Official OGL Discussion Thread

[TuringTest]

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!"

If it is any consolation, the company I work at (nothing gaming-related) got new management about three years ago, changed processes from top to bottom without knowing anything about the business, the product we've been building these years have been cancelled, and the CEO has been sacked; yet it looks like the company will survive anyway (fingers crossed).

The new manager will be giving his welcoming speech next week, so we'll see, but it seems that the experience is being a great example of how NOT to act from now on.

[EggKookoo]

I genuinely hope WotC didn't accidentally hand out IP like I've seen rumored.

I haven't gone through the CC SRD with a fine-toothed comb, but it does reference beholders and mind flayers by name. No stat blocks or images (I think?). I guess at most this means you could have a "beholder" in your "5th edition compatible" game but they would probably have to look and function very differently from WotC's.

[Trafalgar]

I think this has everything to do with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves release date being March 31. The can't afford bad press every article about the movie over the next month mentioning the OGL controversy. Look at this article in Gizmodo. It's about the movie but OGL is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

[EggKookoo]

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

[Mechalich]

I think this has everything to do with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves release date being March 31. The can't afford bad press every article about the movie over the next month mentioning the OGL controversy. Look at this article in Gizmodo. It's about the movie but OGL is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

Stephen Colbert has appeared on Critical Role, and he is exactly the kind of person who could ask Chris Pine or Michelle Rodriguez about this on air, or even mention the controversy directly on 'Meanwhile' and that would be, from Hasbro's perspective, an epic disaster.

The D&D fanbase includes a surprisingly large number of people who occupy the middle of the Venn Diagram of 'nerds in the 1980s and 1990s' and 'culturally important in 2023.' D&D has a cultural legacy that is vastly greater than its economic importance, largely because it is in fact quite easy to play a lot of D&D without paying anything, the thing WotC was trying to halt.

[Trafalgar]

"I am here today with Chris Pine, star of the new Dungeons & Dragons movie. Tell me what you think about OGL 1.0a? Do you think it should be irrevocable?"

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Raven777
Goes on to show that if your institution is doing something wrong and you whistle blow against it, you can actually achieve a course correction.

In real life this hardly ever happens. If it did here, then it’s the exception that proves the rule.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Hasbro has a quiet purge in the weeks and months to come.

Originally Posted by Brookshw
Sure hope WoTC doesn't identify any employee who leaked, or 3rd party who was under an NDA....

Almost certainly they will. This was a massive initiative and it blew up in their corporate faces. The kind of people involved at the top will find an avenue for retaliation, one way or another. That kind always does.

Originally Posted by Segev
The promise not to touch OGL 1.0(a) is, I think, actually fairly trust-worthy, if only because they've acknowledged that touching it is a problem.

Except they’re claiming they’ll leave it “untouched,” rather than adding “irrevocable” to remove any possible ambiguity, as many of us wanted them to. That little sleight-of-phrase is what has me concerned.

[Brookshw]

In real life this hardly ever happens. If it did here, then it’s the exception that proves the rule.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Hasbro has a quiet purge in the weeks and months to come.

No argument here, when the money people start being concerned, things change

Except they’re claiming they’ll leave it “untouched,” rather than adding “irrevocable” to remove any possible ambiguity, as many of us wanted them to. That little sleight-of-phrase is what has me concerned.

Why? It's on CC now. Are you thinking about 3pp working off 3e, or who released their own systems under 1.0a?

Unrelated, I was playing around with some theories this morning and checked the USPTO TM database for 'Mind Flayer', and started laughing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Except they’re claiming they’ll leave it “untouched,” rather than adding “irrevocable” to remove any possible ambiguity, as many of us wanted them to. That little sleight-of-phrase is what has me concerned.

With the majority of the content in CC now it's effectively the same thing, haven't had time to go over it in fine detail but my understanding is that all but a few proper names is included.

In a way they did make the OGL "obsolete" in this move, if they ever do anything to the OGL in the future the CC SRD 5.1 remains

The primary concern is about future SRD content, there's no guarantee any future SRD will also go into CC or that any new content will be licensed under OGL 1.0a. My hope is that they're being honest in there intentions at this stage and that them saying there will be other SRD or rulesets included into CC is truthful. This is far and away the best thing to come out of this disaster, perhaps the only good thing even

[Pex]

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.

They could be more strict with 6E. They wouldn't be wrong to do so as it's their new thing, but they would still have to compete with those who publish within 5E. That is what 4E had to do with Pathfinder of 3E. They have to hope 6E is not so intrinsically bad as 4E was (with bias). If as they say 6E is compatible with 5E, they can hope people will play 6E characters in third party 5E modules. DMs would be annoyed enough having to convert minor discrepancies they'll buy 6E modules. This is all speculation.

For now they saved their movie from boycott bombing, D&D Beyond might get some resubscribers, and they can be open with 6E to keep the peace. They earned skepticism, but that does leave room for hope they'll play nice.

[Atranen]

I genuinely hope WotC didn't accidentally hand out IP like I've seen rumored. It's one of those that I've seen people crowing about that twists my stomach, because that's one of the good ways they could monetize D&D and which should be protected. I'm reading here that that might not be the case, which is reassuring.

Wholeheartedly agree. This is a good move and it really suck for them to have mistakenly given the farm away.

The promise not to touch OGL 1.0(a) is, I think, actually fairly trust-worthy, if only because they've acknowledged that touching it is a problem. Even though they haven't admitted they can't, the way they acknowledged this move suggests to me that they will (rightly) view it as a third rail (in the "third rail of politics" sense). And unless they suddenly have an urge to recreate 3.5e in a way that would encourage third parties to publish for it and also wanted to prevent such third party publications, 5e is the one that is the reason to "deauthorize" 1.0(a). So the motive is largely gone with the CC license.

I hope this is true. We talked a lot earlier in the thread about possible risks of 3.5 OGL based videogames, like the Pathfinder ones released recently. Their statement does leave open the possibility of pulling the OGL for the 3.5 SRD in a way that hampers these games; they also have a way to do it now that will have less blowback ("given the success of the CC for the SRD, we're moving from the OGL to CC going forward, and encourage partners to do so..."). That keeps the 5e people happy, and only comes after the smaller 3.5 fan base.

It feels a bit conspiratorial minded to suggest that. I doubt it's a near future move, the next 3 years are probably clear. So there shouldn't be any issues with DLC for the current games.

But if I were putting a new game into development, I'd pick the 5.1 SRD or something ORC related.

[Blackdrop]

A win?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439...eative-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...what? No, say it isn't so! But we had it on such reliable and informed authority that OGL 1.2 was an inevitability! To think that Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast would abandon the Greater Good of the TTRPG Community! It's appalling that Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast would show their belly and surrender to the (checks up-thread)... 3PPs who used the OGL to make money, the hypothetical future bigots abusing the D&D brand, and the Big Tech Companies that don't give a wooden nickel about the OGL. For shame Hasbro/WotC, for shame!

[Psyren]

Oh hey all, I didn't miss anything did I?
That's what I get for thinking nothing big will happen on a Friday and going out!

I'll admit, I didn't expect a greater-than-full retreat like this. I think WotC made more than one mistake here, but what's done is done. Looking forward to getting back to the OneD&D playtest now that this nonsense is laid to rest.

[Trafalgar]

For now they saved their movie from boycott bombing, D&D Beyond might get some resubscribers, and they can be open with 6E to keep the peace. They earned skepticism, but that does leave room for hope they'll play nice.

In my experience, positive reinforcement is the best way to train a dog. When a dog follows a command, immediately give them a treat, scratch them behind the ear, and say "Good Boy!"

If you cancelled your D&D Beyond account, you should resubscribe. I'll go to see the D&D movie if I can figure out the best way to send a message to Hasbro that I am going just because of OGL 1.0a still exists. Maybe through a tweet.

[Xihirli]

now I think I'll also see the movie.

Eh, if they really care that much about my $10.95 after they split it with the theater, they can find out if they want to. They'll figure it out.

[EggKookoo]

I'll admit, I didn't expect a greater-than-full retreat like this. I think WotC made more than one mistake here, but what's done is done. Looking forward to getting back to the OneD&D playtest now that this nonsense is laid to rest.

Yeah, I hope they didn't jump the gun with moving the SRD to CC. The existence of rogue references to mind flayers and beholders is probably harmless in and of itself, but it worries me that they didn't properly vet the document.

[Trafalgar]

A question I have is whether a certain webcomic can include beholders in it now?

[Jervis]

I guess you could make something new called a beholder but use different stats and different fluff excepting what is in the srd?

Nothing is stopping you from making a aberation that’s a beholder. You can’t make it a floating eyeball but you can make a floating squid with a thousand eyes called a beholder in theory. I advise against it, but it wouldn’t surprise me

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, I hope they didn't jump the gun with moving the SRD to CC. The existence of rogue references to mind flayers and beholders is probably harmless in and of itself, but it worries me that they didn't properly vet the document.

A question I have is whether a certain webcomic can include beholders in it now?

Generally, nothing was stopping anyone from referring to "beholders" (or even the other Reserved Words) as a reference except the OGL itself (which forbade using Product Identity material even by name only). It's why generic toothpaste can say "compare to the active ingredients in <brand name>"--trademarks don't prevent references. And the OGL doesn't apply at all now. And even if there was an issue, the word "beholder" is likely way too generic to be protectable by itself.

Now if you use "beholder" to reference a monster with an anti-magic eye, a bunch of eye-ray shooting eyeballs on stalks, etc? Then you're in (potential, standard disclaimers apply) trouble and still are. Just having a reference to the name in CC doesn't make it unprotected, because the part that's CC isn't protectable anyway.

Similarly, mind flayer is a generic term now. In fact, it's what everyone else uses to avoid the much more protectable ithilid. And again, just having the name there doesn't really give away anything. If they'd given the full stat blocks for those (which they never have), that'd be a completely different matter.

[Jervis]

A question I have is whether a certain webcomic can include beholders in it now?

If my understanding of the situation is correct it can but it can’t make them floating eyeballs. So ironically TootS can include beholders now but Sunny can’t be one and they can’t look anything like him

[EggKookoo]

Generally, nothing was stopping anyone from referring to "beholders" (or even the other Reserved Words) as a reference except the OGL itself (which forbade using Product Identity material even by name only). It's why generic toothpaste can say "compare to the active ingredients in <brand name>"--trademarks don't prevent references. And the OGL doesn't apply at all now. And even if there was an issue, the word "beholder" is likely way too generic to be protectable by itself.

I hope so. I want WotC to feel as though their IP has value. Otherwise why bother producing content for it? They'd go back to all MtG, All the Time.

[NichG]

I hope so. I want WotC to feel as though their IP has value. Otherwise why bother producing content for it? They'd go back to all MtG, All the Time.

You can make money off of things without the ability to stop others from using them. Any 3pp is already doing that with settings they build on top of, for example. Mostly it just means that you won't get royalties when other people make stuff, which is lost income but is also more motivation to make that stuff directly yourself instead.

[Jervis]

I hope so. I want WotC to feel as though their IP has value. Otherwise why bother producing content for it? They'd go back to all MtG, All the Time.

Eh, tbh the best dnd content is third party anyway, *glares at Spelljammer 5e* they haven’t had the best track record as of late in the quality department.

[Snowbluff]

In my experience, positive reinforcement is the best way to train a dog. When a dog follows a command, immediately give them a treat, scratch them behind the ear, and say "Good Boy!"

If you cancelled your D&D Beyond account, you should resubscribe. I'll go to see the D&D movie if I can figure out the best way to send a message to Hasbro that I am going just because of OGL 1.0a still exists. Maybe through a tweet.

Yeah, uh probably, if the community is meant to look like it has any credibility, anyway. However, I've not been to a movie theatre in 3 years and I wouldn't buy into ODD unless they were to make some good game changes. It's a weird position to be in.

I hope so. I want WotC to feel as though their IP has value. Otherwise why bother producing content for it? They'd go back to all MtG, All the Time.

Speaking of not writing a good system, what would happen in this case? If DnD is no longer being published, would someone be able to pick up the slack? Paizo is the next biggest company, but its not as large, nor does it have a product with broad, or even nerd appeal. Here's to hoping KP doesn't bungle their next product.

[Kane0]

Eh, tbh the best dnd content is third party anyway, *glares at Spelljammer 5e* they haven’t had the best track record as of late in the quality department.

Yep, and now that CC is on the table (now being able to more easily bypass DMGuild?) I wager we're going to see more not less.

[Segev]

I think this has everything to do with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves release date being March 31. The can't afford bad press every article about the movie over the next month mentioning the OGL controversy. Look at this article in Gizmodo. It's about the movie but OGL is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

I suspect this is part of it, but if it were ALL, I would've expected the CC release of 5.1 SRD to...not happen. Not yet, at least. Just a promise that they will "reconsider" their "update" to the OGL...and stop releasing things about it. The usual "hope it dies down" thing, with the ability to say, "We've said we're not going with the controversial license versions" and other forms of "asked and answered" without actually committing.

The release of the SRD to the CC that has me convinced they probably mean it - as much as any group of people whose constituent members can "mean it," which is to say for as long as they remain the people running it, or their immediate successors who got into power because of this debacle - sincerely. The main incentive to "deauthorize" OGL 1.0(a) was to prevent a fork a la Pathfinder. The 5.1 SRD being on the CC, I think, makes preventing that a losing battle, unless their next edition (or half-edition, or whatever) successfully avoids precipitating a desire for that fork.

In real life this hardly ever happens. If it did here, then it’s the exception that proves the rule.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if Hasbro has a quiet purge in the weeks and months to come.



Almost certainly they will. This was a massive initiative and it blew up in their corporate faces. The kind of people involved at the top will find an avenue for retaliation, one way or another. That kind always does.

It may not be so quiet if those who leaked are feeling their oats. And, while it's not a guarantee that the smart thing is what a corporation will do, especially when it is not in the interests of the people running it (as opposed to the shareholders who own it), the smart thing would be to bring the leakers they can find in, determine why they did it, and offer them rewards commensurate with saving the company from this blowback happening when it's too late for the company to recover by retreating. But tie those rewards to NDAs and the like that make leaking like this much harder in the future, and also providing them with a place to voice their concerns in the future. Maybe even publicly.

The ones who leaked - this time - showed their instincts were on the money for how bad this would be for the company. It still isn't behavior you want to encourage. And even worse, it's not entirely likely that the suits who were behind the bad choices will recognize that the problem was their initiative, not the leaks. "Oh, if only we could've FINISHED crashing the car into the cliff, rather than being told to stop and reverse course before we got there! Then there'd have been no problem!"

Except they’re claiming they’ll leave it “untouched,” rather than adding “irrevocable” to remove any possible ambiguity, as many of us wanted them to. That little sleight-of-phrase is what has me concerned.

Yeah, but it'll be even harder to try to weasel-word around it now that the specific concern has been raised.

Imagine a company publicly saying, "We will build you a house for $150,000!" in public statements, and somebody brings up, "Yeah, but you've got all sorts of hidden fees we have to pay before that." Then, the company says, "No, we promise, $150,000 is all you'll pay for it," again, very publicly. Then, the contract says "$150,000" on it, with no obvious extra fees, and only some clauses that, if you squint at them, might suggest they can change this number later, maybe.

If they then try to change that number, it's going to be quite the difficult battle to convince anybody that they weren't deliberately being deceptive in the design of the contract at that point. And our courts aren't run by Fair Folk or Devils, no matter how much we sometimes joke about it.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, etc., etc., and maybe I'm missing something, here, but just the huge backlash they'd face if they tried to renege on this any time in this generation of gamers is enough to make me think they're sincere. Couple that to the fact that their biggest incentive to "deauthorize" it is now no longer a possibility, as far as I can tell, and I think they mean it.

[Jervis]

Yep, and now that CC is on the table (now being able to more easily bypass DMGuild?) I wager we're going to see more not less.

DMs guild wasn’t really required for stuff that used the SRD. You still need it if you wanna reference stuff outside of the SRD like spells from other books, but personally I think that small benefit isn’t worth what the DMguild takes. CC is a step above the old OGL though.

[Zuras]

I think this has everything to do with Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves release date being March 31. The can't afford bad press every article about the movie over the next month mentioning the OGL controversy. Look at this article in Gizmodo. It's about the movie but OGL is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Now imagine this was an article 2 weeks before the release but in a mainstream publication as part of the pre release media frenzy. You can see why Hasbro surrendered to all the demands.

Concern from Paramount over being financially damaged by Hasbro’s moves was probably a factor, but don’t discount the hard numbers from their distributors telling them Pathfinder 2E books were selling out everywhere.

It’s easy to say “it’s just a twitter outrage cycle”, but it’s a bit harder when you have hard numbers like “this announcement led to X cancellations and caused our largest competitor in the space to sell every available copy of their competing product”.

You can’t say it’s just a few loud malcontents if people are actually putting money where their outrage is.

[johnbragg]

Concern from Paramount over being financially damaged by Hasbro’s moves was probably a factor, but don’t discount the hard numbers from their distributors telling them Pathfinder 2E books were selling out everywhere.

It’s easy to say “it’s just a twitter outrage cycle”, but it’s a bit harder when you have hard numbers like “this announcement led to X cancellations and caused our largest competitor in the space to sell every available copy of their competing product”.

You can’t say it’s just a few loud malcontents if people are actually putting money where their outrage is.

Most "twitter outrage cycles" are driven by media ecosystems that pretty much focus on the next culture war topic. Sometimes the opposite side will "nutpick" something and try to whip up an outrage mob about it. but it's usually mostly limited to people who enjoy being outraged, or enjoy triggering outrage. (I've done it, justified anger is a good feeling. But not a healthy mental habit).

Most "twitter outrage cycles" aren't driven by the core consumers of your product. Said another way, by the core loyalists of your "undermonetized brand."

[Segev]

Most "twitter outrage cycles" are driven by media ecosystems that pretty much focus on the next culture war topic. Sometimes the opposite side will "nutpick" something and try to whip up an outrage mob about it. but it's usually mostly limited to people who enjoy being outraged, or enjoy triggering outrage. (I've done it, justified anger is a good feeling. But not a healthy mental habit).

Most "twitter outrage cycles" aren't driven by the core consumers of your product. Said another way, by the core loyalists of your "undermonetized brand."

Right, but to a disconnected executive, they look the same and, if the plebes are outraged at your obviously right choice, it must just be that media-driven thing. And if it isn't being driven by the media you consider important, it obviously must be that counter-outrage thing, which is safe to ignore. Maybe give the Real Media a cookie by asserting that it is you who is on the right side of the social issues, and therefore anyone against you is on the wrong side.

Seeing that it doesn't blow over and that it has real consequences has got to be as scary as learning that the horror movie monster you were laughing at the others in the theater for being jump-scared by has actually just cut off your left arm.

So I totally get a panicked response, if the sales numbers really looked as suggested in your post!