Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Snowbluff]

I know there's a lot more detail within, but that last bullet point seems important to me. They really messed up with the opening concept and I hope this proves as a bit of a learning process. This note in particular seems to express their willingness to work with community on understanding each other's perspective and process.

This is my impression as well. Even if you don't believe them, you're leaving a potential opportunity to wither if you don't participate in the survey.

I think the CC is a big step forward. I would like to see the ability to refer to classes/spells (so you can make subclasses for classes and use spells on your own classes) and for 3rd edition material to be added to some license so people can make product for that edition, even if it's less common now.

[Liquor Box]

I'm not sure why you're so insistent on approaching this discussion as if you are an employee of Wizards of the Coast. You, as a consumer, are not obligated to defend business-oriented decisions just because they're made in regards to a product line you like.

An effective monopoly, of any industry, is bad for everyone. That includes fans of the product. This has been proven time and time again.

If the company is willing to backbite and scheme and engage in general snake-like behavior, that doesn't stop when they have no more rivals. It just then gets turned toward their own audience instead.

You, as a fan of D&D, also get NOTHING from this arrangement. There was never any threat of not getting more D&D. All this will ensure is that there will be less of everything else.

I find this "**** you, got mine" attitude frankly sickening.

D&D is not an industry. It is a product within an industry. The industry is TTRPGs, and Wizards does not have a monopoly on that. Wizards having a monopoly on DnD is no different from Ford having a monopoly on fords, it doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the motor vehicle industry.

[Palanan]

The survey is a plausible simulation of listening, nothing more.

Given their behavior in recent weeks, it strains credulity to imagine the survey is anything but an airlock for venting into space.

_______


Also, I drive by my local Barnes & Noble every day and they’re doing just fine, so not sure what that reference was supposed to mean.

Borders, on the other hand, closed down over ten years ago. It was traumatic, unnecessary, wrecked countless lives, and I watched it unfold at very close range. Maybe that’s what’s being referred to?

[Atranen]

Borders, on the other hand, closed down over ten years ago. It was traumatic, unnecessary, wrecked countless lives, and I watched it unfold at very close range. Maybe that’s what’s being referred to?

--Redacted--

[Palanan]

I don't understand your response, nor the need for blue text.

[Rynjin]

D&D is not an industry. It is a product within an industry. The industry is TTRPGs, and Wizards does not have a monopoly on that. Wizards having a monopoly on DnD is no different from Ford having a monopoly on fords, it doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the motor vehicle industry.

I'm not really sure how this pertains to what I'm talking about.

Wizards is trying to shut a bunch of other businesses out of the TTRPG market. Not just the "D&D market". They're essentially trying to take ownership of the entire d20 concept.

[Atranen]

I don't understand your response, nor the need for blue text.

Barnes & Noble (although more appropriately Borders) was brought up as a potential fate for D&D if they didn't adopt a new license. I found the argument weak because I don't think D&D is at risk of failing if it sticks with OGL 1.0a.

[Liquor Box]

I'm not really sure how this pertains to what I'm talking about.

Wizards is trying to shut a bunch of other businesses out of the TTRPG market. Not just the "D&D market". They're essentially trying to take ownership of the entire d20 concept.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about? I thought you were suggesting that what Wizards is doing was to create a monopoly.

It is not - it is saying that businesses may not use content based on intellectual property it says it owns. Even if that puts a raft of other gaming companies out of business it doesn't create monopoly because there are still other tabletop roleplaying competitors.

And yet you seem eager to do so. Throughout the thread you've been favoring WotC and their OGL plans almost to the point of praise while acting casually dismissive of other companies and non D&D rule sets or arguments about the potential for the OGL to be a stifling thing which many who have looked at it have absolutely agreed it is.

Not really very different from those people who, throughout the thread, have been disafavouring WotC and its OGL plans almost to the point of criticism, while being casual dismissive of arguments about the potential of OGL to be a reasonable thing.

Except that you disagree with him.

[Unoriginal]

I have been somewhat attempting to keep up with this hot topic thread, but I no doubt will maintain mostly an observant presence. (Much appreciation to the mods for providing this space. Come friends, let's not screw it up. )

Anyway I read the OGL 1.2 and went through the survey. These things right in the opening summary caught my attention and I think they're worth putting here.

• OGL 1.2 will only apply to TTRPG content, whether published as books, as electronic publications, or on virtual tabletops (VTTs). Nobody needs to wonder or worry if it applies to anything else. It doesn't.
• We'll share what we heard from you and updates to the OGL document as a result.
• The process will extend as long as it needs to. We'll keep iterating and getting your feedback until we get it right.

I know there's a lot more detail within, but that last bullet point seems important to me. They really messed up with the opening concept and I hope this proves as a bit of a learning process. This note in particular seems to express their willingness to work with community on understanding each other's perspective and process.

"Seem" being the key word.

It's just corporate talk to say "we'll keep reiterating and giving up nothing until you're too tired to fight", as demonstrated by them still wanting to be able to annihilate the license of those they don't approve of AND to be able to change the license at any time and unilaterally (among many, many other things).

[Rynjin]

Maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about? I thought you were suggesting that what Wizards is doing was to create a monopoly.

They certainly seem to want to try, and claiming ownership over something they have no right to claim ownership of (d20 mechanics, and to a broader extent the work of other people) is a good first step.

I do not trust them not to take the logical next steps once they have their legal foothold to bully other companies out of the business.

I may not be talking about a literal, legal monopoly, because those do not exist. But monopolies in all but name do (look into internet service provider "turfs" sometime, it's eye opening), and they all start with moves like this that strangle the competition and ensure nobody can ever be big enough to challenge them for the throne.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Atranen
I found the argument weak because I don't think D&D is at risk of failing if it sticks with OGL 1.0a.

That didn’t come through in your blue-text post. Felt more like an attack on me personally.

[Liquor Box]

They certainly seem to want to try, and claiming ownership over something they have no right to claim ownership of (d20 mechanics, and to a broader extent the work of other people) is a good first step.

I do not trust them not to take the logical next steps once they have their legal foothold to bully other companies out of the business.

I may not be talking about a literal, legal monopoly, because those do not exist. But monopolies in all but name do (look into internet service provider "turfs" sometime, it's eye opening), and they all start with moves like this that strangle the competition and ensure nobody can ever be big enough to challenge them for the throne.

Whether they have ownership of those things is a matter for the courts if it gets that far.

They may use their market power to to put pressure on smaller tabletop companies, and they may or may not do that is a way that is permissable. But we can't really be too critical of them for something they have not yet done.

Literal monopolies do exist, btw. But more to your point, I doubt there's anything Wizards can do so that there are no other TTRPGs commercially available.

[MonochromeTiger]

Not really very different from those people who, throughout the thread, have been disafavouring WotC and its OGL plans almost to the point of criticism,

I understand you're trying to play off my own words but really shaming someone through throwing what they say back at them only works if there's something to be ashamed of. There is no almost, people are being critical because they've been given reason to be critical. We have doubts because we've been given reason to doubt. We question motive because we have reason to question WotC's and Hasbro's motives.

As I've said before in this thread, they're a business and they exist to make money. When your purpose is to make money people have the right to consider that maybe your reason for trying to kill an agreement that hasn't been a problem so far while replacing it with something that gives you the ability to shut down anyone who agrees to it on vague grounds just might be thinking of money instead of ethics.

while being casual dismissive of arguments about the potential of OGL to be a reasonable thing.

There is a more reasonable OGL. They're currently trying to get rid of it. People have said multiple times the points they find unreasonable in this attempt at making a new OGL, among them the dissolution of the previous OGL and the morality clause which is so hilariously exploitable it's insulting. Get rid of some of those points and people would find it much more reasonable.

Except that you disagree with him.

And you find that surprising? It's not a personal issue with Psyren, we simply disagree. Our viewpoints are opposed and, though I do question why anyone would repeatedly post in favor of a multi billion dollar company's right to casually terminate agreements that were originally meant to be a permanent fixture just to force much more restrictive terms, I'm confident that on other topics I'd find their stance more agreeable. Again, the "shame with their own words" tactic only works if there's something to shame, this is a divisive topic though as the thread shows the divide is heavily weighted in one side's favor. So yes, I do find it odd when there are defenses of WotC's and Hasbro's actions especially when that defense hinges on trusting that a company is being genuine and honest on their stated motives or moral and legal fairness when the actual content of what they do and say points toward a more monetary focus and willingness to alter the spirit of things that were previously implied to be set in stone.

[Atranen]

That didn’t come through in your blue-text post. Felt more like an attack on me personally.

I'm sorry; I was agreeing with you. I didn't mean for it to sound like that. I'll clean the post because I didn't do a good job of expressing my thought.

[Liquor Box]

I understand you're trying to play off my own words but really shaming someone through throwing what they say back at them only works if there's something to be ashamed of. There is no almost, people are being critical because they've been given reason to be critical. We have doubts because we've been given reason to doubt. We question motive because we have reason to question WotC's and Hasbro's motives.

I'm not trying to shame you at all. I don't think that people who are arguing for or against Wizards have anything to be ashamed of. They (we) are all just people who happen to have a different opinion on this topic.

The reason I mimicked your own words was to demonstrate that the people on each side of the argument are not really acting differently to one another. They are favouring/disfavouring, dismissing opposing argument etc etc similarly. It's just that you think one side is right, and the other wrong.

As I've said before in this thread, they're a business and they exist to make money. When your purpose is to make money people have the right to consider that maybe your reason for trying to kill an agreement that hasn't been a problem so far while replacing it with something that gives you the ability to shut down anyone who agrees to it on vague grounds just might be thinking of money instead of ethics.

They have the right to consider that. And others have the right to suggest that their reasons are their stated ones.

There is a more reasonable OGL. They're currently trying to get rid of it. People have said multiple times the points they find unreasonable in this attempt at making a new OGL, among them the dissolution of the previous OGL and the morality clause which is so hilariously exploitable it's insulting. Get rid of some of those points and people would find it much more reasonable.

I get that you think that. And others think that the OGL they now propose is reasonable. They can make that point if they want, and you can say why you think they are wrong. It doesn't mean that the people who are disfavouring your perspective have some ulterior motive or whatever you were trying to imply.

And you find that surprising? It's not a personal issue with Psyren, we simply disagree. Our viewpoints are opposed and, though I do question why anyone would repeatedly post in favor of a multi billion dollar company's right to casually terminate agreements that were originally meant to be a permanent fixture just to force much more restrictive terms, I'm confident that on other topics I'd find their stance more agreeable. Again, the "shame with their own words" tactic only works if there's something to shame, this is a divisive topic though as the thread shows the divide is heavily weighted in one side's favor. So yes, I do find it odd when there are defenses of WotC's and Hasbro's actions especially when that defense hinges on trusting that a company is being genuine and honest on their stated motives or moral and legal fairness when the actual content of what they do and say points toward a more monetary focus and willingness to alter the spirit of things that were previously implied to be set in stone.

You say you simply disagree, then go on to say "I do question why anyone would repeatedly post in favor of a multi billion dollar company'.....". The simply reason why he posts in that company's favour is because he thinks what they are doing is fine. Of course his perspective is odd to you, because you disagree with it. Just like your perspective is presumably odd to him, because he disagrees with it.

Again, there's nothing to be ashamed of for anyone here - whether they support WotC or disagree with WotC.

[Imbalance]

I stopped into the LGS this afternoon and, while chatting with the owner, was told WizKids recently lost the D&D license. I was pretty surprised to hear that, and didn't see anything online to the effect, but I've known the guy who runs it for over a decade, not someone I'd expect to be telling tales. Has anyone heard anything about the minis line license getting pulled?

Edit: who also mentioned he was getting new orders for GURPS (I smiled), and PF (1e I think?) was sold out by his distributor.

The next time you are there, please, inquire for more information and perhaps a source.

[Brookshw]

Just in case anyone needs more evidence as to why having WotC has the one arbiter of what content is or isn't acceptable would be terrible for the hobby, we have this one.

So, the issue here didn't seem as self-evident to me as the other example, and I wanted to look into it a bit, it's kind of an interesting test case I think.

First, that book is currently available on DMGuild and adventures are available on DrivethruRPG, so it's not like it went away. This seems to suggest they do have some kind of process to work with content creators, I don't know what it is, but the books availability speaks for itself, and that they don't just reach for the nuclear option.

The ads for the product in both places seem to have a fairly minor difference, one uses the term "anti-tyranny" (DMGuild), one uses "anti-capitalism" (DrivethruRPG).

Both describe the content as "Tackling issues of workersÂ’ rights, health care, the prison industrial complex, the environment, animal rights, agriculture and more, these adventures will make you passionate to join the revolution. ", And have a content warning "While most of these adventures don't come with specific content warnings, it's safe to assume that they will deal with exploitation of workers, marginalized communities, or other people. Many are violent, as is common in fantasy TTRPGs. As always, talk to your group and use appropriate safety tools.". Personally I'd say the subject matter could be described as sensitive, but clearly WoTC is okay with it.

It's unclear to me if and to what extent changes may have been required aside from the "capitalism" to "tyranny", I'd love to know the answer to that.

[MonochromeTiger]

The next time you are there, please, inquire for more information and perhaps a source.

Agreed. Second or third hand information, even if the person relaying it is respected and trusted, should have some backing before being assumed as fact. We've already had some odd cases of disinformation both for and against in this, the possibility of rumors gone out of control can't be discounted.

[Psyren]

I don't trust Hasbro Execs to NOT use this to shut down products they simply don't like for reasons they can leave unspecified other than to say "it was offensive."

If you don't think the remedies I proposed prevent that, then we can leave it there, I have nothing else to suggest.

The morality clause is not the only change in 1.2, so it clearly isn't the only thing they want. If it were, we could have a different discussion.

I never said it was "the only thing they want." I said it was the one relevant to harm specifically.

The other stuff, like preventing video games and third-party NFTs etc - doesn't relate to harm specifically, it's just sensible business.

They need to remove the "deauthorize" clause, or it's basically a no-go anyway.

Again, good luck with that. Only a court is going to stop this one.

Let me paint a picture for you why the morality clause isn't something you should support, either: Let's say that the Hasbro executive team, in 2-3 years, winds up being replaced by people who have morals that align against what you support.

Hey look, I'll save you some time - well, not really since you already typed the rest of that, but still... yes, I'm well aware this could one day in the distant or even not-so-distant future be weaponized by execs with an opposite view to mine now, e.g. bigots taking over and yanking the license from inclusive publishers. I'm aware that such a phenomenon could take place. I'm rolling the dice on that anyway, happily, because WotC being able to deal with bigots now, today, will always trump hypothetical regressive execs maybe taking power at some point for me. Easiest calculus of my life.

Borders, on the other hand, closed down over ten years ago. It was traumatic, unnecessary, wrecked countless lives, and I watched it unfold at very close range. Maybe that’s what’s being referred to?

I wasn't exclusively going for bankruptcies and failures, just big disruptions to business models - but sure, Borders works, possibly even better.

[ToranIronfinder]

Just one thought on intent. I'm very skeptical of WOTC on this, and I think the goal likely includes trying to use marketshare and the long term reliance on OGL 1.0a in an anticompetitive fashion (not used in any legal sense) rather than to focus on improving their product. Why?

It isn't that I am anticorporate (I'm neither a gung-ho corporatist nor an avowed anticorporatist), that I am against this. I'm getting back not the hobby so it's no long seated animosity-though the OGL probably did harm my preferred system.

My thought is this, when you represent a license as they did, in terms of its inviolability as its intent was communicated clearly, and then reneg on those agreed upon terms 23 years later, due to regrets as to the effect of those terms (rather than say a true inability to fulfill a contract), they either lied in the way they represented it then or they prove themselves to be acting in bad faith now. I won't comment on the legality of the situation, but either way, they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and their motives should be treated with suspicion.

That is the most I will note add it to the list of things I am not commenting on further, but it is not unreasonable to be very cautious in these circumstances. My thoughts, I don't do business with people I can't trust to keep their word. Any reneging on 1.0a means I will buy no WOTC products for the foreseeable future.

[Brookshw]

Agreed. Second or third hand information, even if the person relaying it is respected and trusted, should have some backing before being assumed as fact. We've already had some odd cases of disinformation both for and against in this, the possibility of rumors gone out of control can't be discounted.

All true, but I had to go pick up my kids, not get into a lengthy discussion, hence looking into it further, including looking into it online and asking here if anyone knew something when I see him next, and if I have time, I'll ask him.

[Blackdrop]

Hey look, I'll save you some time - well, not really since you already typed the rest of that, but still... yes, I'm well aware this could one day in the distant or even not-so-distant future be weaponized by execs with an opposite view to mine now, e.g. bigots taking over and yanking the license from inclusive publishers. I'm aware that such a phenomenon could take place. I'm rolling the dice on that anyway, happily, because WotC being able to deal with bigots now, today, will always trump hypothetical regressive execs maybe taking power at some point for me. Easiest calculus of my life.

You're doing the exact same- who is making money abusing the OGL 1.0(a) now, today, by using it to post hate speech?

[Saintheart]

Anyway I read the OGL 1.2 and went through the survey. These things right in the opening summary caught my attention and I think they're worth putting here.

• OGL 1.2 will only apply to TTRPG content, whether published as books, as electronic publications, or on virtual tabletops (VTTs). Nobody needs to wonder or worry if it applies to anything else. It doesn't.
• We'll share what we heard from you and updates to the OGL document as a result.
• The process will extend as long as it needs to. We'll keep iterating and getting your feedback until we get it right.

I know there's a lot more detail within, but that last bullet point seems important to me. They really messed up with the opening concept and I hope this proves as a bit of a learning process. This note in particular seems to express their willingness to work with community on understanding each other's perspective and process.

Leaving aside the opening summary is essentially corporate damage controlspeak, I would continue to ask - and indeed I did in the survey: get it right for who exactly?

[Psyren]

My thought is this, when you represent a license as they did, in terms of its inviolability as its intent was communicated clearly, and then reneg on those agreed upon terms 23 years later, due to regrets as to the effect of those terms (rather than say a true inability to fulfill a contract), they either lied in the way they represented it then or they prove themselves to be acting in bad faith now. I won't comment on the legality of the situation, but either way, they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and their motives should be treated with suspicion.

That is the most I will note add it to the list of things I am not commenting on further, but it is not unreasonable to be very cautious in these circumstances. My thoughts, I don't do business with people I can't trust to keep their word. Any reneging on 1.0a means I will buy no WOTC products for the foreseeable future.

I find no fault with your decision, I just want to point out that "intent" and "agreed upon terms" are very different things.

You're doing the exact same- who is making money abusing the OGL 1.0(a) now, today, by using it to post hate speech?

1) I'm talking about what the current language allows.
2) There are current examples - both of hate speech (TSR) and less severe yet still potentially damaging uses of the license (BoEF).

Leaving aside the opening summary is essentially corporate damage controlspeak, I would continue to ask - and indeed I did in the survey: get it right for who exactly?

Presumably - as many fans and creators as possible, after accounting for WotC themselves.

[Unoriginal]

You're doing the exact same- who is making money abusing the OGL 1.0(a) now, today, by using it to post hate speech?

That'd be Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro, depending on your definition.

because WotC being able to deal with bigots now, today, will always trump hypothetical regressive execs maybe taking power at some point for me.

WotC is already more than able and happy to deal with bigots now, today.

[Rynjin]

Hey look, I'll save you some time - well, not really since you already typed the rest of that, but still... yes, I'm well aware this could one day in the distant or even not-so-distant future be weaponized by execs with an opposite view to mine now, e.g. bigots taking over and yanking the license from inclusive publishers. I'm aware that such a phenomenon could take place. I'm rolling the dice on that anyway, happily, because WotC being able to deal with bigots now, today, will always trump hypothetical regressive execs maybe taking power at some point for me. Easiest calculus of my life.

So who are these bigots who are currently using the OGL to publish bigotry and hatespeech in their 3rd party published game material? Do any currently exist or are these also hypothetical?

1) I'm talking about what the current language allows.
2) There are current examples - both of hate speech (TSR) and less severe yet still potentially damaging uses of the license (BoEF).

I feel like if you have to dig back nearly 20 years to find an example that makes your case, it's not a very strong case.

[Psyren]

WotC is already more than able and happy to deal with bigots now, today.

"Able to" does not mean they need to keep the license around that could potentially make it harder.

[ToranIronfinder]

I find no fault with your decision, I just want to point out that "intent" and "agreed upon terms" are very different .

Perhaps. There is a really interesting semantics question indicating changes in what the agreed upon terms meant at that time and what they mean today which gets into a lot of issues of interp that are too boring for these boards, unless you are a philosophy nerd.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/so-why-didnt-the-ogl-contain-the-word-irrevocable.694514/

[Unoriginal]

"Able to" does not mean they need to keep the license around that could potentially make it harder.

It did not make it harder for 20 years.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So who are these bigots who are currently using the OGL to publish bigotry and hatespeech in their 3rd party published game material? Do any currently exist or are these also hypothetical?



I feel like if you have to dig back nearly 20 years to find an example that makes your case, it's not a very strong case.

And I'm not sure how WotC is expected to do better, since the number of "problematic" 1st party materials vastly outnumbers the count for 3rd party objectionable materials. Especially by the only standards that get more that a trivial number of total such works.