset or works around flaws in the basic ruleset.

Agreed.

Why shouldn't they be able to publish those and make money off of them? They're not using someone else's work and selling it.

What are the 4 conditions that a work must meet in order to fall under OGL 1.1? If they are not using "someone else's work," (defined in the OGL as Licenced Content) then it is not subject to the OGL, so they wouldn't even be asked to report large revenues.

last edited at Jan 15, 2023 2:50PM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Yuki Kitsune posted:

In what way?

  • The original OGL is over 20 years old and well overdue for an update.

Age is no argument for whether it needs to be updated. If it needs to be updated you need to have specific arguments for why.

As stated in the draft of the OGL, "the rise of the internet, apps, Web 3, and even virtual TTRPGs." Although, since the OGL pretty much says that apps, VTTs and the like all fall under FCP, I'm not sure how it's really addressed. More below.

  • A large part of what killed D&D e3/e3.5 was the creation of objectionable content that people then associated with WoC, so I can see why they would want to retain a little more control.

You mean like the kinda racist winged monkeys I saw someone posting about on Twitter? Oh wait, that was WotC.

Sounds pretty tame compared to some of the things I recall. [Trying to look a few of them up. Will edit once found. Lord, forgive my browser history.]

  • No one is required to adopt the OGL unless they include copyrighted material from the SRD, but the actual mechanics of the game are not copyrightable. The new OGL cannot be unilaterally imposed--it requires agreement from both sides.

The entire point of the updated version is WotC being able to impose it on anyone making use of their materials in any form. Including content that is made to be compatible with their materials but doesn't actually include any kind of actual official D&D material.

They can't impose it. I'm sure the WotC legal team is perfectly aware of this. It's a two-way agreement, where those who explicitly sign on to the license receive certain benefits in exchange for giving up certain fair use rights they have under copyright law.

In fact, it doesn't even seem like they can revoke the 1.0a OGL for already published works, only for new works.

Whether they can legally do so is up for debate but the 1.1 license explicitly declares the 1.0a version to be retroactively obsolete.

Correct only in the sense that it applies to materials that WotC published before the new OGL goes into effect. In other words, if someone in 2024 wants to sell a new product created from e3.5 rules and declares that they are publishing under OGL, it will automatically fall under OGL 1.1; they can't declare that it's under 1.0a simply because that's what was in effect when the SRD they are using was published. Per WotC's own declaration, "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."

  • I see little impact on most independent creators, and Hasbro can't monetize materials created by others according to their own OGL. Yes, there is a provision that lets them use materials that have not been published physically or digitally, but it specifies that Hasbro/WoC cannot monetize those materials. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it's pretty clear that its main target is NFTs, not artwork or the like. The only exception is a very small number of corporate competitors, and I'm not sure I can really blame Hasbro for wanting to push back on those.

Literally the first I'm hearing of them being unable to monetize it. Plus the entire fact that multiple confirmed employees have already leaked that it's upper management and Hasbro making a moneygrab kinda makes your argument seem even less likely.

I also stand corrected on them being able to use content. Content developers do not sign away any rights that would allow WotC to use their material, for profit or not. I've seen a lot of fearmongering on the line, "This license only applies to materials You create for use in or as roleplaying games and as game supplements and only as printed media and static electronic files such as epubs or pdfs." But the reason these are excluded is that they fall under WotC's Fan Content Policy, not the OGL.

So, please help me understand: how does OGL 1.1 make them greedy?
(There are other things that do, which is one reason I'm not a fan of e5--aka, e2 revisited--but I don't understand the hate for the new OGL.)

For someone who seems to have been looking for information before now you don't seem to have done a terribly thorough job. You can easily find info all over the place. Here's a decent one.

Please dial down your tone. There is no reason to get personal.
1. There is a lot of misinformation and high emotions swirling around currently.
2. The OGL is still in development with WotC requesting international community/industry feedback, so many of the current complaints are based on rough drafts and excerpts rather than a finalized license.
3. In the end, the community is still free to not accept the license, continue to create compatible content, and not report any of it to WotC. By using copyrightable materials (e.g., exact words and phrasing present in the SRD.)

The OGL stipulates 4 conditions that a work must meet in order to qualify as a license agreement.

In addition, as I pointed out above: This is literally the same behavior that played a significant role in TSR going out of business and WotC buying the D&D franchise to begin with. As well as a significantly more egregious version of what they tried to do with D&D4e which also resulted in massive backlash. The community has repeatedly made it clear that they do NOT want this sort of monopolistic control over the community.

E4 was an unmitigated disaster that ultimately died because it was a shit product. E3/3.5 was created with veteran players in mind, who wanted more freedom (which was also why the original OGL was envisioned), but this became difficult for novice players to get into. Since the player community was aging and shrinking, WotC tried to create something they thought would be more attractive to younger players, and completely missed the mark by trying to introduce elements from MMOs (what they considered their competitors) that simply didn't work in TTRPGs. There was also backlash because of the number of handbooks needed and the abbreviated life of e3.5 (Yes, e4 was a total cashgrab), and its GSL (a) didn't include any SRD game rules (which OGL1.1 has) and (b) required companies who switched to it to drop anything created on the old OGL, which was a major problem due to the aforementioned shortened life of e3.5. My hobby (or secondary job) is TTRPG development, and the only complaints about the e4 GSL I had encountered were from larger, corporate publishers. Small independents simply weren't interested in developing for the new version, which is one reason Paizo flourished. I suddenly see complaints all over the place, but I can't help wonder where these complaints were ten years ago.

My personal beef with e2 was that the fixed character progression forced you to buy expansion after expansion if you wanted any kind of variety in your characters, which is the model e5/1D&D has reintroduced. Haven't spent a penny on it and don't plan to. (The game I'm currently developing settled on a d6 system last year.)

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

In what way?

  • The original OGL is over 20 years old and well overdue for an update.
  • A large part of what killed D&D e3/e3.5 was the creation of objectionable content that people then associated with WoC, so I can see why they would want to retain a little more control.
  • No one is required to adopt the OGL unless they include copyrighted material from the SRD, but the actual mechanics of the game are not copyrightable. The new OGL cannot be unilaterally imposed--it requires agreement from both sides. In fact, it doesn't even seem like they can revoke the 1.0a OGL for already published works, only for new works.
  • I see little impact on most independent creators, and Hasbro can't monetize materials created by others according to their own OGL. Yes, there is a provision that lets them use materials that have not been published physically or digitally, but it specifies that Hasbro/WoC cannot monetize those materials. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but it's pretty clear that its main target is NFTs, not artwork or the like. The only exception is a very small number of corporate competitors, and I'm not sure I can really blame Hasbro for wanting to push back on those.

So, please help me understand: how does OGL 1.1 make them greedy?
(There are other things that do, which is one reason I'm not a fan of e5--aka, e2 revisited--but I don't understand the hate for the new OGL.)

Here's one pretty thorough analysis I found on it:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators

last edited at Jan 12, 2023 7:26PM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

^ Pretty sure that user is asking for examples of "manga with male gay characters/pairs/relationships".

Closest I could think of was Prunus Girl, but that borders more on trans.

@Vaelasu, it's not so much that this is an inappropriate place to ask so much as it's maybe the wrong audience.
While I read yuri, my wife does read gay novels (and for much the same reason: we find traditional romance to feel forced and unsatisfying). I could ask her for rec's if you want, but it wouldn't be manga.

last edited at Jan 5, 2023 8:50AM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

The Bread is a lie.

Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Pfweeet! Illegal cliffhanger! Five-page penalty. Fourth and goal.

Edit:

If you cut your servers, do they not bleed? (Please do not cut any servers to test this theory)

I've cut my servers before. They did not bleed. Did shut down operations until we could replace the cables, though.

last edited at Jan 2, 2023 10:01PM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Here I am, looking at all the "Nagori Yu abandons her stories" comments from a year ago, thinking, "How prophetic." /sadness

Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Is it just me, or do the cait sith not only have different designs but even different art styles?

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Do we have any kind of description/rules for this tag? I tried to suggest it for the Teacher x Café-owner pairing in Bloom into You, but it was rejected, and I'm not really sure why. I might have thought it was only used where the story itself is not yuri, but Lilies, Voice, Wear, Wind kind of shoots that down.

last edited at Dec 14, 2022 4:02PM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

hello yes why didn't this story i supposedly enjoyed abandon everything it's built to end exactly like every other romance story idgi

Because the point is that ace deserve the same happy ending as everyone else?

i think (hope?) they are being sarcastic and mocking other posters lol

Perhaps that would have been better phrased as "ace deserve the same happiness as everyone else"?

I certainly didn't mean to imply that ace should be just like everyone else to achieve happiness. More that, while I get where @justforthis is coming from in feeling that the ending was formulaic, perhaps that recognizable formula was exactly what the author was shooting for. That "ending just like every other romance story" helps the reader to realize that they have found happiness even though their relationship is a bit different from that of other romance couples.

last edited at Dec 9, 2022 1:17PM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

hello yes why didn't this story i supposedly enjoyed abandon everything it's built to end exactly like every other romance story idgi

Because the point is that ace deserve the same happy ending as everyone else?

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

so like is it on purpose that chapter one and two aren't actually here, because it's a little weird to get to see the foreword and then that's it. Like are those chapters just nowhere to be found?

Not sure about the first one, just seems to be a color illustration (maybe a coveted spot?). The second was in charge of cover title calligraphy and implies that they aren't actually a manga artist.

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

I mean, not that the otherside isn't affecting them, but could they stop going even if they wanted to? It seems to me like the otherside has taken an active interest in them. Even if they wanted to stop visiting I feel like they'd get drawn back in.

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Sees tags: Horror, Tentacles, Prostitution, Violence
Nope! Never! Not in a million years!
Sees scanlator: Daphie's
Mmm...Okay, guess I'll give it a shot.

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Good grief! Live action film of this on Netflix. I don't know if I dare watch it; Ride or Die was so poorly done.

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Hirari in 2022 yay

OMG, this story came out over ten years ago, didn't it. Welp, I'm not complaining.

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Kasumi's giving thought to her relationship with Sakurako, while here we have Chidori and Nanoha thinking about telling their friends. I couldn't be happier with the direction both of the stories are headed.

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

why did this get removed?

Sadly, the scanlator requested to have all of their uploads removed from the site in May 2021. Some has since been replaced through others' efforts, but we lost a lot of good stories in the purge.

Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Dddddd---------aaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnn. That unveiling on page 13 was unreal. Tsune was totally smokin'!

I love that it comes across with so little detail. It's practically a rough sketch, but that face could burn a hole in my screen!

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015
1554497261400465410

And thus was invented the nose snorkel
Erp, and then I googled it...and it vibrates...

Added to the list of things I'll avoid having in my search history.

last edited at Nov 6, 2022 6:50PM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Can we for the love of yuri and eyeballs, please get dark mode on this site?

For the love of eyeballs? o.O

(Sorry, just what it made me think of. I would actually appreciate a dark mode too.)

last edited at Oct 31, 2022 1:16PM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

^ Are you thinking of Tiger and Hummingbird?

Yuki Kitsune
Collectors discussion 26 Oct 11:18
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

Just found out that chapters 21-onward are up on MangaDex from Dragomir Scans. I wonder if we'll be able to upload here...

Edit: Upload request submitted. We'll see.

last edited at Oct 26, 2022 11:27AM

Yuki Kitsune
Snowfox
joined Jan 31, 2015

I suggested the princess carry tag for chapter 24 of Anemone is in Heat but it was declined. I'm not sure I understand why not.
https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/anemone_is_in_heat_ch24#17

AFAIK the Princess carry tag is supposed to just be used for images or short chapters/doujins that focus on it; chapter 24 doesn't really apply

There's about a dozen chapters that would respectfully disagree, including some where it's no more than a single page/frame. Here it actually continues for 4 pages, and that full-page image seems both significant and memorable. Going to have to toss my support behind Mr. Jones on this one.