Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Rynjin]

But the whole point is that they're trying to revoke 1.0a...

[johnbragg]

[ME] Without OGL 1.0a, Critical Role couldn't have published Tal'Dorei



Hell, they still could have. Critical Role almost certainly has a custom license, which is how things like EGtW got made.

Exandria has to be a custom license, because that's Wizards publishing. But without the OGL, I'm not sure they could publish the Green Ronin Tal'Dorei book. Maybe they make a deal with WOTC to publish with WOTC in the first place, maybe the setting just doesn't become a book.

On the other hand, even 4th edition had the GSL, so the corporate strategy was to expedite third-party content somehow. So Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting gets published, under whatever GSL / OGL is operative at the time, or through a partnership with WOTC.

[catagent101]

And really where the rubber meets the road, 5e -> 1D&D and 3.5e -> 4e share one very identical aspect. They both will require people to buy new books, and will render the older books obsolete (assuming those players want to play the new system -- of course people can stick with 5e just like they could with 3.5e).

People were up in arms over 4e not necessarily because the rules were different, but because everyone had just gone through the painful but arguably necessary process of buying a whole new set of 3.5e books and throwing out their old 3e books.

Yeah, if the current playtest is any indication it's not "backwards-compatible", just a similar game. At the minimum every cleric and bard subclass needs to be rewritten and there's probably more than that.



On a somewhat related note, PF2e core rulebooks seem to have sold out like everywhere, including Amazon where the last copy was somebody trying to sell the special edition (MSRP $79.99) for $400 and change. No copies at my FLGS either (and just in general there seems to be less non-D&D rpgs than usual). People do seem to be willing to put money where their mouth is on this one.

[warty goblin]

And if Wizards is the only person who can really release cRPGs that use substantially D&D type rules, then in order to actually benefit from that niche, they have to release those games. Which Wizards has been really really bad at doing. Over the entirety of 5th Edition, they have released:

1) Sword Coast Legends, which was so entirely bland you have no memory of it even if you played it, and it got pulled from sale five years ago now.
2) Dark Alliance, a game so awful I think I'm the only person in the universe who actually likes it. And it's awful, just the sort of awful I kinda like.
3) Baldur's Gate 3, which has been in early access for two years, and is going to push three years of EA by the time it's done. This is also the only title anybody cares about, and it's because of the BG IP and Larien's track record, not the rules.

This sure doesn't seem like a huge priority for them, at least for the entire decade that 5E has been available. A decade that has, incidentally, contained a substantial boom in cRPGs that they could have jumped on years ago, and completely did not.

Against that, here is every videogame I can think that uses the OGL and isn't licensed through Wizards.

1) Pathfinder Kingmaker (Pathfinder, so uses 3rd Edition OGL)
2) Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous (ditto)
3) Solasta: Crown of the Magister (actually uses 5E!)
4) Knights of the Chalice (Uses 3rd Edition OGL, not 5th)
5) Knights of the Chalice 2 (ditto)
6) Low Magic Age (Also looks like it uses 3rd Edition OGL.)
7) Worlds of Magic (fantasy 4X Master of Magic wannabe that has sod-all to do with D&D. This basically uses the OGL's combat math IIRC. I think this uses 3rd Edition OGL, not 5th.)
8) Planar Conquest (sequel/redux of Worlds of Magic, I assume it's also using 3rd Edition OGL.)

Of these whopping 8 titles, only the two Pathfinder games and Solasta really matter - the others are different genres or so hopelessly hardcore they're functionally in a different universe - just trust me, Knights of the Chalice 2 is not stealing market share from BG 3; anybody playing that already has very strong feelings about RPGs and will not be persuaded one way or the other by fancy trailers. The space just isn't that crowded, and the OGL is hardly keeping WoTC from making D&D branded games successful; that's down to WoTC being bad at making games. And if WoTC can pull the OGL from use in future videogames in order to push out their own exclusively licensed OneD&D games, this doesn't give them any of Owlcat's money. Firstly, they have to make an actually good game, which again requires them to actually make and release games, a task they have failed at for years now. Secondly, that game will be extremely tarnished by coming out at the expense of more Wrath of the Righteous or Solasta type content, and those games and their developers already have fanbases. Fanbases who would probably be very happy to try an official WoTC game if it wasn't coming at the expense of the thing they already like and are invested in.

Like, image WoTC announce some official OneD&D game, and Owlcat comes out and says "we wanted to do a third Pathfinder game but can't because lawyers. Here's some screenshots of what we had in mind, the adventure path we wanted to adapt, here's the awesome new classes we wanted to add. But again, can't do it. Instead, we're adapting this Pathfinder 2E (or whatever) game, check out all this cool stuff!" Who do you think owns that news cycle, and who gets the PR equivalent of being locked in a room with a rabid grizzly bear, courtesy of like 3000 YouTube videos?

[Psyren]

But the whole point is that they're trying to revoke 1.0a...

Not for existing properties:

"Nothing will impact any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. Your stuff is your stuff." (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest)

[Rynjin]

I genuinely have to wonder how that's workable. Would Owlcat now be barred from making new DLC? Patches? If not, where IS the line drawn? How does it impact mods, etc.?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not for existing properties:

"Nothing will impact any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. Your stuff is your stuff." (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest)

Except if they, say, want to publish new DLC for their games, because those aren't published yet. They basically have to completely stop development on anything new in those product lines, because anything else isn't covered or even coverable.


I genuinely have to wonder how that's workable. Would Owlcat now be barred from making new DLC? Patches? If not, where IS the line drawn? How does it impact mods, etc.?

It's not workable. It's basically a promise not to sue over anything existing at T = 0. Anything new is a new derivative work and thus needs full compliance or risks lawsuit. Any further discussion of that probably breaches forum rules, however.

[Psyren]

I genuinely have to wonder how that's workable. Would Owlcat now be barred from making new DLC? Patches? If not, where IS the line drawn? How does it impact mods, etc.?

Those are legal questions we can't answer here, but I'm not aware of any upcoming Kingmaker or WotR DLC in the works in any case.



Like, image WoTC announce some official OneD&D game, and Owlcat comes out and says "we wanted to do a third Pathfinder game but can't because lawyers. Here's some screenshots of what we had in mind, the adventure path we wanted to adapt, here's the awesome new classes we wanted to add. But again, can't do it. Instead, we're adapting this Pathfinder 2E (or whatever) game, check out all this cool stuff!" Who do you think owns that news cycle, and who gets the PR equivalent of being locked in a room with a rabid grizzly bear, courtesy of like 3000 YouTube videos?

Alternatively, Owlcat/Deep Silver could say "hey, selling millions of copies of our last two games was cool, we'll work with WotC to get a custom contract so we can do that again. They might even have been so impressed with our ability to bring Golarion to life that they ask us to do the same for one of their much more established settings like Krynn or Ravenloft."

Alternatively alternatively - they'll roll the dice and go to ORC and whatever PF2 SRD eventually gets published under that, which from WotC's perspective has the same result as if they had used 1.0a, i.e. nothing. I personally would have no real problem with that outcome either.

[EggKookoo]

If you think 1DnD<->5e will be anywhere near the magnitude of work that 3.5<->4e or 2e<->3e was for most people, I have no idea what to tell you beyond disagreeing. Those edition changes completely upended the skill system, the spellcasting rules, action economy and other fundamental things that are not changing nearly as drastically between 5e and 1DnD.

Will the similarities of the system mean you won't need to buy the new 1D&D PHB when you play the game using DnDBeyond?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Will the similarities of the system mean you won't need to buy the new 1D&D PHB when you play the game using DnDBeyond?

Nominating this for joke of the year :smallsmile:

[Segev]

It is probably more fair to compare what we know of OneD&D relative to 5e to how we see 3.5 compared to 3.0. Technically, 3.0 was compatible with 3.5 in a lot of ways (though not as many as PF1 was with 3.5). I call OneD&D "5.1" a lot because I expect it's really a 5.5, not a 6e, and they call it "OneD&D," so "5.1" instead of "5.5."

If 5.0 forks due to 3rd party choices, it'll be because WotC forced third parties to do so, unless they go a lot more drastic with 5.1's changes than it seems they will. If WotC relies on cutting off the ability to make 5.0 third party content to prevent it, they'll probably wind up seeing major competition from third parties who capitalize on the bad will that WotC has engendered in this effort.

[Psyren]

Will the similarities of the system mean you won't need to buy the new 1D&D PHB when you play the game using DnDBeyond?

1) Technically you don't need any PHB to access the core game rules, Basic is free. The chances that 1DnD won't have its own Basic are essentially nil.

2) Even if it doesn't have one for some unearthly reason, or you need something from the old PHB specifically - if they use the same "Legacy" tag they've been using for other deprecated 5e books, you should be fine to keep playing "pure" 5e with no new official content. (With that said, keep in mind the DDB ToS=.)


If WotC relies on cutting off the ability to make 5.0 third party content to prevent it, they'll probably wind up seeing major competition from third parties who capitalize on the bad will that WotC has engendered in this effort.

I don't see how they are "cutting off the ability to make 5.0 third-party content." Do OGL 1.2 or the CC prevent that in some way?

[EggKookoo]

2) Even if it doesn't have one for some unearthly reason, or you need something from the old PHB specifically - if they use the same "Legacy" tag they've been using for other deprecated 5e books, you should be fine to keep playing "pure" 5e with no new official content. (With that said, keep in mind the DDB ToS=.)

I guess we'll see how it shakes out, but I have my doubts they'll keep anything "Legacy" after 2024.

[Satinavian]

Both Owlcat's Pathfinder games and Solasta will still be "left intact," as they already exist under 1.0a. It's the future stuff they have an eye towards. And it's extremely unlikely to expect that no other AAA publisher won't try to make something under 1.0a at some point in the future if it is left extant.
That is exactly what i was talking about.

With the OGL 1.0a intact, future Owlcat-like* games and Solastas will funnel new players into Pathfinder and D&D.

With the OGL 1.0a retracted, there won't be future Solasta Games, but Owlcat-like* games will still funnel players to Pathfinder.



* I talk about Owlcat-like games because Owlcat specifically is doing Rogue Trader next and thus funnel players toward the GW tabletop games.

[warty goblin]

Those are legal questions we can't answer here, but I'm not aware of any upcoming Kingmaker or WotR DLC in the works in any case.

There's an entire Season 2 of WoTR DLC coming out this year. While it may not be impacted by the new license, depending when it does come out, it would certainly have been by the original mid-January cutoff Wizards wanted.


Alternatively, Owlcat/Deep Silver could say "hey, selling millions of copies of our last two games was cool, we'll work with WotC to get a custom contract so we can do that again. They might even have been so impressed with our ability to bring Golarion to life that they ask us to do the same for one of their much more established settings like Krynn or Ravenloft."

They could do that, but why? People in the videogame world are much more loyal to developers than they are tabletop RPG rulesets, which is why you see people excited about Rogue Trader. Sure some people have played the tabletop, but most of the hype is "hey, it's the next thing from those devs who made this game we like". Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't hyped to the gills because everybody was deeply attached to an old RPG, it was hyped because Witcher 3 rocked and sold like a bazillion copies.


Alternatively alternatively - they'll roll the dice and go to ORC and whatever PF2 SRD eventually gets published under that, which from WotC's perspective has the same result as if they had used 1.0a, i.e. nothing. I personally would have no real problem with that outcome either.

Getting no money, alienating the fan base, getting drug through the mud, and handicapping one's own potential products seems like a worse outcome to me than just not getting any money.


don't see how they are "cutting off the ability to make 5.0 third-party content." Do OGL 1.2 or the CC prevent that in some way?

It certainly seems like they're trying to, what with the whole deauthorizing the current OGL thing. Or at least they're trying to impose conditions that quite clearly a lot of 3rd party publishers really do not like.

[Atranen]

The person I was responding to stated that, if Owlcat had been first to market with an isometric CRPG, many of the genre conventions they were anchored with might have seen Pathfinder's brand rather than D&D's as the genre originator or codifier. Such anchoring can still be lost by the right OGL game with the right technical advancements, so it's understandable for WotC to not want to leave a potential shortcut for the competition out in the ether.


That is exactly what i was talking about.

With the OGL 1.0a intact, future Owlcat-like* games and Solastas will funnel new players into Pathfinder and D&D.

With the OGL 1.0a retracted, there won't be future Solasta Games, but Owlcat-like* games will still funnel players to Pathfinder.

I was about to write the same post, Satinavian. It's true people who play the Pathfinder videogame are anchored to Pathfinder 1e...and therefore anchored relatively close to 3.5. In the future, I expect Owlcat will use Pathfinder 2e, and goodbye 3.5.

The entire argument behind revoking OGL 1.0a being good for video games assumes that the publishers making cRPGs using rulesets now see 1.2 and think 'gosh, this is such a good deal I just have to jump on that train'. And there's no evidence that will be the case. The only real contender is Solasta, which is a niche game by a small studio.


I can testify that Baldur's Gate I & II are what got me to even hear about "D&D" for the first time when I was 12 (on my mother's iMac, no less). This anchored D&D being synonymous with tabletop, "the" tabletop if you will, in my young mind. The same way Diablo II anchored in my young mind that a Necromancer must have a small army of skeletons in tow – that's non negotiable. I imagine if my first CRPGs had been Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, that anchoring would have been in favor of Pathfinder instead.


That's definitely a point in favor of their hostility towards 1.0a.

It is if you believe that under OGL 1.2, Deep Silver would have cut a custom license with WoTC. But it's more plausible they do it with someone else, or pick an open system, or PF2e, whatever.

The other implication of this comment is the cRPG --> TTRPG pipeline matters, and that it's good for recognition for a TTRPG company to be in as many cRPGs as possible. And that favors keeping the OGL.


Will the similarities of the system mean you won't need to buy the new 1D&D PHB when you play the game using DnDBeyond?


Nominating this for joke of the year :smallsmile:

Seconded!


If 5.0 forks due to 3rd party choices, it'll be because WotC forced third parties to do so, unless they go a lot more drastic with 5.1's changes than it seems they will. If WotC relies on cutting off the ability to make 5.0 third party content to prevent it, they'll probably wind up seeing major competition from third parties who capitalize on the bad will that WotC has engendered in this effort.

Agreed, the only way someone would grow big enough to challenge D&D's brand is through bad business decisions by those who run the brand. The fact that someone even has an opportunity is an unnecessary risk.


There's an entire Season 2 of WoTR DLC coming out this year. While it may not be impacted by the new license, depending when it does come out, it would certainly have been by the original mid-January cutoff Wizards wanted.

After a move like that, who thinks Owlcat is rushing to sign OGL 1.2?


Getting no money, alienating the fan base, getting drug through the mud, and handicapping one's own potential products seems like a worse outcome to me than just not getting any money.

A perfect summary, and matches the image of suits ignoring any money they can't see.

[Psyren]

They could do that, but why?

Because anything they make out of a D&D setting is all-but guaranteed to sell millions, that's why. Especially if the license terms compel WotC to assist in things like marketing and promotion the way they are with BG3. (https://dnd.wizards.com/products/baldurs-gate)



Getting no money, alienating the fan base, getting drug through the mud, and handicapping one's own potential products seems like a worse outcome to me than just not getting any money.

That depends on the true extent of the bolded claims among the wider customer base; time will tell what that truly is.


It certainly seems like they're trying to, what with the whole deauthorizing the current OGL thing. Or at least they're trying to impose conditions that quite clearly a lot of 3rd party publishers really do not like.

If they were really trying to do that, they wouldn't be replacing the old OGL with a new one that third parties can use. And SRD 5.1, on which 5e is based, is explicitly going to be compatible with 1.2.


I guess we'll see how it shakes out, but I have my doubts they'll keep anything "Legacy" after 2024.

My expectation is that the legacy stuff won't be compatible with their VTT. But you'll still be able to use that content with third party VTTs, or PnP games. But they might simply allow you to use Legacy content in their VTT as well.


That is exactly what i was talking about.

With the OGL 1.0a intact, future Owlcat-like* games and Solastas will funnel new players into Pathfinder and D&D.


With the OGL 1.0a retracted, there won't be future Solasta Games, but Owlcat-like* games will still funnel players to Pathfinder.

* I talk about Owlcat-like games because Owlcat specifically is doing Rogue Trader next and thus funnel players toward the GW tabletop games.

Owlcat's stuff uses the 3.5 SRD. As that edition is out of print, there is no funneling there that would benefit D&D.

They could instead decide to make other stuff based on the 5.1 SRD, but that wouldn't benefit Paizo, which has no products based on that newer SRD. And even if they were to decide to do that, without a custom license, whatever they make would at best be a direct competitor for WotC/Larian's own BG3 - especially since without a custom license they would have no control over when a competing game might release, how it might be marketed etc.

I'm not saying WotC couldn't see any benefit at all to leaving 1.0a intact. But I think it's clear they see those benefits as not outweighing the drawbacks, and I'm inclined to agree.

[Segev]

I don't see how they are "cutting off the ability to make 5.0 third-party content." Do OGL 1.2 or the CC prevent that in some way?

If not, then why bother deauthorizing 1.0(a)?


And, yes, 1.2's morality clause does cut it off. It cuts off everything WotC decides, after they see it in print, to cut off.

[Atranen]

Because anything they make out of a D&D setting is all-but guaranteed to sell millions, that's why. Especially if the license terms compel WotC to assist in things like marketing and promotion the way they are with BG3. (https://dnd.wizards.com/products/baldurs-gate)

If this were such a good deal, they'd be doing it already. The option has always been there. Do you think the only reason people haven't taken it is because using 3.5 in your video game is such a great option?


Owlcat's stuff uses the 3.5 SRD. As that edition is out of print, there is no funneling there that would benefit D&D.

"Oh, I play this cRPG called Pathfinder...oh looks like it was based on D&D 3.5...maybe I should give this D&D thing a shot...

vs.

"Oh, I play this cRPG called Pathfinder...oh, it's its own thing, nothing like D&D...Pathfinder sounds fun.

[Psyren]

If this were such a good deal, they'd be doing it already.

Paying no royalties beats paying some royalties.


If not, then why bother deauthorizing 1.0(a)?

Because 1.0a isn't limited to TTRPG content as written, while 1.2 is. That's one of their "core goals." (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license)

The other is the morality bit which is harder to discuss here (but see below).



And, yes, 1.2's morality clause does cut it off. It cuts off everything WotC decides, after they see it in print, to cut off.

Have you read the terms for uploading Youtube videos, broadcasting Spotify or iTunes podcasts, publishing your books on Audible, running your business' storefront on Etsy, posting to social media and countless other such licenses? WotC is not the first to use such a clause, nor will they be the last. They are frankly being generous by comparison.

I'm not saying it can't be improved. I have ideas on how, but we can't discuss them here.

[Rynjin]

Yeah...I really doubt "anything they make out of the D&D setting is all-but-guaranteed to sell millions". I doubt Dark Alliance sold that well, for instance.

I can't really remember the last time a fully released D&D game sold really well, and it's not like they're a rarity. BG III has pretty high sales even in early access largely because it says Baldur's Gate, which gets it BIOWARE'S previously stellar reputation combined with Larian's level of success and prestige combining the three disparate audiences (D&D fans, Baldur's Gate fans, and Larian fans), but not really D&D's.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think Psyren raises a good point in that this morality clause is standard operating procedure for most companies.

I think, however, that since we know they want complete and total control of the space and to push out their competitors, everyone's got Fry Eyes at this clause. And I don't think we can blame people for that, especially given how "morality" has been used in recent times anyways.

So we'll just have to wait and see, but I doubt this is something that WotC budges from.

[KorvinStarmast]

5e was only such a huge hit because it went back to OGL 1.0(a). And they could only do that because the 4e GSL wasn't an attempt to replace the OGL. I will suggest that it was successful because it was a game that had a lower barrier to entry than its predecessors, and it recaptured some of the forked/fractured/estranged fan base, and made a new fan base as well. OGL 1.0(a) did, though, in support of your point, help given how DMsGuild folded into the ecosystem pretty well with material WotC did not have to spend the money to produce. 3PP support did add value for the game audience.

To Hasbro, D&D is one of their "brands", like Transformers and My Little Pony and Monopoly and GI Joe. And they're aiming to "monetize that brand" with some sort of subscription-based, pay-to-play and probably pay-to-git-gud online system. Plenty of other games have shown the micro transaction and subscription model to be effective revenue generators. Of course, sometimes it comes a cropper as Blizzard's Diablo III marketplace (trading in game stuff) and "for real money marketplace" experience has shown.

Fanbases who would probably be very happy to try an official WoTC game if it wasn't coming at the expense of the thing they already like and are invested in. Yes. I enjoyed sword coast legends. It gave our DM some time off.

Will the similarities of the system mean you won't need to buy the new 1D&D PHB when you play the game using DnDBeyond?

Nominating this for joke of the year :smallsmile: Thirded.

1) Technically you don't need any PHB to access the core game rules, Basic is free. The chances that 1DnD won't have its own Basic are essentially nil. How do you know this? You make an assertion here. Are you guessing, or do you know something?
(TBH, I think that's a good bet to make)

I don't see how they are "cutting off the ability to make 5.0 third-party content." Do OGL 1.2 or the CC prevent that in some way? Have not had time to review CC. I might offer a response if something there gives me an "aha" moment.

[Zombimode]

Those are legal questions we can't answer here, but I'm not aware of any upcoming Kingmaker or WotR DLC in the works in any case.

You mean other then the three new DLCs for WotR in the annouced Season Pass 2 (https://www.gog.com/en/game/pathfinder_wrath_of_the_righteous_season_pass_2)?

[Atranen]

Paying no royalties beats paying some royalties.

But it's not like cRPG companies have two options: 1) Pay no royalties under the OGL and 2) Contract out with wizards and pay royalties.

If they're now forced to pay royalties to use the SRD, they stop using it, and pick 1*) pay no royalties under ORC, or PF2e, or an in-house system.

[animorte]

How do you know this? You make an assertion here. Are you guessing, or do you know something?
With 5e the feat included on dndbeyond with free is grapple (methinks?). I remember trying to make my first character sheet on there and I was like, "why the actual **** would I want grapple on my 8 Str Bard?!" And I think there was one available background (Acolyte?). Then I realized it was the only option, and thus never tried their character sheets again (because I would need to buy the books again for full content).

Maybe it's just because they weren't combined yet, but they always seemed to have just enough free content that it's frustrating.

[Psyren]

How do you know this? You make an assertion here. Are you guessing, or do you know something?
(TBH, I think that's a good bet to make)

If they don't make a Basic for 1DnD, the the only version of Basic floating in the ether is the 5.0 version, and all that creates is confusion. The consumer desire to "try before they buy" is a constant.


I think Psyren raises a good point in that this morality clause is standard operating procedure for most companies.

I think, however, that since we know they want complete and total control of the space and to push out their competitors, everyone's got Fry Eyes at this clause. And I don't think we can blame people for that, especially given how "morality" has been used in recent times anyways.

So we'll just have to wait and see, but I doubt this is something that WotC budges from.

As I said - I have ideas for what they can do to soften it and speculations on where it might end up, none of which we can discuss here.


But it's not like cRPG companies have two options: 1) Pay no royalties under the OGL and 2) Contract out with wizards and pay royalties.

If they're now forced to pay royalties to use the SRD, they stop using it, and pick 1*) pay no royalties under ORC, or PF2e, or an in-house system.

Some will do this, sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

With 5e the feat included on dndbeyond with free is grapple (methinks?). I remember trying to make my first character sheet on there and I was like, "why the actual **** would I want grapple on my 8 Str Bard?!" And I think there was one available background (Acolyte?). Then I realized it was the only option, and thus never tried their character sheets again (because I would need to buy the books again for full content).

Maybe it's just because they weren't combined yet, but they always seemed to have just enough free content that it's frustrating.

The basic rules are actually one step before that--the free "basic rules" pdf only has

* 4 races (human, high elf, hill dwarf, lightfoot halfling)
* 4 classes, each with one subclass: champion fighter, evoker wizard, life cleric, thief rogue
* no feats (that's a variant option) or multiclassing (another variant option)
* A small selection of spells and items (roughly 60% of the PHB list)

Not sure about backgrounds.

So yeah. The basic rules is basic. What you saw was the SRD material. Which is also fairly limited. One subclass per class, one subrace per race, 1 feat, 1 background.

[Rynjin]

I think Psyren raises a good point in that this morality clause is standard operating procedure for most companies.

I think, however, that since we know they want complete and total control of the space and to push out their competitors, everyone's got Fry Eyes at this clause. And I don't think we can blame people for that, especially given how "morality" has been used in recent times anyways.

So we'll just have to wait and see, but I doubt this is something that WotC budges from.

As was pointed out to me in discussions on Paizo's website, morality clauses actually AREN'T standard for this kind of license. What they're common for is compatibility licenses, which are typically separate.

The ORC, it is posited, is unlikely to have a morality clause. Instead, each of the games created under the ORC will likely have its own compatibility license spelling out what material is allowed to be associated with their specific game.

[NichG]

I think Psyren raises a good point in that this morality clause is standard operating procedure for most companies.


There is a difference between this clause acting on a platform, and on a license for use of content.

YouTube says they can take down your stuff. They don't say that if they disapprove of your stuff, you can't publish it on TikTok or Steam or hand it out at a physical store you own.

Things like Photoshop do not generally reserve the ability to control or pull things created with them, which is the more relevant comparison when talking about a license to use something in creation of your own content.

[Psyren]

There is a difference between this clause acting on a platform, and on a license for use of content.

YouTube says they can take down your stuff. They don't say that if they disapprove of your stuff, you can't publish it on TikTok or Steam or hand it out at a physical store you own.

Things like Photoshop do not generally reserve the ability to control or pull things created with them, which is the more relevant comparison when talking about a license to use something in creation of your own content.

[redacting earlier statements]

[Atranen]

Have.... have you read Photoshop's terms lately???

Care to share a relevant quote?

[NichG]

Have.... have you read Photoshop's terms lately???

I just did, and there's nothing in there that even talks about the outputs created by the user outside of things like 'you can embed fonts' and that you can make things with 'content' included, as long as you don't redistribute those things (fonts, etc) standalone.

There's lots of 'we can pull your access to the software', no 'we can pull things you made with it'.

[Psyren]

Care to share a relevant quote?

[redacting earlier statements]



There's lots of 'we can pull your access to the software', no 'we can pull things you made with it'.

That's exactly the point though, that's what WotC would revoke as well - your access to the license.

[Abuzorg]

Hell, they still could have. Critical Role almost certainly has a custom license, which is how things like EGtW got made.

Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting Reborn is actually published under the OGL 1.0a.


And as for Solasta, it's not actually published under the OGL. They mention on the steam page that :


TRUE TO THE TABLETOP
Wizards of the Coast granted Tactical Adventures a license to use the Dungeons and Dragons SRD 5.1 Ruleset, further anchoring our will to make the most faithful video game adaptation with the Tabletop Ruleset and craft the game you are hoping for!

[Atranen]

I genuinely don't know if I can quote 4.2, 6.9, or 11.2 here.

Then I won't get into the weeds either. Suffice to say I think there are clear differences between those statements and the corresponding 3, 6f, and 7b in the OGL draft.

[NichG]

I genuinely don't know if I can quote 4.2, 6.9, or 11.2 here.


Well, that's enough to establish that we're looking at different documents. I was looking at the Photoshop EULA, which doesn't even have subsections in section 11. Given those particular subsections you're bringing up, I think you're looking at Adobe's 'Creative Cloud' which is a hosting platform.

[Atranen]

Well, that's enough to establish that we're looking at different documents. I was looking at the Photoshop EULA, which doesn't even have subsections in section 11. Given those particular subsections you're bringing up, I think you're looking at Adobe's 'Creative Cloud' which is a hosting platform.

Photoshop 'creative cloud' was where I looked.

[Psyren]

Well, that's enough to establish that we're looking at different documents. I was looking at the Photoshop EULA, which doesn't even have subsections in section 11. Given those particular subsections you're bringing up, I think you're looking at Adobe's 'Creative Cloud' which is a hosting platform.

I'm citing Adobe General Terms of Use which apply to all their Services. Some Services have their own terms that build on the ones listed there. And that's as far down this road as I'm willing to go.

[Satinavian]

Owlcat's stuff uses the 3.5 SRD. As that edition is out of print, there is no funneling there that would benefit D&D.Yes.

Games that would benefit D&D like the next Solasta can't happen within the new OGL.
Games that would not benefit D&D like the next Pathfinder AP video game can happen without the old OGL just fine. Those will just move to ORC or no license.

That is exactly the opposite of what WotC should want.

[Segev]

That's exactly the point though, that's what WotC would revoke as well - your access to the license.

According to OGL 1.2, if they pull your access to the license, you must stop selling things produced under it. It sounds like Photoshop can only tell you to stop editing things on Photoshop, not to stop selling things you'd made on it up to the C&D.


And nothing in 1.2 that I've seen actually prevents anything outside of TTRPG rules being used. You keep bringing up non-TTRPG stuff, but everything in it will not care about the things that the SRD has in it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

According to OGL 1.2, if they pull your access to the license, you must stop selling things produced under it. It sounds like Photoshop can only tell you to stop editing things on Photoshop, not to stop selling things you'd made on it up to the C&D.


And nothing in 1.2 that I've seen actually prevents anything outside of TTRPG rules being used. You keep bringing up non-TTRPG stuff, but everything in it will not care about the things that the SRD has in it.

Yeah to both parts. Revocation of editor license doesn't pull content or even prevent making more.

And the part of the new thing that affects non TTRPG stuff is the VTT policy, which has a couple issues. First, it's not a license at all. It's a policy, so it has no binding force. They can still sue you at will, even if you're compliant. It's just a pinky swear that they won't unless they really want to. Second, it can change at any time with our without notice.

[Psyren]

Games that would benefit D&D like the next Solasta can't happen within the new OGL.

Bold is an assumption on your part, not a certainty, that WotC is allowed to disagree with.


Games that would not benefit D&D like the next Pathfinder AP video game can happen without the old OGL just fine. Those will just move to ORC or no license.

Again, that's fine, some game developers will do that. Others will do what Larian did and get a custom license. Neither approach is wrong.


According to OGL 1.2, if they pull your access to the license, you must stop selling things produced under it. It sounds like Photoshop can only tell you to stop editing things on Photoshop, not to stop selling things you'd made on it up to the C&D.

EDIT: Redacted, I feel like we're too close to the line already so I'm going to just give this a wide berth. Believe what you want wrt to either license.

[Brookshw]

EDIT: Redacted, I feel like we're too close to the line already so I'm going to just give this a wide berth. Believe what you want wrt to either license.

Wise choice, I'm abandoning active participation in the thread due to the ease of crossing the murky line.

[Atranen]

Bold is an assumption on your part, not a certainty, that WotC is allowed to disagree with.

Do you think Solasta's existence is bad for D&D?


Again, that's fine, some game developers will do that. Others will do what Larian did and get a custom license. Neither approach is wrong.

I'll be shocked if anyone licenses out to WoTC for mechanics, but not lore, for their videogame under 1.2 as it stands.

EDIT: to expand on this, I think you're missing the middle ground of solasta type games. Larian and AAA publishers will get licenses for lore regardless. Solasta doesn't have that budget. They probably also don't have the budget to license mechanics only. So they end up in the "use a different system "pile.

The only people taking advantage of this are big enough to want to license mechanics but too small to be able to license lore. I think that's a vanishingly small group. I can't think of any examples that fit.

[Psyren]

Do you think Solasta's existence is bad for D&D?

I don't think whatever good it represents is worth letting 1.0a stay intact.


I'll be shocked if anyone licenses out to WoTC for mechanics, but not lore, for their videogame under 1.2 as it stands.

Given that 1.2 is TTRPGs only I'd be shocked too.

[Atranen]

I don't think whatever good it represents is worth letting 1.0a stay intact.

Ah, see, "when adding up all the pros and cons ought 1.0a be kept" is a very different question from what I asked.

[Psyren]

Ah, see, "when adding up all the pros and cons ought 1.0a be kept" is a very different question from what I asked.

Solasta's existence being bad for D&D or not is irrelevant (especially anyone who isn't WotC's opinion of that question, myself included); nobody is trying to get Solasta taken down. The license itself is the main issue here, not any singular use of it.

[Atranen]

Solasta's existence being bad for D&D or not is irrelevant (especially anyone who isn't WotC's opinion of that question, myself included); nobody is trying to get Solasta taken down. The license itself is the main issue here, not any singular use of it.

The question of cRPGs and their relationship to the SRD and their ability to grow the brand are under discussion. Solasta is an example.

It's not a hard question. A yes or no will suffice.

[Psyren]

The question of cRPGs and their relationship to the SRD and their ability to grow the brand are under discussion. Solasta is an example.

It's not a hard question. A yes or no will suffice.

What proof do you have that Solasta has "grown the brand?"

[Atranen]

What proof do you have that Solasta has "grown the brand?"

Anecdotal. Conversations that being able to play the ruleset in a videogame is pretty cool and makes people more excited about 5e. The question really amounts to "is the cRPG to TTRPG pipeline real?"

[Psyren]

Anecdotal. Conversations that being able to play the ruleset in a videogame is pretty cool and makes people more excited about 5e. The question really amounts to "is the cRPG to TTRPG pipeline real?"

The plural of anecdote is not data however. My answer remains:


I don't think whatever good it represents is worth letting 1.0a stay intact.

[Atranen]

The plural of anecdote is not data however. My answer remains:

A real masterclass in avoiding the question.

[purepolarpanzer]

I've been following the post on and off for a while and I guess I'm confused with what the main argument AGAINST OGL 1.0A is. I, and it seems many of the people here, seem to think it was doing a pretty all right job of keeping the hobby growing and producing, for the most part, socially acceptable content. I can understand it needing an update to deal with the onset of new mediums for the hobby, but I don't think it warrants the destruction. I understand WoTC's motivation (safely and succinctly, more money and control), but it's hard for me to see what some people seem to hate about OGL 1.0A. Maybe I just haven't read thoroughly enough.

[Psyren]

I've been following the post on and off for a while and I guess I'm confused with what the main argument AGAINST OGL 1.0A is. I, and it seems many of the people here, seem to think it was doing a pretty all right job of keeping the hobby growing and producing, for the most part, socially acceptable content. I can understand it needing an update to deal with the onset of new mediums for the hobby, but I don't think it warrants the destruction. I understand WoTC's motivation (safely and succinctly, more money and control), but it's hard for me to see what some people seem to hate about OGL 1.0A. Maybe I just haven't read thoroughly enough.

I don't "hate" 1.0a. If WotC loses their bid it won't personally affect me much if at all, unless of course that loss leads to Hasbro shelving the property entirely or something, and even if that happens I'll still have my existing books.

My opinion is merely that I find it poorly written and woefully out of date. But trying to discuss what I see as its drawbacks in detail is not something we can do here.

[johnbragg]

I've been following the post on and off for a while and I guess I'm confused with what the main argument AGAINST OGL 1.0A is. I, and it seems many of the people here, seem to think it was doing a pretty all right job of keeping the hobby growing and producing, for the most part, socially acceptable content. I can understand it needing an update to deal with the onset of new mediums for the hobby, but I don't think it warrants the destruction. I understand WoTC's motivation (safely and succinctly, more money and control), but it's hard for me to see what some people seem to hate about OGL 1.0A. Maybe I just haven't read thoroughly enough.

From WOTC/Hasbro's point of view, as best I can tell:

--they want the ability to shut down creators who are declared Problematic, and be seen as acting in the interests of social justice. (This is both a moral position and an economic position, corporate virtue is arguably good for the stock price)

--they seem to be afraid of allowing other companies to use OGL and SRD material in video games, and formats other than paper-and-pencil TTRPGs.

[Satinavian]

Honestly, with video games the OGL is utterly irrelevant. Nearly every proper D&D game uses a custom agreement that also allows trademarks and/or lore. Nearly every other game does not actually need the SRD.

NFTs ? Hmmmm, possible. It is not as if the SRD is particularly useful for NFTs, but it is not as if scammy NFT projects did ever care about this all that much. They tend to want the name recognition but not pay for trademarks. Also in the last years NFTs were toutet as the next goldmine by executives and it is possible that Hasbro wanted to reserve that possibility for themselfs, just in case. And without any idea how to make that work. One would assume that the last year and the NFT collapse changed their minds, but maybe the rewriting was already in progress.

But the main point is likely their vision for VTTs. They want players to use DDB only and pay for it monthly. They don't want competing cheap or free versions that are useful to play D&D.
In contrast to video games, VTTs need the SRD, the rules. Because easy ways to look up rule specifics, character sheets, automated calculations etc. are the core of the comfort that VTTs can provide beyond the basic chat/online conference experience. That is why VTTs very much want an OGL they can use.

They likely also plan on making D&DBeyond a more encompasssing experience and get people to move away from (one time purchase) books to a far more profitable service model, maybe blending VTT with video games. But that would take time and investment and crushing other VTTs in the beginning is faster and cheaper to bring up subscriptions for lack of alternatives.

[Rynjin]

Anecdotal. Conversations that being able to play the ruleset in a videogame is pretty cool and makes people more excited about 5e. The question really amounts to "is the cRPG to TTRPG pipeline real?"

Personally, my introduction to TTRPGs was Neverwinter Nights, so it's true in my case. Even if I didn't actually get to play one until like 6 or 7 years later.

[Imbalance]

I've been following the post on and off for a while and I guess I'm confused with what the main argument AGAINST OGL 1.0A is. I, and it seems many of the people here, seem to think it was doing a pretty all right job of keeping the hobby growing and producing, for the most part, socially acceptable content. I can understand it needing an update to deal with the onset of new mediums for the hobby, but I don't think it warrants the destruction. I understand WoTC's motivation (safely and succinctly, more money and control), but it's hard for me to see what some people seem to hate about OGL 1.0A. Maybe I just haven't read thoroughly enough.

WotC stands alone in wanting deauthorization. There has not yet been a single business partner come forward in favor of what they are trying to do. There are but a handful of really, really, really vocal apologists across various forums that keep trying to convince an incredibly vast majority that it's a good idea, despite all wise council to the contrary (and in at least one case, I'm certain it's the same person posting multiple places). The deal is still terrible.

[Raven777]

I don't "hate" 1.0a. If WotC loses their bid it won't personally affect me much if at all, unless of course that loss leads to Hasbro shelving the property entirely or something, and even if that happens I'll still have my existing books.

Even then, Hasbro "shelving the property" with an intact 1.0a just means we lose the likes of Forgotten Realms. Boo freakin' hoo, I'm really gonna miss Elminster. Meanwhile, Paizo, Kobold Press, Ghostfire Gaming or any other sufficiently established third party can now fill the gaping void on 3.5e and 5e's foundations. That's not a loss, that's a win.

[Psyren]

Personally, my introduction to TTRPGs was Neverwinter Nights, so it's true in my case. Even if I didn't actually get to play one until like 6 or 7 years later.

Right, and BG3 will almost certainly be that for others this year too. That's great. But neither game used the OGL.


Even then, Hasbro "shelving the property" with an intact 1.0a just means we lose the likes of Forgotten Realms. Boo freakin' hoo, I'm really gonna miss Elminster. Meanwhile, Paizo, Kobold Press, Ghostfire Gaming or any other sufficiently established third party can now fill the gaping void on 3.5e and 5e's foundations. That's not a loss, that's a win.

I mean, let them "win" if that's the outcome; that doesn't mean WotC has to roll over and do nothing.

[Segev]

Ultimately, I neither see anything good for the community in 1.0(a) going away, nor anything good for WotC in managing to eliminate it. The only benefit to WotC I see even them as seeing is an elimination of competition so that they, as "THE TTRPG," can compel all TTRPG players to give them all of the money without having to put forth products that cater to TTRPG players.

The videogame assertions just don't hold water: there exist too many fantasy videogames with unique mechanics to believe that somebody making a videogame with the SRD rules is more of a threat to D&D-as-a-brand than somebody making the exact same videogame with their own underlying system. Maybe WotC and Hasbro believe otherwise, but if so, they are wrong, and will find that this 1.2 license is simply not used for videogames if it in any way is harder on the designers than 1.0(a) would've been. Designers will make their own rulesets. Even using 1.0(a) seems dubious, to me, though at least doing so would be not economically worse than designing their own.

Whatever benefit WotC sees to eliminating 1.0(a) is illusory, but I can buy that corporate executives who don't understand the market or the product would think it a good idea. But I certainly don't see any actual evidence that 1.2 will actually help WotC make more money, and certainly nothing that suggests it will be good for the customers.

[EggKookoo]

But I certainly don't see any actual evidence that 1.2 will actually help WotC make more money, and certainly nothing that suggests it will be good for the customers.

I can only imagine the level of ineptitude a developer would need to embrace in order to accept an OGL from a company that will clearly and demonstrably revoke it when it suits their whim.

[Xervous]

I can only imagine the level of ineptitude a developer would need to embrace in order to accept an OGL from a company that will clearly and demonstrably revoke it when it suits their whim.

Almost as humorous as all the NFT rug pulls. Oh wait

[johnbragg]

The videogame assertions just don't hold water: there exist too many fantasy videogames with unique mechanics to believe that somebody making a videogame with the SRD rules is more of a threat to D&D-as-a-brand than somebody making the exact same videogame with their own underlying system.

From my POV I agree, I don't see that creating a videogame on a D6 Fantasy engine or a White Wolf fistful-of-d10s engine or a GURPS engine or PTBA or a bespoke game engine is a major task (relative to, you know, creating a game and creating a good game. The simulated dice being rolled by the AI are the least of their worries, I think.)

But highly paid people at WOTC and Hasbro disagree, which gives me pause.


Maybe WotC and Hasbro believe otherwise, but if so, they are wrong,

I don't know. I don't *think* they're just looking at a new generation edition of Neverwinter Nights or Baldurs Gate or D&D Online. They're talking a lot about the line between VTTs and video games, which tells me that their next project is a video game that incorporates VTT elements. I have no idea how.

Re-watching the video from August, and the phrase is "D&D Digital, which will become a full playspace", animated miniatures on an online map. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpI7J9vtbnw&t=386s



and will find that this 1.2 license is simply not used for videogames if it in any way is harder on the designers than 1.0(a) would've been. Designers will make their own rulesets. Even using 1.0(a) seems dubious, to me, though at least doing so would be not economically worse than designing their own.

I'm pretty sure that WOTC doesn't want anyone making video games under OGL 1.2. Anyone making a videogame has to deal directly with Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro.




[quote]But I certainly don't see any actual evidence that 1.2 will actually help WotC make more money, and certainly nothing that suggests it will be good for the customers.

Likely. but they're taking a shot at launching D&D to be a billion dollar franchise, driven by D&D Digital, vaguely simulating miniatures on a tabletop, with ample "DM Assistance" features. For monetization, they'll be dropping plenty of content for DMs to design their own stuff inside the engine.

With the progress of AI technology, it's going to be very tempting for them to go ahead and "DM Assist" their way to chatbot NPCs responding as Bargle and Aleena from the Red Box set.

[warty goblin]

Whatever benefit WotC sees to eliminating 1.0(a) is illusory, but I can buy that corporate executives who don't understand the market or the product would think it a good idea. But I certainly don't see any actual evidence that 1.2 will actually help WotC make more money, and certainly nothing that suggests it will be good for the customers.

I agree it's pretty irrelevant in the actual tabletop market and the videogame spaces. If OneD&D gets the market share that 5E has, and VTTs continue to be big, I could see it paying off there. If people want to play D&D in specific remotely, and WotC's VTT is good and not hideously overpriced, being the only option that isn't handicapped for doing D&D is going to be an advantage.

I'm not saying that will happen though. But it isn't completely crazy to think it might. It still seems like a crappy, anticompetitive deal for consumers, because it's basically Wizards refusing to compete directly on quality in the VTT space, but it makes at least some sense as a business move.

[Segev]

I don't know. I don't *think* they're just looking at a new generation edition of Neverwinter Nights or Baldurs Gate or D&D Online. They're talking a lot about the line between VTTs and video games, which tells me that their next project is a video game that incorporates VTT elements. I have no idea how.

Re-watching the video from August, and the phrase is "D&D Digital, which will become a full playspace", animated miniatures on an online map. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpI7J9vtbnw&t=386s


Likely. but they're taking a shot at launching D&D to be a billion dollar franchise, driven by D&D Digital, vaguely simulating miniatures on a tabletop, with ample "DM Assistance" features. For monetization, they'll be dropping plenty of content for DMs to design their own stuff inside the engine.

With the progress of AI technology, it's going to be very tempting for them to go ahead and "DM Assist" their way to chatbot NPCs responding as Bargle and Aleena from the Red Box set.


I agree it's pretty irrelevant in the actual tabletop market and the videogame spaces. If OneD&D gets the market share that 5E has, and VTTs continue to be big, I could see it paying off there. If people want to play D&D in specific remotely, and WotC's VTT is good and not hideously overpriced, being the only option that isn't handicapped for doing D&D is going to be an advantage.

I'm not saying that will happen though. But it isn't completely crazy to think it might. It still seems like a crappy, anticompetitive deal for consumers, because it's basically Wizards refusing to compete directly on quality in the VTT space, but it makes at least some sense as a business move.

Thing is, I don't see how they need to "deauthorize" 1.0(a) to do this. Shouldn't all they need to do for that be to release OneD&D on a new GSL? If OneD&D is as dominant as 5e, that advantage remains just by not having OneD&D available to other VTTs.

I don't think it actually will be as big an advantage, though. The ability to make your own custom tooltips or what-have-you will be all that anybody needs to make other VTTs work.

Where WotC will have a huge competitive advantage is in built-for-VTT module packs, and the other VTTs need licensing form WotC now to be able to do that. I guarantee that Tomb of Annihilation is not released on the OGL in its entirety, but I have bought it on roll20 when my game group when virtual for Covid in the middle of the campaign. That must be licensed, somehow, from WotC.

If WotC wants to lock down the VTT market for their own VTT to be the only one using cool D&D material, it's as easy as not licensing their astral plane slave-revolt module, "Neologisms of the Neogi," to other VTTs. No need to revoke, "deauthorize," or otherwise impede OGL v. 1.0(a) at all for that.


Really, the stubbornness on this makes no sense unless their intent and purpose is to prevent another Pathfinder/3e split happening over [something]/OneD&D, with [something] being a 5.05e D&D the way PF1 was 3.75e D&D. Either that, or the decision-makers don't understand their own licenses as they stand.

(Or I'm missing something, but nobody's been able to propose something I'm missing that holds much water as far as I can tell.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thing is, I don't see how they need to "deauthorize" 1.0(a) to do this. Shouldn't all they need to do for that be to release OneD&D on a new GSL? If OneD&D is as dominant as 5e, that advantage remains just by not having OneD&D available to other VTTs.

I don't think it actually will be as big an advantage, though. The ability to make your own custom tooltips or what-have-you will be all that anybody needs to make other VTTs work.

Where WotC will have a huge competitive advantage is in built-for-VTT module packs, and the other VTTs need licensing form WotC now to be able to do that. I guarantee that Tomb of Annihilation is not released on the OGL in its entirety, but I have bought it on roll20 when my game group when virtual for Covid in the middle of the campaign. That must be licensed, somehow, from WotC.

If WotC wants to lock down the VTT market for their own VTT to be the only one using cool D&D material, it's as easy as not licensing their astral plane slave-revolt module, "Neologisms of the Neogi," to other VTTs. No need to revoke, "deauthorize," or otherwise impede OGL v. 1.0(a) at all for that.


Really, the stubbornness on this makes no sense unless their intent and purpose is to prevent another Pathfinder/3e split happening over [something]/OneD&D, with [something] being a 5.05e D&D the way PF1 was 3.75e D&D. Either that, or the decision-makers don't understand their own licenses as they stand.

(Or I'm missing something, but nobody's been able to propose something I'm missing that holds much water as far as I can tell.)

I completely agree with you. The only explanation for their behavior is pure anti-competitive, "don't split the party" tactics. To force everyone to stop making content for 5e and (if possible) move everyone to OneD&D and (what they hope will be) a walled garden that they can extract all the money from. Everything else, from the morality clause to the VTT policy to the deauthorization clause are either means to that end or smokescreens to deflect attention and virtue signal.

[johnbragg]

(Or I'm missing something, but nobody's been able to propose something I'm missing that holds much water as far as I can tell.)

My guess is that they're skeered that, after they build and release their D&D Digital thing and it's a success, Microsoft Activision or Facebook Meta or Alphabet Google or Apple decides "hey, we have a billion dollars lying around, we can do that too." Having access to the OGL 1.0a material would help a trillion dollar tech company to do the same thing that D&D Digital is doing.

But I don't know how much it helps. Anything World of Warcraft has already lifted has to be fair game, anything from Tolkien and Conan and Lovecraft isn't WOTC IP.

I think they're just skeered of the bigger fish, and resentful that the smaller fish are making any money at all off of TSR and WOTC content.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My guess is that they're skeered that, after they build and release their D&D Digital thing and it's a success, Microsoft Activision or Facebook Meta or Alphabet Google or Apple decides "hey, we have a billion dollars lying around, we can do that too." Having access to the OGL 1.0a material would help a trillion dollar tech company to do the same thing that D&D Digital is doing.

But I don't know how much it helps. Anything World of Warcraft has already lifted has to be fair game, anything from Tolkien and Conan and Lovecraft isn't WOTC IP.

I think they're just skeered of the bigger fish, and resentful that the smaller fish are making any money at all off of TSR and WOTC content.

OGL 1.0a doesn't help them in any measurable way. It's a rounding error. And tying yourself to a much smaller company like that doesn't make much sense either. They'd either outright buy the IP from Hasbro or make their own--being tied as a license to someone else's ip (but not the actually useful parts) is just :wtf-owl:. It'd be like buying the rights to the x-men...without actually being able to use anything from the x-men.

The bold sentence is the only one that makes any rational sense that I can see. It's envy and greed--"why are those people making money that should be ours by right[1]?"

[1] ok, they haven't done much to build it recently and are mostly resting on laurels gathered by others. Which makes things even worse.

[warty goblin]

I completely agree with you. The only explanation for their behavior is pure anti-competitive, "don't split the party" tactics. To force everyone to stop making content for 5e and (if possible) move everyone to OneD&D and (what they hope will be) a walled garden that they can extract all the money from. Everything else, from the morality clause to the VTT policy to the deauthorization clause are either means to that end or smokescreens to deflect attention and virtue signal.

So I think the deauthorization makes some sense in light of the supposed compatibility between 5E and OneD&D. There's no point in locking up all your toys if everybody can keep on using toys that are 95% the same. In particular, if they don't deauthorize, every other VTT is free to ignore stuff like no animated spells and just carry on with using 5E.

Or more broadly, if OneD&D is really close to 5E, 5E is a really strong competitor to their new game; i.e. OneD&D itself does not necessarily offer enough improvements to be worth upgrading. That's bad. Worse, if 1.0a stands, various very 5E like things can continue to exist and grow, so even if WoTC stops printing 5E stuff, everybody else can stick with the old system.

Basically I think the deauthorization is a necessary part of a two-pronged strategy to exploit D&D's high market share by 1: killing off 5E as a thing that can continue or fork off from OneD&D. This is necessary so that WoTC can 2: monetize the hell out an audience that's as captive as possible.

How well that works basically comes down to how exploitative WotC's monetization is, how much this move pisses off the player base as a whole, and how good and easy to move to the competition is.


My guess is that they're skeered that, after they build and release their D&D Digital thing and it's a success, Microsoft Activision or Facebook Meta or Alphabet Google or Apple decides "hey, we have a billion dollars lying around, we can do that too." Having access to the OGL 1.0a material would help a trillion dollar tech company to do the same thing that D&D Digital is doing.

But I don't know how much it helps. Anything World of Wardraft craft has already lifted has to be fair game, anything from Tolkien and Conan and Lovecraft isn't WOTC IP.

I think they're just skeered of the bigger fish, and resentful that the smaller fish are making any money at all off of TSR and WOTC content.

If Microsoft wants to move on VTTs, not having the OGL will matter not at all. They already own Obsidian, InExile, and oh yeah, Bethesda . They have plenty of nerds on staff who are completely capable of cooking up a completely usable ruleset (in a fair number of cases thus has been their literal job for decades, more or less), and the tech expertise to integrate it into a VTT very, very well. Then they just go "the official Skyrim TTRPG, with actual game assets" and boom, absolutely crushing victory.

Killing the OGL to prevent that is like bothering to fire harden your wooden spear while the enemy is gassing up his fighter jet. Sure you are technically better prepared, but it is also totally meaningless. And in the process, WoTC has pissed off their most dedicated fans, which are the strongest asset WoTC could have in a fight like this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So I think the deauthorization makes some sense in light of the supposed compatibility between 5E and OneD&D. There's no point in locking up all your toys if everybody can keep on using toys that are 95% the same. In particular, if they don't deauthorize, every other VTT is free to ignore stuff like no animated spells and just carry on with using 5E.

Or more broadly, if OneD&D is really close to 5E, 5E is a really strong competitor to their new game; i.e. OneD&D itself does not necessarily offer enough improvements to be worth upgrading. That's bad. Worse, if 1.0a stands, various very 5E like things can continue to exist and grow, so even if WoTC stops printing 5E stuff, everybody else can stick with the old system.

Basically I think the deauthorization is a necessary part of a two-pronged strategy to exploit D&D's high market share by 1: killing off 5E as a thing that can continue or fork off from OneD&D. This is necessary so that WoTC can 2: monetize the hell out an audience that's as captive as possible.

How well that works basically comes down to how exploitative WotC's monetization is, how much this move pisses off the player base as a whole, and how good and easy to move to the competition is.


Ie they're afraid of trying to compete on the merits, so they're trying to kneecap the competition ahead of time. Yay. Such ethics. Such confidence in their own product.

If they felt they can't differentiate far enough...don't do it. If they want to actually do this, make something new. But since their creative well is not only dry but it's filled with rotting corpses...




If Microsoft wants to move on VTTs, not having the OGL will matter not at all. They already own Obsidian, InExile, and oh yeah, Bethesda . They have plenty of nerds on staff who are completely capable of cooking up a completely usable ruleset (in a fair number of cases thus has been their literal job for decades, more or less), and the tech expertise to integrate it into a VTT very, very well. Then they just go "the official Skyrim TTRPG, with actual game assets" and boom, absolutely crushing victory.

Killing the OGL to prevent that is like bothering to fire harden your wooden spear while the enemy is gassing up his fighter jet. Sure you are technically better prepared, but it is also totally meaningless. And in the process, WoTC has pissed off their most dedicated fans, which are the strongest asset WoTC could have in a fight like this.

Agree.

[KorvinStarmast]

If they don't make a Basic for 1DnD, the the only version of Basic floating in the ether is the 5.0 version, and all that creates is confusion. The consumer desire to "try before they buy" is a constant. Aye, hence 'that's the way to bet' finale to my post.

Anecdotal. Conversations that being able to play the ruleset in a videogame is pretty cool and makes people more excited about 5e. The question really amounts to "is the cRPG to TTRPG pipeline real?" Interesting question. My son found playing D&D at the table when he was preteen/teen fun. He then discovered MMORPGs. He tried to join us, at about age 23, in our D&D game on a VTT and after a few sessions was not interested in spending his time like that. (1) the group was not tactically enough minded for his tastes, (2) the pace of play was agonizing (big group, most married and got interrupted a lot), and (3) half of the players showed up already into their cups. (His dad included :smalleek:). So he politely declined.
He joined us for the Salt Marsh group I have, and was enjoying himself much more when RL intruded and he got put on the graveyard shift for a year and a half. Scheduling killed another participant in my campaign.
Now, he and a couple of friends are still interested in my DMing Storm King's Thunder on r20 if we can get 4 players, or 5, and a commitment to a once a week or twice a week game.
He's still working on that.
As to NWN; I bought the original NWN when it came out (CRPG) and he liked it well enough for solo play. (He never did the MMO bit, WoW happened and he enjoyed that.
He found Sword Coast Adventures (which I had on Steam) to be not quite interesting enough to keep his interest.

I've been following the post on and off for a while and I guess I'm confused with what the main argument AGAINST OGL 1.0A is. WotC feels that it does not meet their needs in 2023 (the world has changed a bit since the basic was published) and that it may have some loopholes in it that can be exploited by competitors. That's the sense that I get. If, as one of the youtube videos going around is correct, the short to mid term aim of monetizing the D&D brand from about 150 million to about 500 million is true, then plugging any perceived revenue leaks would have to be a part of the strategy, but honestly to grow it that fast and that large they have to get ahold of a substantially larger base audience/fandom for the game than they have now in the next five years. They are for sure going towards a form of product diversification. (FWIW, Rich did something similar with his Monster for Every Season, his calendars and his Christmas Tree Ornaments, one of which I gave to a friend as a present a few years ago).

WotC stands alone in wanting deauthorization. I had not heard that anyone else did, to date. FWIW.

[Psyren]

I don't know. I don't *think* they're just looking at a new generation edition of Neverwinter Nights or Baldurs Gate or D&D Online. They're talking a lot about the line between VTTs and video games, which tells me that their next project is a video game that incorporates VTT elements. I have no idea how.

I'd guess that it's the reverse actually - their VTT is going to include video game elements, such as AI-controlled (the traditional kind, not the modern kind) NPCs and monsters, or highly-automated spell, attack and ability resolution. As well as modern AI roleplaying as NPCs in character.



I'm pretty sure that WOTC doesn't want anyone making video games under OGL 1.2. Anyone making a videogame has to deal directly with Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro.

Right, or at the very least stick with the CC stuff (level progression, actions in combat, equipment, base spellcasting rules, creature types etc) and fill in the blanks themselves (such as making up their own races, classes, spells, monsters and magic items.)


Likely. but they're taking a shot at launching D&D to be a billion dollar franchise, driven by D&D Digital, vaguely simulating miniatures on a tabletop, with ample "DM Assistance" features. For monetization, they'll be dropping plenty of content for DMs to design their own stuff inside the engine.

With the progress of AI technology, it's going to be very tempting for them to go ahead and "DM Assist" their way to chatbot NPCs responding as Bargle and Aleena from the Red Box set.

It would be VERY interesting if you could, say, plug in an NPC's Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws, as well as things they don't know about, and then have the AI suggest things they'd say to the DM.


Aye, hence 'that's the way to bet' finale to my post.

Yep, we're in agreement :smallsmile:

[Segev]

My guess is that they're skeered that, after they build and release their D&D Digital thing and it's a success, Microsoft Activision or Facebook Meta or Alphabet Google or Apple decides "hey, we have a billion dollars lying around, we can do that too." Having access to the OGL 1.0a material would help a trillion dollar tech company to do the same thing that D&D Digital is doing.

But I don't know how much it helps. Anything World of Warcraft has already lifted has to be fair game, anything from Tolkien and Conan and Lovecraft isn't WOTC IP.

I think they're just skeered of the bigger fish, and resentful that the smaller fish are making any money at all off of TSR and WOTC content.

Agreed, and also re-emphasizing that their move is boneheaded because it doesn't solve this problem. Microsoft decides to make Windows & Wendigos the cRPG? Nothing in OGL 1.0(a) helps them, and nothing in revoking it makes them look at 1.2 and say, "Oh, well, we'd better negotiate with Hasbro!" No, they make their own game system, just like the Elder Scrolls games do, just like Final Fantasy does, just like WoW does, etc. etc. etc. If Microsoft DID want to use the 5e or OneD&D SRD (assuming the latter was released on the OGL and 1.0(a) stood), it would be a bit of an odd choice, and honestly wouldn't save them much in the way of time and money.

D&D is, despite how much we focus on it here, not sold on its game mechanics, not to a new and broader audience. It's sold on its IP and PI. And WotC is shooting themselves in the foot trying to chase a monster that doesn't exist while blowing up the goodwill that owuld've made them scads of money on the IP.

I know I was excited to at least support D&D by seeing the movie in theaters, even if I was worried it wouldn't be all that great. I totally would've bought an official Beholder plushie, possibly three so I could give gifts to little kids of friends of mine. And no amount of branching off to (for example )Level-Up 5e would've made me stop being interested in the fictional side of D&D, even if I hated OneD&D more than I am turned off by 4e.

[Rynjin]

Final Fantasy is a really funny example because foreign companies never gave a SINGLE **** about what TSR and later Wizards actually owned in terms of RPG monsters and whatnot.

For example, the Beholder was a monster in Final Fantasy (https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Evil_Eye_(Final_Fantasy)) (the original), and named as such.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Final Fantasy is a really funny example because foreign companies never gave a SINGLE **** about what TSR and later Wizards actually owned in terms of RPG monsters and whatnot.

For example, the Beholder was a monster in Final Fantasy (https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Evil_Eye_(Final_Fantasy)) (the original), and named as such.

And FFXIV has a mind flayer boss who is an ithillid with the only difference being a name change. Still has mind blast as an ability too.

[Scots Dragon]

And FFXIV has a mind flayer boss who is an ithillid with the only difference being a name change. Still has mind blast as an ability too.

Given just how close mind flayers are to the idea of the Star Spawn of Cthulhu, it's really hard to say that they should be actual Wizards of the Coast product identity.

[Buufreak]

And FFXIV has a mind flayer boss who is an ithillid with the only difference being a name change. Still has mind blast as an ability too.

Nah. Flayers were in OG FF1 as well. They more or less sneezed the monster manual all over the game without a second thought. I seem to remember hearing that some legal action was taken about it, but then things like the 20th anniversary edition came out with same monsters, same potentially infringing name use, just a shiny new paint job and bonus dungeons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Given just how close mind flayers are to the idea of the Star Spawn of Cthulhu, it's really hard to say that they should be actual Wizards of the Coast product identity. It may be fair to say that mind flayers were inspired by something in the pulps, very likely Lovecrafts works, given various observations made by E.G.G. over the years.
It was introduced in the Strategic Review, Issue 1. (The lovecraftian/SF/Horror roots were kind of obvious).
It wasn't called illithid until later. I don't find that term in the AD&D 1e monster manual, but I think that term was introduced in one of the Underdark modules that followed the Giants modules...but it might have been in the fire giant original module.

I did find use of that term in Dragon Mag #63 in an article on worldbuilding by Ed Greenwood, but illithid might have been in the Fiend Folio before that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Given just how close mind flayers are to the idea of the Star Spawn of Cthulhu, it's really hard to say that they should be actual Wizards of the Coast product identity.

And that goes for, well, the vast majority of wizard's ip. Other than specific unique names. And maybe the details of the great wheel?

Which is why this whole thing is a farce. "It's my IP and I should get all the money from it..."says the one who ripped it off wholesale from a melange of sources throughout history and myth.

Not that there's anything wrong with idea theft--nothing new under the sun and all that. Totally normal. But claiming that it's wrong to steal from a thief what he stole? Laughable.

[Psyren]

Final Fantasy is a really funny example because foreign companies never gave a SINGLE **** about what TSR and later Wizards actually owned in terms of RPG monsters and whatnot.

For example, the Beholder was a monster in Final Fantasy (https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Evil_Eye_(Final_Fantasy)) (the original), and named as such.


And FFXIV has a mind flayer boss who is an ithillid with the only difference being a name change. Still has mind blast as an ability too.

Er... doesn't the mere fact that Square-Enix changed the names of these monsters prove they DO care? If they truly didn't care they'd still be calling them "Beholder" instead of "Evil Eye/Death Eye/Deepeye" etc.

And yes, FF1 (1990) was localized on NES with the original names, but every rerelease of it since (e.g. Wonderswan, PS1, GBA) has used the revised ones.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Er... doesn't the mere fact that Square-Enix changed the names of these monsters prove they DO care? If they truly didn't care they'd still be calling them "Beholder" instead of "Evil Eye/Death Eye/Deepeye" etc.

And yes, FF1 (1990) was localized on NES with the original names, but every rerelease of it since (e.g. Wonderswan, PS1, GBA) has used the revised ones.

Names are trademark, which is very different from copyright. OGL didn't (and doesn't) give any rights to trademark material.

[EggKookoo]

Names are trademark, which is very different from copyright. OGL didn't (and doesn't) give any rights to trademark material.

I'm still annoyed that HeroForge removed their "octi-folk" without any official explanation (that I could find). I still can only assume they got a call from WotC, and the latter's actual lack of ownership over the concept of "tentacle-faced humanoid" is a Thing That Makes Me Go Hmmm.

[Rynjin]

Er... doesn't the mere fact that Square-Enix changed the names of these monsters prove they DO care? If they truly didn't care they'd still be calling them "Beholder" instead of "Evil Eye/Death Eye/Deepeye" etc.

And yes, FF1 (1990) was localized on NES with the original names, but every rerelease of it since (e.g. Wonderswan, PS1, GBA) has used the revised ones.

The American companies that did localizations cared a lot, yeah. The Japanese companies did (and still do, in many cases) have the opinion that only Japanese copyright and trademark is legally enforceable in Japan. And their laws, near as I can tell, agree with them.

It's why, as a quick example, Araki can use copyrighted band and song names in JoJo's in Japan, but they have to be localized for the West.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm still annoyed that HeroForge removed their "octi-folk" without any official explanation (that I could find). I still can only assume they got a call from WotC, and the latter's actual lack of ownership over the concept of "tentacle-faced humanoid" is a Thing That Makes Me Go Hmmm.

HeroForge probably has a specific license agreement. That overrides anything else. Just like the OGL 1.0a made you renounce any claim of compatibility, despite that being 100% legal by default.

[EggKookoo]

HeroForge probably has a specific license agreement. That overrides anything else. Just like the OGL 1.0a made you renounce any claim of compatibility, despite that being 100% legal by default.

I wonder what they would need a license for. Nothing that I've seen out of HF looks like D&D product identity. It's all pretty generic fantasy stuff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wonder what they would need a license for. Nothing that I've seen out of HF looks like D&D product identity. It's all pretty generic fantasy stuff.

Hmmm....maybe not then? I dunno. Maybe they didn't like how it printed? Had lots of complaints?

[Psyren]

Apparently the likeness was too close. (https://twitter.com/HeroForgeMinis/status/1330967436263243777) Beyond that you'd have to ask HF for specifics.

[EggKookoo]

Apparently the likeness was too close. (https://twitter.com/HeroForgeMinis/status/1330967436263243777) Beyond that you'd have to ask HF for specifics.

Ok, interesting, they were quiet for a while about it. Maybe during the negotiations. This is infuriating, honestly. WotC can claim to own "Illithid" but it's overreach to claim to own something they themselves pilfered from Lovecraft.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Latest tweet thread from D&D Beyond: https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status/1618416722893017089

Text of thread (all official statements):



We want to thank the community for continuing to share their OGL 1.2 feedback with us. Already more than 10,000 of you have responded to the survey, which will close on February 3. Take the survey here: [Link to Survey] 🧵

So far, survey responses have made it clear that this draft of OGL 1.2 hasn't hit the mark for our community. Please continue to share your thoughts.

Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.

We will continue to keep an article updated with any new details posted here or elsewhere on the OGL. You can read it here: [Link to latest DnD Beyond Article about 1.2]

[Psyren]

I'm glad to hear that they're refocusing the VTT policy, that was a big part of my feedback. I quoted a good chunk of Foundry's statement on that very point.

[Mutazoia]

I don't know. I don't *think* they're just looking at a new generation edition of Neverwinter Nights or Baldurs Gate or D&D Online. They're talking a lot about the line between VTTs and video games, which tells me that their next project is a video game that incorporates VTT elements. I have no idea how.

From everything I've gathered, I believe WOTC/Hasbro are planning on doing the exact opposite: Creating a VTT with video game elements. Every exec running the show for OneD&D has come from a video game background and they are quite proud to flex that fact at the drop of a hat.

This leads me to believe that WOTC/Hasbro intends to attempt to make OneD&D a primarily online/digital game with physical books available for an increased price as "collectors editions." The majority of the resources for the game will be on their website and be designed to function best when played with their proprietary VTT. Given that the WOTC CEO has flat-out stated that she wants to monetize D&D just like a video game, this is pretty much their only option if they are serious about adding microtransactions to the game.

This would also give them an open door to force any changes to the "OGL" onto players by forcing them to agree to a heavily restrictive game license if they want to create an account on WOTCs VTT/OneD&D page. This would also force third-party content creators to sign onto a new game license if they wanted to continue (or start to) create things for D&D, as they would have to agree to any game license terms WOTC could sneak into the EULA during account creation.

[Atranen]

Latest tweet thread from D&D Beyond: https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status/1618416722893017089

Text of thread (all official statements):

Glad to hear it; I've been impressed with at least their willingness to admit they were wrong and say they are going to change. They'll have to actually change to prove anything. The right thing to do is to keep the pressure on. I'd love for them to end up with an acceptable version so I don't need to go elsewhere.

[Mechalich]

From everything I've gathered, I believe WOTC/Hasbro are planning on doing the exact opposite: Creating a VTT with video game elements. Every exec running the show for OneD&D has come from a video game background and they are quite proud to flex that fact at the drop of a hat.

This leads me to believe that WOTC/Hasbro intends to attempt to make OneD&D a primarily online/digital game with physical books available for an increased price as "collectors editions." The majority of the resources for the game will be on their website and be designed to function best when played with their proprietary VTT. Given that the WOTC CEO has flat-out stated that she wants to monetize D&D just like a video game, this is pretty much their only option if they are serious about adding microtransactions to the game.

This would also give them an open door to force any changes to the "OGL" onto players by forcing them to agree to a heavily restrictive game license if they want to create an account on WOTCs VTT/OneD&D page. This would also force third-party content creators to sign onto a new game license if they wanted to continue (or start to) create things for D&D, as they would have to agree to any game license terms WOTC could sneak into the EULA during account creation.

That makes a great deal of sense. Based on my understanding of the economics, if even a small fraction of the D&D player base - many of whom purchase 1-2 books total over the life of an edition - could be converted to paying VTT subscribes they would come out way ahead. At the same time, the various attempts to kill/restrict the OGL 1.0a can be seen as intended to prevent a PF-style variant of 5e from simply filling the space WotC will vacate by the move to a primarily VTT-based product. That's logical, from a purely business-based perspective.

At the same time, I feel like it massively misreads the player base across the hobby. While there are a large number of D&D-only TTRPG players, few of these are such because of a specific loyalty to D&D. Rather they simply only want to take the time and energy to learn only one system and they gravitate to the most abundant system simply because that provides the greatest number of opportunities to play. The same thing happens with MtG - it is the most popular collectible card game because it is the most popular collectible card game. If D&D exits the space voluntarily, everyone will gravitate to some other game. In the late 1990s, the last time this happened, that game was VtM even though it was nothing like D&D. I'd submit that as evidence that even if WotC successful torpedoed the OGL 1.0a, which is highly dubious, it would only induce migration to some other game, not to a VTT.

[johnbragg]

So things I think we've learned (I've learned) over the lifetime of the thread.

1. OGL 1.0a isn't a terribly big advantage for a competitor to D&D Digital. If the FAANG companies throw money at a VTT/CRPG/MMORPG hybrid, the OGL doesn't give them anything they didn't already have or couldn't easily get.

2. WOTC just signaled that they're retreating on the VTT limitations.
2a. In OGL 1.2, WOTC tossed the royalties provisions and the license-back provisions over the side of the boat.

So what is WOTC's core motivation for deauthorizing 1.0a? Which they seem to be firmly committed to.

I think it comes down to the morality clause. Most of the world doesn't know anything about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. But if the Tiktok mobs noticed, WOTC public relations would feel the pressure to Do Something. And under OGL 1.0a, they can't. (I checked, LOTFP does use OGL 1.0a.)

But, you might say, LOTFP isn't going to sign on to OGL 1.2, so Wizards STILL can't do anything. But PR wise, they can point to the new OGL policy and say "we DID something, we did all we could so. It will never happen again, shrug."

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mutazoia
This leads me to believe that WOTC/Hasbro intends to attempt to make OneD&D a primarily online/digital game with physical books available for an increased price as "collectors editions."

This was the gist of the latest video that was linked a couple of pages ago.


Originally Posted by Atranen
Glad to hear it; I've been impressed with at least their willingness to admit they were wrong and say they are going to change.

They ran face-first into a wall of very loud opposition, so they had to at least acknowledge that. I’m not sure they’ve admitted their underlying goals were wrong, just the process for communicating them.


Originally Posted by Atranen
The right thing to do is to keep the pressure on. I'd love for them to end up with an acceptable version so I don't need to go elsewhere.

The real issue for most people is 1.0 deauth, and there’s no indication they’re changing their stance on that, nor ever will. This latest statement mentions animations, but that was an odd fixation to begin with and reversing on this point is trivial for them.

Show me a new version that walks back the 1.0 deauth and I’ll be convinced they’re taking base concerns to heart. Until then, they’re just “listening” in some vaguely noncommittal, impersonally corporate sense.

Also worth noting that there’s a public OGL survey in that Twitter link which promises what WotC never has—a survey whose responses will be entirely public and transparent. WotC’s failure to do the same is one more garish red flag that they’re not listening, not caring, and not planning to change.

[EggKookoo]

The real issue for most people is 1.0 deauth, and there’s no indication they’re changing their stance on that, nor ever will.

The deauth issue is huge. Back when open software licenses were the new hotness, more than a few lawsuits resulted from companies trying what WotC is doing right now -- releasing open code, and then when it got embedded in enough systems, trying to revoke it so they could demand royalties. This approach eventually got severely stomped on by courts, and there's loads of precedence that once you have any kind of open license, it's irrevocable unless the license has a specific revocability clause built into up front. I remember the discussions about it at the time, debating if it meant the end of open source. But in the end of course it wasn't. It was the end of big companies trying to cheat (at least in that respect).

This has implications for what WotC's doing that I can't get into here as it would fall under legal speculation. You can do your own research there.

[Raven777]

I think it comes down to the morality clause. Most of the world doesn't know anything about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. But if the Tiktok mobs noticed, WOTC public relations would feel the pressure to Do Something. And under OGL 1.0a, they can't. (I checked, LOTFP does use OGL 1.0a.)

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.

[Keltest]

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.

40k is so over the top by design I dont think its possible to unironically go after it for anything without looking like you just fell for the joke.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by EggKookoo
The deauth issue is huge.

Yeah. They’ve touched on it, but they’re a long way from admitting it’s the wrong approach, much less promising to reverse their plans for it.

They’re making a show of “listening” with the survey—a survey whose results we can’t see, and which they can spin any way they like—and by giving ground on a few minor points. But 1.0 deauth itself is still full steam and no regrets.


Originally Posted by Atranen
The right thing to do is to keep the pressure on.

But without something equivalent to the recent spike in cancellations, there’s no other mechanism for directly getting their attention in a meaningful way. Their survey is a trap that plays into their hands; it lets them pretend they’re responding while never actually addressing the key issues.

Getting them in the same room with players and 3PP creators would be a start, because that would put faces on the player base and 3PP community, which isn’t something the key corporate figures have had much exposure to. Even offering to meet and discuss these issues in person—in a respectful, professional atmosphere—would put a modicum of real-world pressure on them. But right now there’s nothing.

[Tanarii]

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.
D&D Orcs and Drow and Vistani and Hadozee were already an internet issue since April 2020. That's a super low bar for offense, low enough that Blizzard / World of Warcraft, which has far more egregious Orcs and Trolls and Tauren, could easily be the target. With a bar that low, it's unsurprising that WotC would be concerned about reactions to their own product.

What's not acceptable is trying to blow up the entire TTRPG open license club, to hold moral censorship over anyone's product but their own. If other folks in the club don't want to censor their own products due to internet issues, that's their choice.

[johnbragg]

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.

1. I don't think the Tiktok mob is especially predictable or systematic.
2. I don't think Warhammer 40K is as mainstream as you think. No cartoons, no movies, much smaller player base, no Satanic PAnic. D&D has a big footprint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_in_popular_culture

[Rynjin]

Yeah, this is where big faces in other industries would have stepped up by now to arrange interviews with somebody at Wizards to discuss the matter.

Even the games industry (which has a well-documented lack of journalistic tradition) has well-meaning public figures like Jim Sterling who have in the past tried to really get in there and have a chat with different figures in the industry.

I'm surprised the Matt Colvilles and Treantmonks (big gap in subs there, I know; they'r elike the only two 5e creators I know of by name) of the community haven't tried to arrange some kind of roundtable. The only big "super creators" are in Wizards' pocket, but there are enough moderately sized guys to make a difference if they wanted to.

[Psyren]

1. OGL 1.0a isn't a terribly big advantage for a competitor to D&D Digital. If the FAANG companies throw money at a VTT/CRPG/MMORPG hybrid, the OGL doesn't give them anything they didn't already have or couldn't easily get.

It's true that lack of OGL coverage for video games wouldn't make it any more difficult for FAANG to enter the space. But there's a massive amount of daylight between mom-and-pop publisher and FAANG. Hell, the only AAA game publisher in FAANG itself really is Amazon - and maybe Apple? - while all the others are outside of it. There's no reason to make life any easier for them.


2. WOTC just signaled that they're retreating on the VTT limitations.

Well, yes and no. They're retreating on animations being the key differentiator. That to me signals that they still want some kind of line between VTT and video game, and they're going to keep trying to find one that works. I think their best bet here is to work with VTTs like Foundry directly on crafting the policy, and in the progress open the door to granting Foundry a custom license.


So what is WOTC's core motivation for deauthorizing 1.0a? Which they seem to be firmly committed to.

I think it comes down to the morality clause. Most of the world doesn't know anything about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. But if the Tiktok mobs noticed, WOTC public relations would feel the pressure to Do Something. And under OGL 1.0a, they can't. (I checked, LOTFP does use OGL 1.0a.)

I definitely think the morality clause is the other major factor. And thanks for the pertinent example.



What's not acceptable is trying to blow up the entire TTRPG open license club, to hold moral censorship over anyone's product but their own.

They hold themselves accountable too, it's just that the correction gets far less fanfare than the crime. Mistakes like Hadozee shouldn't happen in the first place, but the next best thing is fixing them as fast as possible.

[EggKookoo]

But without something equivalent to the recent spike in cancellations, there’s no other mechanism for directly getting their attention in a meaningful way. Their survey is a trap that plays into their hands; it lets them pretend they’re responding while never actually addressing the key issues.

I think people getting educated on the history of open licenses and legal precedent will help. Again, we can't talk about the details here, but WotC is on very thin ice with this. Heck, DnDBeyond itself almost certainly uses open source code that would be at risk if some open source precedents were reversed.

IMO, D&D's uptick in use is in no small way due to how DnDB makes playing the game so much more convenient for most people. Some folks like its simplicity in comparison to something like Pathfinder, but if there was as slick a tool for PF most of that complexity would get smoothed over. We need a good equivalent.

[Psyren]

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.


40k is so over the top by design I dont think its possible to unironically go after it for anything without looking like you just fell for the joke.

It's also just built on fundamentally different assumptions. D&D is trying to be the Disney of the tabletop world, presenting not just a world but also a game where diversity and friendship are the key to victory. Thus walking their talk is important both within and around the game system. From what I know of Warhammer, it... isn't that.

[Saintheart]

So things I think we've learned (I've learned) over the lifetime of the thread.

1. OGL 1.0a isn't a terribly big advantage for a competitor to D&D Digital. If the FAANG companies throw money at a VTT/CRPG/MMORPG hybrid, the OGL doesn't give them anything they didn't already have or couldn't easily get.

2. WOTC just signaled that they're retreating on the VTT limitations.
2a. In OGL 1.2, WOTC tossed the royalties provisions and the license-back provisions over the side of the boat.

So what is WOTC's core motivation for deauthorizing 1.0a? Which they seem to be firmly committed to.

I think it comes down to the morality clause. Most of the world doesn't know anything about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. But if the Tiktok mobs noticed, WOTC public relations would feel the pressure to Do Something. And under OGL 1.0a, they can't. (I checked, LOTFP does use OGL 1.0a.)

But, you might say, LOTFP isn't going to sign on to OGL 1.2, so Wizards STILL can't do anything. But PR wise, they can point to the new OGL policy and say "we DID something, we did all we could so. It will never happen again, shrug."


The thing is, and I know I keep coming back to this, but OGL 1.0a (or 1.0 at least) has already had at least a couple of How Dare You's from the public before on Current Year topics: the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Thought up by Anthony Valterra, one of D&D's own brand managers while he was still with WOTC, was to be published under the d20 trademark, WOTC altered the licence to include a prescription that products with the d20 trademark had to meet a 'community decency' standard. Valterra is on record in old ENworld threads as trying to fight the changes to the trademark licence, but as history shows, he failed. WOTC revoked the publisher's right to use the d20 trademark ... and BoEF got published under the OGL 1.0a about 4-5 months later, where WOTC couldn't - and didn't - do anything about it. And the book disappeared for its 'ick' factor and probably the bad publicity.

There was no outcry then to revoke the OGL 1.0, and indeed WOTC altering the trademark so it could be revoked without notice - as happened in the case of the BoEF - was what caused most 3PP to abandon using the trademark at all, for exactly the same reasons as we're seeing now: the uncertainty of having a trademark owner hanging the Sword of Damocles over your book supply.

And here's the thing, BoEF catches a lot of the incoming fire for immature sourcebooks on one's preference for concavities or convexities, but it's hardly even the only one. I don't recommend using a public computer to Google up Nymphology: Blue Magic from Mongoose Publishing or the really squicky Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. Both were also OGL products too. Been around for literally 20 years, no sign of torches and pitchforks yet.

Hence my cynicism over the reasons for OGL deauthorisation and the no-saving-throw morality clause. In my personal view, the morality of their products is not what the powers that be are trying to secure with that clause.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
I'm surprised the Matt Colvilles and Treantmonks (big gap in subs there, I know; they'r elike the only two 5e creators I know of by name) of the community haven't tried to arrange some kind of roundtable. The only big "super creators" are in Wizards' pocket, but there are enough moderately sized guys to make a difference if they wanted to.

I can’t speculate about any particular individual, but I have a feeling that some of these game personalities (if you can call it that) would prefer to post a string of videos and drive traffic to their channels rather than try to step up and outside their comfort zone. It’s one thing to talk to a camera in a home studio, quite another to step up and interact directly.

That would be real leadership, but so far I haven't seen any. Monetized channels are a strong incentive to talk without really acting.


Originally Posted by EggKookoo
I think people getting educated on the history of open licenses and legal precedent will help.

Unfortunately that in itself won’t prod WotC to do anything different than what they’re doing now, which is pretending to listen and thundering right along.

Someone needs to call out WotC directly, by organizing a roundtable and inviting them to participate. That’s a real-world action which is concrete and reportable, to the point that it might be covered as a follow-up to the tiny blip of media coverage that the cancellations prompted. That's pressure WotC will notice.

.

[Psyren]

And the book disappeared for its 'ick' factor and probably the bad publicity.

3.5e's prominence outside the tabletop world is nowhere near what 5e's is, especially with their mainstream transmedia strategy taking shape. WotC simply wishing on a star that potentially brand-damaging books fade into obscurity on their own would be utterly irresponsible.

[johnbragg]

D&D Orcs and Drow and Vistani and Hadozee were already an internet issue since April 2020. That's a super low bar for offense, low enough that Blizzard / World of Warcraft, which has far more egregious Orcs and Trolls and Tauren, could easily be the target. With a bar that low, it's unsurprising that WotC would be concerned about reactions to their own product.

What's not acceptable is trying to blow up the entire TTRPG open license club, which is not theirs to do with as they please, hold moral censorship over anyone's product but their own. If other folks in the club don't want to censor their own products due to internet issues, that's their choice.

I think you deleted that part, but it's important, because that's where WOTC disagrees with us. If someone puts out a d20 version of FATAL using WOTC's SRD for classes and races and spells and feats, it's very easy to imagine WOTC winning a case based on "product confusion" or whatever the legalese is. It's less of a slam dunk for stuff like "Edgelord Studios' orcs are TOO MUCH like the racist noble-savages myth or the racist savage-savages myth," but WOTC has the money to have the lawyers to make Edgelord Studios bleed, which is all they really need to take the "SJW" heat off of WOTC.

[Saintheart]

3.5e's prominence outside the tabletop world is nowhere near what 5e's is, especially with their mainstream transmedia strategy taking shape.

Yeah, they also had one of those strategies around third edition as well. Even had a movie called Dungeons and Dragons if I remember right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_(2000_film))

[Segev]

Does anybody else think a "deauth" sounds enough like a "gauth" that it should be a beholder-kin?


40k is so over the top by design I dont think its possible to unironically go after it for anything without looking like you just fell for the joke.I assure you, the people who raise these objections use outrage to insist that anybody who dares point out that they're falling for a joke is "part of the problem." If WH40k responded differently than D&D to it, it's only because of the choices of those who own them, NOT a result of the fandoms reacting differently or having different expectations. Those outraged would convince you that they're as big a part of WH40k as they have D&D. However convinced you are.


It's also just built on fundamentally different assumptions. D&D is trying to be the Disney of the tabletop world, presenting not just a world but also a game where diversity and friendship are the key to victory. Thus walking their talk is important both within and around the game system. From what I know of Warhammer, it... isn't that.This is like if Disney had, to justify their classic fairy tale adaptations, released an open license on them, and now was trying to revoke that license and claim that no future products using any fairy tale elements they had in their classics may be made without a much more draconian new license from Disney. You want to make a Cinderella story? You MUST comply with Disney's ever-shifting "morality" and with their whims and demands, and they can force you to scrap your entire movie days before release, or to cancel your show mid-season, if they deem your story "offensive."

Heavens, yes, studios making spin-offs from Disney franchises using more recognizable iconic images of the characters and being able to say they're semi-canon would benefit! But once that genie is out of the bottle, cramming it back in requires sucking up so much of Cinderella's story that Disney would essentially be claiming rights to the fairy tale itself. Sure, suuuurrre, they can say "but the new one isn't changing much, unless you're Big Business," but with Disney setting itself up to require that all fairy tale products meet Disney's standards of morality and inoffensiveness.... standards which might include, "Wait, your new video game about an abused orphan cleaning house while being denied his special destiny is making big bucks? Harry Potter has the license revoked, and you couldn't have printed it without our license so we're suing if you did!"

Ridiculous? Sure. So is this whole debacle.

[Saintheart]

Does anybody else think a "deauth" sounds enough like a "gauth" that it should be a beholder-kin?.

I thought it sounded like 'death' with an extra 'u'.

:D

[johnbragg]

It's true that lack of OGL coverage for video games wouldn't make it any more difficult for FAANG to enter the space. But there's a massive amount of daylight between mom-and-pop publisher and FAANG. Hell, the only AAA game publisher in FAANG itself really is Amazon - and maybe Apple? - while all the others are outside of it. There's no reason to make life any easier for them.

Mea Culpa, I forgot that Microsoft / Activision / Blizzard wasn't in the FAANG category when that was the current acronym. And Netflix is no longer anywhere near the trillion dollar club.


Well, yes and no. They're retreating on animations being the key differentiator. That to me signals that they still want some kind of line between VTT and video game, and they're going to keep trying to find one that works. I think their best bet here is to work with VTTs like Foundry directly on crafting the policy, and in the progress open the door to granting Foundry a custom license.

Very possible. We don't have the language of any new VTT policy yet. They might work with Foundry and Roll20 and the other incumbents, they might try to hamstring and destroy them.


The thing is, and I know I keep coming back to this, but OGL 1.0a (or 1.0 at least) has already had at least a couple of How Dare You's from the public before on Current Year topics: the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Thought up by Anthony Valterra, one of D&D's own brand managers while he was still with WOTC, was to be published under the d20 trademark, WOTC altered the licence to include a prescription that products with the d20 trademark had to meet a 'community decency' standard. Valterra is on record in old ENworld threads as trying to fight the changes to the trademark licence, but as history shows, he failed. WOTC revoked the publisher's right to use the d20 trademark ... and BoEF got published under the OGL 1.0a about 4-5 months later, where WOTC couldn't - and didn't - do anything about it. And the book disappeared for its 'ick' factor and probably the bad publicity.

1. It is much easier to go viral in 2023 than in 2003.
2. When there's a viral cancellation storm, the corporate PR imperative is to DO SOMETHING. WOTC *did something* about BOEF -- they made changes to the d20 license, and they rolled out 3.5.


And here's the thing, BoEF catches a lot of the incoming fire for immature sourcebooks on one's preference for concavities or convexities, but it's hardly even the only one. I don't recommend using a public computer to Google up Nymphology: Blue Magic from Mongoose Publishing or the really squicky Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. Both were also OGL products too. Been around for literally 20 years, no sign of torches and pitchforks yet.

I'd guess that has a lot to do with the fact that nobody noticed those books existing.


Hence my cynicism over the reasons for OGL deauthorisation and the no-saving-throw morality clause. In my personal view, the morality of their products is not what the powers that be are trying to secure with that clause.

My cynicism agrees. But the PR department *does* sincerely want a blueprint to DO SOMETHING!! in the entirely forseeable event that a 3rd party product is Declared Problematic.


3.5e's prominence outside the tabletop world is nowhere near what 5e's is, especially with their mainstream transmedia strategy taking shape. WotC simply wishing on a star that potentially brand-damaging books fade into obscurity on their own would be utterly irresponsible.

Agreed, mostly. 2023 is not 2003.

Mostly because your statement is from a neutral perspective, and I don't know that I support that. But I do know that if I were drawing a salary in WOTC / Hasbro Legal and PR Department, I'd share that view as part of my job.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

3.5e's prominence outside the tabletop world is nowhere near what 5e's is, especially with their mainstream transmedia strategy taking shape. WotC simply wishing on a star that potentially brand-damaging books fade into obscurity on their own would be utterly irresponsible.

If the content of a book is truly brand damaging for wotc, I imagine that it would violate most online marketplaces terms of use for similar reasons.

Wotc has working relationships with Amazon, Kickstart and so forth. Furthermore, if someone in a Ford Fiesta runs me off the road, I don't get mad at Ford. Instead I get angry at the driver. The rpg community is far more likely to attack the publisher of the work, rather than wotc

[Satinavian]

D&D is trying to be the Disney of the tabletop world, presenting not just a world but also a game where diversity and friendship are the key to victory. That was never a strength of D&D and many competitors were far ahead in this area for decades.

Furthermore i don't really believe they want to change that. They do the bare minimun when the public outcry becomes too loud. And now i am supposed to believe that they not only want to change their way but also are so offended by transgressions of others that they need the ability to revoke licenses for it ? Nah.

[Xervous]

Does anybody else think a "deauth" sounds enough like a "gauth" that it should be a beholder-kin?


Given that beholders in prior editions ate offspring they deemed imperfect it sounds rather fitting.

[animorte]

That was never a strength of D&D and many competitors were far ahead in this area for decades.
Never too late to join in.


Furthermore i don't really believe they want to change that. They do the bare minimun when the public outcry becomes too loud. And now i am supposed to believe that they not only want to change their way but also are so offended by transgressions of others that they need the ability to revoke licenses for it ? Nah.
We all know good and well it has nothing to do with what they think. The community has made it very clear they overall have no problem whatsoever attempting to regulate speech/actions. I mean isn't that what we're doing in the way this OGL has been addressed? Not to mention countless other examples I will not go into detail here.

[Psyren]

This is like if Disney had, to justify their classic fairy tale adaptations, released an open license on them, and now was trying to revoke that license and claim that no future products using any fairy tale elements they had in their classics may be made without a much more draconian new license from Disney. You want to make a Cinderella story? You MUST comply with Disney's ever-shifting "morality" and with their whims and demands, and they can force you to scrap your entire movie days before release, or to cancel your show mid-season, if they deem your story "offensive."

I disagree that it's "much more draconian." Again, the morality clause they have here is akin to that of Adobe, Microsoft, and other licenses, and it doesn't even have the "we can also revoke for any reason with 30 days notice" that those do anymore. WotC's license is seriously tame. We can make it tamer via additional tweaks to 6f, I have no problem with that, but they're already well behind other licensors.

[skyth]

The problem is that with the deception and lies that WotC has been spouting with this, I don't trust them not to weaponize the 'morality' clause against other people to drive them out of business rather than to get rid of immoral product.

Especially when it includes conduct rather than just what you published.

[Atranen]

The real issue for most people is 1.0 deauth, and there’s no indication they’re changing their stance on that, nor ever will. This latest statement mentions animations, but that was an odd fixation to begin with and reversing on this point is trivial for them.

Yeah, I agree with that. I mentioned in the survey that 1.0 deauthorization was the sticking point for me. If they proceed, they're saying outright that the lied to the community for over a decade and are willing to lie to make money.

[Satinavian]

I disagree that it's "much more draconian." Again, the morality clause they have here is akin to that of Adobe, Microsoft, and other licenses, and it doesn't even have the "we can also revoke for any reason with 30 days notice" that those do anymore. WotC's license is seriously tame. We can make it tamer via additional tweaks to 6f, I have no problem with that, but they're already well behind other licensors.
Show me a single open license that is more restrictive.

But honestly, it is not even important anymore. OGL 1.2+ is dead on arrival with basically no creator so far having indicated a willingness to work under these terms.

[Segev]

I disagree that it's "much more draconian." Again, the morality clause they have here is akin to that of Adobe, Microsoft, and other licenses, and it doesn't even have the "we can also revoke for any reason with 30 days notice" that those do anymore. WotC's license is seriously tame. We can make it tamer via additional tweaks to 6f, I have no problem with that, but they're already well behind other licensors.

I'm puzzled where Microsoft could - let alone would - tell me that I can't use Windows anymore if I were to [insert reprehensible act here] on social media. They wouldn't stop me from using Windows to run computers I develop software on. They wouldn't stop me from using windows to do ... anything, really.

This is a red herring. A distraction, designed to demonize people who oppose the 1.2 license for any reason of substance. "Oh, you just want to allow immoral and hateful stuff!"

[KorvinStarmast]

But claiming that it's wrong to steal from a thief what he stole? Laughable. There are any number of adventure or crime stories about stolen goods being considered "up for grabs" and you get multiple factions going after them.

WotC can claim to own "Illithid" but it's overreach to claim to own something they themselves pilfered from Lovecraft. You can claim anything that you like, but sometimes backing that claim up is difficult.

Given that the WOTC CEO has flat-out stated that she wants to monetize D&D just like a video game At this point, I expect we may get the Greek Chorus of pre-WotC grognards singing "We told you so, they {WotC} made it too video-gamey in the first place ... " in three part harmony. :smallcool: (I am not in that musical group, as I do not ascribe to "the edition that shall not be named" approach)
{snip}
This would also force third-party content creators to sign onto a new game license if they wanted to continue (or start to) create things for D&D, as they would have to agree to any game license terms WOTC could sneak into the EULA during account creation. The desire to have tighter control of the IP seems to be a consistent message coming out.

This is a red herring. A distraction, designed to demonize people who oppose the 1.2 license for any reason of substance. "Oh, you just want to allow immoral and hateful stuff!" That is a style of rhetoric that has become all too common, sadly. :smallfrown:

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is that with the deception and lies that WotC has been spouting with this, I don't trust them not to weaponize the 'morality' clause against other people to drive them out of business rather than to get rid of immoral product.

Especially when it includes conduct rather than just what you published.


Show me a single open license that is more restrictive.

But honestly, it is not even important anymore. OGL 1.2+ is dead on arrival with basically no creator so far having indicated a willingness to work under these terms.


I'm puzzled where Microsoft could - let alone would - tell me that I can't use Windows anymore if I were to [insert reprehensible act here] on social media. They wouldn't stop me from using Windows to run computers I develop software on. They wouldn't stop me from using windows to do ... anything, really.

This is a red herring. A distraction, designed to demonize people who oppose the 1.2 license for any reason of substance. "Oh, you just want to allow immoral and hateful stuff!"

I agree with all of these. The morality clause here is a fig leaf and a preemptive strike against those who oppose "O"GL 1.2 (scare quotes for truth--it's no more open than Fort Knox's vault).

This is just more deception--they're pretending that they're putting out an open license, with full intent for it to be anything but.

[MonochromeTiger]

Given that beholders in prior editions ate offspring they deemed imperfect it sounds rather fitting.

Really Beholders are a fun example to go with in this situation. WotC wants a morality clause, supposedly for the sake of nuking problematic content "for the good of the community", when one of the flagship monsters they're so proud and protective of is biologically predisposed to such a strong degree of paranoia that murdering their own family is the default approach to learning they had a kid.

It's absolutely hilarious that stopping problematic content is something they would cling to to justify shutting down something that has worked for years while something they keep as protected content has so many landmines in that regard.


We all know good and well it has nothing to do with what they think. The community has made it very clear they overall have no problem whatsoever attempting to regulate speech/actions. I mean isn't that what we're doing in the way this OGL has been addressed? Not to mention countless other examples I will not go into detail here.

There's a pretty big difference between "we disagree with this OGL change because it's actively harmful to parts of the community and establishes a precedent that we can never trust claims of permanence or reliability again" and "it's perfectly fine to have an unlimited right to shut down competition using nebulously worded clauses where we can make up a reason at any time."


I disagree that it's "much more draconian." Again, the morality clause they have here is akin to that of Adobe, Microsoft, and other licenses, and it doesn't even have the "we can also revoke for any reason with 30 days notice" that those do anymore. WotC's license is seriously tame. We can make it tamer via additional tweaks to 6f, I have no problem with that, but they're already well behind other licensors.

Last I checked Adobe, Microsoft, and other licenses didn't set up their contracts so they could tear apart everything I worked on and shut down my ability to sell it independently years after I made it on the grounds of "he made a joke in bad taste one time, take our word for it." They are absolutely the kinds of companies to try shutting their competition or anyone near that competition down in excessively brutal ways but they don't rely on manufacturing a controversy so they can be the hero or try to shut down your ability to use their computers entirely.

[Raven777]

There's also the fact that "other corporations are doing it too" does not logically proceed into a satisfying reason for doing it. It's at best a deflection, not a motivation; just a form of appeal to authority. But we shouldn't want WotC to be sorry (that this is how the market is): we should want them to be better (than their peers in the market). Their will (to do what's best for creators and players) should be stronger than their excuse (to be beholden to shareholders).

[Zuras]

That makes a great deal of sense. Based on my understanding of the economics, if even a small fraction of the D&D player base - many of whom purchase 1-2 books total over the life of an edition - could be converted to paying VTT subscribes they would come out way ahead. At the same time, the various attempts to kill/restrict the OGL 1.0a can be seen as intended to prevent a PF-style variant of 5e from simply filling the space WotC will vacate by the move to a primarily VTT-based product. That's logical, from a purely business-based perspective.

At the same time, I feel like it massively misreads the player base across the hobby. While there are a large number of D&D-only TTRPG players, few of these are such because of a specific loyalty to D&D. Rather they simply only want to take the time and energy to learn only one system and they gravitate to the most abundant system simply because that provides the greatest number of opportunities to play. The same thing happens with MtG - it is the most popular collectible card game because it is the most popular collectible card game. If D&D exits the space voluntarily, everyone will gravitate to some other game. In the late 1990s, the last time this happened, that game was VtM even though it was nothing like D&D. I'd submit that as evidence that even if WotC successful torpedoed the OGL 1.0a, which is highly dubious, it would only induce migration to some other game, not to a VTT.

I agree on WotC potentially misreading their audience. At my regular table, only half of the table actually has stable careers and incomes, the other half are students with precarious finances. I’m dubious that they can wring money out of them, and as their DM, I’d be angry if Wizards tried too hard to do so.

Most of them play 5e because it has the largest number of open games at the FLGS here. I think 5e’s relative simplicity helps retain people (especially reducing the fear of complexity) but it’s a far secondary factor compared to a welcoming community of players. If the dozen or so DMs switched en masse to Pathfinder 2e or Worlds Without Number at our annual session 0 most of the players would go along.

People would always rather play a system that annoys them with people they like than the reverse.

[Psyren]

I'm puzzled where Microsoft could - let alone would - tell me that I can't use Windows anymore if I were to [insert reprehensible act here] on social media. They wouldn't stop me from using Windows to run computers I develop software on. They wouldn't stop me from using windows to do ... anything, really.

I didn't say anything about Windows; I'm in fact referring to the current Office license.



Last I checked Adobe, Microsoft, and other licenses didn't set up their contracts so they could tear apart everything I worked on and shut down my ability to sell it independently years after I made it on the grounds of "he made a joke in bad taste one time, take our word for it." They are absolutely the kinds of companies to try shutting their competition or anyone near that competition down in excessively brutal ways but they don't rely on manufacturing a controversy so they can be the hero or try to shut down your ability to use their computers entirely.

They can revoke your license for any reason or no reason, yes, including a morality clause. If your business is based on access to that license, then "tear apart" might be dramatic phrasing, but the result is similar to what WotC could do.

[NichG]

I disagree that it's "much more draconian." Again, the morality clause they have here is akin to that of Adobe, Microsoft, and other licenses, and it doesn't even have the "we can also revoke for any reason with 30 days notice" that those do anymore. WotC's license is seriously tame. We can make it tamer via additional tweaks to 6f, I have no problem with that, but they're already well behind other licensors.

I thought we had just established that it wasn't possible to actually evaluate the veracity of claims like this within the bounds of the forum rules. Seems bad form to me to toss out that kind of claim when the discussion needed to actually situate it is forbidden.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I thought we had just established that it wasn't possible to actually evaluate the veracity of claims like this within the bounds of the forum rules. Seems bad form to me to toss out that kind of claim when the discussion needed to actually situate it is forbidden.

Strong agree.

Edit: I will note that I scanned through the current licenses https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/useterms/ for the various office products and found nothing even close to a morality clause. So I'd need a direct link to even begin to validate the claim (outside of the forum).

Edit to edit: I do find some at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use, but that's not for the product itself. That's for access to the website and services. And that's a classic shrinkwrap forum agreement, with about as much binding power as the forum rules here. Not a copyright/IP license whatsoever.

[Tanarii]

IMO, D&D's uptick in use is in no small way due to how DnDB makes playing the game so much more convenient for most people. Some folks like its simplicity in comparison to something like Pathfinder, but if there was as slick a tool for PF most of that complexity would get smoothed over. We need a good equivalent.
Nope. The explosion of 5e has nothing to do with DnDB. DnDB came after it became so popular. You've got cause and effect backwards.

What made it explode was going back to the OGL. This allowed it to proliferate in the RPG sphere above and beyond what the GSL allowed for 4e. It allowed folks to get content WotC explicitly didn't want to create (per their everygreen policy) it allowed VTTs to follow the popularity growth. It even allowed DnDB to follow the the popularity growth initially, before it was bought out.

[NichG]

Strong agree.

Edit: I will note that I scanned through the current licenses https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/useterms/ for the various office products and found nothing even close to a morality clause. So I'd need a direct link to even begin to validate the claim (outside of the forum).

Edit to edit: I do find some at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use, but that's not for the product itself. That's for access to the website and services. And that's a classic shrinkwrap forum agreement, with about as much binding power as the forum rules here. Not a copyright/IP license whatsoever.

I suppose the comparison to lots of forum and cloud service type licenses is that WotC's real aim is to eventually make all third party publishers have to use their platform to host and distribute their products rather than being able to sell them independently. 'D&D is a platform, not a game' kind of stuff.

[Kane0]

One of the others in my usual group read through both and his first statement to the rest of us was "the difference between .1 and .2 is that wizard's remembered the lube for .2"

So that got a laugh from us.

[Rynjin]

I hope they remembered to put on their robe and wizard hat too, otherwise this could get awkward.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I suppose the comparison to lots of forum and cloud service type licenses is that WotC's real aim is to eventually make all third party publishers have to use their platform to host and distribute their products rather than being able to sell them independently. 'D&D is a platform, not a game' kind of stuff.

Honestly, if the OGL 1.2 were a forum/point of sale license (ie you agree to this to sell stuff on our platform), the problems with the morality clause and even a "you agree not to use 1.0a for any of this particular work" would mostly go away in my mind.

But trying to force the entire game into TTRPG as a service? Good luck.

[MonochromeTiger]

I didn't say anything about Windows; I'm in fact referring to the current Office license.

But the actual useful part of a Microsoft product is Windows. Just like the actual useful part of the OGL is making something similar to D&D without having to worry about your WotC throwing a fit.




They can revoke your license for any reason or no reason, yes, including a morality clause. If your business is based on access to that license, then "tear apart" might be dramatic phrasing, but the result is similar to what WotC could do.

Considering the actual context I intended my comment in and your own admission that you were referring to Office instead of Windows, no, it's really not similar to what WotC could do with this. It's the difference between being told not to use one specific aspect of the overall system while still being allowed to use the rest with other resources and sell in whatever way you intend to versus the possibility of a company going after your ability to continue or sell at all. Or in simpler terms, Microsoft's version is the equivalent of saying "don't try putting our compatibility sticker on this and don't use this specific tool to market it but go ahead with whatever else."

Microsoft is smart enough to realize that shutting things down entirely doesn't really benefit it. People are going to use their product regardless, they might as well let them release what they're doing and enjoy whatever extra sales of their own stuff results from people wanting access to that product or looking in to see what it is. WotC is sorely lacking the necessary tact for that. They want to control not just their product but whatever is adjacent to it and as this entire controversy shows they aren't above killing all good will between them and the companies whose products funnel more players to them to do so.

Making matters worse "Microsoft and Adobe have clauses on some of their products" isn't a reasonable justification for WotC doing what they're doing now. Neither is "well it's good for WotC", which is arguably even worse of an attempted justification because the loss of good will and mass exodus of Third Party Publishers that funnel players toward D&D seriously throws that into question. What is the point of all of this, throwing their own trustworthiness into question and driving off content creators that they could indirectly profit from the success of, if they're left with a core player base whose opinions of them are tainted by it?

Then there's the way they're being defended. Defenses are repeatedly coming down to "well it's not bad for them so it's fine" or "they have no obligation to care about what you want" or "well other people with entirely unrelated products did it on a completely different scale" or "well where are all the people who abandon them going to go" while downplaying the very real possibility that this move may end up hurting them and pushing a not insignificant portion of the player base away. Those aren't a defense, they're just telling people that WotC and Hasbro are somehow right to break their word and force people into an exploitative contract even when every indication is that they've just stomped on a bear trap and are trying to pull their foot out without lifting it back up.

[EggKookoo]

Nope. The explosion of 5e has nothing to do with DnDB. DnDB came after it became so popular. You've got cause and effect backwards.

What made it explode was going back to the OGL. This allowed it to proliferate in the RPG sphere above and beyond what the GSL allowed for 4e. It allowed folks to get content WotC explicitly didn't want to create (per their everygreen policy) it allowed VTTs to follow the popularity growth. It even allowed DnDB to follow the the popularity growth initially, before it was bought out.

I see what you mean and I'm not going to disagree. Maybe my experience is just too anecdotal to matter. We (my players and I) liked 5e but we didn't really get enthusiastic about it until DnDBeyond handled the minutia in terms of handling the character sheet stuff.

[Trafalgar]

At this point, I expect we may get the Greek Chorus of pre-WotC grognards singing "We told you so, they {WotC} made it too video-gamey in the first place ... " in three part harmony. :smallcool:

My other big hobby is running. I doubt many here realize that a simultaneous controversy has been happening in the running world because the app Strava unexpectedly increased its prices, You can read all about it here (https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/13/23553453/strava-subscription-increase-fitness).

In my social media feed , it's never clear whether a post is talking about WotC or Strava. I see posts like "XXX admits major mistakes in rollout" and "Last one cancelling their subscription to XXXX, turn out the lights!" So I am rewriting your very funny post to use on a running site:


At this point, I expect we may get the Greek Chorus of slow old runners singing "We told you so, you don't need to have Strava and an apple watch to run..." in three part harmony. :smallcool:

[animorte]

There's a pretty big difference between "we disagree with this OGL change because it's actively harmful to parts of the community and establishes a precedent that we can never trust claims of permanence or reliability again" and "it's perfectly fine to have an unlimited right to shut down competition using nebulously worded clauses where we can make up a reason at any time."
Yes, of course. That's not exactly what I was referring to though, more-so their vague umbrella over potentially offensive content (as described in the OGL) and how that translates from community/media expectations.

[Psyren]

Then there's the way they're being defended. Defenses are repeatedly coming down to "well it's not bad for them so it's fine" or "they have no obligation to care about what you want" or "well other people with entirely unrelated products did it on a completely different scale" or "well where are all the people who abandon them going to go" while downplaying the very real possibility that this move may end up hurting them and pushing a not insignificant portion of the player base away. Those aren't a defense, they're just telling people that WotC and Hasbro are somehow right to break their word and force people into an exploitative contract even when every indication is that they've just stomped on a bear trap and are trying to pull their foot out without lifting it back up.

What I'm not sure you're not accounting for is that this is a calculation. Yes, they should consider what is bad for them and the opinions of their detractors, but not at the cost of giving the barn away. Some portion of the audience selling all their books and striking out for ORCish pastures is clearly an acceptable cost, we just don't know how many.

And yes, there's a nonzero chance they fail and Hasbro shutters the property or sells it off piecemeal etc. I know for some that would be the best outcome to all this.


Yes, of course. That's not exactly what I was referring to though, more-so their vague umbrella over potentially offensive content (as described in the OGL) and how that translates from community/media expectations.

If they even dreamed of weaponizing this clause against a competitor whose work was benign, they would be pilloried by the community immediately. I won't say that it's impossible (nothing is, clearly) but I struggle to imagine a scenario where that kind of abuse would be worthwhile.

[KorvinStarmast]

My other big hobby is running. -- snip So I am rewriting your very funny post to use on a running site: Love your paraphrase. Many years ago I was in the Hash House Harriers. The hash in Rome was amazing.

[animorte]

If they even dreamed of weaponizing this clause against a competitor whose work was benign, they would be pilloried by the community immediately. I won't say that it's impossible (nothing is, clearly) but I struggle to imagine a scenario where that kind of abuse would be worthwhile.
While this is a solid point that I don't contest, again, not quite what I'm getting at.

I'm struggling to say this without bringing in other external/irrelevant concerns. Suffice to say, the community itself is known to spearhead these kinds of decisions, with companies responding as necessary in favor of the noise.

[MonochromeTiger]

What I'm not sure you're not accounting for is that this is a calculation. Yes, they should consider what is bad for them and the opinions of their detractors, but not at the cost of giving the barn away. Some portion of the audience selling all their books and striking out for ORCish pastures is clearly an acceptable cost, we just don't know how many.

I appreciate that you worked a double negative into the opening of that to account for the possibility I actually did consider it, even if it could've been phrased more clearly if that was the intent.

Where I disagree is that, again, they've had the OGL this whole time, leaving it as it is and not trying to force these changes and its removal is the ground we're working from and it genuinely wasn't a bad agreement for anyone involved. Had they simply left it in place and not tried to push what they're doing that would be maintaining a status quo that has been reasonable so far not "giving the barn away", retracting some of the controversial changes they've proposed isn't either.

They've lost more trying to ram these changes through and assuming it'd just be accepted than they would've doing literally nothing all for a potential gain that they might never see now. Even going about this in a more cautious and gradual manner would've been more of a calculated move than what they've done so far and the fact they've been in damage control since this came to light implies that they genuinely didn't expect this much of a negative response.



And yes, there's a nonzero chance they fail and Hasbro shutters the property or sells it off piecemeal etc. I know for some that would be the best outcome to all this.

While I have opinions of Hasbro's handling of WotC I highly doubt that taking it apart and selling it off is a "best outcome" in this. People are upset over going back on their word about the original OGL, setting up wording that could be abused so easily, and a few other things including the underhanded feeling this entire situation has given off. None of that directly leads to "shuttering the property or selling it off piecemeal" being a desired result.

We can be opposed to what's being done without wanting to burn everything down or strike out at D&D itself.



If they even dreamed of weaponizing this clause against a competitor whose work was benign, they would be pilloried by the community immediately. I won't say that it's impossible (nothing is, clearly) but I struggle to imagine a scenario where that kind of abuse would be worthwhile.

We've had page after page of morality clause debate where people have pointed out the potential for abuse and weaponization, even that a likely reason for it to be as vague and open to interpretation as it is is so it can be weaponized. As many of the concerns over this whole turn of events point out, the scenario where they think that kind of abuse would be worthwhile is likely the same scenario they envisioned when planning the OGL revocation before seeing public opinion plummet.

[Psyren]

I appreciate that you worked a double negative into the opening of that to account for the possibility I actually did consider it, even if it could've been phrased more clearly if that was the intent.

the second "not" was a typo.


Where I disagree is that, again, they've had the OGL this whole time, leaving it as it is and not trying to force these changes and its removal is the ground we're working from and it genuinely wasn't a bad agreement for anyone involved. Had they simply left it in place and not tried to push what they're doing that would be maintaining a status quo that has been reasonable so far not "giving the barn away", retracting some of the controversial changes they've proposed isn't either.

I'm sorry but I don't consider "it's been fine all this time" to be a compelling dismissal of their concerns. We had a lot of things, if not outright appear, at least gain considerable prominence in the last 5 years. The first OGL game to make millions happened in 2018. Foundry officially released in 2020*. The playtest for the Ernie Gygax thing-we-can't-talk-about took place in 2022. It's a lot in a short time. Maybe they wanted to get rid of 1.0a all the way back in 4e, I have no way of knowing, but the urgency behind it is sharper than it's ever been.


They've lost more trying to ram these changes through and assuming it'd just be accepted than they would've doing literally nothing all for a potential gain that they might never see now. Even going about this in a more cautious and gradual manner would've been more of a calculated move than what they've done so far and the fact they've been in damage control since this came to light implies that they genuinely didn't expect this much of a negative response.

You'll find no argument from me that they miscalculated severely with 1.1. Had they started with 1.2 and the transparent approach that accompanied it, I'm willing to bet we'd have the final version by now and be right back to playtesting OneD&D.



While I have opinions of Hasbro's handling of WotC I highly doubt that taking it apart and selling it off is a "best outcome" in this. People are upset over going back on their word about the original OGL, setting up wording that could be abused so easily, and a few other things including the underhanded feeling this entire situation has given off. None of that directly leads to "shuttering the property or selling it off piecemeal" being a desired result.

We can be opposed to what's being done without wanting to burn everything down or strike out at D&D itself.

That wasn't directed at anyone here specifically, I've seen plenty of "burn it all down, the time of ORC has come!" elsewhere.


We've had page after page of morality clause debate where people have pointed out the potential for abuse and weaponization, even that a likely reason for it to be as vague and open to interpretation as it is is so it can be weaponized. As many of the concerns over this whole turn of events point out, the scenario where they think that kind of abuse would be worthwhile is likely the same scenario they envisioned when planning the OGL revocation before seeing public opinion plummet.

We've also had page after page of agreement with that and while I can't get specific about the ways I would tone it down, I think the d20 System license and the Paizo Compatibility License both contain more reasonable ways to word this without losing the plot.


*It was in beta before that. I think the alpha only went back to 2018 though.

[Lemmy]

If they even dreamed of weaponizing this clause against a competitor whose work was benign, they would be pilloried by the community immediately. I won't say that it's impossible (nothing is, clearly) but I struggle to imagine a scenario where that kind of abuse would be worthwhile.If they cared all that much about the community, they wouldn't be trying to revoke the OGL.

Clearly they are always calculating in their mind when the potential profit is worth the outrage.

Sooner or later, someone who doesn't like something will claim it's "harmful" or an old tweet of some developer will arise... And WotC will be able use the noise to pretend the half a dozen complainers on Twitter represent everyone, then use that as an excuse to torpedo a possible competitor. All while claiming they are doing it for the good of the community.

Make no mistake: If such a clause remains, WotC will abuse it.

[EggKookoo]

If they cared all that much about the community, they wouldn't be trying to revoke the OGL.

It's like people forget they tried this kind of stuff before. The GSL tried to neutralize the OGL too.

[Xihirli]

It's like people forget they tried this kind of stuff before. The GSL tried to neutralize the OGL too.

Wait, they did?
I thought they just didn’t publish 4e on the OGL.

[Saintheart]

It's like people forget they tried this kind of stuff before. The GSL tried to neutralize the OGL too.

Oh, I think WOTC remembers that well, which is why this time around they want to kill the OGL first. Likely they have convinced themselves that the GSL's failure wasn't because fourth was a borked RPG, but because the OGL provided a large gap in the walled garden - a gap that Paizo basically ran right through and took a good portion of WOTC's consumer base with it.

This time round I think WOTC intends to weather the criticism of taking out the OGL 1.0a because they (or their Mind Flayers in corporate) are true believers in the God of Microtransactions. They think that no matter how much DMs and 3PPs scream, WOTC will make more money by finally getting stupid players - and ideally, really stupid whale players - to pay through the nose for D&D branding, as opposed to paying for an RPG. They believe that people's loyalty to the branding - as opposed to the ruleset or the game - is enough for WOTC to now throw out all those 3PPs and DMs who helped support D&D and just make their money off players.

Whatever the OGL turns out to be - and I think OGL 1.0a will go, that's the one position WOTC has been silent on amongst all the other penny-ante retreats - we're now going to find out to what extent 3PP and the whole ecosystem of third party publishers has been propping up D&D sales. Whether you look down on third party products or not, it remains that there's been a not-insignificant market that's out buying D&D compatible stuff from Paizo et. al., for the simple reason that Paizo et. al. continues to exist.

If that audience turns away from D&D - and, again, pessimistically I think it'll be a lot less than people think - then logically D&D is going to have to scramble hard to make their weird Neverwinter Nights 2.5 experience marketable, easy to use, and without significant bugs and problems to compensate. WOTC's track record in this department is somewhere in that part of the graph labelled 'pratfall'. And just having an ex-Microsoft guy as the head doesn't guarantee that's going to change; quite the contrary.


Wait, they did?
I thought they just didn’t publish 4e on the OGL.

Start your reading here. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48760/roleplaying-games/open-gaming-license-a-brief-history) More relevantly, here. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48761/roleplaying-games/open-gaming-license-a-brief-history-part-2)

Aw heck, here:


What we do know is that Hasbro killed the OGL for 4th Edition. And we also know that Wizards didn’t really want to publicly admit that, so they spent a lot of time before 4th Edition came out hemming and hawing. They talked a lot about their commitment to open gaming and assured people that a license for “third-party and fan creations” would definitely be made available for 4th Edition.

There was a lot of back-and-forth here, and the timeline is made a lot muddier because there were both public announcements being made and private meetings with third-party publishers shielded with NDAs. There are a few key milestones that are probably worth establishing, though.

First, Wizards eventually admitted that 4th Edition would not use the OGL. Instead, they were creating a new Gaming System License, or GSL. But the details of this new license still weren’t being made public.

Wizards then announced that people could pay them $5,000 in order to get early access to the 4th Edition SRD and GSL, but still didn’t tell anyone what the terms of the GSL were. This went over like a lead balloon and the program was cancelled.

When the GSL was finally released, it contained a poisoned pill: If you used the GSL, you could not publish anything in the same product line using the OGL.

It also contained a termination clause, just like the one used in the D20 System Trademark License: Hasbro could unilaterally cancel the GSL at any time, at which point you would need to immediately de-list your books and pulp your inventory.

After more public outcry and pressure, they eventually dropped the poisoned pill. But the termination clause stuck. That was, after all, more or less the whole point of the exercise.

(Ironically, as far as I know, that termination clause has never been activated.)

THE RISE OF PATHFINDER

At this point, Wizards had a few problems.

First, their GSL shenanigans were just one of several ways in which they’d alienated large chunks of their fanbase.

Second, even though they’d willfully abandoned their position on top of the vast pyramid of 3rd Edition support material, that pyramid was still there. And people were still free to create more of it.

Third, they’d pushed a company called Paizo Publishing into a desperate situation.

When Wizards decided they didn’t want to keep publishing Dragon and Dungeon Magazine in 2002, they licensed those magazines to Paizo, a company which had been founded by former Wizards executives to specifically do that.

In preparation for 4th Edition, Wizards announced that Paizo’s license would not be renewed and, in fact, that Dragon and Dungeon would no longer be published as physical magazines at all. Paizo, of course, still had the subscription lists, so they started publishing the Pathfinder Adventure Path as a new monthly periodical for their customers.

Paizo’s intention was to transition the Pathfinder Adventure Path to 4th Edition when the new game came out, but Wizards’ lengthy delays in making the GSL available put Paizo in a bind, which only became worse when it became clear that, whatever the Top Secret terms of the new license were going to be, they certainly weren’t going to be particularly friendly.

The result was the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Published by Paizo, it was essentially a “3.75” edition of D&D that, because of the subscription lists, could be marketed directly to the most hardcore of D&D’s fans by a company that had already spent years selling them premiere adventures and support material. It also became a banner for all those disaffected by Wizards’ actions, the gameplay of 4th Edition, or both.

Wizards had completely blown their dismount from the OGL and managed to create their single largest competitor. Furthermore, Pathfinder made it certain that the OGL — and the wealth of third-party support made possible by the OGL — would continue through the long winter of 4th Edition.

[MonochromeTiger]

the second "not" was a typo.

Figured, just not in the habit of using the "blue text sarcasm."




I'm sorry but I don't consider "it's been fine all this time" to be a compelling dismissal of their concerns. We had a lot of things, if not outright appear, at least gain considerable prominence in the last 5 years. The first OGL game to make millions happened in 2018. Foundry officially released in 2020*. The playtest for the Ernie Gygax thing-we-can't-talk-about took place in 2022. It's a lot in a short time. Maybe they wanted to get rid of 1.0a all the way back in 4e, I have no way of knowing, but the urgency behind it is sharper than it's ever been.

except it has been fine all this time. OGL has done what it was there to do, that it's limited in its scope is not a failing. If you want to talk about how compelling an argument is I can point out that I don't consider Hasbro/WotC suddenly realizing "wait we could make more money if it was like this instead" a compelling reason to show that they're willing to go back on their word about something being made to last, it would have the same weight considering we're clearly coming at this from entirely different angles.

As for the events of the last few years, the idea that any of that just suddenly happened is odd in a short time. Roll20 has been around even longer than Foundry, since roughly 2012, and included animation for some of that time so while it hasn't hit the same animation quality the groundwork for VTTs doing what Foundry does is by no means new or even original to Foundry. The rest I can't comment on as well but none of this happens in a vacuum. Even without OGL some of this still would've happened, it would've been harder but that also would've resulted in no connection to D&D and WotC not getting what attention it did give them.



You'll find no argument from me that they miscalculated severely with 1.1. Had they started with 1.2 and the transparent approach that accompanied it, I'm willing to bet we'd have the final version by now and be right back to playtesting OneD&D.

Considering they've admitted 1.1 was a failure I didn't really expect argument on it. It is, however, completely unsurprising that as soon as we get to 1.2 disagreement sets in. For one "the transparent approach" is debatable. For another they really didn't back down from the most objectionable parts, some of them they just rephrased or hid behind "we're on your side" claims that don't actually give any evidence of it.

This entire thing was a mess and I'm honestly confused how starting on 1.2 instead of 1.1 would have somehow made people accept it by now. The same points that caused the worst of the backlash are still there and, as you've said throughout the thread, are some of the things they're almost certain to try keeping.



That wasn't directed at anyone here specifically, I've seen plenty of "burn it all down, the time of ORC has come!" elsewhere.

Considering the approach WotC and Hasbro have taken I can't say I'm surprised by that rhetoric. That said it does strike me as rhetoric. Even if ORC is successful, and I personally hope it is , that doesn't mean they'd actually be intentionally targeting D&D or trying to destroy it; the animosity at play here is still on Hasbro and WotC's actions not the game.



We've also had page after page of agreement with that and while I can't get specific about the ways I would tone it down, I think the d20 System license and the Paizo Compatibility License both contain more reasonable ways to word this without losing the plot.

I'd argue that what would make it more reasonable is if they kept morality clauses and other restrictions strictly to earning the "compatible with" sticker instead of sticking OGL behind it but then that's a disagreement we're clearly not getting past.

[Xihirli]

Oh, I think WOTC remembers that well, which is why this time around they want to kill the OGL first. Likely they have convinced themselves that the GSL's failure wasn't because fourth was a borked RPG, but because the OGL provided a large gap in the walled garden - a gap that Paizo basically ran right through and took a good portion of WOTC's consumer base with it.

This time round I think WOTC intends to weather the criticism of taking out the OGL 1.0a because they (or their Mind Flayers in corporate) are true believers in the God of Microtransactions. They think that no matter how much DMs and 3PPs scream, WOTC will make more money by finally getting stupid players - and ideally, really stupid whale players - to pay through the nose for D&D branding, as opposed to paying for an RPG. They believe that people's loyalty to the branding - as opposed to the ruleset or the game - is enough for WOTC to now throw out all those 3PPs and DMs who helped support D&D and just make their money off players.

Whatever the OGL turns out to be - and I think OGL 1.0a will go, that's the one position WOTC has been silent on amongst all the other penny-ante retreats - we're now going to find out to what extent 3PP and the whole ecosystem of third party publishers has been propping up D&D sales. Whether you look down on third party products or not, it remains that there's been a not-insignificant market that's out buying D&D compatible stuff from Paizo et. al., for the simple reason that Paizo et. al. continues to exist.

If that audience turns away from D&D - and, again, pessimistically I think it'll be a lot less than people think - then logically D&D is going to have to scramble hard to make their weird Neverwinter Nights 2.5 experience marketable, easy to use, and without significant bugs and problems to compensate. WOTC's track record in this department is somewhere in that part of the graph labelled 'pratfall'. And just having an ex-Microsoft guy as the head doesn't guarantee that's going to change; quite the contrary.



Start your reading here. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48760/roleplaying-games/open-gaming-license-a-brief-history) More relevantly, here. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48761/roleplaying-games/open-gaming-license-a-brief-history-part-2)

Aw heck, here:

Oh, I see.
"If you used the GSL, you could not publish anything in the same product line using the OGL"
That's the same sneaky thing they tried to pull with the OGL 1.1, but the text in that also tried to convince the creators that they wouldn't be able to use 1.0 even if they didn't sign.
Same trick, just they decided to go harder for 5.5.

So not QUITE the same thing as pretending that "deauthorize" is a thing they can do, but certainly in the same vein.

[Segev]

If they even dreamed of weaponizing this clause against a competitor whose work was benign, they would be pilloried by the community immediately. I won't say that it's impossible (nothing is, clearly) but I struggle to imagine a scenario where that kind of abuse would be worthwhile.

They're being pilloried by the community now. We'll see if they respond by removing the parts the community actually objects to. If so, you're right: they might cave to the community pillorying them for shutting down Waylocator 1e on the basis that, er, um, Segev once wrote somewhere that he likes the Count as his favorite muppet, which is clearly offensive. Or something.

Maybe.

But considering how hard we're having to push back to get them to even pretend to listen to us, I'm pretty sure they'd make sure to do all the harm they could to Waylocator and those who own it so they cannot recover when WotC "apologizes" to the community for "misstepping."

And, of course, that's presuming they bother, rather than just sticking to their guns, smearing Waylocator and everyone who likes it, and making it shut down because, hey, they can, and there's no recourse.


In the end, there's no need for this "morality clause." There's no need to "deauthorize" 1.0(a) if they're legitimately making a good and useful 1.2. The only reason to do so is to compel people who would use a superior 1.0(a) to use an inferior 1.2.

[Psyren]

except it has been fine all this time. OGL has done what it was there to do, that it's limited in its scope is not a failing. If you want to talk about how compelling an argument is I can point out that I don't consider Hasbro/WotC suddenly realizing "wait we could make more money if it was like this instead" a compelling reason to show that they're willing to go back on their word about something being made to last, it would have the same weight considering we're clearly coming at this from entirely different angles.

It's not limited in it's scope though. That's what they're trying to do now. It's reasonable for a company to not want to give billion dollar competitors in any space they operate in more of a leg up than they need to.

And the only real argument I've seen against smaller TTRPG creators here - the primary beneficiaries of the old OGL - is that the morality clause could one day be used against one of them, at some point, maybe. Which leads me to wonder - if that danger didn't exist, and they were able to draw a perfect line between VTTs and video games, what objection would there really be left to 1.2? Would the Kobold Presses and Ghostfire Games of the world not still be able to make substantial (for them) revenue under it?


As for the events of the last few years, the idea that any of that just suddenly happened is odd in a short time. Roll20 has been around even longer than Foundry, since roughly 2012, and included animation for some of that time so while it hasn't hit the same animation quality the groundwork for VTTs doing what Foundry does is by no means new or even original to Foundry. The rest I can't comment on as well but none of this happens in a vacuum. Even without OGL some of this still would've happened, it would've been harder but that also would've resulted in no connection to D&D and WotC not getting what attention it did give them.

The animation feedback has been heard loud and clear, that litmus is going away.


Considering they've admitted 1.1 was a failure I didn't really expect argument on it. It is, however, completely unsurprising that as soon as we get to 1.2 disagreement sets in. For one "the transparent approach" is debatable. For another they really didn't back down from the most objectionable parts, some of them they just rephrased or hid behind "we're on your side" claims that don't actually give any evidence of it.

If by "most objectionable parts" you mean deauthorizing 1.0a, I'd suggest you prepare for disappointment on that front (or preparing to exit D&D entirely.)

[Mechalich]

It's not limited in it's scope though. That's what they're trying to do now. It's reasonable for a company to not want to give billion dollar competitors in any space they operate in more of a leg up than they need to.

Except the OGL 1.0a provides huge benefits to WotC. The existence of the OGL keeps a huge amount of the TTRPG market under the D&D/d20 umbrella, and serves to strengthen those brands, which ultimately strengthens WotC overall. In that way it actually eliminates competition by having their competitors support the game they make rather than make their own, different, games.

Yes, WotC has made (huge) mistakes over time and allowed competitors to take over significant portions of their own market by being beaten at their own game and failing to produce products that can measure up to those made by poorly capitalized creators working on a comparative shoestring. Guess what, that's their own **** fault. And blasting apart the OGL and sending all the people who formerly worked within their zone to make their own, broadly identical one isn't going to eliminate that problem. Technological changes, most recently AI-based art generation, continue to eliminate the barriers to making high end production quality TTRPG material and thereby erode the advantages that big companies once had in the market (TTRPG books have long relied not on mechanics or story, but one whose books look the coolest to sell, Paizo's best decision ever was to commission Wayne Reynolds to splash his art all over their stuff).

This whole debacle, by driving the various small publishers to produce their own new system, is converted formerly friendly third-parties who wanted the D&D brand to be as strong as possible into true rivals who will now seek to bury D&D forever.

[Psyren]

Except the OGL 1.0a provides huge benefits to WotC. The existence of the OGL keeps a huge amount of the TTRPG market under the D&D/d20 umbrella, and serves to strengthen those brands, which ultimately strengthens WotC overall. In that way it actually eliminates competition by having their competitors support the game they make rather than make their own, different, games.

Yes, WotC has made (huge) mistakes over time and allowed competitors to take over significant portions of their own market by being beaten at their own game and failing to produce products that can measure up to those made by poorly capitalized creators working on a comparative shoestring. Guess what, that's their own **** fault. And blasting apart the OGL and sending all the people who formerly worked within their zone to make their own, broadly identical one isn't going to eliminate that problem. Technological changes, most recently AI-based art generation, continue to eliminate the barriers to making high end production quality TTRPG material and thereby erode the advantages that big companies once had in the market (TTRPG books have long relied not on mechanics or story, but one whose books look the coolest to sell, Paizo's best decision ever was to commission Wayne Reynolds to splash his art all over their stuff).

This whole debacle, by driving the various small publishers to produce their own new system, is converted formerly friendly third-parties who wanted the D&D brand to be as strong as possible into true rivals who will now seek to bury D&D forever.

1) It's not TTRPGs they're worried about. 1.2 does nothing to those save maybe, possibly the morality bit.

2) If they had done nothing, those third parties would have gone on to make ORC or something like it eventually anyway, to get out from under 1.0a's vague uncertainty if nothing else. PF2 was the first step in that direction - a system nominally published under 1.0a that was in truth designed to not need any part of it.

[EggKookoo]

2) If they had done nothing, those third parties would have gone on to make ORC or something like it eventually anyway, to get out from under 1.0a's vague uncertainty if nothing else. PF2 was the first step in that direction - a system nominally published under 1.0a that was in truth designed to not need any part of it.

So OGL 1.2+ is basically just a form of ripping off the band-aid quickly? I suppose there's some sense to that...

[MonochromeTiger]

It's not limited in it's scope though. That's what they're trying to do now. It's reasonable for a company to not want to give billion dollar competitors in any space they operate in more of a leg up than they need to.

"It's reasonable"? That's what we're going with? It's reasonable for any company that wants people to actually negotiate and take its deals seriously to not go back and try to get rid of something they've sworn up and down for ages was there to stay. It's reasonable for a company to realize that pulling that stunt when people who actually worked on the OGL are still running around able to point out how so far against the purpose it is might be a bad move. It's reasonable for a company to have the basic pattern recognition necessary to realize that the last time they tried something like this it directly contributed to the success of their biggest competitor.

We're well beyond "reasonable" here.



And the only real argument I've seen against smaller TTRPG creators here - the primary beneficiaries of the old OGL - is that the morality clause could one day be used against one of them, at some point, maybe. Which leads me to wonder - if that danger didn't exist, and they were able to draw a perfect line between VTTs and video games, what objection would there really be left to 1.2? Would the Kobold Presses and Ghostfire Games of the world not still be able to make substantial (for them) revenue under it?

That's the spirit, what possible reason could all the small creators and publishers have not to use the new agreement? After all it's not like the new agreement's main two points are undoing a previous agreement thus throwing all credibility and trust that WotC will keep its word with any future agreements into question and giving WotC a nice big stick to wave around while saying "do good enough to make us money but don't do too good or we gets ta whack ya for being threatnin'!"

What about that could possibly discourage people? I can't see it, can you?




The animation feedback has been heard loud and clear, that litmus is going away.

They back down from one of the smaller and more questionable points that they're latecomers to and thus could've been challenged on anyway. Color me shocked. Oh look I did the blue sarcasm.



If by "most objectionable parts" you mean deauthorizing 1.0a, I'd suggest you prepare for disappointment on that front (or preparing to exit D&D entirely.)

Then be ready for anybody with sense to be prepping to leave out of self preservation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's a side note (or two)---

1. No matter what you think of the morality/legality of the new OGL drafts, the way they put them out has to count as a massive business failure. They completely abandoned the full flock of tame birds to chase a speculative bird in the bush. They knowingly tried to pull a fast one on everyone (with the plan to have released the 1.1 OGL as a fait accompli just a few days before it went into full effect). And then sat on their hands for a full week. Then their first few public statements were...tone deaf to say the least. Now they're frantically walking back some parts of the mess, and in doing so keeping the pot at a nice simmer. And the damage is done--they've lost subscribers (out of their loyal fan base!), their competitors are not only stronger than ever, they're more visible and more organized. They've outright lost some of their largest 3pp publishers--do you really think Kobold Press is going to publish any more 5e work that wasn't already far down the pipeline? And all of this just a short time before the movie comes out. Even if they're right and the far-future is rosy...the near future sucks. And investors operate on a short time horizon.

2. You know what industry has zero copyright protection and still flourishes? The fashion industry. That's right, the only IP protection they have is trademark in the logos. And they're super visible--walking around with a big-name bag or pair of shoes or designer dress means everyone in the know knows who you're wearing/carrying. That's the entire point. Do they control their IP? Not in the slightest (beyond the logo). Heck, the knockoffs are made in the same factories out of the same material from the same patterns by the same people. The only difference is in the logo you sew in. Can Jimmy Choo stop the next Imelda Marcos[1] from walking around in their shoes and "bringing them into bad repute" as they attend mass executions of kittens while punting cute puppies? Not in the slightest, as long as they acquired them on the open market. Jimmy Choo can refuse to sell to them, that's it. And disclaim responsibility. Yet the fashion industry is constantly putting out new stuff[2] with vibrant competition. So maybe "protecting the brand" just isn't that important?

[1] shoe-loving wife of a former dictator
[2] ok, most of it sucks, at least to this walking fashion disaster. But that's a matter of taste.

[Psyren]

"It's reasonable"? That's what we're going with? It's reasonable for any company that wants people to actually negotiate and take its deals seriously to not go back and try to get rid of something they've sworn up and down for ages was there to stay. It's reasonable for a company to realize that pulling that stunt when people who actually worked on the OGL are still running around able to point out how so far against the purpose it is might be a bad move. It's reasonable for a company to have the basic pattern recognition necessary to realize that the last time they tried something like this it directly contributed to the success of their biggest competitor.

We're well beyond "reasonable" here.

Last time they did that, their competitor was the one building on the most popular ruleset while they had something new. Now they are.


That's the spirit, what possible reason could all the small creators and publishers have not to use the new agreement? After all it's not like the new agreement's main two points are undoing a previous agreement thus throwing all credibility and trust that WotC will keep its word with any future agreements into question and giving WotC a nice big stick to wave around while saying "do good enough to make us money but don't do too good or we gets ta whack ya for being threatnin'!"

What about that could possibly discourage people? I can't see it, can you?

There is no cap on TTRPG success in 1.2 that I can see.


They back down from one of the smaller and more questionable points that they're latecomers to and thus could've been challenged on anyway. Color me shocked. Oh look I did the blue sarcasm.

To be precise, they've backed down on animations as the litmus, but all signs point to there still being a VTT policy of some kind.


Then be ready for anybody with sense to be prepping to leave out of self preservation.

TTRPG publishers who choose to stay (or even come back) to the OGL won't be doing so because their brains suddenly stopped working; It'll be because, even after all this chaos, 5e is still #1 TTRPG in the world, #1 most played on roll20 etc, and thus their biggest shot at getting noticed. I'm very interested to see how things look for it at GenCon and DragonCon this year - but by then the OGL will be resolved one way or another.

[Devils_Advocate]

Psyren, how are you so confident that no amount of actual community outrage will get WotC to back off of "deauthorization", but the level of outrage they'd anticipate for abusing the morality clause would prevent them from ever doing it in the first place, without said outrage even needing to materialize first?

That seems like a fairly specific combination of two positions that seem like they'd be evidence against (though admittedly not disproof of) each other.

[Psyren]

Psyren, how are you so confident that no amount of actual community outrage will get WotC to back off of "deauthorization", but the level of outrage they'd anticipate for abusing the morality clause would prevent them from ever doing it in the first place, without said outrage even needing to materialize first?

That seems like a fairly specific combination of two positions that seem like they'd be evidence against (though admittedly not disproof of) each other.

1) Since Kyle Brink wrested control of the WotC megaphone from whichever glib person originally had it, he has been consistent on two core goals - a morality clause of some kind, and the OGL only applying to TTRPGs and VTTs. You simply cannot do either of those things, much less both of them, with 1.0a intact - because as long as it exists, anyone who wants to evade said goals can simply elect to publish (or program etc.) under the old version.

2) Of all the many, many licenses I've seen with such a clause, I haven't seen one used against anyone that didn't actually deserve it. And unfortunately, I can't list any examples here. (Not that we would necessarily agree even if I could, given that one of the objections raised to such a clause existing was "an old tweet surfacing" - something that I think could constitute just cause for a company to not want their image or property associated with that person, depending on the contents of the tweet.)

[Saintheart]

2) Of all the many, many licenses I've seen with such a clause, I haven't seen one used against anyone that didn't actually deserve it.

Did the BoEF deserve it?




Okay, that's a leading question. Can I just suggest we don't speculate on whether someone 'deserves' to be cancelled by a ragemob, whether it happens to suit a business's corporate interests or not.

[Psyren]

Did the BoEF deserve it?


Okay, that's a leading question. Can I just suggest we don't speculate on whether someone 'deserves' to be cancelled by a ragemob, whether it happens to suit a business's corporate interests or not.

I wasn't speculating on anything, I was stating my experience.

[Devils_Advocate]

Personally, I think that stuff Wizards have been saying is sufficient reason to decide to dissociate oneself from them and their products and to encourage others to do likewise. So obviously I'm not against that sort of course of action in principle.

Frankly, if some sort of independent body is created to enforce "community standards", I don't see Wizards of the Coast giving it power over them. Being subject to editorial control by a third party strikes me as an unfavorable position to be in, even if there's no apparent conflict of interest or motive for abuse.

What, if anything, will the new "O"GL offer worth putting oneself in that position?

[Psyren]

What, if anything, will the new "O"GL offer worth putting oneself in that position?

Continued access to their SRDs.

And once ORC exists - even if WotC were to (for some reason) unfairly yank the license from a given 3PP, they'll have a backup plan. So I'm not seeing how this will represent the end of the world for any given 3PP TTRPG publisher.

Anyone planning on OGL video games will probably need to revaluate however.

[MonochromeTiger]

Personally, I think that stuff Wizards have been saying is sufficient reason to decide to dissociate oneself from them and their products and to encourage others to do likewise. So obviously I'm not against that sort of course of action in principle.

Given that WotC's current course is still the equivalent of saying "you can't trust me to keep my agreements so you need to be even more suspicious of everything I do than before" I'd have to agree.



Frankly, if some sort of independent body is created to enforce "community standards", I don't see Wizards of the Coast giving it power over them. Being subject to editorial control by a third party strikes me as an unfavorable position to be in, even if there's no apparent conflict of interest or motive for abuse.

And yet handing off control of the clause to an unbiased third party, which would be almost impossible to prove given WotC's involvement and the money almost certain to be thrown around in all of this, would be the bare minimum needed to make the morality clause slightly more palatable than its current state of hilariously suspect. Its potential for abuse means it would only be viable if WotC is kept to the same standards, which it's impossible to make it enforce on itself, and even if handed to some other group it still leaves questions of if that group is influenced by WotC/Hasbro or if they are truly above going where the money is and playing favorites with their judgement.

Which is why in most cases a morality clause is meant for smaller scale agreements than something as major as the OGL.



What, if anything, will the new "O"GL offer worth putting oneself in that position?

Nothing. Everything of value it has to offer was available through the previous original OGL with less risk of suddenly having the carpet swept out from under you. All that accepting the attempt at a new OGL does is give up more to a company that has made it clear with this move that you can't rely on them not just pulling the same move but worse again, except that time they'd have the means to kick out anyone that questions it and label them as acting in bad faith to discredit their argument.

Early in the thread I made the comparison of this agreement to a contract with a Lawful Evil entity, that was objectively wrong. A Lawful Evil entity may constantly try to trick and you put things to their own advantage but they also try to actually keep their word when it's given. The current situation is closer to Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil trying to work around Lawful characters, they'll make a deal and expect the other party to keep to it but then be perfectly willing to tear it up and force a new one whenever it becomes inconvenient, which makes it impossible to truly negotiate.

[Segev]

A reminder that it's not just the morality clause, but the fact that WotC reserves the right to change the entirety of 1.2 at any time (with some notice, which they can ALSO change at any time), that makes 1.2 not worth publishing under. The morality clause is only one of the ways WotC has left open to completely rewrite 1.2 once they think the public eye is off of it.

As long as it is considered possible to "deauthorize" 1.0(a), it remains equally possible - nay, even easier - to do the same to 1.2.

[Psyren]

I don't mind them having the ability to make changes down the line. I don't know what kind of world we'll be living in 20 more years into the future.

I do think there needs to be a substantial notice/comment period before they do that, e.g. a year.

[Satinavian]

I don't mind them having the ability to make changes down the line. I don't know what kind of world we'll be living in 20 more years into the future.

I do think there needs to be a substantial notice/comment period before they do that, e.g. a year.
Sure, you don't mind. But you don't have any skin in the game.

Do creators find acceptable WoTCs ability to endanger down projects which are in the work all the time or the danger to have to license switch for newer products potentially disrupting series or making their older works incompatible with newer ones ?

Doesn't seem so. Risks are too high for what little benefit D&Ds SRD has over other options.

[Kane0]

I don't mind them having the ability to make changes down the line. I don't know what kind of world we'll be living in 20 more years into the future.

I do think there needs to be a substantial notice/comment period before they do that, e.g. a year.

I'd prefer a more concrete append/variation process. 'We can change the terms later' does not make for a great working relationship.

[Scots Dragon]

Did the BoEF deserve it?

Other questions...

Did Curse of Hearts deserve it?

Did Queercoded deserve it?

Did Eat the Rich deserve it?

Two of those managed to get up on DM's Guild. Thusfar Curse of Hearts hasn't managed to make it there.

[EggKookoo]

As long as it is considered possible to "deauthorize" 1.0(a), it remains equally possible - nay, even easier - to do the same to 1.2.

I asked them in the survey, in more than one place, if it the 1.0 deauthorization clause in 1.2 was contingent on one actually agreeing to 1.2. And if not, why was it in 1.2 when they could just deauthorize 1.0 independently?

We'll see if we get an explanation.

[Keltest]

I don't mind them having the ability to make changes down the line. I don't know what kind of world we'll be living in 20 more years into the future.

I do think there needs to be a substantial notice/comment period before they do that, e.g. a year.

Frankly, you should mind. Any agreement that can be unilaterally altered by one party is a bad agreement. You are unironically advocating that Darth Vader going "I am altering the deal, pray I dont alter it any further." was completely fine and within his rights because hey, its in his best interests and he doesnt know what he might need that deal to do tomorrow.

[KorvinStarmast]

A reminder that it's not just the morality clause, but the fact that WotC reserves the right to change the entirety of 1.2 at any time (with some notice, which they can ALSO change at any time), that makes 1.2 not worth publishing under. The morality clause is only one of the ways WotC has left open to completely rewrite 1.2 once they think the public eye is off of it.

As long as it is considered possible to "deauthorize" 1.0(a), it remains equally possible - nay, even easier - to do the same to 1.2. Which makes 1.2 not worth the paper it was written on for any 3PP, if your assessment is correct.

I'd prefer a more concrete append/variation process. 'We can change the terms later' does not make for a great working relationship. No, it is not.

Any agreement that can be unilaterally altered by one party is a bad agreement. You are unironically advocating that Darth Vader going "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" was completely fine and within his rights because hey, its in his best interests and he doesn't know what he might need that deal to do tomorrow. One of the few times I have welcomed a Star Wars digression to a GitP thread. :smallsmile:

[warty goblin]

Yesterday I got an email from an RPG Kickstarter I backed that talked about this whole mess. The short version was that they don't think they need any OGL new or old, and they will still release a product 100% compatible with 5E.

Which is rather interesting. I don't know how generally people will be able to do that, but it certainly suggests any effort to close off or control access to D&D is going to be an uphill struggle no matter what the final OGL language is. Also that the morality clause is more or less pointless.

It also, at least to me, suggests a future where Project Black Flag or some other game comes out as 5E with the serial numbers filled off. So if you're running a Kickstarter for your sparkly vampire supplement or whatever, you just target PBF compatibility, and everybody knows they can totally use it with their 5E stuff, a couple cool ideas they lifted from OneD&D, and all the other PBF material. But, you know, even though the new supplements mostly work with D&D, it works better with PBF stuff, so why stick with D&D at all? Is Wizards' material really that much better?

[Keltest]

One of the few times I have welcomed a Star Wars digression to a GitP thread. :smallsmile:

I think its a nice example of the point.

[da newt]

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220217005358/en/Alta-Fox-Capital-Management-Nominates-Five-Highly-Qualified-and-Independent-Candidates-for-Election-to-Hasbro%E2%80%99s-Board-of-Directors

an interesting read about Hasbro ... from Feb 22

[SimonMoon6]

Yesterday I got an email from an RPG Kickstarter I backed that talked about this whole mess. The short version was that they don't think they need any OGL new or old, and they will still release a product 100% compatible with 5E.

Which is rather interesting. I don't know how generally people will be able to do that, but it certainly suggests any effort to close off or control access to D&D is going to be an uphill struggle no matter what the final OGL language is.

From what I understand from listening to some lawyer people talking (IANAL), you can't copyright the rules of a game. Period. It's why you can play apps like "Words with Friends" (which uses the rules of Scrabble) or "Dice with Friends" (which uses the rules of Yahtzee). But the exact "expression" (like how things are written or illustrated) can be copyrighted. So, I think it would be a very delicate balancing act to use the rules but not use the expression of those rules found in D&D.

[Segev]

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220217005358/en/Alta-Fox-Capital-Management-Nominates-Five-Highly-Qualified-and-Independent-Candidates-for-Election-to-Hasbro%E2%80%99s-Board-of-Directors

an interesting read about Hasbro ... from Feb 22

That is interesting. Given the salesman nature of its language, it is easy to read into it that, "if only it had succeeded, we wouldn't be in this mess!"

However, that was a year ago, which would be time enough for new direction to make all sorts of plans to, say, monetize D&D better.

Therefore, my question is: where do we go to find out if this campaign succeeded or failed? Do we think it would be good for thus group to try again as a part of our hopes to stop this bad acting on Hasbro's part? Or do we see here the people who took over and are pushing this disastrous decision?

[Atranen]

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220217005358/en/Alta-Fox-Capital-Management-Nominates-Five-Highly-Qualified-and-Independent-Candidates-for-Election-to-Hasbro%E2%80%99s-Board-of-Directors

an interesting read about Hasbro ... from Feb 22


WOTC’s key franchises, such as Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons, have phenomenal network effects, pricing power and secular growth characteristics. WOTC has maintained a double-digit compound annual revenue growth rate over the last decade and, most notably, grew revenue 42% in 2021 with a 47% EBITDA margin. Looking ahead, the franchises remain in the early innings of digital monetization and have many attractive reinvestment opportunities.

Their take is pretty in line with what we've seen. Although I'd think appreciation for network effects would encourage retaining the OGL. It seems worth it to remain the largest player on the scene; they probably won't lose it, but there's essentially no risk of losing it by keeping the OGL.

[Brookshw]

I chuckled extra hard at today's comic in light of the 6(f) debate. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Sure, you don't mind. But you don't have any skin in the game.

Do creators find acceptable WoTCs ability to endanger down projects which are in the work all the time or the danger to have to license switch for newer products potentially disrupting series or making their older works incompatible with newer ones ?

Doesn't seem so. Risks are too high for what little benefit D&Ds SRD has over other options.

That is a risk calculation anyone will have to make if they're basing their livelihood on access to someone else's property, yes. And furthermore, I do support the existence of something more open like ORC, precisely because it will provide a more prominent outlet for creatively riskier/ideologically charged projects.

[Dalinar]

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220217005358/en/Alta-Fox-Capital-Management-Nominates-Five-Highly-Qualified-and-Independent-Candidates-for-Election-to-Hasbro%E2%80%99s-Board-of-Directors

an interesting read about Hasbro ... from Feb 22


That is interesting. Given the salesman nature of its language, it is easy to read into it that, "if only it had succeeded, we wouldn't be in this mess!"

However, that was a year ago, which would be time enough for new direction to make all sorts of plans to, say, monetize D&D better.

Therefore, my question is: where do we go to find out if this campaign succeeded or failed? Do we think it would be good for thus group to try again as a part of our hopes to stop this bad acting on Hasbro's part? Or do we see here the people who took over and are pushing this disastrous decision?

I'm not in any sort of position to be able to tell if Alta Fox's play here would have made a difference in the trajectory Hasbro wants to take D&D today, but for what it's worth, I tried Googling the names of the board nominees mentioned in this article. If any of them have gone on to work for Hasbro in the last year, I can't find evidence of it.

Given the attitude Alta Fox described Hasbro's leadership taking in private, I suspect that Hasbro's actions are in spite of this push, not caused by it. But again, what do I know?

[EggKookoo]

That is a risk calculation anyone will have to make if they're basing their livelihood on access to someone else's property, yes.

If WotC didn't want someone profiting off their property, they shouldn't have given it away in an open license.

[Psyren]

If WotC didn't want someone profiting off their property, they shouldn't have given it away in an open license.

They do want people profiting off their property. That's the whole point of having an open license in the first place. They just also want the ability to exercise their own freedom of association.

[EggKookoo]

They do want people profiting off their property. That's the whole point of having an open license in the first place. They just also want the ability to exercise their own freedom of association.

But that's not how open licenses work. They hadn't worked that way for years before the OGL was created.

WotC is the only one forcing any association. If they said "yeah, the OGL is open for everyone to use, we made it that way, it's not really 'ours' any more" then no one would be making any connections.

[Xihirli]

That is a risk calculation anyone will have to make if they're basing their livelihood on access to someone else's property, yes.

The reason for the PERPETUAL OGL, with no mechanism within it to be deauthorized, was to assure people that Hasbro would NOT step in and threaten access to anything published on the OGL.

They are to break a deal, and deserve no benefit of the doubt.

[Psyren]

The reason for the PERPETUAL OGL, with no mechanism within it to be deauthorized, was to assure people that Hasbro would NOT step in and threaten access to anything published on the OGL.

They are to break a deal, and deserve no benefit of the doubt.

They're not "threatening access to anything published under the OGL." Anything published under 1.0a is grandfathered in.


But that's not how open licenses work. They hadn't worked that way for years before the OGL was created.

WotC is the only one forcing any association. If they said "yeah, the OGL is open for everyone to use, we made it that way, it's not really 'ours' any more" then no one would be making any connections.

People are already making those connections, and they're doing it without WotC's involvement. Solasta for instance doesn't say a thing about D&D 5e itself, but that's how nearly every news article about it has covered it; it's unavoidable. Thankfully that use of the license was wholly benign, even bland - but it's only a matter of time until one won't be. WotC doesn't want to wait around for that eventuality, and I can understand that.

[MonochromeTiger]

They're not "threatening access to anything published under the OGL." Anything published under 1.0a is grandfathered in.

They're making any ongoing work dependent on a contract that goes against the actual nature of the OGL while using phrasing specifically chosen to convince people the actual OGL is dead. That much is already against the spirit and letter of what the OGL was supposed to be and shows their willingness to break agreements making it questionable how secure any of the assurances they give are. Those assurances are even more questionable when they're made in the same statements as WotC is using to go "we totally need the right to change everything on a whim and shut you down for any reason when that wasn't what the OGL was for, for your own good."




People are already making those connections, and they're doing it without WotC's involvement.

It's almost like having the biggest name in TTRPGs makes people compare things to your product and that's a sign of success that would happen even without the OGL or something.



Solasta for instance doesn't say a thing about D&D 5e itself, but that's how nearly every news article about it has covered it; it's unavoidable.

Yes. Unavoidable. As in doing this to the OGL isn't going to avoid it.



Thankfully that use of the license was wholly benign, even bland - but it's only a matter of time until one won't be. WotC doesn't want to wait around for that eventuality, and I can understand that.

Decades of similar products, other TTRPGs, parodies, even outright intentional attacks with inflammatory content, yet now Hasbro and WotC need absolute power so they can shut things down that they've shown they can successfully distance themselves from without it. Now, by giving themselves more responsibility, and thus a stronger association with the content of everything that gets published under their new OGL. An arrangement that makes them much more vulnerable to public outcry simply by merit of their implied consent to the content they declare themselves moral authorities over and how if the public finds something truly heinous first then WotC's reaction is suddenly so easily framed as only acting on it because they want to cover themselves; something that would be completely right if the purpose of the new OGL is just to protect their image but could easily have been avoided by pointing out that they don't dictate what does and doesn't get made in OGL aside from not sharing their protected content.

Frankly I don't know whether I'd find it worse for their motives to be what I suspect just making them deeply exploitative or if their morals are what you claim making them repeatedly make the situation they're trying to avoid worse by getting themselves caught up in it even deeper.

[Devils_Advocate]

Seems Alta Fox is displeased with Hasbro's current leadership. (https://twitter.com/AltaFoxCapital/status/1618597255786942470) And for good reason.


They do want people profiting off their property. That's the whole point of having an open license in the first place. They just also want the ability to exercise their own freedom of association.
No, they clearly want more than just that. You yourself have argued that they're trying to prevent 3rd party video games, haven't you?


They're not "threatening access to anything published under the OGL." Anything published under 1.0a is grandfathered in.
Wait, what is "deauthorization" supposed to do if not cut off access to the old SRDs? If WotC doesn't want their next SRD to be covered under 1.0a, can't they just release that under a new license without needing to "deathorize" anything?


People are already making those connections, and they're doing it without WotC's involvement. Solasta for instance doesn't say a thing about D&D 5e itself, but that's how nearly every news article about it has covered it; it's unavoidable. Thankfully that use of the license was wholly benign, even bland - but it's only a matter of time until one won't be. WotC doesn't want to wait around for that eventuality, and I can understand that.
Outside of a maybe few fringe weirdos so obscure that no one here has heard of them, to my knowledge no one has yet suggested that making creative tools publicly available makes anyone personally responsible for all content produced using those tools.

And, frankly, when and if someone does so suggest, the appropriate response is to disparage them for what they're doing and the environment they're trying to create. If Wizards is instead choosing to implicitly legitimize such behavior even slightly, that's distinctly worrying, in no small part because it suggests that they're considering such tactics themselves!

[EggKookoo]

Outside of a maybe few fringe weirdos so obscure that no one here has heard of them, to my knowledge no one has yet suggested that making creative tools publicly available makes anyone personally responsible for all content produced using those tools.

We have decades of experience with open source software. I can't think of a single case where the creator of a license has suffered any kind of realistic backlash because of the actions of a licensee. Maybe I'm just not in the loop enough?

Small incidents, sure, but as it's been said repeatedly, nuOGL isn't going to make that stuff go away, and if anything will make it worse.

[MonochromeTiger]

Wait, what is "deauthorization" supposed to do if not cut off access to the old SRDs? If WotC doesn't want their next SRD to be covered under 1.0a, can't they just release that under a new license without needing to "deathorize" anything?


"Deauthorization" is basically admitting they can't strike at things that were already made but still claiming they can absolutely force everyone to not use the OGL for any new content and it absolutely has to go through the Overbearingly Greedy License instead. It also serves as an easy gimme to throw out to try mitigating negative response while also implying "we absolutely could if we wanted to so be grateful."

[EggKookoo]

"Deauthorization" is basically admitting they can't strike at things that were already made but still claiming they can absolutely force everyone to not use the OGL for any new content and it absolutely has to go through the Overbearingly Greedy License instead. It also serves as an easy gimme to throw out to try mitigating negative response while also implying "we absolutely could if we wanted to so be grateful."

By putting it in the nuOGL (just trying to future-proof the version), WotC is admitting they can't actually revoke it. They have to get people to renounce it. Otherwise they'd just revoke it outright.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A win?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

Edit: now that I'm not on mobile--If I'm reading that right, it's a total win. Key paragraphs:



1. We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.
2. We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.
3. You choose which you prefer to use.


This is effective immediately.

[Xervous]

I’ve seen the dragonlance lawsuit referenced as a recent example for WotC not being trustworthy on matters of contract when doing PR damage control, and that was a demonstrable case of breach of contract. Omnivorous Gaming License 1.2 functionally has zero obligations to hold WotC to, and their response to controversy is excise and cauterize. Given they have no direct income ties to 3rd parties under 1.2 it’s excessively simple calculus for appeasing stakeholders in a crisis.

“Make whatever you think won’t leave you open to being thrown under the bus.” Isn’t all that inviting, and will prove to be rather chilling for complex topics like... an inclusive adventure featuring what is functionally the Belt of Gender Changing of old. Knowing how broad and aggressive WotC content purges are, such a smackdown could set a broader precedent for future 6f strikes even when there’s no outcry.

[Jervis]

Well it appears that the community pressure worked out, not only is OGL 1.0 untouched but the 5e SRD is CC now. https://twitter.com/dndbeyond/status/1619064403466326027?s=46&t=cRRR0MHib7C0f4dIjWyY1A

I’m honestly surprised, I was expecting WotC to double down again

[MonochromeTiger]

A win?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

Edit: now that I'm not on mobile--If I'm reading that right, it's a total win. Key paragraphs:



This is effective immediately.

Interesting. And yet, the fact they tried and their previous "nuh uh you didn't win response" still paints a picture that their statements can't be trusted further than what they demonstrably prove.

If they actually follow through on this then it's a definite win, the motives behind their accepting it would still be in question but it would be better than them continuing with the Obnoxiously Gratuitous License. That said they need to reinforce it with action and even backing off on this isn't the same as earning back the good will they lost by putting the idea forward in the first place and showing a desire for it.

Frankly things like ORC and Project Black Flag should probably still go ahead, if nothing else then to give some stability and a fallback now that the idea is in the air.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Interesting. And yet, the fact they tried and their previous "nuh uh you didn't win response" still paints a picture that their statements can't be trusted further than what they demonstrably prove.

If they actually follow through on this then it's a definite win, the motives behind their accepting it would still be in question but it would be better than them continuing with the Obnoxiously Gratuitous License. That said they need to reinforce it with action and even backing off on this isn't the same as earning back the good will they lost by putting the idea forward in the first place and showing a desire for it.

They actually did follow through. By publishing the SRD 5.1 in CC license, changing it is completely off the table (for that work at least). And with that off the table, the desire to break it for 3e and before (which is still covered under 1.0a but not CC) goes way down.

I fully expect OneD&D to have its own, more restrictive license and SRD. And have more meaningful differences from 5e to justify it. But 5e is safe as it stands. They can't do much about it now.

I don't expect ORC and Black Flag to really go away--I expect, for instance, PF2e to finish the scrub away from the OGL. But less "crash effort" and more "ok, it's where we need to go".

[Imbalance]

Fine, I guess I'll go see the movie.

[BRC]

Alright, good work everybody. Let's pack up, hit the showers, and celebrate at Denny's.


But seriously, while WOTC hasn't won my trust back, they have quite thoroughly put themselves in a position where I no longer need to trust them, which works out pretty well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Alright, good work everybody. Let's pack up, hit the showers, and celebrate at Denny's.


But seriously, while WOTC hasn't won my trust back, they have quite thoroughly put themselves in a position where I no longer need to trust them, which works out pretty well.

I agree. I don't trust them, don't particularly like the way they're going with 5e/OneD&D. But now it doesn't matter, since I'm on firm legal ground to keep building/creating/playing/discussing 5e (including online) forever and don't have to worry about knives in the back later.

[EggKookoo]

Fine, I guess I'll go see the movie.

And feel good about it!

[PhoenixPhyre]

And feel good about it!

I still probably won't...but to be honest, I never was planning on seeing it. Because I watch basically 0 movies anyway. But now I won't react with (concealed) revulsion and irritation when other people say they're going to.

[Imbalance]

Alright, good work everybody. Let's pack up, hit the showers, and celebrate at Denny's.

With great victory comes key lime pie.

[johnbragg]

For anyone using the Playground as their main news source for OGL news:

WOTC waves the white flag (Gizmodo) (https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-will-no-longer-deauthorize-its-open-1850041837)

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

[Devils_Advocate]

Fascinating. So it looks like the upcoming system for D&D might well use an SRD under a theoretically safer license, thereby incentivizing people to switch to the new SRD in light of WotC's recent activities? That's kind of shrewd, although I seriously doubt that it was the plan all along. More likely, someone in their legal department pointed out that the purported loophole in OGL 1.0a had already been ruled against in similarly worded open software licenses, and they're probably not going to actually win if this goes to court. In which case, I suppose that I can begrudgingly grant them a sliver of respect for being willing to turn crap into crapade instead of steadfastly refusing to admit that they made a mistake.

[OldTrees1]

A win?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

Edit: now that I'm not on mobile--If I'm reading that right, it's a total win. Key paragraphs:

This is effective immediately.


Alright, good work everybody. Let's pack up, hit the showers, and celebrate at Denny's.

But seriously, while WOTC hasn't won my trust back, they have quite thoroughly put themselves in a position where I no longer need to trust them, which works out pretty well.

This is a win, but not a total win. We had 2 losses during this conflict:
1) WotC tried all of these things.
2) WotC lied about trying all these things.

As such we should not forget. We should require WotC earns the trust they lost. However for now trust has stopped eroding.

[Squark]

I have to say I did not see this coming. WotC still needs to be watched carefully, but this is a step forward, at least.

[False God]

This is a win, but not a total win. We had 2 losses during this conflict:
1) WotC tried all of these things.
2) WotC lied about trying all these things.

As such we should not forget. We should require WotC earns the trust they lost. However for now trust has stopped eroding.

Exactly, it's a victory, but a temporary one. The people who wanted this to happen are still in charge and they're likely to try again. Maybe not now, maybe 7E we'll get to go through this all again.

We need to make sure it also remains a loss and a lesson for WotC. We can't just go right back to the status quo. Maybe in-theater viewings of the movie will be low. Maybe we'll wait 6 months after 6E releases to buy a book. Maybe we'll buy a whole bunch of other systems in the interim and increase the public discourse of other games.

There's a reason 5E launched under the OGL and not a revised GSL. Apparently they didn't take that lesson to heart. Maybe they need to hurt a little more to get it.

[P. G. Macer]

I’m over the moon with today’s news. I haven’t totally let up on WotC in case they try and pull a fast one or a bait-and-switch, but for the moment I’m happy.

That being said, the damage has been done, and it will take years at the minimum for WotC to regain the trust the D&D community once had in it, and I’ve spent a pretty penny on Pathfinder 2e products since the ORC announcement, so I’m not going to be as D&D-heavy as I was before this brouhaha. Still, this is a weight off my shoulders.

[Devils_Advocate]

Right now, you can "trust" that if WotC tries to screw you over too egregiously, the PR backlash will probably make them back off.

This is what their reputation looks like now, after being partially repaired.

[Brookshw]

A win?


Maybe? Won't know until 5.5 and what it does, could be this is just a sacrificial virgin to placate the masses and calm the furor by sacrificing something soon to be obsolete, and that they'll still go forward with some of the planned changes downstream when tempers aren't so hot. They certainly seem to have learned something from all this at least.

[johnbragg]

Back to speculation:

The PR problem of a firestorm of criticism from the product-buying customer base RIGHT NOW outweighed the possible (probable) future firestorms of "WOTC refuses to denounce this problematic content that their OGL licensed."

And/or, different executives gained more power within WOTC /HAsbro, and some executive careers took a hit for launching an initiative that created all these PR problems and set valuable (monetizable!) goodwill on fire.

[warty goblin]

So this is unexpectedly good. I'm genuinely glad this was the outcome, and Wizards didn't double down on their bad plan for 5E.

But, this says nothing that I can find about what they are doing with the OneD&D license. That could still suck and contain all the sorts of bad ideas they* clearly wanted to do, just applying to 5E as well. However, the presence of a genuinely irrevocable 5E open license I think limits their ability to impose such terms on the community, at least not without running a huge risk of another Pathfinder scenario playing out.

*or at least some portion of WoTC wanted. I rather suspect that this set off some substantial changes to their internal power structure - whomever proposed 1.1 has clearly eaten a lot of crow and probably lost some status as a result. If nothing else somebody us going going to have to cook up some new plans.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a win, but not a total win. We had 2 losses during this conflict:
1) WotC tried all of these things.
2) WotC lied about trying all these things.

As such we should not forget. We should require WotC earns the trust they lost. However for now trust has stopped eroding.

I agree.


Maybe? Won't know until 5.5 and what it does, could be this is just a sacrificial virgin to placate the masses and calm the furor by sacrificing something soon to be obsolete, and that they'll still go forward with some of the planned changes downstream when tempers aren't so hot. They certainly seem to have learned something from all this at least.


So this is unexpectedly good. I'm genuinely glad this was the outcome, and Wizards didn't double down on their bad plan for 5E.

But, this says nothing that I can find about what they are doing with the OneD&D license. That could still suck and contain all the sorts of bad ideas they* clearly wanted to do, just applying to 5E as well. However, the presence of a genuinely irrevocable 5E open license I think limits their ability to impose such terms on the community, at least not without running a huge risk of another Pathfinder scenario playing out.

*or at least some portion of WoTC wanted. I rather suspect that this set off some substantial changes to their internal power structure - whomever proposed 1.1 has clearly eaten a lot of crow and probably lost some status as a result. If nothing else somebody us going going to have to cook up some new plans.

I hope that they'll be a little careful about licensing changes in the short term. I expect the 6.0 SRD (whatever they call it) for OneD&D to not be CC or OGL 1.0a. I expect it to be slightly less egregious than either 1.1 or 1.2 were. And focus mostly on people trying to sell through whatever new platform they come up with--in other words, the actual binding parts will be in a commercial sales agreement between D&D Beyond/D&D VTT and the publishers, not part of a copyright license at all. Basically DMsGuild license version 2.0.

Worst I could see them doing (look, me, being optimistic? What's wrong with me?) is trying to do a "no backsies" clause, saying that anything you publish under NEW_LICENSE can't also be published under OGL 1.0a. Not even a "you won't publish anything under 1.0a" clause like the GSL had, but a "this specific thing is NEW_LICENSE only" clause. Which is much less objectionable.


Back to speculation:

The PR problem of a firestorm of criticism from the product-buying customer base RIGHT NOW outweighed the possible (probable) future firestorms of "WOTC refuses to denounce this problematic content that their OGL licensed."

And/or, different executives gained more power within WOTC /HAsbro, and some executive careers took a hit for launching an initiative that created all these PR problems and set valuable (monetizable!) goodwill on fire.

Yeah. This was a "oops, we just took a high-powered automatic weapon to our flock of golden-egg-laying hens"/"ABORT ABORT ABORT" moment. Hopefully the creatives come out of this with a bit more internal power. Probably a sign of internal power shifts, whether as a result or a cause.

[EggKookoo]

Right now, you can "trust" that if WotC tries to screw you over too egregiously, the PR backlash will probably make them back off.

This is what their reputation looks like now, after being partially repaired.

Agreed. I'm pleased with this (current) outcome and I openly admit I would never have predicted this. I honestly thought WotC was constructed such that this wasn't possible. I'm happy to misread them.

I don't trust any company to do what's "right." I don't trust Paizo and the ORC. I don't trust Kobold Press. But those companies are smaller and are less free to screw people over. WotC's behavior hasn't been surprising -- indeed we've seen them try this stuff before and we'll see them try it again. The best we can do is put them in a position where it hurts them to behave this way. Eternal vigilance, and so on.

Still, good news. Leaving OGL 1.0 alone is good. Moving the SRD to CC is gained ground!

[Mastikator]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

WotC has officially said they're sticking with 1.0 OGL, untouched. And they're making a SRD 5.1 (https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf) under creative commons license. People can pick either.

That's it.

They did it.

They kept OGL 1.0.

Is it over? Is the war over?

[purepolarpanzer]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

WotC has officially said they're sticking with 1.0 OGL, untouched. And they're making a SRD 5.1 (https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf) under creative commons license. People can pick either.

That's it.

They did it.

They kept OGL 1.0.

Is it over? Is the war over?

Just woke up from a nap to this news. I don't think it's over, I think some damage to trust was done that may never heal or will take a long time to heal... but I certainly feel positive about the survey I sent them now!:smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

WotC has officially said they're sticking with 1.0 OGL, untouched. And they're making a SRD 5.1 (https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf) under creative commons license. People can pick either.

That's it.

They did it.

They kept OGL 1.0.

Is it over? Is the war over?

Side notes

1. :swordsaged:

2. SRD 5.1 is the existing up-to-date SRD for 5e. All they did was replace the OGL license page on the SRD-5.1-CC version with the CC-BY license, along with a plea (non-binding, since it's not part of the actual license) not to claim compatibility directly and instead use "compatible with 5e" or "compatible with fifth edition".

[Mastikator]

Side notes

1. :swordsaged:

2. SRD 5.1 is the existing up-to-date SRD for 5e. All they did was replace the OGL license page on the SRD-5.1-CC version with the CC-BY license, along with a plea (non-binding, since it's not part of the actual license) not to claim compatibility directly and instead use "compatible with 5e" or "compatible with fifth edition".

Swordsaged? :smallconfused:

[Lemmy]

A win?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

Edit: now that I'm not on mobile--If I'm reading that right, it's a total win. Key paragraphs:

This is effective immediately.
I'm really happy to see this... Hasbro/WotC really shouldn't have expected otherwise from a community who's centered around "banding together to defeat powerful evil monsters" and rules-laywering. :smallcool:

Even so, Hasbro/WotC has shown their true face (again!)... And proven hat they are more than willing to go back on their word in the sneakiest, greediest, most selfish way possible whenever they want if they think they can get away with it.


Whatever trust and good-will they had is broken in a way that might require years to rebuild, even partially.

And let's not forget that they are not giving us anything here. They are not "doing the right thing". They tried something abhorrent and got caught. Then insisted on being abhorrent and got pushed back.
Hasbro/WotC simply gave up on (for now) on plans that were possibly illegal (whehter they even had the power to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0 is debatable, at very lest) and definitely immoral.

There's no more virtue to their actions than to those of a thief giving back the stolen goods after being caught.

[Guy Lombard-O]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSiig1VhYNo

[Atranen]

Very happy to see this. It means I can go back to my usually scheduled programming without having to decide which system to throw my weight behind. I'll look into other concerns with it later; but today, I'll celebrate. Good on WoTC for making the right call.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Swordsaged? :smallconfused:

AKA shadowmonked, AKA ninja'd. AKA "link's been posted upthread". :smallwink:


I'm really happy to see this... Hasbro/WotC really shouldn't have expected otherwise from a community whose centered around "banding together to defeat powerful evil monsters" and rules-laywering. :smallcool:


Hah!



Even so, Hasbro/WotC has shown their true face (again!)... And proven hat they are more than willing to go back on their word in the sneakiest, greediest, most selfish way possible whenever they want if they think they can get away with it.


Whatever trust and good-will they had is broken in a way that might require years to rebuild, even partially.

And let's not forget that they are not giving us anything here. They are not "doing the right thing". They tried something abhorrent and got caught. Then insisted on being abhorrent and got pushed back.
Hasbro/WotC simply gave up on (for now) on plans that were possibly illegal (whehter they even had the power to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0 is debatable, at very lest) and definitely immoral.

There's no more virtue to their actions than to those of a thief giving back the stolen goods after being caught.

Well...they are giving us something. Putting the entire 5.1 SRD into CC is a fairly clear "we're not going to mess with that one again" signal, since they blatantly can't. There's no question that CC is irrevocable. Questions still remain around all the material from prior editions and those already published as OGL 1.0a...but I'd say that their primary reason for deauthing 1.0a (to prevent forking the community) is already a lost cause. And the value-add from deauthing it to kill the prior-edition stuff is minimal--I'd expect most of the still-in-print works depending on the OGL 1.0a for editions earlier than 5e to move quickly onto ORC or a similar non-WotC license where possible; those for 5e will just move to the CC license.

So not nothing, but I definitely agree that it's the "oops, I was caught" shame, not the true "yeah, that was an uber bad idea in principle" shame. Although, this may signal that the creatives within the company won some power over the corp-suite. Probably with heavy pressure from the investors and Paramount (since they really wanted to have good press for the movie).

[Xihirli]

I think I still want to diversify the games I run, maybe even get a new main game to play, but now I think I'll also see the movie.

[Zuras]

I’m not gonna start trusting Wizards/Hasbro after this, but they’ve convinced me to not actively boycott them.

If somebody in my play group wants to do a one shot with a new system, I’m about ten times more likely to say yes now, though.

[Luccan]

I think I still want to diversify the games I run, maybe even get a new main game to play, but now I think I'll also see the movie.

Honestly I still need to try the Avatar game and I just got a new OSR book so my hands are full the next few months. Just happy with the outcome

Disclaimer: I'm not planning on moving to OneD&D. Those of you who are, I think they're gonna put it on a different license to the OGL so be ready for that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSiig1VhYNo

This is being actively discussed in the official thread on the main Roleplaying forum, with a link to the official announcement.

[Rynjin]

Wizards is still dead to me. IDGAF.

Just the fact that they thought they could get away with it in the first place is enough for me.

[Mastikator]

AKA shadowmonked, AKA ninja'd. AKA "link's been posted upthread". :smallwink:

Ah... well I'll just...

ANYWAY.

I'm glad some D&D players are finally looking into other TTRPGs instead of constantly keep trying to homebrew D&D into other genres when other TTRPGs already exist that cover those genres and are really good

[Xihirli]

Honestly I still need to try the Avatar game and I just got a new OSR book so my hands are full the next few months. Just happy with the outcome

Disclaimer: I'm not planning on moving to OneD&D. Those of you who are, I think they're gonna put it on a different license to the OGL so be ready for that.

Ooh I want to play the Avatar game too.

[Batcathat]

I'm glad some D&D players are finally looking into other TTRPGs instead of constantly keep trying to homebrew D&D into other genres when other TTRPGs already exist that cover those genres and are really good

Yeah, if that's the main outcome of all this, that'd be pretty nice. Whether or not D&D deserves its absurdly dominant position (I think not, but I can see why others would think so), it seems like a waste to play nothing else.

[Kane0]

There's a reason 5E launched under the OGL and not a revised GSL. Apparently they didn't take that lesson to heart. Maybe they need to hurt a little more to get it.

I'd wager its just a case of new management having to learn the lesson.

Regardless, good outcome. Looking forward to seeing what comes of this move to CC.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Brookshw
…could be this is just a sacrificial virgin to placate the masses and calm the furor by sacrificing something soon to be obsolete, and that they'll still go forward with some of the planned changes downstream when tempers aren't so hot.

Almost certainly this is their thinking, given everything we’ve seen the past few weeks.

I’d be more impressed if they gave us more details about their survey—and if they hadn’t shut it down a week early. If those percentages are actually based on anything real, I suspect they'd have only crept further into the mid-90s as more responses came in.


Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre
Hopefully the creatives come out of this with a bit more internal power.

Given all we’ve heard of Hasbro’s corporate culture, I highly doubt this. In the land of cubicles and corner offices, people are rarely rewarded for being right.


Originally Posted by Lemmy
There's no more virtue to their actions than to those of a thief giving back the stolen goods after being caught.

And this.

[Guy Lombard-O]

This is being actively discussed in the official thread on the main Roleplaying forum, with a link to the official announcement.

Okay. I wondered why I didn't see a thread.

[stoutstien]

It's a win but I'm in no hurry to start back up my purchasing from them anytime soon.
Something tell me the flood of content from other publishers will likely be worth the wait.

[Saintheart]

I've never been quite so happy to have my pessimism unfounded.

It's like i wandered into a timeline where Bioware actually properly fixed the Mass Effect 3 ending.

[Mastikator]

It's a win but I'm in no hurry to start back up my purchasing from them anytime soon.
Something tell me the flood of content from other publishers will likely be worth the wait.

Eh my purchasing policy remains the same as before. If they make good content for a reasonable price then I'll buy it, if not then I won't.

[stoutstien]

Eh my purchasing policy remains the same as before. If they make good content for a reasonable price then I'll buy it, if not then I won't.

So....maybe a book a year?

[Saintheart]

People also noticing that the whole of the 5.1 SRD is now in the CC ... and beholders, mind flayers, slaad, and Strahd are all mentioned in it, meaning all those are no longer IPs. IANAL who practices in this area, take with grain of salt.

[Mastikator]

So....maybe a book a year?

Plus 3rd party that interests me.

So maybe 2.

[False God]

I'd wager its just a case of new management having to learn the lesson.

Regardless, good outcome. Looking forward to seeing what comes of this move to CC.

But big corps these days rotate through "new management" like I go through hair conditioner. We can't allow every new manager to come along and be all "Well ya know I got hired into this new company that I don't know anything about, but I only care about making more money for shareholders, so maybe I'll just repeat all my predecessors mistakes!"

The next "new manager", and there will be one and frankly I wouldn't even be surprised if it was soon after this debacle, needs to walk into WotC and go "Oh yeah man that OGL thing? I ain't gonna mess with that at all." From day one. Heck, I don't think I'd be satisfied if the new manager didn't make a public statement along those very lines.

[Brookshw]

People also noticing that the whole of the 5.1 SRD is now in the CC ... and beholders, mind flayers, slaad, and Strahd are all mentioned in it, meaning all those are no longer IPs. IANAL who practices in this area, take with grain of salt.

At a glance I didn't see beholders or mind flayers in the doc the announcement linked, am I missing something?

[Melil12]

Point being though that they completely surrendered to the community. Now and FOREVER the original OGL will stand. It’s Creative Commons now and cannot ever be undone.

This is big. And it cost them lots of money to abandon their path and give in to the community. To give you an idea Treantmonks sources said doing this cost them 100s of millions.

[EggKookoo]

I think I still want to diversify the games I run, maybe even get a new main game to play, but now I think I'll also see the movie.

Frankly I'm psyched to check out what Kobold is cooking up.

[GreenDragonPage]

At a glance I didn't see beholders or mind flayers in the doc the announcement linked, am I missing something?

The stat blocks are not in the SRD but the names of these creatures are.

Page 97: Psychic. Mental abilities such as a mind flayer’s psionic blast deal psychic damage.

Page 216: Ace of diamonds Beholder

Page 254: Aberrations are utterly alien beings. Many of them have innate magical abilities drawn from the creature’s alien mind rather than the mystical forces of the world. The quintessential aberrations are aboleths, beholders, mind flayers, and slaadi.

[Brookshw]

The stat blocks are not in the SRD but the names of these creatures are.

Page 97: Psychic. Mental abilities such as a mind flayer’s psionic blast deal psychic damage.

Page 216: Ace of diamonds Beholder

Page 254: Aberrations are utterly alien beings. Many of them have innate magical abilities drawn from the creature’s alien mind rather than the mystical forces of the world. The quintessential aberrations are aboleths, beholders, mind flayers, and slaadi.

Thanks. Then as a lawyer who specializes in contracts and IP, and spent a decade in publishing and media, I'm not going to answer the real question, other than to say what's released under the CC license, and only what's released under the CC license, is what can be used under it.

(How's that for the most useless non-legal advice you ever got :smallbiggrin:)

[Devils_Advocate]

SRD 5.1 is the existing up-to-date SRD for 5e.
Oh, I assumed that it was a 1D&D thing. Amend my earlier analysis that they're trying to incentivize a switch to their new system to that they're trying to incentivize a switch from 3E and 3.5 to 5E. (Is Pathfinder still keeping the old d20 System alive? Ish? I know that they put out a new edition...)

Oh, so this is the document with only the Acolyte background that someone mentioned earlier. Why don't they at least have all 6 backgrounds from their free Basic Rules? ... And the most recent SRD doesn't include their digitally enforced retcons? Weird.

[PhoenixPhyre]

People also noticing that the whole of the 5.1 SRD is now in the CC ... and beholders, mind flayers, slaad, and Strahd are all mentioned in it, meaning all those are no longer IPs. IANAL who practices in this area, take with grain of salt.
Edit: See below.


Thanks. Then as a lawyer who specializes in contracts and IP, and spent a decade in publishing and media, I'm not going to answer the real question, other than to say what's released under the CC license, and only what's released under the CC license, is what can be used under it.

(How's that for the most useless non-legal advice you ever got :smallbiggrin:)


Oh, I assumed that it was a 1D&D thing. Amend my earlier analysis that they're trying to incentivize a switch to their new system to that they're trying to incentivize a switch from 3E and 3.5 to 5E. (Is Pathfinder still keeping the old d20 System alive? Ish? I know that they put out a new edition...)

Oh, so this is the document with only the Acolyte background that someone mentioned earlier. Why don't they at least have all 6 backgrounds from their free Basic Rules? ... And the most recent SRD doesn't include their digitally enforced retcons? Weird.

"Most up to date" =/= fully up to date. For which I'm very grateful, since I'm not fond of those retcons. The SRD has always been different from the Basic Rules--less restrictive in some ways (more classes, more races) and more restrictive in others (fewer backgrounds, feats?).