Speculative: A (supposed) leak about the OGL 1.1 [Archive]

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-04, 07:30 PM

Originally posted on reddit by the official account of one of the 5e podcasters/content creators (RollForCombat): https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/103f1fz/we_got_an_official_leak_of_one_dd_ogl_11_watch/

We received an official leak of OGL 1.1! In our weekly Roll For Combat Live YouTube show, we were talking about what we know about OGL 1.1 when we received a leak of OGL 1.1 from a reliable source. This isn't a scam, a troll, or clickbait. We go over the new OGL 1.1 and what it means to One D&D and the future of D&D (it's not great...).

From our inside sources (we have multiple sources who confirmed this is true and part of the current OGL 1.1):

"This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."

"You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."

"You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. We’re aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h93Q8Bc6FQ

Note: I'm going to take this with a grain of salt until confirmed, although I saw chatter that other normally knowledgeable/reputable sources had confirmed the gist of it.

--------

Thoughts (I am not a lawyer):

If the quoted text is correct, this is an utter jerk move.

1. Deauthorizing the OGL 1.0(a) means that no, you can't keep using it. For anything. Including if you're publishing 3e content. It's gone. Existing content is likely fine, but get legal counsel. But if you want to publish anything new, you have to use the OGL 1.1. Sucks to be you.

2. They reserve the right to change the license without warning other than on the website/social media. Don't follow them obsessively and miss something? Sucks to be you.

3. WotC can take anything you create and sell it, alter it, or publish it as their own, without paying or even giving credit. And you can't do anything about it. Sucks to be you.

4. And you can't even sue. Sucks to be you.

So assuming that this is accurately quoted, this is basically worst-case. Worse even than 4e, because the 4e license didn't even attempt to deauth the previous license (which is what allowed Paizo to do PF). This not only prevents that but means Paizo can't publish any new OGL 1.0(a) content. Even for long-dead systems. Or anyone else. Pay up or get sued.

Obligatory disclaimer: Assuming this is true. But the sources are big-names and willing to put their names on this leak and claim it. So it's at least not zero reputation.

Segev

2023-01-04, 07:41 PM

I question whether it's true, simply because "deauthorizing" a prior agreement and "replacing" it unilaterally with something that could arguably be used to try to take control of people's intellectual property without their permission, that was made in good faith under the "deauthorized" agreement, is begging for law suits.

Taken without any sort of ability asserted or attempted to act on pre-existing works... it'll kill anything but fan-made content. It's a clever way to ensure that no fanfic-type stuff can lead to WotC being sued if they come up with something similar without having heard of it, by making it explicit that anything fans make for D&D is now theirs to use as they see fit. But it's going to kill third party productions, since it's one step away from saying, "Yeah, we can just republish your entire body of work as ours, and screw you."

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-04, 07:43 PM

Envyus

2023-01-04, 08:01 PM

According to other places the text leak is almost assuredly bull. It uses none of the proper jargon, and legal terms, and has various errors.

ProsecutorGodot

2023-01-04, 08:02 PM

It would be a disaster if that's true, I really hope it isn't. The language used is strange, it doesn't really read like a license document, but according to them the contents have been verified by several sources.

If anything it's the last quote that gives me pause on trusting this, perhaps its a bit too hopeful of me, but I just can't imagine after the public reaction to what they've already announced they would go on to say something like

"We’re aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.
after "de-authorizing" the previous OGL in the process.

I still can't just accept this as fact, but I'll admit even my expectations for a positive outcome are waning.

I question whether it's true, simply because "deauthorizing" a prior agreement and "replacing" it unilaterally with something that could arguably be used to try to take control of people's intellectual property without their permission, that was made in good faith under the "deauthorized" agreement, is begging for law suits.
That would be the second aspect I'm skeptical on, you'd figure what happens to all of the now de-authorized content is up in the air with the license no longer being "authorized" it would be unusable, how would that even work for things like Pathfinder which were created under the OGL and would now no longer have access to the licensed content?

Perhaps there is some legal precedence to such a thing I'm not aware of, it just seems like a legal nightmare.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-04, 08:04 PM

Envyus

2023-01-04, 08:05 PM

The last quote makes 0 sense. Something like that is not part of a legal document.

ProsecutorGodot

2023-01-04, 08:15 PM

I agree that the language used is strange. Which decreases my expectation of its truth. But it does put a clear marker out just due to the visibility (high-profile people saying this sort of thing)--WotC will likely have to actively deny it. If they don't, the assumption (fair or not) will be that it has at least some validity.

It definitely could be taken as an effort to get WotC to divulge more information publicly to alleviate the growing unease that was truthfully only amplified with their half-hearted attempt at the end of December.

"Rumor's and misunderstandings" got us the late December post, if they are actually flat out lies we'll see what that earns us. It could really swing either way at this point, though my money is on there being no further explanation until the OGL 1.1 is public and probably most important to papa Hasbro, enforceable. For better or worse, I'm quite sure they'll want to have a solid foundation to fall back on instead of leaving themselves open to this rumor mill we have spinning now.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-04, 08:17 PM

It definitely could be taken as an effort to get WotC to divulge more information publicly to alleviate the growing unease that was truthfully only amplified with their half-hearted attempt at the end of December.

"Rumor's and misunderstandings" got us the late December post, if they are actually flat out lies we'll see what that earns us. It could really swing either way at this point, though my money is on there being no further explanation until the OGL 1.1 is public and probably most important to papa Hasbro, enforceable.

I agree with this. On both accounts. I'm leaning toward "probably not the actual text". But the sentiment is probably pretty close to being true.

Sigreid

2023-01-04, 08:17 PM

The last quote makes 0 sense. Something like that is not part of a legal document.

If this is legitimate at all. It reads like executive objectives before the lawyers reign them in.

OracleofWuffing

2023-01-04, 08:28 PM

I feel that, in this context, "Official" and "Leak" are mutually exclusive terms. If this is official, then it has been authorized for distribution so it shouldn't be considered a leak. If this is a leak, then it was not authorized for distribution so it shouldn't be considered official.

Since this claims to be both... I feel this doesn't exist yet.

kazaryu

2023-01-04, 08:37 PM

Brookshw

2023-01-04, 08:48 PM

Thoughts (I am not a lawyer):

I am, focusing on IP and transactions with decade of experience in publishing and media.

While I agree that the license could be revoked (and that there's grounds to challenge that if you want to foot the bill), that 'leak' reads like a sour grapes paraphrase at best. I'll wait for the official release.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-04, 08:53 PM

yeah...i find it hard to believe that the contents of the reddit post are a direct quote. At best they're a paraphrase, which may still be accurate. but I really don't see hasbro playing the pronoun game in their legally binding document.

Im by no means any kind of an expert on such topics, but as a laymen, the excerpt in the reddit post reads more like...idk, a fanfic?

its also important to note that the original OGL didn't allow paizo to publish pathfinder. DnD (the company) can't copyright the concept of a d20 game system. they can't copyright specific mechanics like 'roll to attack'. and any of the stuff that they could copyright, paizo changed (i.e. renaming genasi,) as i understand it (again, laymen) from a legal standpoint, there's nothing preventing people from creating content that happens to be portable into dndn5e/3e or even 4e. They just have to be careful about the language they use in the content, and probably advertising.

Everything I've heard from experienced people is that if you want to avoid the OGL...get a lawyer. Or several. Because it's a dangerous path. It's not just the mechanics--you can't use any of the presentation. Including the look of the stat blocks, the descriptions of feats, any of that. So yes, Paizo absolutely published PF1 under the OGL. And had to. You could publish another game that used exactly none of the content (and that goes a long way) without it, but it'd be difficult.

What do I expect from the new OGL?

I expect it to become a "fan/non-commercial" license explicitly. And as such, contain lots of poison pills that will "encourage" anyone interested in making money to seek out a "proper" commercial license. I don't expect it to try to revoke the OGL 1.0(a), but I do expect a clause like "if you use anything licensed 1.1 or above, you voluntarily give up your right to publish anything new under 1.0(a)." I expect it to contain an arbitration clause (the more formal form of the "you can't sue us" clause) and a "anything you make is ours to do with what we will." Which doesn't affect fans very much--they're unlikely to sue or contest WotC using their stuff. But makes it utterly unpalatable for commercial operations.

Instead, commercial licenses will be more controlling. More oversight from WotC as to what they can publish and how, royalties above some threshold, non-disparagement clauses, etc. But won't have the "no 1.0(a)" clause and may allow use of other material. So they'll sell it as being more open...when really it's way more controlling.

Segev

2023-01-04, 09:15 PM

Frankly, trying to be more controlling is a mistake, but it's one WotC will have to learn from. They're making the error of thinking 3rd party publishers are somehow profiting in a way that costs WotC money. Even if it's just, "We want a cut of what they make!" But they'll just reduce the 3rd party publishing, and see no upswing in their own sales.

It's not even like ... certain directions we can't discuss here ... are the impetus. They have no need to force 3rd party publishers in line with the messaging and presentation they want, because I haven't seen any rash of 3rd party products that oppose it.

Psyren

2023-01-04, 09:57 PM

I am, focusing on IP and transactions with decade of experience in publishing and media.

While I agree that the license could be revoked (and that there's grounds to challenge that if you want to foot the bill), that 'leak' reads like a sour grapes paraphrase at best. I'll wait for the official release.

Thanks for weighing in; I'm inclined to agree.

its also important to note that the original OGL didn't allow paizo to publish pathfinder. DnD (the company) can't copyright the concept of a d20 game system. they can't copyright specific mechanics like 'roll to attack'. and any of the stuff that they could copyright, paizo changed (i.e. renaming genasi,) as i understand it (again, laymen) from a legal standpoint, there's nothing preventing people from creating content that happens to be portable into dndn5e/3e or even 4e. They just have to be careful about the language they use in the content, and probably advertising.

I'd say it depends on your definition of "allow." Could Pathfinder have existed, and even reached its current form and prominence, without the OGL? Very probably. Would they have sunk all the capital necessary to design, playtest, illustrate, market and publish it without the added bit of assurance that they wouldn't need to worry about needing to fend off Hasbro's deep-pocketed legal department? That I think is a more open question. Similarly, if they didn't have the SRD to build on and instead had to scrutinize every bit of their own chosen language with a fine-toothed comb, at the very least that would have had an adverse impact on their ability to churn out more product.

So while the OGL may not have strictly enabled the creation of Pathfinder, I think it's fair to say it made it considerably easier - and in the world of business, the two can often mean the same thing.

Frankly, trying to be more controlling is a mistake, but it's one WotC will have to learn from. They're making the error of thinking 3rd party publishers are somehow profiting in a way that costs WotC money. Even if it's just, "We want a cut of what they make!" But they'll just reduce the 3rd party publishing, and see no upswing in their own sales.

I don't see how the royalty requirement reduces anything tbh. The folks making millions of the OGL like Paizo are not going to just strike out on their own and make something completely incompatible with it, that would invalidate 80% of their own catalogue. They're certainly not going to up and exit the industry entirely and take up basket-weaving. Besides which, Paizo benefits from D&D's continues success too - both directly (by being able to convert and sell their existing adventure paths through the system, like they did earlier this year with Abomination Vaults), and indirectly (by being the primary landing pad for playgroups wanting to strike out from D&D and try something else.)

Meanwhile the small creators that are publishing through it more as a hobby or side-gig to pay rent - those folks don't have to worry about the royalty either until they become wildly successful, at which point they're likely to simply join the first group.

Marcloure

2023-01-04, 10:13 PM

You can't make a contract that states you can't sue the contractor, specially if it's world-wide. At least in Brazil, and I believe in the EU too, you can sue the contractor even if they do something that is technically legal and is on the contract if they act on bad faith or deceit.

Brookshw

2023-01-04, 11:16 PM

I'd say it depends on your definition of "allow." Could Pathfinder have existed, and even reached its current form and prominence, without the OGL? Very probably. Would they have sunk all the capital necessary to design, playtest, illustrate, market and publish it without the added bit of assurance that they wouldn't need to worry about needing to fend off Hasbro's deep-pocketed legal department? That I think is a more open question.

Even before WoTC took over the IP, TSR had its own game of whack-a-mole, fending off people writing supplements for D&D (to reasonable success). I suspect that avoiding having to play that game was at least a minor part of the reason for the SRD/OGL initially, even if not expressly acknowledged; and, as TSR did before them, recognizing widely disseminating the game's visibility (even in overlooking pirated copies at times in TSR's case) was better for their market.

You can't make a contract that states you can't sue the contractor, specially if it's world-wide. At least in Brazil, and I believe in the EU too, you can sue the contractor even if they do something that is technically legal and is on the contract if they act on bad faith or deceit.

No comment, but to Phoenix's earlier point, set an arbitration clause and choice of law to Delaware, and you're putting a heavy thumb on the scales.

TyGuy

2023-01-04, 11:42 PM

You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. We’re aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us.

Is this a paraphrase from a middle party? Because there is a 0% chance that this is even in an OGL draft.

Psyren

2023-01-04, 11:59 PM

Is this a paraphrase from a middle party? Because there is a 0% chance that this is even in an OGL draft.

Look, grammar and basic legal literacy don't matter. As long as your "leak" can be interpreted as "WotC bad," people will unquestionably believe a Fortune 500 company's legal department must have crafted it.

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-05, 12:15 AM

The language used is suspicious af. I doubt this is real. I'd be more upset that this is how they craft their legal documents lol.

Frogreaver

2023-01-05, 12:15 AM

Is this a paraphrase from a middle party? Because there is a 0% chance that this is even in an OGL draft.

It's not the actual OGL 1.1 in full legalese.

I think it's more like an executive summary of the significant differences at a recent point in time. It also could change until WOTC actually publishes it.

Should you be skeptical? Yes, it's sourced from a public facing anonymous source. But some fairly 'in the know' people seem to trust the source and/or the initial outlet reporting the info from the anonymous source. So it's not at the level of random anonymous forum/reddit poster either. It's also hard to think the players involved would risk their reputation by purposefully making up the story.

The changes do align toward WOTC's stated move toward more monetization of D&D. I think it's more likely to be true than not true at this point, but nothing definitive yet.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-05, 12:15 AM

Frogreaver

2023-01-05, 12:17 AM

This has to be fake news. As I understand it, it isn't possible for them to "deauthorize" the OGL1.0 for existing content published under it and instead cover it with a new agreement.

They can state they are doing whatever they want to state. That doesn't mean they are right or that it would legally stand up in court. Fear of a legal battle vs a very large company may actually be the best mechanism to push for adopting and complying with the OGL 1.1

Psyren

2023-01-05, 12:25 AM

Should you be skeptical? Yes, it's sourced from a public facing anonymous source. But some fairly 'in the know' people seem to trust the source and/or the initial outlet reporting the info from the anonymous source. So it's not at the level of random anonymous forum/reddit poster either. It's also hard to think the players involved would risk their reputation by purposefully making up the story.

They've said that about every "leak." Like the one swearing DnDBeyond was going to announce that $49.99/mo premium subscription tier, complete with a screenshot. "Ooh it's anonymous, but some folks 'in the know' trust the source!" And it turned out the big announcement was just the OneD&D playtest itself.

Frankly, unless it's from jaappleton, I'm not going to believe any of these "leaks."

animorte

2023-01-05, 12:36 AM

Frankly, unless it's from jaappleton, I'm not going to believe any of these "leaks."
A worthy source indeed. Speaking of which, what is the necessary incantation to summon this individual, and are any of us high enough level to cast it?

ProsecutorGodot

2023-01-05, 12:45 AM

A worthy source indeed. Speaking of which, what is the necessary incantation to summon this individual, and are any of us high enough level to cast it?

If I recall, he was scolded by WotC once before and I wouldn't want him to jeopardize himself attaching his name to this sort of leak, assuming its even come to his attention at all. It's close enough to confidential legal information that I would expect people to get in serious trouble for saying too much.

Which is why we're currently at the spot where sources are "anonymous but credible" and have to accept information at the words of others. Again, it absolutely could be true but it could just as easily not be.

Raven777

2023-01-05, 01:05 AM

1. Deauthorizing the OGL 1.0(a) means that no, you can't keep using it. For anything. Including if you're publishing 3e content. It's gone. Existing content is likely fine, but get legal counsel. But if you want to publish anything new, you have to use the OGL 1.1. Sucks to be you.

This is not something they can do.

Frogreaver

2023-01-05, 01:09 AM

They've said that about every "leak." Like the one swearing DnDBeyond was going to announce that $49.99/mo premium subscription tier, complete with a screenshot.

Who is they here?

Psyren

2023-01-05, 01:12 AM

Who is they here?

Reddit, the source of this latest "leak."

Which is why we're currently at the spot where sources are "anonymous but credible" and have to accept information at the words of others.

I think you'll find we have to do no such thing :smalltongue:

Frogreaver

2023-01-05, 01:26 AM

Reddit, the source of this latest "leak."

Reddit is not a person. Reddit is a site. It very much matters whether your person that claimed D&D Beyond was doing a 49.99 premium subscription and this person/people are the same and not if they just happen to post on the same site.

ProsecutorGodot

2023-01-05, 01:28 AM

I think you'll find we have to do no such thing :smalltongue:

Let me correct my statement, we're expected to accept the information is credible based on their word.

If there weren't an ongoing controversy based on the topic and the recent MTG 30 debacle I can't help but feel this sort of wild speculation would be treated like a "my uncle works at Nintendo" sort of story. People have been disgruntled enough with recent practice though that for them it's entirely believable given this amount of information.

Frogreaver

2023-01-05, 01:31 AM

Let me correct my statement, we're expected to accept the information is credible based on their word.

If there weren't an ongoing controversy based on the topic and the recent MTG 30 debacle I can't help but feel this sort of wild speculation would be treated like a "my uncle works at Nintendo" sort of story. People have been disgruntled enough with recent practice though that for them it's entirely believable given this amount of information.

The people making this particular claim are established people in the TTRPG community. They aren't just some anonymous username claiming my uncle works at WOTC and told me this.

Psyren

2023-01-05, 01:38 AM

The people making this particular claim are established people in the TTRPG community.

Never heard of them.

Reddit is not a person. Reddit is a site. It very much matters whether your person that claimed D&D Beyond was doing a 49.99 premium subscription and this person/people are the same and not if they just happen to post on the same site.

There is still a certain kind/subject of post over there that gets upvoted and I think you know that. Groupthink exists.

ProsecutorGodot

2023-01-05, 01:38 AM

The people making this particular claim are established people in the TTRPG community. They aren't just some anonymous username claiming my uncle works at WOTC and told me this.

Established people can still lie or be lied to. I'm not discounting their experience, I'm not claiming that they or their source is lying. It could be true, but their establishment in the community doesn't in any way automatically validate their claims when all of the evidence they can provide as of yet is "several sources which I consider reliable say so".

If anything, the only reason I'm considering this as more credible than blatant fear mongering is out of respect for their positions in the industry. I don't believe they're sharing this information with bad intentions but their claims of trust in the source doesn't mean I have to trust the source as well.

Frogreaver

2023-01-05, 01:48 AM

Established people can still lie or be lied to. I'm not discounting their experience, I'm not claiming that they or their source is lying. It could be true, but their establishment in the community doesn't in any way automatically validate their claims when all of the evidence they can provide as of yet is "several sources which I consider reliable say so".

I don't disagree, but it does give their statements alot more credibility than random reddit poster. It could still be true or not true, but don't discount the claim as if they were a random redditor.

If anything, the only reason I'm considering this as more credible than blatant fear mongering is out of respect for their positions in the industry. I don't believe they're sharing this information with bad intentions but their claims of trust in the source doesn't mean I have to trust the source as well.

You seem to agree here, so not really sure what you are disagreeing with me about unless you reading alot into what I said.

ProsecutorGodot

2023-01-05, 02:02 AM

You seem to agree here, so not really sure what you are disagreeing with me about unless you reading alot into what I said.

Who said we're disagreeing? I'm willing to not outright dismiss the claims based on their reputation, I'm not the one likening them to Reddit as a broad group. My point was that if the controversy wasn't still fresh surrounding the OGL that people wouldn't be so willing to go straight past plausibility into accepted truth. Sorry if that got lost in comparing it to old playground rumors.

catagent101

2023-01-05, 02:10 AM

For the record, the person vouching for the anonymous source is Mark Seifter.

Idk what to make of this yet, I guess it's best to wait and see.

Frogreaver

2023-01-05, 08:35 AM

For the record, the person vouching for the anonymous source is Mark Seifter.

Idk what to make of this yet, I guess it's best to wait and see.

Want to explain who he is for those not in the know?

Unoriginal

2023-01-05, 08:37 AM

Originally posted on reddit by the official account of one of the 5e podcasters/content creators (RollForCombat): https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/103f1fz/we_got_an_official_leak_of_one_dd_ogl_11_watch/

Note: I'm going to take this with a grain of salt until confirmed, although I saw chatter that other normally knowledgeable/reputable sources had confirmed the gist of it.

--------

Thoughts (I am not a lawyer):

If the quoted text is correct, this is an utter jerk move.

1. Deauthorizing the OGL 1.0(a) means that no, you can't keep using it. For anything. Including if you're publishing 3e content. It's gone. Existing content is likely fine, but get legal counsel. But if you want to publish anything new, you have to use the OGL 1.1. Sucks to be you.

2. They reserve the right to change the license without warning other than on the website/social media. Don't follow them obsessively and miss something? Sucks to be you.

3. WotC can take anything you create and sell it, alter it, or publish it as their own, without paying or even giving credit. And you can't do anything about it. Sucks to be you.

4. And you can't even sue. Sucks to be you.

So assuming that this is accurately quoted, this is basically worst-case. Worse even than 4e, because the 4e license didn't even attempt to deauth the previous license (which is what allowed Paizo to do PF). This not only prevents that but means Paizo can't publish any new OGL 1.0(a) content. Even for long-dead systems. Or anyone else. Pay up or get sued.

Obligatory disclaimer: Assuming this is true. But the sources are big-names and willing to put their names on this leak and claim it. So it's at least not zero reputation.

Darth Vader and Lando, in the Cloud City.

Mastikator

2023-01-05, 08:52 AM

catagent101

2023-01-05, 09:47 AM

Want to explain who he is for those not in the know?

Oh yeah sure. One of the main devs of Pathfinder until last year, currently working on his Battlezoo stuff (supplement for both 5e and PF2e).

Oramac

2023-01-05, 10:06 AM

It reads like executive objectives before the lawyers reign them in.

This. A lot of it sounds like a brief outlining their goals, not a legally binding document.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if WOTC tried all of this crap.

Sigreid

2023-01-05, 10:09 AM

So that's what all the drama is about, another unconfirmed leak? Like the last one that turned out to be bogus?

Take the actual words of WotC announcement of a new OGL with a grain of salt. Take unconfirmed rumors with a heavy dose of "pics or it didn't happen". Stop believing in rumors. As far as I'm concerned this reddit poster is a liar looking for attention.

I know at least with the company I work for some of the leaks are intentional for one of 2 reasons. First, they will put out different stories to different internal groups to narrow down who is leaking. Second, to get a feel for how well ideas will be relieved before committing to them.

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 10:29 AM

Welcome to OGL Random Speculation, where everything is still made up and the points don't matter.
https://i.imgflip.com/nggg2.jpg

Oh yeah sure. One of the main devs of Pathfinder until last year, currently working on his Battlezoo stuff (supplement for both 5e and PF2e).

Only makes a it a bit more suspicious to me, if true. I feel like if anyone is willing the throw WotC under the bus, it'd be a Paizo dev.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 11:06 AM

This doesn't read like any legal agreement I've ever seen. One of the big issues, the VTT issue creates questions about anti-trust concerns, it reminds me a little of the Microsoft/Netscape antitrust case, due to WOTC's marketshare. Ditto for poison pills.There is no clause in 1.0 or 1.0a that I have seen that allows for deauthorizing, no idea if that is significant, but a clause like this might only work on a forwardgoing basis, not a retroactive one. (That is, it might mean you can't use 1.0 or 1.1a on the new SRD). Revoking 1.0 or 1.0a, if competitors are using it now (Ithe OSR, mutant and masterminds and Pathfinder) might run into a number of similar potholes, particularly given the current regime. Not a lawyer, and not sure this is anything other than an executive wishlist (if that), but revoking prior OGLs will be a little more complicated than just claiming to be able to deauthroize 1.0 or 1.0a.

Buy if true, likely it will spur creators to move to other systems, DND is the biggest because it is the first and has the most name recognition, not because it is the best. The OGL was a mistake for WOTC, but my first RPG was WEG's star wars setting, then Mexhwarrior, so clearly bug games can and did thrive without OSR or WOTC. What the OGL did was move a lot of games to D20 that might have been otherwise built with other systems, WOTC would lose that competitive advantage, and people might get into an RPG through a licensed property not controlled by WOTC. Or popularity could come from a livestream of YouTube playing shadowrun, OpenD6, GURPS, FATE, etc. Those who aren't getting into DnD as a fad have often moved to other games in the past, this could simply speed up that exodus.

The question for creators isn't whether they will create material, but whether they will do so in DND or another system.

FluffyBugbears

2023-01-05, 11:10 AM

Coming in late (and new! this is what finally pushed me to make an account, heh) but Gizmodo has published an article on the topic. The writer Linda Codega has been writing several articles about the new OGL as news has been released. They state that they've seen the full OGL 1.1 and according to their summarizing article (as well as the accompanying twitter thread) it would seem that the leaks have been accurate. At the very least, this is the third leak I've seen today (Indestructoboy on Youtube also posted some leaks) and not only has there been identical texts between the leaks, but the overall message between them seems to be the same. It also matches with how creatives like Griffon Saddlebag have been discussing them as well.

(unable to post the link due to my post count being a Big Ol' Goose Egg, but if you google "gizmodo Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition" it'll turn up)

Unoriginal

2023-01-05, 11:18 AM

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 11:24 AM

At the very least, this is the third leak I've seen today (Indestructoboy on Youtube also posted some leaks) and not only has there been identical texts between the leaks, but the overall message between them seems to be the same.

My question is, is this making the rounds being identical because it's real, or because multiple people are regurgitating a singular source. Furthermore, would fabricating a fake OGL that would grab a lot of attention, given the announcement and the speculation that has been going around, be difficult*. Just include notes that WotC has released to the public to seem feasible (maybe even to people who've been given 'snippets'), splash in some of the most extreme speculation, then put out into the world entirely anonymously.

Oramac

2023-01-05, 11:28 AM

(unable to post the link due to my post count being a Big Ol' Goose Egg, but if you google "gizmodo Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition" it'll turn up)

Link to the article is here (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634).

=================

Again, it claims to have seen a leaked document. However, this time the claim is to have seen the ENTIRE OGL1.1, which it states is over 9000 words long (compared to under 900 for the original OGL).

One bit that is a little more concrete is thus (quoted from the article; my emphasis added): "The document reads, “if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial.”"

So, assuming this is to be believed, we should know something more by next Friday the 13th (and if that's not ominous, I don't know what is).

catagent101

2023-01-05, 11:33 AM

Say what you will, but if this turns out to be a prank whoever this is put a lot of effort into it. 9000 words is a LOT.

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-05, 11:36 AM

Nothing wrong with speculation. I can't imagine content creators sitting on a potential "leak" because it may or may not be xyz. We're all adults so we all know it might be true, false, and somewhere in between. And I can't imagine a leak occurring, and then the people that might be directly impacted also not engaging in conversation and speculation.

We'll just have to wait and see, and discuss in the interim :smallbiggrin:.

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 11:42 AM

Say what you will, but if this turns out to be a prank whoever this is put a lot of effort into it. 9000 words is a LOT.

The new Dungeons & Dragons Open Gaming License, a document which allows a vast group of independent publishers to use the basic game rules created by D&D owner Wizards of the Coast, significantly restricts the kind of content allowed and requires anyone making money under the license to report their products to Wizards of the Coast directly, according to an analysis of a leaked draft of the document, dated mid-December.

Looking at the article, the statement that it's 9000 words long is a secondhand, unsourced account. There is an analysis of a leak being put into words for an article. They only mention a leaked draft once, so I'm not sure if io9 has the OGL 1.1 to begin with.

FluffyBugbears

2023-01-05, 11:44 AM

My question is, is this making the rounds being identical because it's real, or because multiple people are regurgitating a singular source. Furthermore, would fabricating a fake OGL that would grab a lot of attention, given the announcement and the speculation that has been going around, be difficult*. Just include notes that WotC has released to the public to seem feasible (maybe even to people who've been given 'snippets'), splash in some of the most extreme speculation, then put out into the world entirely anonymously.

That's a really good point, and something I've also wondered! To clarify my post, the direct leaks each were three paragraphs long, and appeared to be taken from different sections of the document. The text of the first paragraph was identical, the other paragraphs were different. Codega did not post the full document (likely to protect the source), but since they claim the document is nearly 10'000 words long... Well, either they lied about getting a copy of the text (a big risk as a journalist), it's real, or they were duped by a false document.

If someone faked it, that sure was a way to spend their winter holidays.

Looking at the article, the statement that it's 9000 words long is a secondhand, unsourced account. There is an analysis of a leak being put into words for an article. They only mention a leaked draft once, so I'm not sure if io9 has the OGL 1.1 to begin with.

Codega also made a Twitter thread on the topic. In it they said that they received the leak yesterday and state the length given in the article - so it's firsthand, but still unsourced I suppose

(PS: thanks Oramac for posting the link!)

BeholderEyeDr

2023-01-05, 11:44 AM

Link to the article is here (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634).

=================

Again, it claims to have seen a leaked document. However, this time the claim is to have seen the ENTIRE OGL1.1, which it states is over 9000 words long (compared to under 900 for the original OGL).

One bit that is a little more concrete is thus (quoted from the article; my emphasis added): "The document reads, “if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial.”"

So, assuming this is to be believed, we should know something more by next Friday the 13th (and if that's not ominous, I don't know what is).

Note that the author has clarified that the document was dated early/mid December, so the timetable may have been changed since then. The document itself might be as well, though it's hard to imagine much content having changed significantly. It's likely that part of the reason for the link would be to try and pressure Wizards to make changes before they are fully locked in.

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 11:52 AM

That's a really good point, and something I've also wondered! To clarify my post, the direct leaks each were three paragraphs long, and appeared to be taken from different sections of the document. The text of the first paragraph was identical, the other paragraphs were different. Codega did not post the full document (likely to protect the source), but since they claim the document is nearly 10'000 words long... Well, either they lied about getting a copy of the text (a big risk as a journalist), it's real, or they were duped by a false document.

If someone faked it, that sure was a way to spend their winter holidays.

Codega also made a Twitter thread on the topic. In it they said that they received the leak yesterday and state the length given in the article - so it's firsthand, but still unsourced I suppose

(PS: thanks Oramac for posting the link!)

Ah, found it! The twitter thread. (https://twitter.com/lincodega/status/1611021434553339906) This clears a lot of things up, more succinctly than the article does. This definitely sounds like less of a second hand account, so I won't write the article off entirely.

EDIT: Facetiously, I will say ChatGPT really took off over the winter break. It wouldn't take as long to put something 9000 words long together as you would think. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2023-01-05, 11:54 AM

Link to the article is here (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634).

Thanks for the link! So far, according to the article, its doing exactly what they said it would do - restrict the OGL to actual gaming books/PDFs and introduce the reporting and royalty requirements. I'm not exactly seeing the smoking gun here, though the actual release may contain something that isn't being previewed yet?

BeholderEyeDr

2023-01-05, 11:58 AM

Ah, found it! The twitter thread. (https://twitter.com/lincodega/status/1611021434553339906) This clears a lot of things up, more succinctly than the article does. This definitely sounds like less of a second hand account, so I won't write the article off entirely.
I think at this point, we can safely (if not definitely) conclude that the leaked doc is indeed a draft version of the OGL 1.1 (as of early/mid December, per the reporter). I find it hard to believe (if not impossible) that this work is falsified. I find it impossible to believe that the reporter is lying.

The biggest questions, for me, are to what degree this leaked draft represents the final document, and how much of it was still being negotiated. Given their initial timeframe (which has already been missed), it seems likely that as of this draft, Wizards thought this document was pretty final. Whether that's changed since then...

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 12:18 PM

The OGL wasn't a mistake, it allowed WotC to reap the benefits from other people/companies doing their projects.

The current Hasbro/WotC corporate suits may see it as a mistake, but they're very much mistaken.

Perhaps, I'm thinking from a business point of view, it did water down their property a bit. There have been some very good and very bad 3rd party books.

Most things have trade offs, the OGL for OpenD6 likely killed that system, unfortunately, though it gave players access to mini6, etc. Getting royalties from their IP isn't an issue in my book, in general, but some moves can't be revoked easily if at all, which is my main point. Apple created Android in a sense markets respond.

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 12:27 PM

Thanks for the link! So far, according to the article, its doing exactly what they said it would do - restrict the OGL to actual gaming books/PDFs and introduce the reporting and royalty requirements. I'm not exactly seeing the smoking gun here, though the actual release may contain something that isn't being previewed yet?

Perhaps, I'm thinking from a business point of view, it did water down their property a bit. There have been some very good and very bad 3rd party books.

Most things have trade offs, the OGL for OpenD6 likely killed that system, unfortunately, though it gave players access to mini6, etc. Getting royalties from their IP isn't an issue in my book, in general, but some moves can't be revoked easily if at all, which is my main point. Apple created Android in a sense markets respond.

I will say that the article and the youtube video do not necessarily make the same claims. I'm just saying that there is some potential veracity to a leak that may be much larger than the OGL 1.0. The article does not mention ownership or waiving a right to sue, these very well could be different leaks entirely, if that.

I also agree that royalties for large, commercial text creators and non-text works were already expected to not be covered by this arrangement. Nor do I really have an issue either of these things. WotC was pretty clear with how they handle things like VTTs and video games already, and the fan created content agreement apparently is remaining, if the tweet thread is anything to go by.*

EggKookoo

2023-01-05, 12:31 PM

I think at this point, we can safely (if not definitely) conclude that the leaked doc is indeed a draft version of the OGL 1.1 (as of early/mid December, per the reporter).

I work for a big Fortune 500 company with an in-house legal department, and I work with the legal folks periodically. Absolutely 100% "legal" copy gets written by people not in that department and then passed by them for review. Happens all the time. In fact, our legal team won't write first draft stuff themselves. They want the PR and comms people to write it, so they (the legal team) know what the intent is. Only then do they rewrite it or ask for changes to make it ready for prime time. I'm a web developer (not a copywriter or even a designer) and even I have had to write up boilerplate legalese from time to time because a client wanted to just have something there "for the time being."

So don't take the non-professionality of this copy to mean it's not coming from an authentic source. It could be early draft stuff.

Psyren

2023-01-05, 12:34 PM

I think the one part of this I find potentially concerning is the "unauthorized 1.0" bit. I don't know what that means for existing or new non-D&D stuff using the older license. I expect currently existing stuff will be covered and new stuff will have to use the new license, which is pretty standard, but won't know until we have the full thing.

I'm fine with the limitations on covered content, the reporting requirement, and the royalty requirement. As stated previously, they've been up front on all three of these things.

As for things like Critical Role, Youtube etc., the Fan Content Policy still applies so all those should be fine. It means those creators can't paywall their content or otherwise monetize it directly, but they can still do things like Patreon and ads to make a living so I'm fine with that too.

I will say that the article and the youtube video do not necessarily make the same claims. I'm just saying that there is some potential veracity to a leak that may be much larger than the OGL 1.0. The article does not mention ownership or waiving a right to sue, these very well could be different leaks entirely, if that.

I also agree that royalties for large, commercial text creators and non-text works were already expected to not be covered by this arrangement. Nor do I really have an issue either of these things. WotC was pretty clear with how they handle things like VTTs and video games already, and the fan created content agreement apparently is remaining, if the tweet thread is anything to go by.*

I agree completely and didn't even bother with the Youtube video. The io9 article (and twitter thread from its author) are much more reputable and less hysterical anyway.

Oramac

2023-01-05, 12:40 PM

I'm fine with the limitations on covered content, the reporting requirement, and the royalty requirement. As stated previously, they've been up front on all three of these things.

I'm generally ok with these too. I don't like them, but I can live with them.

The one major thing I can't abide is giving up all ownership and control over my work.

BeholderEyeDr

2023-01-05, 12:42 PM

Akal Saris

2023-01-05, 12:44 PM

Darth Vader and Lando, in the Cloud City.

Shaka, when the walls fell!

Psyren

2023-01-05, 12:53 PM

The article author (who does have the full thing but is not a lawyer, but has been talking with lawyers knowledgeable on this sort of thing) agrees, and says that previous publications using OGL are fine, but anything published in the future will have to use OGL 1.1. See for example, https://twitter.com/lincodega/status/1611021441046089728. She's discussing a lot more on twitter that didn't appear in the article, if you're curious.

Indeed, I read the Twitter thread too. I wonder what that might mean for things like Starfinder 2 or PF3?

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 01:07 PM

Indeed, I read the Twitter thread too. I wonder what that might mean for things like Starfinder 2 or PF3?

I will say as an aside, I was surprised to find out that PF2 was still using OGL when it was being playtested/released, given how different it is. I guess that used it to avoid any legal confrontation, but I can't imagine it would be too difficult for them to justify not operating/publishing under the license entirely, and they are big enough that they'd be able to cover the cost difference in legal fees and the WotC licensing agreement if they did (literally millions of dollars). It's already hard enough to copyright game mechanics as is, and elves and dwarves are public domain.

Of course, a Pathfinder 3 might be exactly the sort of thing to completely disentangle themselves from WotC legally. While I strongly dislike PF2, I wish them luck on future development, especially if it offers them the creative, legal, and financial freedom they would enjoy.

ZRN

2023-01-05, 01:15 PM

Two points:

First, it's not uncommon to leak documents like this as a trial balloon. WOTC could have been circulating this version of the OGL revision to third-party companies to see how pissed off they were before moving forward.

Second, the attempt to apply restrictive terms to fan productions seems impractical. What are they gonna do, sue or shut down D20, Critical Roll, and every other Twitch streamer that plays the game?

I expect the final version of this will be a bit more modest. I also expect that they'll be clearer that this license applies to anything derived from WOTC's new products, not retroactively to everything published in the last 22 years under OGL 1.0.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 01:21 PM

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 01:21 PM

Second, the attempt to apply restrictive terms to fan productions seems impractical. What are they gonna do, sue or shut down D20, Critical Roll, and every other Twitch streamer that plays the game? Fan productions aren't handled by the OGL to begin with. They operate under a separate agreement with WotC (https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy), though I think Critical Role specifically has a license.

I expect the final version of this will be a bit more modest. I also expect that they'll be clearer that this license applies to anything derived from WOTC's new products, not retroactively to everything published in the last 22 years under OGL 1.0.
Totally possible that the final version is less daunting. However, looking at what's been written on the subject, prior, existing content can continue to be published. OGL 1.0a may be revoked, but that doesn't mean prior works can be taken down on this basis. See BeholderEyeDr's comment above.

Mastikator

2023-01-05, 01:46 PM

I know at least with the company I work for some of the leaks are intentional for one of 2 reasons. First, they will put out different stories to different internal groups to narrow down who is leaking. Second, to get a feel for how well ideas will be relieved before committing to them.

Okay then I heard a rumor that WotC will hand out unicorns to everyone that buys their books in 2024 as a reward.
Who cares that it's impossible, unsubstantiated and the rumor is based on spite, what matters is that sometimes corporations offer bribes to their customers to buy a good reputation. That's a good enough reason to trust some random idiot on the internet

Psyren

2023-01-05, 01:52 PM

Yes. But the license issue is a problem as well. If XYZ publishes the "nottherealms" settingusing 5e, does this mean WOTC can use monsters created for your setting anytime they wish? If nottherealms is popular, and you dislike dealing with WOTC, sp you publish with your own system, that they can print an alternate DnD version of the setting?

The issue isn't just IP, a lot of talk on this one, but given WOTC marketshare, there are anti-trust implications to all of this as well. If this is the OGL, well it may be time for creators to talk to the FTC.

Well, if bold happens because you built on WotC's license rather than going it alone, that could be seen as a cost of doing business. But I'll wait to see the exact provision around that before passing judgement.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 01:53 PM

Indeed, I read the Twitter thread too. I wonder what that might mean for things like Starfinder 2 or PF3?

Or someone using PFs OGL/SRD.

Sigreid

2023-01-05, 01:55 PM

Okay then I heard a rumor that WotC will hand out unicorns to everyone that buys their books in 2024 as a reward.
Who cares that it's impossible, unsubstantiated and the rumor is based on spite, what matters is that sometimes corporations offer bribes to their customers to buy a good reputation. That's a good enough reason to trust some random idiot on the internet
Oh, I have no idea if this is legit or not. Just pointing out that large companies aren't strangers to disinformation when it comes to sensitive topics.

My only personal interest in this right now is I don't want these clowns changing my virtual content I've already bought.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 01:57 PM

Well, if bold happens because you built on WotC's license rather than going it alone, that could be seen as a cost of doing business. But I'll wait to see the exact provision around that before passing judgement.

True in part, the popularity of DnD might also be enhanced by 3rd party creators. But my pointnis, they seem to be using market power to crack down on competitors. Microsoft tried this and were hammered pretty badly (though that didn't help netscape).

The licensee issue, the retroactively for previous SRDs and VTT issues might have antitrust issues--something I've brought up, but I'm not seeing discussed. And I suspect WOTCs legal department knows this and the end result will be more moderate, but I think the big question isn't DnD as IP, it's whether DND qualifies as a monopoly.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-05, 01:57 PM

My only personal interest in this right now is I don't want these clowns changing my virtual content I've already bought.

That's the inherent risk to buying things virtually. You buy an access code, not an interest in the underlying asset. And they can change it at will. Amazon's shown that clearly, as have others.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-05, 02:00 PM

True in part, the popularity of DnD might also be enhanced by 3rd party creators. But my pointnis, they seem to be using market power to crack down on competitors. Microsoft tried this and were hammered pretty badly (though that didn't help netscape).

The licensee issue, the retroactively for previous SRDs and VTT issues might have antitrust issues--something I've brought up, but I'm not seeing discussed. And I suspect WOTCs legal department knows this and the end result will be more moderate, but I think the big question isn't DnD as IP, it's whether DND qualifies as a monopoly.

If they said "this only applies to OneD&D", I'd have no issue. People could continue using the 5e SRD's materials, but any use of OneD&D's materials would be under the 1.1 license. Retroactively nuking an existing license, even if existing content is safe (but preventing any new content from being written without accepting the 1.1 license) pushes a lot of "unfair competition" buttons in my head.

Oramac

2023-01-05, 02:02 PM

My only personal interest in this right now is I don't want these clowns changing my virtual content I've already bought.

Sadly, unless all your virtual content is through DDB, I think that's all but guaranteed at this point.

Sigreid

2023-01-05, 02:08 PM

Sadly, unless all your virtual content is through DDB, I think that's all but guaranteed at this point.
Fantasy Grounds, actually. I'd expect DDB to be more vulnerable to arbitrary update.

Changing my existing licensed products without an opt out would be a sure way to make Hadbro dead to me.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 02:20 PM

If they said "this only applies to OneD&D", I'd have no issue. People could continue using the 5e SRD's materials, but any use of OneD&D's materials would be under the 1.1 license. Retroactively nuking an existing license, even if existing content is safe (but preventing any new content from being written without accepting the 1.1 license) pushes a lot of "unfair competition" buttons in my head.

VTTs and long term claims to a license are issues even in OneDND. Monopolies are essentially limited in the moves they can make, so they can't subvert the freemarket.

Oramac

2023-01-05, 02:27 PM

The licensee issue, the retroactively for previous SRDs and VTT issues might have antitrust issues--something I've brought up, but I'm not seeing discussed.

True, but likely irrelevant. Nobody has the funding to pursue that kind of legal battle, and WOTC/Hasbro know it. Even if the major competitors and third party publishers combine their efforts, Hasbro still has deeper pockets.

Fantasy Grounds, actually. I'd expect DDB to be more vulnerable to arbitrary update.

Changing my existing licensed products without an opt out would be a sure way to make Hadbro dead to me.

Let me rephrase: DDB is safer in that it's unlikely to be killed completely. Other licensed virtual products may just be killed off entirely, not updated/modified.

Kane0

2023-01-05, 02:41 PM

Frankly, unless it's from jaappleton, I'm not going to believe any of these "leaks."

Was just going to say this myself

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 02:47 PM

True, but likely irrelevant. Nobody has the funding to pursue that kind of legal battle, and WOTC/Hasbro know it. Even if the major competitors and third party publishers combine their efforts, Hasbro still has deeper pockets.

True, unless it is a class action, or if the FTC, a division of the US government fines them for monopolistic practices. It will be more moderate, I think, for these reasons.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-05, 02:51 PM

That said, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if WOTC tried all of this crap. Hasbro, the bigger dog in the junkyard, is in a position to bully people with lawyers and threats of lawyers.

I know at least with the company I work for some of the leaks are intentional for one of 2 reasons. First, they will put out different stories to different internal groups to narrow down who is leaking. Second, to get a feel for how well ideas will be relieved before committing to them. Aye.

The OGL wasn't a mistake, it allowed WotC to reap the benefits from other people/companies doing their projects.

The current Hasbro / WotC corporate suits may see it as a mistake, but they're very much mistaken. They see dollar signs somewhere in an "under monetized" product.

So, assuming this is to be believed, we should know something more by next Friday the 13th (and if that's not ominous, I don't know what is). Coincidence? I think not! :smallsmile:

Ah, found it! The twitter thread. (https://twitter.com/lincodega/status/1611021434553339906) This clears a lot of things up, more succinctly than the article does. Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Far more informative than this thread, in the main.

I'm not exactly seeing the smoking gun here, though the actual release may contain something that isn't being previewed yet? Your Defenders of the Coast patch is in the mail.
If they said "this only applies to OneD&D", I'd have no issue. People could continue using the 5e SRD's materials, but any use of OneD&D's materials would be under the 1.1 license. Retroactively nuking an existing license, even if existing content is safe (but preventing any new content from being written without accepting the 1.1 license) pushes a lot of "unfair competition" buttons in my head. They have the pocket change necessary for the legal fees. They don't care what's fair, they care about not being under monetized. :smallwink:

Oramac

2023-01-05, 02:59 PM

True, unless it is a class action, or if the FTC, a division of the US government fines them for monopolistic practices. It will be more moderate, I think, for these reasons.

I admit I don't know a ton about the antitrust stuff, but I really don't see the FTC giving a damn about something like this. But, the mere fact that it could happen might be enough for WOTC/Hasbro to dial it down a bit. Here's hoping.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 03:03 PM

I admit I don't know a ton about the antitrust stuff, but I really don't see the FTC giving a damn about something like this. But, the mere fact that it could happen might be enough for WOTC/Hasbro to dial it down a bit. Here's hoping.

The current FTC are extreme hawks, hard seeing them be8ng uninterested. Also class action suits sre often funded by the lawyers until settlement when they take a cut. So it's not as tough to sue as you might think, otherwise insurance companies would never pay injury claims.

Sigreid

2023-01-05, 03:29 PM

True, but likely irrelevant. Nobody has the funding to pursue that kind of legal battle, and WOTC/Hasbro know it. Even if the major competitors and third party publishers combine their efforts, Hasbro still has deeper pockets.

Let me rephrase: DDB is safer in that it's unlikely to be killed completely. Other licensed virtual products may just be killed off entirely, not updated/modified.
Well, what I bought is stored on my machine so all I really need is for them to not feed me an unwanted update to the file.

Psyren

2023-01-05, 03:46 PM

Or someone using PFs OGL/SRD.

PF doesn't actually have one, that would still be WotC's.

Your Defenders of the Coast patch is in the mail.

I'll take that patch over a Hysteria Hat, no matter how shiny the metal :smallamused:

Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Far more informative than this thread, in the main.

On that we agree!

The current FTC are extreme hawks, hard seeing them be8ng uninterested. Also class action suits sre often funded by the lawyers until settlement when they take a cut. So it's not as tough to sue as you might think, otherwise insurance companies would never pay injury claims.

Let's not forget the EFF as well - the VTT stuff would likely fall into their purview, and they're quite used to punching upward.

Jervis

2023-01-05, 03:50 PM

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-05, 04:02 PM

I'll be interested to see the final product; a 'draft circulating' isn't the same thing as the OGL that has gotten the lawyers to go final on the fine/detailed points of the language.

I don't know how many drafts I' ran up the chain over the years (how many hundreds) on various policy documents; the final result was usually related to what our office or G-Code/N-Code proposed, but was always modified somewhat before it went final.

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-05, 04:05 PM

I find it hilarious that people are defending this. WotC can do no harm I suppose. I’m convinced that WotC could announce that they’re building a doomsday device and certain people would defend them for it at this point. Pulling the rug out from under people on older OGL versions with a statement that it can be changed at any time with only a months notice is asking for trouble. And of course the obligatory mention that they have the right to use whatever you make for whatever they want is bs of the greatest regard. I truly hope this is the second coming of 4E and WotC gets a financial broken jaw over this.
I think, given that this didn't come from WotC themselves, it's reasonable to be skeptical. What I don't get is all the hate for just speculating in general. There does seem to be a strain of "people that expect something bad are morons that are jumping the gun", which I think is unreasonable. Part and parcel of the new zeitgeist; don't question what comes down from on high.

I don't think there's much reason to only receive the news that WotC/Hasbro wants to squeeze more money out of D&D as "a good thing" with signs of only good things to come. That seems exceptionally foolish to me.

I'm open to being pleasantly surprised that they will make their profit while increasing my enjoyment of the game somehow, and that WotC doesn't bungle their newest initiative, as they've done before. But I'm not hopeful about it, and I don't think that's doomsaying or wearing a hysteria hat. I think it's pretty reasonable.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-05, 04:08 PM

I'm open to being pleasantly surprised that they will make their profit while increasing my enjoyment of the game somehow, and that WotC doesn't bungle their newest initiative, as they've done before. But I'm not hopeful about it, and I don't think that's doomsaying or wearing a hysteria hat. I think it's pretty reasonable. What they did with forum content (fan generated) and 4e digital tools/content doesn't lend confidence...

Jervis

2023-01-05, 04:14 PM

I think, given that this didn't come from WotC themselves, it's reasonable to be skeptical. What I don't get is all the hate for just speculating in general. There does seem to be a strain of "people that expect something bad are morons that are jumping the gun", which I think is unreasonable. Part and parcel of the new zeitgeist; don't question what comes down from on high.

I don't think there's much reason to only receive the news that WotC/Hasbro wants to squeeze more money out of D&D as "a good thing" with signs of only good things to come. That seems exceptionally foolish to me.

I'm open to being pleasantly surprised that they will make their profit while increasing my enjoyment of the game somehow, and that WotC doesn't bungle their newest initiative, as they've done before. But I'm not hopeful about it, and I don't think that's doomsaying or wearing a hysteria hat. I think it's pretty reasonable.

I’m expecting the 4E GSL two the electric boogaloo. As a side note, expect the Critical Roll role playing game in the next few months, it’s gonna be 5E with every mention of 5E scrubbed off and enough small changes to make it legally distinct. I like 5e and all but I’d love to see the death of the dnd monolith in gaming. I’d love it if their royalties policy is the thing that finally knocks them off their high horse though the stuff about granting WotC a license to what you create and the VTT anti-competition stuff are what’s making me consider no longer producing content for the game.

But yeah I see very little reason to doubt that WotC would do this after there recent announcement. That said i’m gonna probably leave this thread and go to the other “””O”””GL 1.1 thread just to not juggle anything else.

EggKookoo

2023-01-05, 04:16 PM

As a side note, expect the Critical Roll role playing game in the next few months, it’s gonna be 5E with every mention of 5E scrubbed off and enough small changes to make it legally distinct.

A lot of people suspect CR has a custom arrangement with WotC and won't be affected by this at all.

What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-05, 04:28 PM

A lot of people suspect CR has a custom arrangement with WotC and won't be affected by this at all. I have a similar belief.

What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D. They probably get hosed. :smallmad:

ProsecutorGodot

2023-01-05, 04:29 PM

A lot of people suspect CR has a custom arrangement with WotC and won't be affected by this at all.

What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.

Their setting is published by wotc and they have an ongoing sponsorship with dndbeyond, which is owned by wotc.

Of all the content creators to say are going to go "off brand" this is possibly the least realistic one to make such claims for.

Oramac

2023-01-05, 04:30 PM

the stuff about granting WotC a license to what you create...are what’s making me consider no longer producing content for the game.

Same. I can handle royalties. I can't handle giving up ownership of my work.

A lot of people suspect CR has a custom arrangement with WotC and won't be affected by this at all.

What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.

This. With the popularity of CR, I'd be absolutely shocked if they didn't have a custom agreement already in place.

Those other YT channels? Simple answer: they die, and WOTC gives zero ****s.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 04:33 PM

Their setting is published by wotc and they have an ongoing sponsorship with dndbeyond, which is owned by wotc.

Of all the content creators to say are going to go "off brand" this is possibly the least realistic one to make such claims for.

Hasbro needs CR more than CR needs Hasbro. They likely do have a marketing agreement that is mutually beneficial. But I doubt anyone is going after youtube games. Bad PR.

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 04:38 PM

I'll take that patch over a Hysteria Hat, no matter how shiny the metal :smallamused:

There does seem to be a strain of "people that expect something bad are morons that are jumping the gun", which I think is unreasonable. Part and parcel of the new zeitgeist; don't question what comes down from on high.

I may seem reticent to make comments or support arguments that are entirely made up or based on unsubstantiated statements, because there's not a lot to talk about and it really just makes people unhappy. I don't want to contribute to a negative non-discussion with information none of us have.

For example, I will not speak on the doomed status of Youtube content creation, especially when I don't think the OGL necessarily was what protected that content.

Psyren

2023-01-05, 04:39 PM

What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.

Fan Content Policy (https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy), which both Codega and WotC themselves confirmed will still exist.

What that means is that those smaller channels can't charge people to watch them play D&D, but they can put ads on their videos or plug their Patreon for support, or sell their own channel merch that doesn't specifically reference any of D&D's IP etc.

EggKookoo

2023-01-05, 04:43 PM

Fan Content Policy (https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy), which both Codega and WotC themselves confirmed will still exist.

What that means is that those smaller channels can't charge people to watch them play D&D, but they can put ads on their videos or plug their Patreon for support, or sell their own channel merch that doesn't specifically reference any of D&D's IP etc.

Well that's good news, especially for WotC. I hope they understand that Stranger Things and Critical Role are only part of their renaissance.

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-05, 04:52 PM

I may seem reticent to make comments or support arguments that are entirely made up or based on unsubstantiated statements, because there's not a lot to talk about and it really just makes people unhappy. I don't want to contribute to a negative non-discussion with information none of us have.

For example, I will not speak on the doomed status of Youtube content creation, especially when I don't think the OGL necessarily was what protected that content.
I think there's value in speculation. We don't have to wait for the final drop before we talk amongst ourselves about what may or may not be happening.

The human mind is an incredible machine and we're more than capable of handling speculative talk. It's not like we're completely unfamiliar with monetization, the people involved, past initiatives, current alternatives, consequences of actions, etc etc etc.

The poo-pooing of the speculation smells a lot like "unless you know something definitively, being concerned is inappropriate". And that seems like a colossal waste of our mental capacity. I also wouldn't want those types of people making any important decisions, as forecasting and predicting are incredibly important tools for decision-making. At least, decision-making that you hope to be fruitful and successful.

I don't know enough to predict what will happen. I know that if you put the squeeze on people some of them will leave, some of them will consider it the cost of doing business, many won't be impacted, etc etc.

But we have to be free to talk about it and go through the motions. I mean... why wouldn't we?

Mastikator

2023-01-05, 04:54 PM

I think, given that this didn't come from WotC themselves, it's reasonable to be skeptical. What I don't get is all the hate for just speculating in general. There does seem to be a strain of "people that expect something bad are morons that are jumping the gun", which I think is unreasonable. Part and parcel of the new zeitgeist; don't question what comes down from on high.

I don't think there's much reason to only receive the news that WotC/Hasbro wants to squeeze more money out of D&D as "a good thing" with signs of only good things to come. That seems exceptionally foolish to me.

I'm open to being pleasantly surprised that they will make their profit while increasing my enjoyment of the game somehow, and that WotC doesn't bungle their newest initiative, as they've done before. But I'm not hopeful about it, and I don't think that's doomsaying or wearing a hysteria hat. I think it's pretty reasonable.

I can't speak for others but I for one am sick and tired of rumors from anonymous sources who have no credibility and no evidence being treated as anything but a made up story. If I start a thread saying "I have leaked documents that I can't post anywhere lest I be banned- but essentially they say this:
It will not be possible to buy books anymore
It will not be possible to buy books on dndbeyond, all content will come in the form of loot boxes
Hashbro are planning on buying up as much of the TTRPG market as possible, then banning all non-1D&D games"
Your response should not be to be skeptical, your response should be to outright disbelieve me. People have been doing this for well over a century, make up some outrageous lie for clicks or upvotes or to get people to buy their tabloids.

For the sake of diplomacy let me phrase it like this: please consider the credibility of the source, and the evidence they provide before you consider believing it.

Psyren

2023-01-05, 04:55 PM

Well that's good news, especially for WotC. I hope they understand that Stranger Things and Critical Role are only part of their renaissance.

Yeah and the Policy is really useful for them to have. It means WotC has a recourse if someone, say, runs a really offensive D&D campaign that glorifies all manner of board-inappropriate topics that goes viral and damages the brand, they can C&D it to stop the spread.

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-05, 04:57 PM

I can't speak for others but I for one am sick and tired of rumors from anonymous sources who have no credibility and no evidence being treated as anything but a made up story. If I start a thread saying "I have leaked documents that I can't post anywhere lest I be banned- but essentially they say this:
It will not be possible to buy books anymore
It will not be possible to buy books on dndbeyond, all content will come in the form of loot boxes
Hashbro are planning on buying up as much of the TTRPG market as possible, then banning all non-1D&D games"
Your response should not be to be skeptical, your response should be to outright disbelieve me. People have been doing this for well over a century, make up some outrageous lie for clicks or upvotes or to get people to buy their tabloids.

For the sake of diplomacy let me phrase it like this: please consider the credibility of the source, and the evidence they provide before you consider believing it.
I think this makes sense, if actions were being taken based on the rumor/leak.

But here we're just talking. We know a change is coming. We know they want more money. We know they're taking actions to make that happen.

So it's fine to speculate. Maybe the leak is complete BS. What will change because this thread happened?

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 05:04 PM

I mean... why wouldn't we?

I'm not saying anyone is not free to do anything. I am saying baseless speculation (not what you've been posting personally, some of the things I've seen in general) is lowering the quality of discussion and causing emotional harm. In the time between this post and your last one, multiple people posted comments that foretold the death of DnD youtube, and judging by their tones in their statements, were very upset about that. This is despite that the content is outside the scope of the topic agreement, and an extant separate policy already covering that topic separately, which furthermore was determined to be still extant according to a potential leak.

If the Fan Content Policy was scrapped, or at least there was a proposed announcement of it being scrapped, we would have something to work off of. But this has happened and some people ruined their day over something that wasn't going to happen in the first place. I would say that people are not familiar with a lot of these topics, so discussing them can be good. But on the other hand the exchange was not very constructive.

Segev

2023-01-05, 05:12 PM

Yeah and the Policy is really useful for them to have. It means WotC has a recourse if someone, say, runs a really offensive D&D campaign that glorifies all manner of board-inappropriate topics that goes viral and damages the brand, they can C&D it to stop the spread.

Unfortunately, it also means that, if WotC so deems, they could C&D such a thing for the sin of, for example, declaring dwarves good and kobolds evil. Or for having no orc wizards in the campaign. Or for NOT supporting certain board-inappropriate topics or promoting certain positions on them.

Just imagine, for example, if somehow adherents of your least favorite commentator took over D&D and decided that Critical Role had to promote their commentator's outlook or they couldn't do their show.

BeholderEyeDr

2023-01-05, 05:24 PM

I can't speak for others but I for one am sick and tired of rumors from anonymous sources who have no credibility and no evidence being treated as anything but a made up story. If I start a thread saying "I have leaked documents that I can't post anywhere lest I be banned- but essentially they say this:
It will not be possible to buy books anymore
It will not be possible to buy books on dndbeyond, all content will come in the form of loot boxes
Hashbro are planning on buying up as much of the TTRPG market as possible, then banning all non-1D&D games"
Your response should not be to be skeptical, your response should be to outright disbelieve me. People have been doing this for well over a century, make up some outrageous lie for clicks or upvotes or to get people to buy their tabloids.

For the sake of diplomacy let me phrase it like this: please consider the credibility of the source, and the evidence they provide before you consider believing it.
The article about the leaked OGL draft is from a reputable reporter, on a reputable platform, who is vouching for a reputable source. It's also being corroborated by people in the know, such as the Kickstarter director of games who was involved in negotiating the terms presented in the article/leak. This is about as legit as leaks get (though you can certainly just categorically discount leaks if you want, I suppose). I totally understand skepticism about the earlier leaks (I felt the same), but the situation has changed with today's news.

Jervis

2023-01-05, 05:51 PM

Yeah and the Policy is really useful for them to have. It means WotC has a recourse if someone, say, runs a really offensive D&D campaign that glorifies all manner of board-inappropriate topics that goes viral and damages the brand, they can C&D it to stop the spread.

Corporations having power to say no to how someone uses their product is a bad thing, regardless of any opinion on the content. Never will i ever support corporate control of another entity’s transformative work via IP law. That’s like saying a shirt company has the right to shut down a news boardcast because someone was wearing a shirt they made while doing something they disapproved of. Utter nonsense.

Psyren

2023-01-05, 06:04 PM

Corporations having power to say no to how someone uses their product is a bad thing, regardless of any opinion on the content. Never will i ever support corporate control of another entity’s transformative work via IP law. That’s like saying a shirt company has the right to shut down a news boardcast because someone was wearing a shirt they made while doing something they disapproved of.

This isnt about "using their product." This about broadcasting their product alongside something damaging, hateful or reprehensible. You can run your games however you want privately, the policy doesn't prevent that.

Unfortunately, it also means that, if WotC so deems, they could C&D such a thing for the sin of, for example, declaring dwarves good and kobolds evil. Or for having no orc wizards in the campaign. Or for NOT supporting certain board-inappropriate topics or promoting certain positions on them.

Just imagine, for example, if somehow adherents of your least favorite commentator took over D&D and decided that Critical Role had to promote their commentator's outlook or they couldn't do their show.

I'm not saying that's impossible, however improbable. I'd still rather them have recourse against bad actors than not.

The article about the leaked OGL draft is from a reputable reporter, on a reputable platform, who is vouching for a reputable source. It's also being corroborated by people in the know, such as the Kickstarter director of games who was involved in negotiating the terms presented in the article/leak. This is about as legit as leaks get (though you can certainly just categorically discount leaks if you want, I suppose). I totally understand skepticism about the earlier leaks (I felt the same), but the situation has changed with today's news.

Sure, but there's a lot of stuff Codega didn't state in her article or Twitter thread at all that is being guessed at. And other things she explicitly refuted (like the destruction of youtube d&d) that are still making the rounds anyway.

Unoriginal

2023-01-05, 06:10 PM

As a side note, expect the Critical Roll role playing game in the next few months, it’s gonna be 5E with every mention of 5E scrubbed off and enough small changes to make it legally distinct.

Critical Role's setting is officially a WotC publication now. And WotC *never* let a setting go once it's in their power, even when they refuse to publish anything in it.

If it was just the 5e mechanics they used, like at the start, they might try to do their own system, but Critical Role will simply never be able to afford losing the right to use the setting and the characters they've spent years building their fandom on.

I'm more expecting the CR people to take the giant novelty check and start shilling D&Done in the next few months to a year.

Hasbro needs CR more than CR needs Hasbro. They likely do have a marketing agreement that is mutually beneficial.

It doesn't matter who needs whom more, what matters is who has the power to shut down the other.

Hasbro without Critical Role loses a few millions. Critical Role without Hasbro has 0 content they can make money of, aside from a couple one-shots.

But I doubt anyone is going after youtube games. Bad PR.

Bad PR never stopped corporate suits from trying something. May stop them from succeeding, though, but when it happens a lot of small businesses figure out it's time to stop.

stoutstien

2023-01-05, 06:17 PM

Honestly if wizard wants to shoot their gift horse in the head via a overly restrictive licensing agreement the market will adjust. The growing popularity of TTRPGs won't miss a beat.

Segev

2023-01-05, 06:20 PM

I'm not saying that's impossible, however improbable. I'd still rather them have recourse against bad actors than not.

I'd legitimately rather they not. They already have that recourse over their IP. They can use the power of words and their position as a prominent company to combat any association issues, and can deny rights to use Beholders and the like. (After all, you can't use a Beholder in your own fictional story without WotC licensing it to you.) But they should not have the ability to say, "You can't play D&D because we don't like how you're playing it."

kazaryu

2023-01-05, 06:20 PM

It doesn't matter who needs whom more, what matters is who has the power to shut down the other.

Hasbro without Critical Role loses a few millions. Critical Role without Hasbro has 0 content they can make money of, aside from a couple one-shots.

pretty sure you don't need an OGL to make money playing a game on stream. i mean i could be wrong but...i mean a huge chunk of youtube/twitch income comes from exactly that.

Psyren

2023-01-05, 06:25 PM

I'd legitimately rather they not. They already have that recourse over their IP. They can use the power of words and their position as a prominent company to combat any association issues, and can deny rights to use Beholders and the like. (After all, you can't use a Beholder in your own fictional story without WotC licensing it to you.) But they should not have the ability to say, "You can't play D&D because we don't like how you're playing it."

All the specific examples I have for why this is necessary would go against board rules so I'll leave it there. We can agree to disagree.

Bad PR never stopped corporate suits from trying something. May stop them from succeeding, though, but when it happens a lot of small businesses figure out it's time to stop.

Again, they specifically said youtube is fine. Yet this keeps coming up.

ProsecutorGodot

2023-01-05, 06:25 PM

pretty sure you don't need an OGL to make money playing a game on stream. i mean i could be wrong but...i mean a huge chunk of youtube/twitch income comes from exactly that.

They do have self published content that relies on the ogl as well though, the tal'dorei reborn setting book and the blood hunter are the top examples.

Jervis

2023-01-05, 06:30 PM

This isnt about "using their product." This about broadcasting their product alongside something damaging, hateful or reprehensible. You can run your games however you want privately, the policy doesn't prevent that.

Again, you’re either missing the point or being intentionally obtuse. My entire point was about making something while using something else. Does a camera manufacturer or someone that makes editing software have the right to say what you can record or edit with it? No? Same applies here. Brand protection should never give them a right to that.

Unoriginal

2023-01-05, 06:30 PM

pretty sure you don't need an OGL to make money playing a game on stream. i mean i could be wrong but...i mean a huge chunk of youtube/twitch income comes from exactly that.

The campaign setting the Critical Role people created is now WotC's, and such Hasbro's.

If they try making money out of it without Hasbro's agreement, they can get shut down. Or at least, they can get lawyered until it's no longer profitable to even attempt it.

Funny story about that: Critical Role argued the same about content creators making money out of fan content based on their work, resulting in those content creators getting a cease & desist.

Again, they specifically said youtube is fine. Yet this keeps coming up.

Expecting corporate suits to speak the truth is the first mistake many people make when thinking about business-related shenanigans.

Segev

2023-01-05, 06:36 PM

All the specific examples I have for why this is necessary would go against board rules so I'll leave it there. We can agree to disagree.

I suspect my specific examples as to why this is not only unnecessary, but bad, would find that we do, indeed, have to agree to disagree, even if we were allowed to discuss them here.

I am of the opinion that we should err on the side of allowing offense to occur in the name of preventing "but that's offensive!" from being used to silence all who you disagree with. Specific examples, obviously, are off the table, here. But I think we fundamentally disagree on where that line should be drawn. Which is okay, since neither of us are actually making these decisions.

Brookshw

2023-01-05, 06:58 PM

What that means is that those smaller channels can't charge people to watch them play D&D, but they can put ads on their videos or plug their Patreon for support, or sell their own channel merch that doesn't specifically reference any of D&D's IP etc.

A useful point of comparison in this conversation is the GW IP policy update which went into effect in 2021 when GW was moving more into the digital space, I'm sure WoTC was watching closely to see the impact.

And the impact seems to have been fairly minimal; sure, a few fan sites threw in the towel, but for the most part it remained business as usual. There's still ads and other private monetization going on, people still produce content, etc., and it certainly didn't seem to hurt GW's bottom line. From what I recall, the only time someone claimed to have received a C&D resulting from the change, it turned out to be a big hoax.

Basically, GW used common sense in it's enforcement (including not grabbing people's IP which they were entitled to have done for years), the hysteria calmed down, no major competitors arose, and everyone got on with it.

Also, do people not read the T&C's of DDB,? They're already giving away licenses to their IP.....

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 07:11 PM

Psyren

2023-01-05, 07:16 PM

I suspect my specific examples as to why this is not only unnecessary, but bad, would find that we do, indeed, have to agree to disagree, even if we were allowed to discuss them here.

I am of the opinion that we should err on the side of allowing offense to occur in the name of preventing "but that's offensive!" from being used to silence all who you disagree with. Specific examples, obviously, are off the table, here. But I think we fundamentally disagree on where that line should be drawn. Which is okay, since neither of us are actually making these decisions.

While I can't cite any specific examples, I can quote the parts of the forum rules (https://forums.giantitp.com/announcement.php?a=1) themselves related to things WotC might not want their brand associated with in an egregious instance of fan content:

Hate Speech
Graphic Violence
Illegal drugs
Illegal/Criminal activity
Explicit Sexuality
Professional Advice

Some of these are obviously bad, and WotC having the ability to revoke a content creator's ability to broadcast their game in conjunction with them is an important protection to have, especially for repeat offenders or highly-publicized cases.

Others are a bit more open to interpretation - I can imagine quite a few rogues who get up to "criminal activity" in a gaming context after all) - but if you, for example, use your video of a gaming session as a step by step tutorial on how to commit certain kinds of crime in real life, it's reasonable to expect that you might be asked to edit your video or take it down.

A useful point of comparison in this conversation is the GW IP policy update which went into effect in 2021 when GW was moving more into the digital space, I'm sure WoTC was watching closely to see the impact.

And the impact seems to have been fairly minimal; sure, a few fan sites threw in the towel, but for the most part it remained business as usual. There's still ads and other private monetization going on, people still produce content, etc., and it certainly didn't seem to hurt GW's bottom line. From what I recall, the only time someone claimed to have received a C&D resulting from the change, it turned out to be a big hoax.

Basically, GW used common sense in it's enforcement (including not grabbing people's IP which they were entitled to have done for years), the hysteria calmed down, no major competitors arose, and everyone got on with it.

Precisely - and again, your perspective/experience on this topic is always appreciated. Nobody is going to send you a takedown notice because you decided your world's orcs have blue hair.

Also, do people not read the T&C's of DDB,? They're already giving away licenses to their IP.....

I assume you mean this passage from the ToS:

5.2. License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content.

It seems pretty similar to the language used in the article I think. The difference being that the above only applies to things published via DnDBeyond or a WotC forum - I think.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-05, 07:21 PM

From a tweet further down the stream by Linda Codega (https://twitter.com/lincodega/status/1611119407140315137?s=20&t=UneaIIaPLVgtUi6HEldwqA)

@lincodega
2h
Replying to
@BrotherMingGame
royalties are a small part of this — there’s a lot of this language that is deeply restrictive and controlling, which is what a lot more people are upset about. WotC is turning an open sandbox into a walled garden. Nice turn of phrase there.

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-05, 07:22 PM

I'm not saying anyone is not free to do anything. I am saying baseless speculation (not what you've been posting personally, some of the things I've seen in general) is lowering the quality of discussion and causing emotional harm. In the time between this post and your last one, multiple people posted comments that foretold the death of DnD youtube, and judging by their tones in their statements, were very upset about that. This is despite that the content is outside the scope of the topic agreement, and an extant separate policy already covering that topic separately, which furthermore was determined to be still extant according to a potential leak.

If the Fan Content Policy was scrapped, or at least there was a proposed announcement of it being scrapped, we would have something to work off of. But this has happened and some people ruined their day over something that wasn't going to happen in the first place. I would say that people are not familiar with a lot of these topics, so discussing them can be good. But on the other hand the exchange was not very constructive.
I agree with your take on baseless speculation and I agree that people shouldn't have bad days over this.

I just want to be cautious that we're not grouping everyone together and rolling our eyes and saying "oh here we go again, more Chicken Littles worrying about nothing", just because some handful of people can't handle a rumor or leak without having a bad day about it. If the posts were more concern-centric I'd be more inclined to agree with you that's what's happening. But I think it's pretty clear that some people are being regarded as tin foil hat types for daring to wonder aloud if a corporation looking to squeeze more profits out of D&D might make some missteps in their attempt to do that. Especially given that they've made missteps before.

Sure, it might be a little less stressful to be a dutiful little soldier eating pies in the sky, defending WotC/Hasbro at every opportunity but... who wants to be that guy?

-------------------------------------------

Anyways, at the end of the day I know two things; Hasbro can't stop me and my friends from playing D&D, and they can't make me buy their products. As the "Demand' part of "Supply & Demand", I feel entitled to have an opinion about what they'll be supplying going forward, how they'll be supplying it, and what restrictions they'll be applying to 3rd party suppliers. I've complained more than enough times on this forum about the first part, and I've heard (online and in person) people wonder what is going to happen to all the digital content they've purchased for the game so far, and this OGL impacts the third part (as there is obviously a thriving 3rd party market supporting the game in ways that WotC refuses to).

It's funny though that in a time when corporations are the ultimate boogeyman, WotC/Hasbro is apparently a unicorn, rising out of the muck on a bridge made of rainbows, ascending as a paragon of good business practice and fair monetization.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 07:27 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-05, 07:28 PM

Anyways, at the end of the day I know two things; Hasbro can't stop me and my friends from playing D&D, and they can't make me buy their products. As the "Demand' part of "Supply & Demand", I feel entitled to have an opinion about what they'll be supplying going forward, how they'll be supplying it, and what restrictions they'll be applying to 3rd party suppliers. I've complained more than enough times on this forum about the first part, and I've heard (online and in person) people wonder what is going to happen to all the digital content they've purchased for the game so far, and this OGL impacts the third part (as there is obviously a thriving 3rd party market supporting the game in ways that WotC refuses to).

It's funny though that in a time when corporations are the ultimate boogeyman, WotC/Hasbro is apparently a unicorn, rising out of the muck on a bridge made of rainbows, ascending as a paragon of good business practice and fair monetization.

I agree with all of this. Personally, my trust in Hasbro, given, well, their past history and the statements they've made and the people they've hired, as well as my trust in WotC (whose MtG arm is notorious for customer-hostile, money-grubbing, ultra-litigation-happy behavior), is at an all-time ebb. So I'm naturally predisposed to take things like this seriously.

As someone who would like (in a pipe-dream sense) to publish a setting that widely deviates from their new procrustean formula and who has a voluminous amount of material on a wiki already, these sorts of things make me want to go and do another scrub. I already try to avoid using any stat blocks or even referencing directly SRD/other material, but some has leaked through.

In all probability, I'll continue to play 5.0 D&D, but that will drift further and further. Once I can't find new players, I'll find another system that I can retrofit to work for me. Unless something radically changes, I won't be buying any further WotC products and will struggle to find the value in continuing my D&D Beyond subscription, even though it's quite useful for some of my players. But the cost/value proposition becomes worse with every change.

Scots Dragon

2023-01-05, 07:29 PM

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 07:31 PM

Honestly, D&D 5e has had far too much of a monopoly on the industry and them losing out for a bit would probably be good for the long-term health of TTRPGs.

Indeed. I don't really feel the need to take sides between multimillion dollar corporations, and I am probably skipping ODD, but what if, after a chain of legal battles going the worst way possible, PF3 is good? That would be awesome!

Anyways, at the end of the day I know two things; Hasbro can't stop me and my friends from playing D&D, and they can't make me buy their products. As the "Demand' part of "Supply & Demand", I feel entitled to have an opinion about what they'll be supplying going forward, how they'll be supplying it, and what restrictions they'll be applying to 3rd party suppliers. I've complained more than enough times on this forum about the first part, and I've heard (online and in person) people wonder what is going to happen to all the digital content they've purchased for the game so far, and this OGL impacts the third part (as there is obviously a thriving 3rd party market supporting the game in ways that WotC refuses to).

It's funny though that in a time when corporations are the ultimate boogeyman, WotC/Hasbro is apparently a unicorn, rising out of the muck on a bridge made of rainbows, ascending as a paragon of good business practice and fair monetization.
Indeed. Much like PheonixPhyre lack of faith in Hasbro, I didn't have a huge amount of faith in a digital tool from WotC moving forward. I f this goes really poorly, I guess all of this side-eyeing and preference for hard copies will have paid off, at least. I do think that for a company apparently under-monetizing (and by that they apparently mean not selling enough books to players), they probably should have created and published more player oriented books like Tasha's and Xanathar's.

Maybe I can convince my table to play PF1 if we run out of 5e content. Fingers crossed. :smalltongue:

Daphne

2023-01-05, 07:45 PM

I find it hilarious that people are defending this. WotC can do no harm I suppose. I’m convinced that WotC could announce that they’re building a doomsday device and certain people would defend them for it at this point.

But have you considered that it might make business sense to build a doomsday device? Or maybe that they have information we don't showing that people want the world to end? And just because they're building a doomsday device does not mean they're gonna use it, stop being hysterical!

Psyren

2023-01-05, 07:53 PM

Indeed. I don't really feel the need to take sides between multimillion dollar corporations, and I am probably skipping ODD, but what if, after a chain of legal battles going the worst way possible, PF3 is good? That would be awesome!

Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.

Again though, I see plenty of opportunity here for creators to just... stick with 1.1 and keep making money. They need to clarify a few things like "static electronic files" and the "grant license" clause, but I still see plenty of opportunity here for third party creators to make money.

Indeed. Much like PheonixPhyre lack of faith in Hasbro, I didn't have a huge amount of faith in a digital tool from WotC moving forward. I f this goes really poorly, I guess all of this side-eyeing and preference for hard copies will have paid off, at least. I do think that for a company apparently under-monetizing (and by that they apparently mean not selling enough books to players), they probably should have created and published more player oriented books like Tasha's and Xanathar's.

Unfortunately, that takes a lot of design time to avoid flooding the market with poorly-balanced dross the way 3.5 (and even latter PF1 - hi Shifter!) did. As much as I wish we had more subclasses and feats, I'll take the stuff we do get being balanced better any day.

Maybe I can convince my table to play PF1 if we run out of 5e content. Fingers crossed. :smalltongue:

Mine migrated the other way shortly before Tasha's. Going back would be a pretty titanic effort I think (not that I want to - yet anyway.)

Sparky McDibben

2023-01-05, 08:00 PM

So, this might be genuine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqFFdHWEuvM

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 08:11 PM

Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.

My hunch is you probably have to opt in if you print ODD material due to section 9, and you are signing away your personal rights otherwise. My guess (still a philosopher and not a lawyer) is this may be an unenforceable jargon that doesn't work, sort of like the school permission slips we signed as kids.

I assume someone creating a setting in the future could skirt the license requirement, say by a rules book with Stats codes (M1 M2, M3 for monster 1, monster 2, monster 3) in the back released under the OGL, and then referring to the codes in the setting book, ("for stats on monster worms see M1 in Stat book") as non OGL material, or other tricks, tedious perhaps, but I wouldn't give any corporation any license to a setting I created for any reason. One could even do this in a system neutral way by creating a 5e, Gurps and Fate compatible set of stats.

EggKookoo

2023-01-05, 08:14 PM

So, this might be genuine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqFFdHWEuvM

Assuming this is true and WotC doesn't change course, this is the beginning of the end of D&D.

Sparky McDibben

2023-01-05, 08:17 PM

Assuming this is true and WotC doesn't change course, this is the beginning of the end of D&D.

I don't know about beginning of the end, but it does mean that right now we are...

https://i.imgflip.com/76i46l.jpg

Scots Dragon

2023-01-05, 08:22 PM

Assuming this is true and WotC doesn't change course, this is the beginning of the end of D&D.

So many D&D 5e fans about to experience their first D&D 4e situation. Brace yourself for it.

Raven777

2023-01-05, 08:23 PM

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 08:38 PM

Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.

Again though, I see plenty of opportunity here for creators to just... stick with 1.1 and keep making money. They need to clarify a few things like "static electronic files" and the "grant license" clause, but I still see plenty of opportunity here for third party creators to make money.

Unfortunately, that takes a lot of design time to avoid flooding the market with poorly-balanced dross the way 3.5 (and even latter PF1 - hi Shifter!) did. As much as I wish we had more subclasses and feats, I'll take the stuff we do get being balanced better any day.

Mine migrated the other way shortly before Tasha's. Going back would be a pretty titanic effort I think (not that I want to - yet anyway.)

It could be Kobold Press or Ghostfire Gaming.

I maintain that 5e's chassis (advantage, bounded accuracy, proficiency, action types) with 3.PF classes, archetypes and spells would be the best game ever.

I just want a game with classic Sorcerer and Shadow Enchantment / Conjuration / Evocation O.o

Mutants and Masterminds uses the OGL 1.0, though heavily modified. Green Ronin would be in the mix along with Paizo, though I believe they now have an in-house system, which is used for the Expanse.

animorte

2023-01-05, 08:39 PM

Everything Changed (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ZZyIyft6rbPDBdl9Vncu6uUH4zvk1x7/view?usp=drivesdk)

Jervis

2023-01-05, 09:01 PM

I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.

Yeah, I’d feel bad for all three of them but I’d personally be happy.

Memes aside if actually like to see someone like whitewolf pounce on the opportunity. TBH a lot of 5e players would probably like story games like the storyteller system or Fate more than 5E if my experience is anything to go by. 5E has this weird devision between being a dungeon crawler and a story game because it’s trying to serve a very large fanbase that want very different things.

But have you considered that it might make business sense to build a doomsday device? Or maybe that they have information we don't showing that people want the world to end? And just because they're building a doomsday device does not mean they're gonna use it, stop being hysterical!
:smallcool: Heh

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 09:01 PM

Mutants and Masterminds uses the OGL 1.0, though heavily modified. Green Ronin would be in the mix along with Paizo, though I believe they now have an in-house system, which is used for the Expanse.

And this is why I suspect Hasbros legal department will say no to much of this. What happens with something as heavily modified as MnM is? If getting rid of the OGL was this easy, why didn't they do it sooner? My guess is this is executive talking points, not a final copy legal had approved, and if they did, it may not be enforceable.

Snowbluff

2023-01-05, 09:17 PM

Yeah, I’d feel bad for all three of them but I’d personally be happy. Ice cold. :smalltongue:

Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.

It could be Kobold Press or Ghostfire Gaming.

I maintain that 5e's chassis (advantage, bounded accuracy, proficiency, action types) with 3.PF classes, archetypes and spells would be the best game ever.

I just want a game with classic Sorcerer and Shadow Enchantment / Conjuration / Evocation O.o

Ye! I mean, I've considered mashing a mod together for 3.5/PF1 anyway. Just kinda fill in parts that are easily changeable.

Again though, I see plenty of opportunity here for creators to just... stick with 1.1 and keep making money. They need to clarify a few things like "static electronic files" and the "grant license" clause, but I still see plenty of opportunity here for third party creators to make money. True, I guess that mostly depends on the individual corporations however. I'm not sure about how much overhead some of them have, so what exactly what parts of their company would do. Maybe some of them might write off the licensing fee on their taxes (though I asked a tax accountant and he said he's never seen this done in practice). I brought up Paizo before because they do have millions of dollars on the line for this and hundreds of employees, so they have a lot to gain and a lot of overhead as is to avoid being tied up in a royalty agreement.

Unfortunately, that takes a lot of design time to avoid flooding the market with poorly-balanced dross the way 3.5 (and even latter PF1 - hi Shifter!) did. As much as I wish we had more subclasses and feats, I'll take the stuff we do get being balanced better any day.

Mine migrated the other way shortly before Tasha's. Going back would be a pretty titanic effort I think (not that I want to - yet anyway.)
I will say that their slow process hasn't necessarily created what people have been hailing as balanced. While I'm not one to primarily make my purchases on game balance, they did buff bladesinger and a lot of people don't like twilight cleric. There's a bunch of unused UA that could have been touched up and released pretty readily, like Stone Sorc.

Not that I'm saying that they should publish just anything, just that they could have made more releases, filling some of the gaps. There are definitely options for WotC here that don't involve pissing off a lot of people and potential inviting a lot of legal battles.

Brookshw

2023-01-05, 09:46 PM

I assume you mean this passage from the ToS:

5.2. License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content.

It seems pretty similar to the language used in the article I think. The difference being that the above only applies to things published via DnDBeyond or a WotC forum - I think.

That looks like what I'm recalling, yes (oh, look, WoTC recognizes to use "irrevocable" in licenses, and not to rely on "perpetual"). There's a lot of interesting things on the legal side that can be discussed about this, like the passage of the CASE Act in 2019 making it more practical for them to sue, or the expanding nature of infringement and how publishers can get clever in shutting things down, even when it doesn't directly copy their content (see for example, Penguin and the Dr. Suess estate's spat over the book The Cat Not In The Hat). Not gonna touch the antitrust stuff other than to say I think it's barking up the wrong tree.

But, at the end of the day, how much any of that matters is going to be largely academic I suspect. I see people linking "content creator"'s panic videos, and remember similar videos when GW pulled a similar move, MWG had a big long one about it. Know who's still making and monetizing content? MWG.

It could be Kobold Press

I'd love to see KP make their own game system, Wolfgang Baur did some great work with Midgard!

GreenDragonPage

2023-01-05, 09:57 PM

TaiLiu

2023-01-05, 10:25 PM

EggKookoo

2023-01-05, 10:26 PM

animorte

2023-01-05, 10:39 PM

I'm not sure what you intended to link, but we don't have access to the doc.
Yup, was struggling with that. Thanks, should be fixed!

TaiLiu

2023-01-05, 10:45 PM

Yup, was struggling with that. Thanks, should be fixed!
That's funny.

Sparky McDibben

2023-01-05, 10:55 PM

Yup, was struggling with that. Thanks, should be fixed!

10 / 10, very solid. :D

Unoriginal

2023-01-05, 11:38 PM

If getting rid of the OGL was this easy, why didn't they do it sooner?

Several things:

1. It's not that easy, it's just that Hasbro has enough power and money to do it and either dodge or beat any court cases coming from that change, when 3.X/4e-era WotC definitively couldn't afford to try.

2. Even at its worst, WotC recognized that it was better to have other content creators work with their system, with was basically free advertisement for D&D as it regularly reminded people D&D was a thing and that you could buy stuff from it. Now they're under mandate by corporate suits that are far removed from the situation and the suits think 5e does not monetizes itself enough, which obviously mean that all those "freeloaders using the corporate assets for free" must be cut off.

Psyren

2023-01-05, 11:53 PM

MCDM/Matt Colville has stated:

"Regarding the OGL 1.1, MCDM has taken advice from counsel and we don't think it affects the development of Flee, Mortals! If/when other products are affected, we'll let the community know.

No matter what, we'll keep making dope-ass stuff and we're excited for the future of MCDM!"

https://twitter.com/helloMCDM/status/1611137673049305088

Which is super interesting.

Sounds like he at least is not running for the hills, at least not yet. Telling...

Everything Changed (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ZZyIyft6rbPDBdl9Vncu6uUH4zvk1x7/view?usp=drivesdk)

"Harmony" is a strong word :smalltongue:

That looks like what I'm recalling, yes (oh, look, WoTC recognizes to use "irrevocable" in licenses, and not to rely on "perpetual"). There's a lot of interesting things on the legal side that can be discussed about this, like the passage of the CASE Act in 2019 making it more practical for them to sue, or the expanding nature of infringement and how publishers can get clever in shutting things down, even when it doesn't directly copy their content (see for example, Penguin and the Dr. Suess estate's spat over the book The Cat Not In The Hat). Not gonna touch the antitrust stuff other than to say I think it's barking up the wrong tree.

Yeah, I don't know how credible it would be to argue that they have a monopoly. Market leader, sure - but even within the TTRPG space there are plenty of alternatives, never mind board games or games more generally.

But, at the end of the day, how much any of that matters is going to be largely academic I suspect. I see people linking "content creator"'s panic videos, and remember similar videos when GW pulled a similar move, MWG had a big long one about it. Know who's still making and monetizing content? MWG.

Lovely.

Several things:

1. It's not that easy, it's just that Hasbro has enough power and money to do it and either dodge or beat any court cases coming from that change, when 3.X/4e-era WotC definitively couldn't afford to try.

2. Even at its worst, WotC recognized that it was better to have other content creators work with their system, with was basically free advertisement for D&D as it regularly reminded people D&D was a thing and that you could buy stuff from it. Now they're under mandate by corporate suits that are far removed from the situation and the suits think 5e does not monetizes itself enough, which obviously mean that all those "freeloaders using the corporate assets for free" must be cut off.

Yeah, those poor multimillionaire "freeloaders..."

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-05, 11:55 PM

Several things:

1. It's not that easy, it's just that Hasbro has enough power and money to do it and either dodge or beat any court cases coming from that change, when 3.X/4e-era WotC definitively couldn't afford to try.

2. Even at its worst, WotC recognized that it was better to have other content creators work with their system, with was basically free advertisement for D&D as it regularly reminded people D&D was a thing and that you could buy stuff from it. Now they're under mandate by corporate suits that are far removed from the situation and the suits think 5e does not monetizes itself enough, which obviously mean that all those "freeloaders using the corporate assets for free" must be cut off.

Attoeney's filing a class action suit for dozens of plantiffs, with an FTC letter us a big disincentive. I have a lawsuit filed from an auto accident a few years ago, the lawyer gets a percentage if we win, which we should, due to injuries. Lawyers in class actions work the same way, so it may not be as hard to sue as you might think. And I do think the FTC will be interested in this, including the bit about gaining an irrevocable license or controls on VTTs, not to mention the impact on the OSR, PF, MnM, etc., as well as for someone writing on the MnM OGL, since they would have to scrub works for terminology. I think it is a bit of a mess to revoke the old OGL for old content.

You know, very little time for going as I age, but I had a few setting ideas, for my kid when he gets older, possibly a niece and nephew. The themes of the settings are important enough that I will not be granting license to anyone, ever. I doubt I will publish, not my intent, but I think I will use an OpenD6 engine for development, why? OGL 1.1. Enough other people do similar things, and the WOT monopoly fades. Of course, I prefer D6 anyway, but then a lot of people have systems they prefer over DnD and the fad gamers won't be around forever.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 12:20 AM

Yeah, I don't know how credible it would be to argue that they have a monopoly. Market leader, sure - but even within the TTRPG space there are plenty of alternatives, never mind board games or games more generally.

I'm sure Microsoft thought the same of bundling explorer with their OS. I would have agreed with you at one point. Antitrust law is tricky, but it does seem to me that marketshare is high enough that it will raise prices on producers (to cover the royalties), it would drastically hurt VTTs if they explicitly couldn't use the most popular system on the market. The claim for an irrevocable license is a serious ine, because it one, later challenge the IP of creators who may not actually be drawing on DND Lore, they are only interested in mechanics in an early stage and change engines later down the line, etc. It's complicated, I'll leave it at that, and I think that is the real issue that WOTC needs to have internally and ultimately externally. I'm not a lawyer, but checking the FTC website, it's complicated.

Ogun

2023-01-06, 12:57 AM

Will I ever buy another Hasbro product?
I doubt it, but I would support a crowd funded defense of the 1.0 license.
The open gaming license allowed Pathfinder to thrive when players and creators were dissatisfied with 4 edition.
I think DnD and the entire TTRPG hobby became better because of that competitive pressure.

As for the 1.1 "Open" license, well if WotC really thinks that their contributions to a creators success entitles them to this kind of lopsided agreement, so be it.
Some will sign on and others won't.
It's kind of brilliant really.
WotC has decided that, rather than making better products for DnD, they will try to destroy or exploit any entity that is.

animorte

2023-01-06, 01:19 AM

That's funny.

10 / 10, very solid. :D
:smallsmile:

"Harmony" is a strong word :smalltongue:
:smallbiggrin: You know, I considered that while making it, since it seems to be uniting us more than ever!

Snowbluff

2023-01-06, 01:30 AM

But, at the end of the day, how much any of that matters is going to be largely academic I suspect. I see people linking "content creator"'s panic videos, and remember similar videos when GW pulled a similar move, MWG had a big long one about it. Know who's still making and monetizing content? MWG.

This is an interesting thought. I took a look at reddit and a lot of people don't know what the OGL is or what it does. I'm willing to bet a fair chunk of the DnD community never uses 3PP to begin with. My general impression is that this will be way more impactful on games that aren't DnD. Even if 1.1 releases in such a bad state, most people won't even notice. Yes, the gaming experience in total is worsened, but mostly on the high investment fraction of the playerbase. DnD 4e actually did sell despite a terrible licensing system as well, it seems.

Unoriginal

2023-01-06, 02:13 AM

Yeah, those poor multimillionaire freeloaders...

Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't actually see those multimillionaires as people who should be giving more of their money to Hasbro?

Or are you saying that those multimillionaires *are* freeloaders and they should give more of their money to Hasbro?

Psyren

2023-01-06, 02:48 AM

Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't actually see those multimillionaires as people who should be giving more of their money to Hasbro?

Or are you saying that those multimillionaires *are* freeloaders and they should give more of their money to Hasbro?

I'm saying that a royalty isn't going to scare off someone who can make millions from writing game books. (Though, again, I think it could stand to be lowered.)

This is an interesting thought. I took a look at reddit and a lot of people don't know what the OGL is or what it does. I'm willing to bet a fair chunk of the DnD community never uses 3PP to begin with. My general impression is that this will be way more impactful on games that aren't DnD. Even if 1.1 releases in such a bad state, most people won't even notice. Yes, the gaming experience in total is worsened, but mostly on the high investment fraction of the playerbase. DnD 4e actually did sell despite a terrible licensing system as well, it seems.

For good or ill, I'd say they did one thing right - planning to release the OGL soon (or intentionally "leaking" it now?) was the way to go. They'll make whatever concessions they deem necessary, and the residual outrage will die down well before OneD&D debuts.

Had this news dropped next year along with the new edition it would have completely dwarfed all the fanfare of the books themselves.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 03:51 AM

I'm saying that a royalty isn't going to scare off someone who can make millions from writing game books. (Though, again, I think it could stand to be lowered.).

I'm not sure how many creators are making millions, don't forget that they are apparantly wanting to collect on revenue, not profits. I think there are a number of problems with big dogs in the industry outside of WOTC, buy the revenue can be deceiving, some players are generating large revenues, but not large profits, since many crowdfunding efforts seem to underestimate production and creation costs, particularly when you can't print at scale, or go overboard on artwork.

But the effects would be far reaching. If you are Green Ronin, do you really want another company having a worldwide, irrevocable, sublicensable rights to publish components for freeport or freedom city? MnM has its own OGL, but it is derived from 3.x and they have never included their setting as open material. The language of the new OGL would seem to suggest if they publish a new adventure in their long standing setting without creating an entirely new system first, WOTC could then print a few Freedom city sourcebooks, and even if WOTC chose not to do so, it still, the possibility becomes a sword of damocles over Green Ronin if they ever bevame a true competitor. Now take this same issue and apply it to the OSR movement (OSR books are being sold under OGL 1.0, after all), does this, then include all future adventures for every indie studio using OSE, Labrynth Lords, Castles and Crusades, etc? Paizo still seems to reference the OGL on the PRD for 2.0, not sure what they are using it for (OpenD6 and Fate do the same thing, though I doubt WOTC could go after these systems, the only thing OpenD6 borrows is the contract, itself). It has some pretty far reaching implications.

It's too much power to influence the market, and controls too much of the space in the end. It's not about the money, though the desired amount is highly exorbitant, it's a problem with the larger impacts.

Again, not an alarmist, WOTC doesn't want to spend time in court, and a number of entities would fight this, a number of smaller creators will go to other systems, to avoid the hassle, etc. (I've read a thread where two lawyers in the field have differing opinions on if the OGL 1.0 can or cannot be revoked, it was interesting). Even if they win the case, well its a lot of money to pursue. So I expect their legal department will step in here with some sanity, and likely that was why it wasn't released as allegedly scheduled. But let's not suggest others are simply being greedy for WOTC property, they have a livelihood, and 20 years of their own sweat at stake and most are likely not that well off.

Serafina

2023-01-06, 05:51 AM

Demanding a percentage of revenue is pretty ruinous.

Let's run a math example on this, and assume a kickstarter that reaches a goal of $1,000,000 (one million dollars). That is a lot, but it has happend.
You charge 25$ for a digital PDF, and another 25$ for a printed book, the same for a map, the same for other physical rewards.. Your stretch goals include several doublings of specific rule content (classes, races, spells, etc.), virtual tabletop tokens, a bonus adventure, and a soundtrack.

Now, if you have to pay a percentage of your revenue, it is important to keep in mind that your costs go up. In our case, by 20%.
The PDFs are basically free to deliver, and the initial kickstarter goal should be small enough so as to be below the 750k treshhold anyhow. But what happens if you go above the 750k, and with any physical books or other individual rewards that have a cost to deliver, or stretchgoal rewards that have a notable cost to deliver?

So you reach 750k, and at this point kickstarters typically go up by people upgrading their pledge to include physical books, maps, cards, or items such as pins, stickers etc.
You also have to pay for any of the stretch goals - such as the soundtrack, which you likely have to pay someone to develop.

So let us assume that you go from 750k to 1 million, 50% of which is due to people upgrading to ordering physical books (5$ profit margin), 25% of which is due to them ordering maps (10$ profit margins) and 25% of which is due to people just ordering the PDFs, each of which split into 25$ sections of course. Those 250k would thus compose a profit of about $111,800.

But we also promised to deliver a Soundtrack, and assuming we deliver a decent-quality soundtrack (500$/minute) at a good length (half an hour) that will cost us $15,000 to deliver. Doesn't break the bank, but brings the profit down to about 90k. Keep in mind that realistically, this would encompass more stretch goals, and I am being really generous here too.

But that is if we do not have to pay 20% Revenue to WotC. What happens if we do have to do that?
Well, let's substract that as an additional cost. Out of those 250k, we now have to pay 50k to WotC. Oh - that more than halves our profits!

Remember - I am being really generous here.
What happens if people order way more physical rewards and you barely make money of those? If you do not make 5$ of profit off the books, but rather none, there goes 25k. Same if the maps only make 5$ of profit rather than 10$. That can happen.
You'll more likely promise more rewards - what if that eats another 10k? That is not unrealistic for two or three stretchgoals, such as map tokens and e.g. writing a whole adenture with additional art!
At that point, the additional profit from those 250k goes down to only about 5000 dollars! While WotC gets to keep 50000 - ten times as much.

Sure, that is only for succesful kickstarters.
But also, this is an example for kickstarters. Where you only have to pay 20% of your revenue. If you run a company that releases several books - well, guess what, this won't be calculated per book, and also it'll be 25% so it'll be even worse.

Edit:
Oh, and this gets worse if we suppose the people who run this succesful kickstarter previously released D&D-adjacent stuff, and are selling it. They'll have to pay 25% of the revenue of all those sales - which are unrelated to the kickstarter directly - to WotC!

So on a PDFf or 20$, now 5$ would go to WotC just because you ran a succesful kickstarter this year!
On a physical book for 25$, 6$25c would go to WotC. But wait, we assumed that you only make 5$ profit off that physical book in the first place - so unless you jack up the prices , you are now suddenly making a loss! If you do, you owe more to WotC (e.g. 7$50c at 30$ per book, leaving you with only 2$50 of profit, rather than 10$).

EggKookoo

2023-01-06, 05:53 AM

Yeah, those poor multimillionaire freeloaders...

Freeloaders? Are you even close to being serious here?

The OGL was always intended to benefit WotC. It only existed for that purpose. If you made money with an OGL product, WotC was freeloading off of you. If not in direct revenue in terms of core book sales propped up by your product, in terms of market share dominance, which is insanely valuable.

Scots Dragon

2023-01-06, 06:05 AM

Yeah, those poor multimillionaire freeloaders...

Wizards of the Coast's largest competitor makes 37 million a year in revenue.

Wizards of the Coast themselves make a 1,000 million a year in revenue, or in more simple terms; a billion, twenty-seven times more than their nearest competitor.

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to have more clamped-down control on the market than they already do.

Serafina

2023-01-06, 06:16 AM

Yeah, those poor multimillionaire freeloaders...It is important to note that a vast majority of what constitutes any TTRPG, including D&D, can not be meaningfully copyrighted or trademarked.

Like, you obviously can't copyright or trademark the D&D classes, since they all use generic names. You may be able to do that for the names specific class features or subclasses - e.g. you could probably make a case for "Eldritch Knight" - but only to the extent of protecting the name, not the concept. After all, a spellcaster whomst also uses a sword shows up in fantasy plenty of times.

The same goes for the vast majority of the monsters. There are a few that are actually original D&D creations, such as the Beholder, which could fall under copyright. For others, WotC could try to apply for a trademark. But for most of them, you can do no such thing, because they are generic, see above.

And quite importantly, you can not copyright or trademark rules. There is no definition of copyright under which I can protect "roll a D20 plus a bonus to see if your attack hits", or "roll a D20 plus a bonus to see if you are protected against an effect", or "you can move this far in a round, and certain terrain slows you down." You obviously have copyright to the written-out rulebook as a whole, but this doesn't stop anyone from taking the individual rules and applying them to their own game, any more than your use of a phrase in a book or technique in a painting can be copyrighted (it's a bit different with music but that is also special and silly).

Settings as a whole obviously have copyright and can be trademarked, but note how the existense of Lord of the Rings doesn't stop me from writing a story with Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Wizards, and evil magical treasures.

All this is to say that people taking inspiration from D&D, even very close inspiration, are in no way freeloaders.
The OGL was a clever move on WotCs part because it allowed them to bind other creators more closely to them. The vast majority of works under the OGL could have been written and published without it, but if so they would not have strenghtend the D&D brand. As they did before WotC released 4E and abandoned the OGL, and started doing again once they released 5E and started using it again.

Demanding 25% of the revenue from people who do marketing for you is just naked rent-seeking and greed.

EggKookoo

2023-01-06, 06:41 AM

Demanding 25% of the revenue from people who do marketing for you is just naked rent-seeking and greed.

Absolutely. The frustrating thing here is TSR had a habit of strongarm-suing companies that made competing or compatible products. WotC's OGL was a way to repair the brand's reputation after such tactics and grant "permission" for things it never had ownership over. Companies "freeloaded" by being able to make their products without worrying about WotC bankrupting them with frivolous legal expenses. Yes, that benefited these companies but it's kind of like that joke about the mobster who comes to your door demanding protection money. "Protection from whom?" "Protection from me!" (There's another better version but I don't want to get the thread locked.)

WotC is just going back to the old TSR methods, coated with an "OGL" to make it seem like they're still playing along as they have for the past 20 years. Technically, yes, I'm speculating, but this is at heart what they tried to do in the 4e GSL days, but couldn't. The only difference is that they think they can now.

I don't think they can. This will smash the entire industry down into a small fraction of what it currently is, but also one that's much more diversified. See, WotC thinks because D&D is popular with the broader culture right now, that broad audience will carry them forward. But as many big entertainment companies are learning in the Age of Geek, the broad audience is fickle. It's the core audience -- the people who liked your product for years when it wasn't cool to do so -- it's those people who keep you alive. The broad audience didn't get into D&D because of Stranger Things (et al). Stranger Things created a common language between the core and broad audience, and it was those core players who got their normie friends involved. As soon as the core audience stops promoting it, the broad audience will drop D&D like a rotten cabbage and move on to the next shiny thing that gives them geek cred. I've seen this pattern repeat itself year after year with various IPs for decades, large and small.

Unoriginal

2023-01-06, 07:58 AM

Freeloaders? Are you even close to being serious here?

The OGL was always intended to benefit WotC. It only existed for that purpose. If you made money with an OGL product, WotC was freeloading off of you. If not in direct revenue in terms of core book sales propped up by your product, in terms of market share dominance, which is insanely valuable.

While true, I don't think Hasbro's suits are seeing that truth.

Hasbro says D&D is under-monetized, and a bit later this "new license" business happens. That means they saw people making money out of corporate assests that (partially) belong to them and demanded to know why WotC is letting them without taking "their" cut.

EggKookoo

2023-01-06, 08:17 AM

While true, I don't think Hasbro's suits are seeing that truth.

Hasbro says D&D is under-monetized, and a bit later this "new license" business happens. That means they saw people making money out of corporate assests that (partially) belong to them and demanded to know why WotC is letting them without taking "their" cut.

Which means the current heads of WotC are incapable of explaining its value to Hasbro, or it no longer has value.

I'm not saying the OGL didn't benefit 3rd party developers. Of course it did. But it was intended to benefit WotC just as much if not more. WotC didn't create the OGL out of the goodness of its heart. It was created in an attempt to cash in on 3rd party development in the form of prompting core book sales and crowding out non-d20/OGL content. Do you remember people complaining about the latter at the time? I do.

If by doing so it allowed WotC to stop punishing those developers for doing nothing wrong, and in the process those developers flourished, that was great. But that wasn't the goal, since WotC could have at any time just stopped doing that without the need for any licensing. But doing so would be admitting they really don't own most of what D&D is. The OGL was just a switch from an overt threat of legal action to a covert one.

Unoriginal

2023-01-06, 08:43 AM

Which means the current heads of WotC are incapable of explaining its value to Hasbro, or it no longer has value.

I'm not saying the OGL didn't benefit 3rd party developers. Of course it did. But it was intended to benefit WotC just as much if not more. WotC didn't create the OGL out of the goodness of its heart. It was created in an attempt to cash in on 3rd party development in the form of prompting core book sales and crowding out non-d20/OGL content.

Absolutely.

The OGL was great for WotC, but they either failed to convince their bosses of that fact, or there was enough leadership shakes-up that whoever is in charge doesn't care about the money and perks it brought to WotC in the past either.

Frogreaver

2023-01-06, 09:04 AM

So far the best evidence I’ve seen that this is true are the details of the 20% royalty for kickstarter (that was stated in the leak) has been confirmed by kickstarter.

Raven777

2023-01-06, 09:23 AM

Isn't it weird that Kickstarter would process that 20-25% fee themselves? Shouldn't the royalties on any funds collected be strictly between the crowdfunded entity and WotC themselves, with Kickstarter as a neutral, non-involved third party payment processor? It feels like my bank suddenly deciding when and how my taxes are paid.

EggKookoo

2023-01-06, 09:32 AM

Zanos

2023-01-06, 10:00 AM

A 25% share of revenue is insane. Margins in the industry are razor thin and that basically functions to put every competitor out of business, or at least effectively cap their revenue(not profit) at 750k, because you'd be operating at a loss above that. Typical profit margins are <10%, even for very healthy companies.
The new OGL only applies to books and static electronic content(pdfs), which means that you will need an entirely custom contract with WOTC if you want to, say, make a VTT module. Which lines up with WOTCs obvious goal of creating a walled garden where you have to pay for everything and aren't allowed to use any content without their say. Frankly it seems like they're just sour grapes that they missed the VTT train and now are trying to use their legal arm to squash competition because they haven't been able to capture enough profit with the offerings they do have in the area.

Revoking the 1.0 OGL doesn't seem like something that would hold up legally at all, but it might not matter since Hasbro is orders of magnitude larger than any other competitor in this space and can certainly afford to bankrupt them with legal costs. I'd be interested in seeing a response from Paizo or Green Ronin on this. I guess it also means if I felt like publishing something compatible with 3.X in 2023 you can't do that anymore without lawyers breathing down your neck.

Psyren

2023-01-06, 10:12 AM

Freeloaders? Are you even close to being serious here?

I was only poking fun at the term; I'm not the one who mentioned it first. I'll go back and edit in quotation marks to make that clearer.

I'm not sure how many creators are making millions, don't forget that they are apparantly wanting to collect on revenue, not profits. I think there are a number of problems with big dogs in the industry outside of WOTC, buy the revenue can be deceiving, some players are generating large revenues, but not large profits, since many crowdfunding efforts seem to underestimate production and creation costs, particularly when you can't print at scale, or go overboard on artwork.

There aren't a lot, no. It won't apply to the majority of creators. But I think it's safe to say they wouldn't have had revenues that size or make such a name for themselves without building on that license in the first place. The amount might be too high, but the idea makes sense to me.

But the effects would be far reaching. If you are Green Ronin, do you really want another company having a worldwide, irrevocable, sublicensable rights to publish components for freeport or freedom city?

That provision is definitely my biggest concern personally.

But let's not suggest others are simply being greedy for WOTC property, they have a livelihood, and 20 years of their own sweat at stake and most are likely not that well off.

Again, I'm not the one who brought that term in (see above). And I'm all for a license that allows people to earn a livelihood. But there is value in the leg-up it provides, past a threshold that value is indeed creating competition. Maybe it's the accountant in me but I can understand how the intent of this thing might have drifted from its actuals over time.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 10:13 AM

The 1.0(a) license contains a line like "even if we publish other versions, you can use any authorized version". So deauthorizing it (according to people who claimed to be IP lawyers on reddit) does actually accomplish the task of "you can't use the old version." Will there be lawsuits? Probably. But Hasbro has way deeper pockets than anyone else.

This is a massive clown fiesta of a question, but "authorized" in the context of the OGL is, but WotC's own direct statement on their website, almost certainly a past participle. It's plain that the original intention was that the agreement was authorized in a singular moment and now is perpetually valid and all the people who have been publishing for decades under that interpretation in good faith could likely get a real day in court out of this money be damned. (I Am Not A Lawyer, that was not legal advice)

Absolutely.

The OGL was great for WotC, but they either failed to convince their bosses of that fact, or there was enough leadership shakes-up that whoever is in charge doesn't care about the money and perks it brought to WotC in the past either.

Yea WotC doesn't seem to grasp that their print few books and put even less in them strategy for rules content only thrives in a world where other people are making that content they aren't interested in for them.

As a side note, the morality clause in here is particularly sickening. WotC does not deserve publishing rights to veto or censor other peoples content just because they say they do, and even if they did have the best intentions in the world I simply don't trust them to make these decisions. Someone book is going to get nuked because using the phrase "race" for races or using racial stats instead of the current generic boring build-a-bear model they are moving towards, and that will be the whole ballgame.

Zanos

2023-01-06, 10:21 AM

There aren't a lot, no. It won't apply to the majority of creators. But I think it's safe to say they wouldn't have had revenues that size or make such a name for themselves without building on that license in the first place. The amount might be too high, but the idea makes sense to me.
WOTC profits indirectly off of the OGL by throttling competing systems, which is why 3.X was so wildly successful and 4e flopped. Before the OGL every publisher was making different games; after the OGL everyone was making stuff compatible with 3.X. There was a resurgence in different game systems during the 4e years since making compatible content was such a huge hurdle. So maybe there's actually a hidden blessing in Hasbro being greedy.

The 1.0(a) license contains a line like "even if we publish other versions, you can use any authorized version". So deauthorizing it (according to people who claimed to be IP lawyers on reddit) does actually accomplish the task of "you can't use the old version." Will there be lawsuits? Probably. But Hasbro has way deeper pockets than anyone else.
"Authorized version" isn't a defined legal concept; and The Law(tm) cares more about the way things have been actually used in practice than exacting wording. If the wording is arbitrary, courts will enforce the precedent that has been set by behavior; which according to documentation penned by WOTC themselves is that you can use previous versions of the OGL if desired.

The actual concern that is hasbro is a multi-billion dollar company, and their largest competitor pulls in maybe 10 mil in revenue and will almost certainly be bankrupted by a protracted legal battle.

Brookshw

2023-01-06, 10:25 AM

That provision is definitely my biggest concern personally.

Frankly, I don't see why. WoTC already noted they'd negotiate other licenses with companies, and, if you're going to make a serious commercial go at something and act like a company, well, then go an negotiate a license like a real company. That's standard business practice. You can still be a commercial producer without needing to rely on the OGL.

As a side note, the morality clause in here is particularly sickening. WotC does not deserve publishing rights to veto or censor other peoples content just because they say they do, and even if they did have the best intentions in the world I simply don't trust them to make these decisions. Someone book is going to get nuked because using the phrase "race" for races or using racial stats instead of the current generic boring build-a-bear model they are moving towards, and that will be the whole ballgame.

Morality clauses are pretty standard in the entertainment industry, having something like that here to protect their brand isn't shocking or unusual. If that bothers you, you should probably stop buying any products from companies that have celebrity endorsement or offer sponsorship of any kind, including "content creator" fan hype stuff. Remember how some major youtube personalities have gotten dropped like hot potatoes by sponsors for expressing racist sentiments? Pretty sure no one was going "oh, those mean companies, not sponsoring a hate monger"...

stoutstien

2023-01-06, 10:29 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-06, 10:31 AM

Raven777

2023-01-06, 10:34 AM

Psyren

2023-01-06, 10:35 AM

Frankly, I don't see why. WoTC already noted they'd negotiate other licenses with companies, and, if you're going to make a serious commercial go at something and act like a company, well, then go an negotiate a license like a real company. That's standard business practice. You can still be a commercial producer without needing to rely on the OGL.

I concur in principle, but again, I don't know how much power the license actually gives them. It makes sense to me that if you're publishing something on DDB you're giving up the rights to it, but this seems like it applies that to anything that gets printed or PDFed too.

With that said, I agree with your underlying sentiment for sure.

This is a massive clown fiesta of a question, but "authorized" in the context of the OGL is, but WotC's own direct statement on their website, a past participle. It simple means that the agreement was authorized in a singular moment and now is perpetually valid.

I imagine this debate will be at the heart of the (inevitable?) court case.

Yea WotC doesn't seem to grasp that their print few books and put even less in them strategy for rules content only thrives in a world where other people are making that content they aren't interested in for them.

While it's possible to change the license in a way that prevents this from happening, I don't see that being the case with most of these updates. The benefits to using the license will still make it worthwhile.

As a side note, the morality clause in here is particularly sickening. WotC does not deserve publishing rights to veto or censor other peoples content just because they say they do, and even if they did have the best intentions in the world I simply don't trust them to make these decisions. Someone book is going to get nuked because using the phrase "race" for races or using racial stats instead of the current generic boring build-a-bear model they are moving towards, and that will be the whole ballgame.

What Brookshw said. This kind of provision is common sense.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 10:38 AM

WOTC profits indirectly off of the OGL by throttling competing systems, which is why 3.X was so wildly successful and 4e flopped. Before the OGL every publisher was making different games; after the OGL everyone was making stuff compatible with 3.X. There was a resurgence in different game systems during the 4e years since making compatible content was such a huge hurdle. So maybe there's actually a hidden blessing in Hasbro being greedy.

It's even worse for 5e because the system is so simple and they publish so little for it. Pre covid I ran a lot of public gaming and the life cycle of new players coming into D&D tended to go like this. They get around to their 5th or 6th character after playing through the campaign books and adventure modules for a year or two, they realize things feel remarkably samey with all their characters, and then get introduced to other systems where they could express themselves better now that 5e taught them the basics of what RPing was, but the alternate path that stayed in 5e was finding homebrew they liked and moving to home games where they keep buying the adventure paths and new core books to use aongside whatever new class or subsystem they liked and just bought and that keeps 5e at the forefront. Even people whole RPG systems and setting to play in buy the adventurers for ideas and stat blocks. Sure, a decent few stayed really into just core D&D with no third party stuff, but those people instead latched onto the Adventurer's League system itself for their dopamine and AL has been not so great the past few years, my city used to have a massive AL scene that matched cities much larger then ours, but not anymore.

I imagine this debate will be at the heart of the (inevitable?) court case.

(IANAL) Among other things, but outside of being a big gorilla with a lot of money Hasbro isn't on excellent footing here. That FAQ answer they put out has real weight.

While it's possible to change the license in a way that prevents this from happening, I don't see that being the case with most of these updates. The benefits to using the license will still make it worthwhile.

Why would it be? Most of these publishers are entirely capable of jumping ship and moving over better profit margins in a more secure environment by not submitting themselves to this absolute farce of a legal document.

What Brookshw said. This kind of provision is common sense.

There is no universe or timeline where it would ever be common sense to give a corporation with a vested interest in maintaining the most milquetoast and generic image with the least controversy possible the right to act as a publisher and censor the content of everyone else. It's almost as heinous and violating as the claim to "own" the IPs of everyone who uses the OGL. It's anti art, anti progress, and it is decidedly NOT OPEN in the slightest.

Morality clauses are pretty standard in the entertainment industry, having something like that here to protect their brand isn't shocking or unusual. If that bothers you, you should probably stop buying any products from companies that have celebrity endorsement or offer sponsorship of any kind, including "content creator" fan hype stuff. Remember how some major youtube personalities have gotten dropped like hot potatoes by sponsors for expressing racist sentiments? Pretty sure no one was going "oh, those mean companies, not sponsoring a hate monger"...

These are neither sponsorships nor endorsements, and WotC is not the publisher of the material to make these decisions, as much as they retroactively want to declare themselves as such.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 10:50 AM

Again, I'm not the one who brought that term in (see above). And I'm all for a license that allows people to earn a livelihood. But there is value in the leg-up it provides, past a threshold that value is indeed creating competition. Maybe it's the accountant in me but I can understand how the intent of this thing might have drifted from its actuals over time.

Fair enough, my concerns are less about WOTC's making a profit and more about the power they get over the jndustry as a whole. A lot of systems used the OGL in good faith to publish settings and adventures, that had the OGL not been available would have been built differently, hose companies have become dependent on the OGL to expand their existing products. If this had been done before Pathfinder, MnM or the OSR systems had become established, it wouldn't be as big a deal, now I think itnhas a drastic impact on the hobby as a whole.

That and the similarities to the Microsoft/Netflix case--well it at least let's me know my setting will probably use D6 without borrowing from d20 (I had thought of some conversion metrics to make some issues easier, including a variation of an older "D6 in D6," idea published on an old angelfish-type site years ago but I'll build it from scratch instead). That probably won't be published, but just in case . . .

Brookshw

2023-01-06, 10:51 AM

Without the OGL, you're stuck at your entire business model being hostage to WotC's whims. And they can be as abusive as they want and you don't have a choice.

No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms. "I want to rely upon other companies ecosystems and IP, and capitalize on their good will" is not a business model, at least, not a respectable or sympathetic one.

Negotiating a big leagues license right of the bat stifles start-small-grow-big organic growth.

What is "organic growth"? Also, not necessarily, lots of small companies negotiate licenses with larger companies on very reasonable terms. Heck, I think probably 75% of the contracts, probably more, I've done are with smaller companies.

These are neither sponsorships nor endorsements, and WotC is not the publisher of the material to make these decisions, as much as they retroactively want to declare themselves as such. Really? Companies aren't getting a benefit from utilizing WoTC's good will and ecosystem? I guess if they're not, then why do they want the OGL and to publish in relations to WoTC's content? Seems like they'd be better off just walking away.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 10:57 AM

Brookshw

2023-01-06, 11:01 AM

Actually it is quite the business model. It has been ever since the OGL dropped and explicitly gave people permission to do so in perpetuity, to their own benefit and profit. It turned out that that ecosystem was way healthier that way, a rising tide raises all ships and so on.

If your business model is "I want to use someone else's good will and ecosystem, and get a free lunch, but not have to actually listen to them or be restrained", don't expect a lot of sympathy.

Zanos

2023-01-06, 11:02 AM

If your business model is "I want to use someone else's good will and ecosystem, and get a free lunch, but not have to actually listen to them or be restrained", don't expect a lot of sympathy.
The previous OGL was very open and made both WOTC and their "competitors" a lot of money. Also, this is basically the entire model for desktop software these days, at least for Windows and Linux. When your earnings are highly dependent on market saturation of your product, making your ecosystem open is generally to your benefit.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-06, 11:03 AM

No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms. "I want to rely upon other companies ecosystems and IP, and capitalize on their good will" is not a business model, at least, not a respectable or sympathetic one.

At T = 0, they have a licensed business model. At T = 1, they have a choice.

a) create an entirely new game, from scratch. With 0 time to prepare, no built in fan base, no opportunity to do any research. Just "new game or never publish anything again". Note--you can't even publish a new edition of your existing library, and things like Archives of Neryis? Completely illegal and must be immediately torn down. Effectively, you're out of business until you can build an entirely new business from the ground up.
b) give in to whatever WotC wants.

Basically no one has the ability to do (a) without going out of business. Pivoting on a dime is risky best case, and most of those pivots fail.

This is a transparent attempt to drive competitors out of business by anti-competitive practices. Pure monopolistic practices. Personally, the FTC should get involved. There's no question that WotC has monopoly power in the TTRPG industry--they make something like 100x the revenues of all competitors combined. And this kind of behavior is exactly what what the anti-trust laws were designed to cover.

Oramac

2023-01-06, 11:08 AM

Memes aside if actually like to see someone like whitewolf pounce on the opportunity. TBH a lot of 5e players would probably like story games like the storyteller system or Fate

I've used both whitewolf and Fate, and have been seriously thinking about rewriting all my content for one of those systems, should OGL1.1 come to pass as-is (or, as rumored, at least).

Segev

2023-01-06, 11:13 AM

I would be careful with White Wolf, if you're concerned about WotC being draconian and/or imposing their views on things. White Wolf is run, from my experience, by the kind of people who are leading to the mistakes and bad decisions WotC is making. They have some great games, of which I am a fan, but as a business and company, I would prefer to be beholden to Hasbro and WotC than White Wolf. And that's not saying I would want to be depending on WotC's good will in any way, shape, manner, or form...but at least WotC has structures in place that are somewhat protective.

I do not see how a license, granted in perpetuity, can be simply revoked. They can lock 5.1 content behind their new 1.1 license, but they can't lock 5.0 content that was released with the 1.0 license, nor 3.5 content that was released under the now-ancient OGL, behind a new license.

I am pretty sure whatever company made "Advanced 5e" will be able to keep producing their works under the old license, and the only threat they face legally is the pseudo-legal "sue them into oblivion because we can, muhuhahahaha" tactic of bigger companies swamping smaller ones in legal fees even when the bigger company has no actual case.

So, yes, I actually could see 5.0 lasting a lot longer after 5.1 comes out than 3.0 did after 3.5 came out, in terms of newly-published 3rd party support.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 11:17 AM

I concur in principle, but again, I don't know how much power the license actually gives them. It makes sense to me that if you're publishing something on DDB you're giving up the rights to it, but this seems like it applies that to anything that gets printed or PDFed too.

Yes, but DDB puts on non-compete type clauses, if you print a nottherealms saberknight, you couldn't do a savage world versions elsewhere. That is OK if you just want to pitch a generic subclass, but not for bigger things.

While it's possible to change the license in a way that prevents this from happening, I don't see that being the case with most of these updates. The benefits to using the license will still make it worthwhile.

The only reason why the benefits are worthwhile will be because OGL 1.0 changed the ecosystem. A lot of properties used the OGL rather than reinventing the wheel and developing in-house systems. I think you have this backwards, WOTC would likely have a smaller chunk of the pie outside of the New fad gamers if the OGL hadn't undercut competitors. Running competing systems out of the market and then changing the tes is a bit like running the competition out of business then raising the price.[/QUOTE]

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-06, 11:19 AM

The only thing to do is create my own game, without the OGL, but still compatible with D&D, and force them to sue me. Thinking that they'll defeat me with their deep pockets, I'll surprise them by representing myself. Some light reading and a few YouTube videos should be enough to prepare me for court, especially since I already do a lot of arguing on these forums.

There'll be a few setbacks, but as the plucky underdog, I'll use creative and out-of-the-box argumentation to win the day. Hasbro won't see it coming, and the courts will have no choice but to dismiss their claims, with prejudice. Everyone will be free to create their own content and a renaissance of TTRPGs will begin.

Everyone will raise me up as a hero but I'll just say something like "I didn't do this for me, I did it for all of you. And the children." and then walk toward the horizon, in the middle of the street, with some cool music playing.

Psyren

2023-01-06, 11:21 AM

No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms. "I want to rely upon other companies ecosystems and IP, and capitalize on their good will" is not a business model, at least, not a respectable or sympathetic one.

What is "organic growth"? Also, not necessarily, lots of small companies negotiate licenses with larger companies on very reasonable terms. Heck, I think probably 75% of the contracts, probably more, I've done are with smaller companies.

Really? Companies aren't getting a benefit from utilizing WoTC's good will and ecosystem? I guess if they're not, then why do they want the OGL and to publish in relations to WoTC's content? Seems like they'd be better off just walking away.

Great post.

The previous OGL was very open and made both WOTC and their "competitors" a lot of money. Also, this is basically the entire model for desktop software these days, at least for Windows and Linux. When your earnings are highly dependent on market saturation of your product, making your ecosystem open is generally to your benefit.

It also birthed their largest competitor, to this day, with the potential to do that an unlimited number of times in the future. I'm in favor of a license that lets third parties safely interact with WotC's product, but there is such a thing as being too open. (And that's putting aside the skeezy stuff like NFTs that the original license couldn't possible have foreseen two decades prior.)

Brookshw

2023-01-06, 11:23 AM

This is a transparent attempt to drive competitors out of business by anti-competitive practices. Pure monopolistic practices. Personally, the FTC should get involved. There's no question that WotC has monopoly power in the TTRPG industry--they make something like 100x the revenues of all competitors combined. And this kind of behavior is exactly what what the anti-trust laws were designed to cover.

No, and I'd urge you to go read the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act, and key cases about antitrust law, before continuing that assertion. Nothing about WoTC's actions deprive new entrants into the field or prevent competition, they're depriving people of their ability to use WoTC's content to compete with WoTC, and even offering them an on ramp if they do want to work with WoTC's content. I've seen you hold up Microsoft as an example in another situation; while its been maybe 5 years since I last read that case, the similarities between WoTC's actions and MS's actions are completely apples and oranges. Note, also, that aside from Pathfinder, every sizable competitor of WoTC has been able to do so without relying upon the OGL.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 11:25 AM

If your business model is "I want to use someone else's good will and ecosystem, and get a free lunch, but not have to actually listen to them or be restrained", don't expect a lot of sympathy.

Why not, WotC still explicitly benefits from them existing and gains goodwill from that ecosystem even existing, which the third party content creators are literally creating. Having that table be open to eat at is literally the incentive they have to participate. WotC set those rules for a reason, now they want to play take backs.

Serafina

2023-01-06, 11:25 AM

The new restriction of the OGL will also get really funky with Kickstarter Stretch Goals like Soundtracks, Virtual Tokens, Maps, and all that jazz, none of which are books or static electronic content like PDFs.

Those should obviously be fine, since they'll be original art over which WotC has absolutely no authority.

But I'm betting they'll try to contest that, because otherwise, basically no Kickstarter will go over 750k on content that arguably needs the OGL alone (as argued, that is basically none in the first place). And also just because of corporate greed.

Of course, by the terms of the OGL, such a Kickstarter can't even include such stretchgoals in the first place, so get ****ed even more I guess.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 11:26 AM

No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms.

Their granting themselves an irrevocable license to the creators intellectual properties means, no you may not be, as they could start using your setting. Either you go with someone else in the first place, or they essentially can live rent free in your IP. This is a problem, a big one.

Really? Companies aren't getting a benefit from utilizing WoTC's good will and ecosystem? I guess if they're not, then why do they want the OGL and to publish in relations to WoTC's content? Seems like they'd be better off just walking away.
That is what Microsoft thought when they started bundling explorer with Windows.

The problem is, the OGL drained WOTC of competitors, WEG had issues, but the OGL was probably the final nail in their coffin. The OSR, Paizo et al used the OGL in good faith, and it impacts a wide swath of the market.

Raven777

2023-01-06, 11:27 AM

If your business model is "I want to use someone else's good will and ecosystem, and get a free lunch, but not have to actually listen to them or be restrained", don't expect a lot of sympathy.

You'd be getting sympathy from the entire (and successful) FOSS movement.

As for your earlier question about organic growth, it refers to a natural, gradual expansion without the need for an other entity's input or permission. Like FOSS in software, the original OGL allows anyone in their basement to pick up the SRD as a base and expand from there with their own ideas. They can slowly pick up a following, increase their expertise and revenue, and gradually develop influence and leverage to then interact with large entities like WotC on a more equal or advantageous footing.

Which, you know, I understand that a psychopathic tiger like a corporation is in fact not incentivized to let other tigers develop and thrive on their turf. But, you know, being predatory and exclusive is a trait we should stifle and discourage in human enterprise, not encourage.

but there is such a thing as being too open.

Hard, ontological, irreconcilable disagree.

Zanos

2023-01-06, 11:28 AM

It also birthed their largest competitor, to this day, with the potential to do that an unlimited number of times in the future. I'm in favor of a license that lets third parties safely interact with WotC's product, but there is such a thing as being too open. (And that's putting aside the skeezy stuff like NFTs that the original license couldn't possible have foreseen two decades prior.)
It birthed their largest competitor strictly because of missteps made by WOTC involving not having an OGL. There's a reason you don't see any 4e content anywhere on the internet, and it's not just because 4e was unpopular; 4e was not released under an OGL. Difficulty of 3rd parties adding content for 4e contributed to it being unpopular(in addition to the system being built from the ground up to support a VTT that never materialized), and led to the birth of Pathfinder.

But still, keep in mind that Paizos revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to WOTC. WOTC isn't angry that people are playing Pathfinder, they're angry that people are releasing 5e products they aren't getting a cut of, seemingly forgetting that other people being able to make extensions to your system is the reason it stays healthy.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 11:30 AM

This is a transparent attempt to drive competitors out of business by anti-competitive practices. Pure monopolistic practices. Personally, the FTC should get involved. There's no question that WotC has monopoly power in the TTRPG industry--they make something like 100x the revenues of all competitors combined. And this kind of behavior is exactly what what the anti-trust laws were designed to cover.

Yes, if the OGL were not in place, WOTC would be facing a lot of competing systems already. WEG might still be in business, though they had significant problems in their accounting as I understand it. Green Ronin would have used something else to build mutants and masterminds. If the OGL had never been issued, the current license wouldn't be a big deal, but after undermining competing systems for 20 years, yeah its a problem.

Snowbluff

2023-01-06, 11:39 AM

It birthed their largest competitor strictly because of missteps made by WOTC involving not having an OGL. There's a reason you don't see any 4e content anywhere on the internet, and it's not just because 4e was unpopular; 4e was not release under an OGL. Difficulty of 3rd parties adding content for 4e contributed to it being unpopular(in addition to the system being built from the ground up to support a VTT that never materialized), and led to the birth of Pathfinder.

I think a lot of people are overstating GSL as a major factor in the relative unpopularity at all. DnD 4e was already a huge departure from 3.5. It's largest, most successful competitor system wouldn't exist at all without OGL. WotC was essentially competing against a reprint of its own product, using an unfamiliar one. Despite this, 4e still sold well. Not having a good 3PP license did contribute, but this is a relatively small factor for a vast majority of the market that was playing 4e, especially considering that it was a content heavy system with many releases.

This is also why I don't put a lot of stock in PF2 being a replacement for 5e. It's a large departure in the same way 4e was in a lot of ways. Asking people to move to entirely new system for 4e was a big ask back then, and it would be a big ask now.

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-06, 11:41 AM

But still, keep in mind that Paizos revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to WOTC. WOTC isn't angry that people are playing Pathfinder, they're angry that people are releasing 5e products they aren't getting a cut of, seemingly forgetting that other people being able to make extensions to your system is the reason it stays healthy.
Especially given the lack of content that WotC puts out, and the questionable quality, it seems crazy to then turn around and throttle the people that ARE making 5E content.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 11:43 AM

Especially given the lack of content that WotC puts out, and the questionable quality, it seems crazy to then turn around and throttle the people that ARE making 5E content.

I call it the "print little and put less in" strategy. I had assumed it was a deliberate attempt to leverage third party creators to make rules content that would then push their adventures which are where they clearly have been putting the effort for the last few years. Now I have to attribute even more of their current success then I have been to luck.

Zanos

2023-01-06, 11:47 AM

I think a lot of people are overstating GSL as a major factor in the relative unpopularity at all. DnD 4e was already a huge departure from 3.5. It's largest, most successful competitor system wouldn't exist at all without OGL. WotC was essentially competing against a reprint of its own product, using an unfamiliar one. Despite this, 4e still sold well. Not having a good 3PP license did contribute, but this is a relatively small factor for a vast majority of the market that was playing 4e, especially considering that it was a content heavy system with many releases.

This is also why I don't put a lot of stock in PF2 being a replacement for 5e. It's a large departure in the same way 4e was in a lot of ways. Asking people to move to entirely new system for 4e was a big ask back then, and it would be a big ask now.
It's difficult to measure exactly how much an individual decision impacted 4th edition, since neither of us are WOTC insiders with access to transcripts of their postmortem meetings. But I can take a look at TT games that are open to extension from third parties and generally see that they are healthy, and I look at locked up systems and generally see that they are not, so I think dismissing it as a strongly contributing factor is unwise. After all, WOTC's biggest competitor is a system that allows third parties to publish their own rules fairly liberally, and are relatively healthy compared to other non-D&D rpgs.

Especially given the lack of content that WotC puts out, and the questionable quality, it seems crazy to then turn around and throttle the people that ARE making 5E content.
Nine years later and there's still, what, two books that are dedicated to expanding player options? Previous editions had dozens. And you can argue that balance was worse, but it's not like 5e balance is particularly good.

Oramac

2023-01-06, 11:52 AM

Especially given the lack of content that WotC puts out, and the questionable quality, it seems crazy to then turn around and throttle the people that ARE making 5E content.

Nine years later and there's still, what, two books that are dedicated to expanding player options? Previous editions had dozens. And you can argue that balance was worse, but it's not like 5e balance is particularly good.

Not only that, but there's a grand total of one published adventure up to 20th level. In nine years? That's just WOTC willfully ignoring half the game.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 11:52 AM

No, and I'd urge you to go read the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act, and key cases about antitrust law, before continuing that assertion. Nothing about WoTC's actions deprive new entrants into the field or prevent competition, they're depriving people of their ability to use WoTC's content to compete with WoTC, and even offering them an on ramp if they do want to work with WoTC's content. I've seen you hold up Microsoft as an example in another situation; while its been maybe 5 years since I last read that case, the similarities between WoTC's actions and MS's actions are completely apples and oranges. Note, also, that aside from Pathfinder, every sizable competitor of WoTC has been able to do so without relying upon the OGL.

I think that was me. Actually this undermines not only Paizo, but the OSR, Mutants and Masterminds etc. are heavily reliant on the OGL. Even OpenD6 uses WOTCs contract form, likely to prevent something like the TSR lawsuit against Gygax. The problems are the twin threats of retroactivity and their claim to a license of other companies intellectual property.

If, 1.1 applied only to ODD going forward. The licensing clause effectively makes it impossible for a setting creator to change their minds and switch systems later. Reading this, if Mutants and Masterminds 4e uses a completely non-OGL system, but prints a Freedom city module for their current system, then WOTC could print a competing Freedom City sourcebook using Green Ronins IP. Retroactivity is the second issue, if this was only going on future released products, again not as big a deal, butbthose reliant on the OGL for what they have already created are in serious trouble with the deauthorization clause. If those two issues are removed, I don't have a problem with the rest.

My comparison to apple was the VTT issue, and reading the FTCs description of the caseblast night I still think it is apt.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-06, 11:53 AM

Critical Role's setting is officially a WotC publication now. And WotC *never* let a setting go once it's in their power, even when they refuse to publish anything in it.

If it was just the 5e mechanics they used, like at the start, they might try to do their own system, but Critical Role will simply never be able to afford losing the right to use the setting and the characters they've spent years building their fandom on.

I'm more expecting the CR people to take the giant novelty check and start shilling D&Done in the next few months to a year. That's a good prediction, I am on your bandwagon. Professional actors as shills isn't a new way to make a buck. (What's in your wallet?)

Hasbro without Critical Role loses a few millions. Critical Role without Hasbro has 0 content they can make money of, aside from a couple one-shots. Bingo.

Funny story about that: Critical Role argued the same about content creators making money out of fan content based on their work, resulting in those content creators getting a cease & desist.
Expecting corporate suits to speak the truth is the first mistake many people make when thinking about business-related shenanigans. +2

1. It's not that easy, it's just that Hasbro has enough power and money to do it and either dodge or beat any court cases coming from that change, when 3.X/4e-era WotC definitively couldn't afford to try. Key difference, thanks for reminding folks.

2. Even at its worst, WotC recognized that it was better to have other content creators work with their system, which was basically free advertisement for D&D as it regularly reminded people D&D was a thing and that you could buy stuff from it. Now they're under mandate by corporate suits that are far removed from the situation and the suits think 5e does not monetizes itself enough, which obviously mean that all those "freeloaders using the corporate assets for free" must be cut off. I think that's a valid analysis.

The open gaming license allowed Pathfinder to thrive when players and creators were dissatisfied with 4 edition.
I think DnD and the entire TTRPG hobby became better because of that competitive pressure. Likely true.

WotC has decided that, rather than making better products for DnD, they will try to destroy or exploit any entity that is. I had not seen it through that lens, but that seems a valid perspective.

Sounds like WotC visited the Kickstarter offices and worked out a deal. I think they did something similar with HeroForge a year or so ago. +3

Everyone will raise me up as a hero but I'll just say something like "I didn't do this for me, I did it for all of you. And the children." and then walk toward the horizon, in the middle of the street, with some cool music playing. Naah, go the edge lord route, it will get you more clicks. :smallbiggrin:

EggKookoo

2023-01-06, 11:57 AM

Because that whole "you can publish without the OGL" thing? You're just asking to be sued. Because the precedent here is anything but clear. And Hasbro/WotC has a history of abusive litigation, relying on their deep pockets and lawyers on staff to raise the costs beyond what any competitor can pay.

Disney really needs to make a successful fantasy adventure movie. With cthonian tentacle-faced antagonists.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/757/498/89c.gif

Imbalance

2023-01-06, 11:58 AM

This all just sounds like it would be a really good year for TESVI to be released.

Snowbluff

2023-01-06, 12:03 PM

It's difficult to measure exactly how much an individual decision impacted 4th edition, since neither of us are WOTC insiders with access to transcripts of their postmortem meetings. But I can take a look at TT games that are open to extension from third parties and generally see that they are healthy, and I look at locked up systems and generally see that they are not, so I think dismissing it as a strongly contributing factor is unwise. After all, WOTC's biggest competitor is a system that allows third parties to publish their own rules fairly liberally, and are relatively healthy compared to other non-D&D rpgs. Okay, but what constitutes "healthly?" 4e sold well and is still played today. It's level of content dwarfs most systems to this day. It's aged, which would constitute a shrinking population and interest dies, but that applies to 3.5 and PF1 as well.

Compound with the relative size of WotC compared to it's competitors. I think PhoenixPhyre is right, WotC is 100x bigger than its next nearest competitor. A large part of is going to be other properties, but do you really think 3PP is driving so many book sales that it's a major factor for keeping the game played for most players? This, of course, loops back into the oddness of trying to extract royalties to begin with. WotC products simply sell a lot better, and getting the same level of marketing and support for 3PP is simply not possible.

You even stated yourself, 5e doesn't have a lot of player oriented content for how long it's been out. You don't think the market for what 3PP would be smaller if it had to compete with more 1PP?

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-06, 12:10 PM

I call it the "print little and put less in" strategy. I had assumed it was a deliberate attempt to leverage third party creators to make rules content that would then push their adventures which are where they clearly have been putting the effort for the last few years. Now I have to attribute even more of their current success then I have been to luck.

Nine years later and there's still, what, two books that are dedicated to expanding player options? Previous editions had dozens. And you can argue that balance was worse, but it's not like 5e balance is particularly good.

Not only that, but there's a grand total of one published adventure up to 20th level. In nine years? That's just WOTC willfully ignoring half the game.
https://i.imgflip.com/76kkj7.jpg

Disney really needs to make a successful fantasy adventure movie. With cthonian tentacle-faced antagonists.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/757/498/89c.gif
Lmao, the only solution that will work!

Segev

2023-01-06, 12:15 PM

Disney really needs to make a successful fantasy adventure movie. With cthonian tentacle-faced antagonists.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/757/498/89c.gif

Mickey Mouse vs. the Cranium Rats!

Zanos

2023-01-06, 12:15 PM

Okay, but what constitutes "healthly?" 4e sold well and is still played today. It's level of content dwarfs most systems to this day. It's aged, which would constitute a shrinking population and interest dies, but that applies to 3.5 and PF1 as well.
From a personal standpoint, I'd consider something healthy if I can consistently find groups to play with. From a business standpoint though, it's only healthy if it makes money. 4e clearly wasn't doing well enough for WOTC, and it's lifespan was shorter as a result. I don't think it's contentious that 4e underperformed, and I'm surprised you'd argue that it's a success, at least financially.

Although for what it's worth, I can't consistently find a group for 4e, whereas I can for 3.5, pf1e and pf2e, and obviously 5e. I've even had more luck finding groups playing 2nd edition than 4e. A quick check on R20 shows 4 LFG ads for D&D 4e, whereas there's two pages of results for 3.5(not including pathfinder), and a full page for AD&D. So I'd also consider it a failure from that perspective.

Compound with the relative size of WotC compared to it's competitors. I think PhoenixPhyre is right, WotC is 100x bigger than its next nearest competitor.
D&D is "the brand" in this industry, so yeah, there are different standards to use to evaluate a D&D edition and a 3rd party system.

A large part of is going to be other properties, but do you really think 3PP is driving so many book sales that it's a major factor for keeping the game played for most players? This, of course, loops back into the oddness of trying to extract royalties to begin with. WotC products simply sell a lot better, and getting the same level of marketing and support for 3PP is simply not possible.
The largest buyers of D&D books are generally DMs, which is both anecdotal and IIRC confirmed by Hasbro earnings calls. While players might not be scourging up every third party tome they can get their hands on, a lot of the DMs I know(and myself, although not for 5e as I no longer actively play it) are always looking for more cool TT books to buy. DMs generally drive the hobby, being a necessity for a game to run, so if you aren't keeping DMs interested in your system, there's a good chance it will become unhealthy.

You even stated yourself, 5e doesn't have a lot of player oriented content for how long it's been out. You don't think the market for what 3PP would be smaller if it had to compete with more 1PP?
Not really? It's not like PF1E or 3.5 third party markets greatly suffered from the abundance of available first party material.

Oramac

2023-01-06, 12:17 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-06, 12:19 PM

As a note, the Fan Content Policy does not cover homebrew, settings, any use in any game (explicitly excluded), or any use of game mechanics (except as covered by the OGL). So no, if you want to homebrew something (aka the entire forums here, or anything for any of your games), you need to accept the OGL and abide by its restrictions. Period. Full stop. No legal cover otherwise.

So yes, this predatory change does critically affect every single DM who does anything other than running a stock published campaign using only WotC assets.

The key is that it is your creation. It should go without saying, but Fan Content does not include the verbatim copying and reposting of Wizards’ IP (e.g., freely distributing D&D® rules content or books...

You cannot incorporate Wizards patents, game mechanics (unless your Fan Content is created under the D&D Open Game License)...

Yes, that includes things like use of spell names. Or class names. Or subclass names. Or monster stat blocks, even if modified. Or fighting styles. Or the text of darkvision. Or...

EggKookoo

2023-01-06, 12:28 PM

Yes, that includes things like use of spell names. Or class names. Or subclass names. Or monster stat blocks, even if modified. Or fighting styles. Or the text of darkvision. Or...

Preventing other TTRPGs from using basic d20 + mod mechanics is absolutely unenforceable, and WotC knows it. Which is why they'll have to resort to clubbing with lawyers in the attempt to drive them out of business.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 12:34 PM

So this just dropped. An actual IP lawyer reviewing the leaked OGL1.1.

TL;DR: assuming it's legit, it's as bad as we all thought.

Link to article (https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f).

And with a bit of OSINT, the writer's LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mylawyerfriend), Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/my.lawyerfriend/), and Twitter (https://twitter.com/MyLawyerFriend) pages, should you wish to research him.

Actually I'm seeing lawyers debating this issue, some in IP law and some elsewhere. It's not really straightforward. But this is also why I think we ought to request the FTC to look into this. If it forces Green Ronin to shelve their Freedom city product or risk granting a license to another company, Paizo, the OSR studios, etc., well that retroactive move is a pretty big impact on pricing etc.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-06, 12:37 PM

So this just dropped. An actual IP lawyer reviewing the leaked OGL1.1.

TL;DR: assuming it's legit, it's as bad as we all thought.
Nice summary at the end. (Of course it is; he's an attorney. Doing that comes with the job :smallsmile:)

Wizards of the Coast is a cool company that publishes one of our favorite pastimes. However, they are not your friends, and if we do not find a way to #OpenDnD then it will probably diminish this incredible game we have come to love.

Oramac

2023-01-06, 12:40 PM

Actually I'm seeing lawyers debating this issue, some in IP law and some elsewhere. It's not really straightforward. But this is also why I think we ought to request the FTC to look into this. If it forces Green Ronin to shelve their Freedom city product or risk granting a license to another company, Paizo, the OSR studios, etc., well that retroactive move is a pretty big impact on pricing etc.

I've seen several non-IP lawyers talking about it, but that article is the first I've seen of a real IP lawyer commenting on the OGL1.1. Can you link to other IP lawyers talking about it? (I'm legitimately interested in reading it)

As far as getting the FTC involved, I'm certainly not opposed to it, though I question how effective it may be. That said, it really can't hurt, so why not?

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-06, 12:41 PM

I think that a defense of the 1.0(a) license, might attract enough gofundme/other crowdfunding if it is initiated as a class action suit.

As an aside: It seems to me that it might be good to merge this with the other thread. Or not. Up to the Mods.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?652482-OGL-1-1-Coming-2023

PhoenixPhyre

2023-01-06, 12:47 PM

Preventing other TTRPGs from using basic d20 + mod mechanics is absolutely unenforceable, and WotC knows it. Which is why they'll have to resort to clubbing with lawyers in the attempt to drive them out of business.

Well...it's complicated. The precedent here is super fuzzy and minimal, on top of copyright's already fuzzy guidance. So do it at your own risk.

And it's not just the d20 + mod stuff. You want to use the text of a fighting style? Or talk about "advantage" meaning 2d20kh? That's mechanics and you can't use it without the OGL.

EggKookoo

2023-01-06, 12:52 PM

And it's not just the d20 + mod stuff. You want to use the text of a fighting style? Or talk about "advantage" meaning 2d20kh? That's mechanics and you can't use it without the OGL.

Well, right, the mechanic and the text describing the mechanic are two very separate things.

"Roll your to-hit die. If it fails, roll it again to get a second chance!" is not WotC-owned, but explains the idea of advantage. You could even come up with your own shorthand term for it ("Pump the dice" or "Do a double-tap" or whatever fits the look & feel of your game's setting).

WotC would run into prior art all over the place if they tried to claim ownership on something as basic as "roll a die and add a number to it."

Psyren

2023-01-06, 12:56 PM

Hard, ontological, irreconcilable disagree.

There really is. Things like the morality clause in the Fan Content Policy exist to restrict openness, but are completely necessary.

I think a lot of people are overstating GSL as a major factor in the relative unpopularity at all. DnD 4e was already a huge departure from 3.5. It's largest, most successful competitor system wouldn't exist at all without OGL. WotC was essentially competing against a reprint of its own product, using an unfamiliar one. Despite this, 4e still sold well. Not having a good 3PP license did contribute, but this is a relatively small factor for a vast majority of the market that was playing 4e, especially considering that it was a content heavy system with many releases.

This is also why I don't put a lot of stock in PF2 being a replacement for 5e. It's a large departure in the same way 4e was in a lot of ways. Asking people to move to entirely new system for 4e was a big ask back then, and it would be a big ask now.

This.

Nine years later and there's still, what, two books that are dedicated to expanding player options? Previous editions had dozens. And you can argue that balance was worse, but it's not like 5e balance is particularly good.

There's way more than two. Xanathar's and Tasha's may be the biggest/most universal but we've gotten a ton of player options and supplements outside of those.

Snowbluff

2023-01-06, 12:56 PM

Psyren

2023-01-06, 01:01 PM

I think we should indeed report to the FTC. I think the injurious effect on non-DnD OGL systems is probably going to be the biggest impact, so it should be brought to question if it is an unfair or predatory business practice.

Also the EFF could weigh in on the VTT question, I feel.

To reiterate, I'm not opposed to pushing back on this draft OGL and getting better terms for third party creators. But I can also understand how OGL 1.0(a) might need an update too.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 01:25 PM

There really is. Things like the morality clause in the Fan Content Policy exist to restrict openness, but are completely necessary.

Is there a reason you really want a billion dollar corporation should be making decisions about what acceptable morality is to the rest of us or to other publishers who they don't own?

I think we should indeed report to the FTC. I think the injurious effect on non-DnD OGL systems is probably going to be the biggest impact, so it should be brought to question if it is an unfair or predatory business practice.

I hope it does get brought up but I don't hold up a lot of hope.

To reiterate, I'm not opposed to pushing back on this draft OGL and getting better terms for third party creators. But I can also understand how OGL 1.0(a) might need an update too.

Thanks to the great foresight of at least one person involved who understood what "open" means and safeguarded the rest of us section 9 of the OGL exists so any updates effectively have to be consensual with the third party publishers.

Raven777

2023-01-06, 01:28 PM

There really is. Things like the morality clause in the Fan Content Policy exist to restrict openness, but are completely necessary.

I think you mean desirable, for subjective and strategic or moral reasons private to the IP owner. But someone developing and distributing a OneD&D Book of Erotic Fantasy is not an existential threat to WotC.

Sparky McDibben

2023-01-06, 01:33 PM

Psyren

2023-01-06, 01:37 PM

Is there a reason you really want a billion dollar corporation should be making decisions about what acceptable morality is to the rest of us or to other publishers who they don't own?

I believe broadcasting things like hate speech or advocating harm should be preventable and have enforceable consequences, including the deplatforming of individuals who do those things. If you don't, I don't really know what else to tell you.

I think you mean desirable, for subjective and strategic or moral reasons private to the IP owner. But someone developing and distributing a OneD&D Book of Erotic Fantasy is not an existential threat to WotC.

I'd say that depends entirely what's in it. A OneD&D FATAL certainly would be.

Raven777

2023-01-06, 01:39 PM

No, but that NuTSR Star Frontiers bullsh*t is a catastrophic branding problem.

Maybe. Not one that justifies stifling the entire ability of third parties to use the system. Or to paraphrase Voltaire, I disapprove of FATAL, but I will defend to the death your right to make it.

Psyren

2023-01-06, 01:43 PM

Maybe. Not one that justifies stifling the entire ability of third parties to use the system. Or to paraphrase Voltaire, I disapprove of FATAL, but I will defend to the death your right to make it.

You have the right to make whatever you want. How you disseminate it is another matter entirely.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 01:45 PM

I think you mean desirable, for subjective and strategic or moral reasons private to the IP owner. But someone developing and distributing a OneD&D Book of Erotic Fantasy is not an existential threat to WotC.

It's not even just that, say I want to write a dark fantasy campaign setting based on series like Berserk. Just having to dangle on a thread and hope WotC doesn't nuke me for daring to push boundaries or do something that might make someone over there uncomfortable so they use their ill defined terms that let them unilaterally make decisions about that is untenable.

CountDVB

2023-01-06, 01:47 PM

Yes, if the OGL were not in place, WOTC would be facing a lot of competing systems already. WEG might still be in business, though they had significant problems in their accounting as I understand it. Green Ronin would have used something else to build mutants and masterminds. If the OGL had never been issued, the current license wouldn't be a big deal, but after undermining competing systems for 20 years, yeah its a problem.

Maybe we should create our own OGL or something equivalent to it. Like, OGL only covers the D20 system and everything associated with the core stuff, but a lot of that is nebulous, right?

Dr.Samurai

2023-01-06, 01:50 PM

It's not even just that, say I want to write a dark fantasy campaign setting based on series like Berserk. Just having to dangle on a thread and hope WotC doesn't nuke me for daring to push boundaries or do something that might make someone over there uncomfortable so they use their ill defined terms that let them unilaterally make decisions about that is untenable.
Yeah, given the state of language these days, I wouldn't take chances with a company, vulnerable to online mobs wearing hysteria hats, interpreting which words are "hateful" and "causing harm". Yikes, no thanks. No reason to believe their decision will be grounded in reality whatsoever, and therefore predictable, practical, etc.

CountDVB

2023-01-06, 01:54 PM

As a note, the Fan Content Policy does not cover homebrew, settings, any use in any game (explicitly excluded), or any use of game mechanics (except as covered by the OGL). So no, if you want to homebrew something (aka the entire forums here, or anything for any of your games), you need to accept the OGL and abide by its restrictions. Period. Full stop. No legal cover otherwise.

So yes, this predatory change does critically affect every single DM who does anything other than running a stock published campaign using only WotC assets.

Yes, that includes things like use of spell names. Or class names. Or subclass names. Or monster stat blocks, even if modified. Or fighting styles. Or the text of darkvision. Or...

I think trying to copyright things like fireball or the wizard class will go about as well as Disney attempting to copyright Dia De Los Muertos

Zanos

2023-01-06, 01:57 PM

No, but that NuTSR Star Frontiers bullsh*t is a catastrophic branding problem.
I actually don't think anyone who doesn't already play D&D cares about this, and I don't think people who are currently buying D&D products are going to stop buying D&D products because of it. I wasn't even sure what you were talking about until I googled it and remember that it happened. It's certainly not a good reason to clamp down on the license, part of the burden of having an open systems is that you accept that sometimes weird people make gross stuff. People just laugh at it and move on. It's not as though there's some deep reservoir of (obviously) racist RPG books that have made a killing.

Some of us remember how stupid the satanic panic was and don't see moral outrage as a good reason to clamp down.

Yeah, given the state of language these days, I wouldn't take chances with a company, vulnerable to online mobs wearing hysteria hats, interpreting which words are "hateful" and "causing harm". Yikes, no thanks. No reason to believe their decision will be grounded in reality whatsoever, and therefore predictable, practical, etc.
+1. Can't wait to get sued because I have tolkien orcs in my setting.

ToranIronfinder

2023-01-06, 01:59 PM

I believe broadcasting things like hate speech or advocating harm should be preventable and have enforceable consequences, including the deplatforming of individuals who do those things. If you don't, I don't really know what else to tell you.

A bit ad hom here, someone may disagree with you not because they approve of hate speech, but because they believe deplatforming to be a greater harm.

But, speaking as a philosopher working in fields related to ethics, the real problem with hate speech is who gets to define it, and by what standard. Some examples are clear cut, but many situations will be interpreted differently by those in different ethical schools of thought, an emotivist/ moral intuitionist will assess some cases differently from Kantians, Muslims, Christians or Utilitarians. Most gaming company execs, and unfortunately many laymen in general, don't have the background when dealing with the finer points of these discussions to really step in successfully.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 01:59 PM

I believe broadcasting things like hate speech or advocating harm should be preventable and have enforceable consequences, including the deplatforming of individuals who do those things. If you don't, I don't really know what else to tell you.

But why do you want a billion dollar corporation to make this decision? What about them says they have the right and ability to make those decisions about fine lines in fraught and difficult discussions to decide what is and is not valid art or expression in an RPG system or setting?

Raven777

2023-01-06, 02:00 PM

You have the right to make whatever you want. How you disseminate it is another matter entirely.

Dissemination would be market fronts like DM's Guild or DriveThrough RPG. But if a license on a system claims being open, it shouldn't turn around and restrict who or what it's open for.
That's why I say my position is ontological and irreconcilable. I empathize with your "some appalling content ought to be restricted" position, but you're going to find it hard to convince a free speech absolutist who sees this position as a first step down a slippery slope of arbitrary, reactionary restrictions. You say "some restrictions" and I say "zero restrictions" and the gap between those is irrevocably mathematical, it's not a malleable spectrum where we can philosophize a compromise.

Psyren

2023-01-06, 02:00 PM

Some of us remember how stupid the satanic panic was and don't see moral outrage as a good reason to clamp down.

Non sequitur - that push was coming from outside the industry entirely, it had nothing to do with the IP holders trying to protect the brand they cultivated from being dragged through the muck.

Dissemination would be market fronts like DM's Guild or DriveThrough RPG. But if a license on a system claims being open, it shouldn't turn around and restrict who or what it's open for.

That provision is what would allow them to go to DTRPG and say "please don't give this person a prominent platform with which to damage our IP."

free speech absolutist

Yeah, I already figured.

Ogun

2023-01-06, 02:02 PM

No, but that NuTSR Star Frontiers bullsh*t is a catastrophic branding problem.

I has no idea about this!
Now that I do, I think it had the makings of a great strawman antagonist for WotC.
No matter what, anything they print should be better than that mess...

Psyren

2023-01-06, 02:05 PM

I has no idea about this!
Now that I do, I think it had the makings of a great strawman antagonist for WotC.
No matter what, anything they print should be better than that mess...

I find "strawman" strange considering this was a real thing they actually had to fight recently.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-06, 02:05 PM

Most gaming company execs, and unfortunately many laymen in general, don't have the background when dealing with the finer points of these discussions to really step in successfully. The mental image I have is of twelve-year- olds with flame throwers.

That's why I say my position is ontological and irreconcilable. I empathize with your "some appalling content ought to be restricted" position, but you're going to find it hard to convince a free speech absolutist who sees this position as a first step down a slippery slope of arbitrary, reactionary restrictions. You say "some restrictions" and I say "zero restrictions" and the gap between those is irrevocably mathematical, it's not a malleable spectrum where we can philosophize a compromise. It's the thin end of the wedge.

Brookshw

2023-01-06, 02:09 PM

Why not, WotC still explicitly benefits from them existing and gains goodwill from that ecosystem even existing, which the third party content creators are literally creating. Having that table be open to eat at is literally the incentive they have to participate. WotC set those rules for a reason, now they want to play take backs.

That table was always WoTC's, they get to decide the rules for it. I get people want to keep eating there, because its an easy meal, but that doesn't mean it was ever theirs. Personally, I'll always have more respect for people who make their own tables. Also, the community doesn't get to decide for WoTC whether WoTC wants whatever benefit the community offers, that's their choice, we don't get to take it away from them (and they also get the consequences, if any).

Their granting themselves an irrevocable license to the creators intellectual properties means, no you may not be, as they could start using your setting. You're granting them a non-exclusive license, big difference. Also, this is consistent with what you already give them for posting content to DDB.

I think that was me. Phoenix has made the point as well, though you may have also brought it up. At any rate, there seems to be some misconception about what antitrust law is designed to avoid; its objective is to prevent artificial and prohibitive barrier to market entry or artificial price inflation through agreement for the benefit of consumers. Someone being in a market dominant position is not sufficient to trigger it, just because they're big, doesn't mean they have to be nice. OGL was them holding the door to market entry open for people, they're free to stop doing that at any time, and leave it to people to have to deal with the natural barriers of entry (e.g., product development, advertising, etc.), but that's not them creating barriers.

The MS case (which, again, I last read maybe 5 years ago and could be rusty on the details of) relied upon MS using its position to actively close doors and create barriers artificial barriers of entry. If memory serves, two important distinctions were changing browsers on people and controlling usage. Contrasted against WoTC, they're just not the same thing in the slightest. For WoTC to engage in conduct like MS was, they'd need to come into my home and stop me from being able to open and play the other games I own, and swapping out whats on my shelf for their games. None of that is going to happen.

Actually this undermines not only Paizo, but the OSR, Mutants and Masterminds etc. are heavily reliant on the OGL. Sure, but those aren't major competitors, I don't think any of those games (outside of PF) have broken the top 5 in the last 20ish years. The major competitors are able to compete without needing to rely upon the OGL.

You'd be getting sympathy from the entire (and successful) FOSS movement. Okay. Shame the FOSS crowd is selective, depending upon the individual, about what they release as OS, and what they commercialize.

But, you know, being predatory and exclusive is a trait we should stifle and discourage in human enterprise, not encourage. I don't encourage eminent domain behavior either unless is serves a very definitive public good like a hospital, school or library, rather than a leisure activity.

Mickey Mouse vs. the Cranium Rats!

Hah! Nice. Mickey Mouse AS a Cranium Rat!

Ogun

2023-01-06, 02:20 PM

I find "strawman" strange considering this was a real thing they actually had to fight recently.

Good point.
I should have said it differently.
I'm sure TV tropes has a concise term/explanation, but I dare not go look lest I get sucked in.
Suffice to say, it's useful to have someone who is terrible to compare yourself to.

Zanos

2023-01-06, 02:21 PM

Non sequitur - that push was coming from outside the industry entirely, it had nothing to do with the IP holders trying to protect the brand they cultivated from being dragged through the muck.
Of course they're related, it's just people throwing a fit about the perception that D&D is associated with moral nastiness. In both cases it wasn't actually true, and in both cases it was overblown by people with agendas. And TSR did take steps to distance D&D from satanism, which was largely negatively received and later reverted. If anything this one is less meaningful because unlike with the panic, there's no general public perception that D&D is a hive of racists because of an irrelevant book created by an irrelevant publisher.

So I'm sorry if I don't buy that Hasbro needs to tighten the OGL to prevent people from thinking D&D is for racists, because someone actually made something racist with the OGL and nobody associated it with the larger community.

Psyren

2023-01-06, 02:22 PM

That table was always WoTC's, they get to decide the rules for it. I get people want to keep eating there, because its an easy meal, but that doesn't mean it was ever theirs. Personally, I'll always have more respect for people who make their own tables. Also, the community doesn't get to decide for WoTC whether WoTC wants whatever benefit the community offers, that's their choice, we don't get to take it away from them (and they also get the consequences, if any).

Yes, and they're not even taking the table away. They're just making sure it's still doing what it was designed to do, give an easy way for newcomers to sit down and eat. Not to load up several trays and then open their own stall at the front door, or to arrange every dish, pose next to them and start a food blog.

Of course they're related, it's just people throwing a fit about the perception that D&D is associated with moral nastiness. In both cases it wasn't actually true, and in both cases it was overblown by people with agendas. And TSR did take steps to distance D&D from satanism, which was largely negatively received and later reverted. If anything this one is less meaningful because unlike with the panic, there's no general public perception that D&D is a hive of racists because of an irrelevant book created by an irrelevant publisher.

If you think a brand can't be harmed by what it is allowed to be juxtaposed with without challenge, especially here where failing to protect your brand can even be interpreted as tacit consent (not just for that particular assailant, but any number of future ones), I'm not sure what else to tell you other than the world doesn't work that way.

Dragonus45

2023-01-06, 02:29 PM

Non sequitur - that push was coming from outside the industry entirely, it had nothing to do with the IP holders trying to protect the brand they cultivated from being dragged through the muck.

That provision is what would allow them to go to DTRPG and say "please don't give this person a prominent platform with which to damage our IP."

And clearly potential damage to the IP could only come from within the industry?

That table was always WoTC's, they get to decide the rules for it. I get people want to keep eating there, because its an easy meal, but that doesn't mean it was ever theirs. Personally, I'll always have more respect for people who make their own tables. Also, the community doesn't get to decide for WoTC whether WoTC wants whatever benefit the community offers, that's their choice, we don't get to take it away from them (and they also get the consequences, if any).

I think it needs to be made clear that WotC already decided and authorized the rules. They organized a bit potluck so they could get the big table and make sure that everyone was eating at it and not anyone else's. The rules being exceedingly generous and perpetual was how they got people to come and bring their food to the potluck to begin with. You have this way of describing the third party publishers like they are mongrel dogs off the street coming to WotC's table and eating their table scraps and now WotC want's to charge them but that aint it. They brought food to WotC and everyone got to eat. Including WotC, who have undeniably with zero counter argument or opposition benefited from this. Your respect is irrelevant here as well? why would you respecting them have any bearing on their rights.

You're granting them a non-exclusive license, big difference. Also, this is consistent with what you already give them for posting content to DDB.

Which is probably why so many people avoid publishing through the DMs guild or DDB and self publish through kickstarter instead, unless they are already in the WotC ecosystem.

Yes, and they're not even taking the table away. They're just making sure it's still doing what it was designed to do, give an easy way for newcomers to sit down and eat. Not to load up several trays and then open their own stall at the front door, or to arrange every dish, pose next to them and start a food blog.

They are absolutely taking the table away though. 100%, it's gone. They are transforming it into a hypothetical table that very few will every try to bring food too again because they moved the potluck to the top of Mount Everest.

Psyren

2023-01-06, 02:33 PM

And clearly potential damage to the IP could only come from within the industry?

I'm saying that particular issue is not related to the OGL at all. The existence or absence of an OGL would not have prevented that event from occurring.

EggKookoo

2023-01-06, 02:36 PM

A bit ad hom here, someone may disagree with you not because they approve of hate speech, but because they believe deplatforming to be a greater harm.

Or to put it another way, you have the right to disapprove of whatever you like. How you object to it is another matter entirely.

Brookshw

2023-01-06, 02:37 PM

Some of us remember how stupid the satanic panic was and don't see moral outrage as a good reason to clamp down.

Bit off topic, but people still seem to be equating D&D (https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/july-web-only/russell-moore-steve-bannon-atlantic-jan-6-america-avatars.html) to....things.

Also, let's not discuss that article further.

I think it needs to be made clear that WotC already decided and authorized the rules. They organized a bit potluck so they could get the big table and make sure that everyone was eating at it and not anyone else's. The rules being exceedingly generous and perpetual was how they got people to come and bring their food to the potluck to begin with. You have this way of describing the third party publishers like they are mongrel dogs off the street coming to WotC's table and eating their table scraps and now WotC want's to charge them but that aint it. They brought food to WotC and everyone got to eat. Including WotC, who have undeniably with zero counter argument or opposition benefited from this. Your respect is irrelevant here as well? why would you respecting them have any bearing on their rights.

And now the potluck is over. And that bolded part? That didn't mean irrevocable, I get that there is some basis to complain about this (and challenge it), but in part its people taking legal language at face value and not being familiar with contract law; to a certain point, it's caveat emptor, they took the benefit and didn't recognize that it wasn't everything they thought it was. I don't think of third party publishers as mongrels, but I do see a big difference in someone actually doing their own thing, and someone who piggybacks on someone else's success.

Which is probably why so many people avoid publishing through the DMs guild or DDB and self publish through kickstarter instead, unless they are already in the WotC ecosystem.
And more power to them. I'm continuously impressed that Rifts and GURPS keep on plugging away, and love smaller games. I think at this points RIFTS is basically down to one guy doing all the lifting? I forget his name, Chris something maybe? Good on ol' Chris whatshisface.