Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Psyren]

Timestamps from the Ginny Di interview:

Spoiler

Show

• (4:15) In general, what were WotC’s goals with updating the OGL?
• (4:58) Has there been a history of hateful content made under the OGL so far, or is this something you were concerned would happen in the future?
• (5:26) It sounds like you were concerned mostly about people being scammed (via NFTs) rather than the existence of NFTs in general.
• (7:03) Is there a specific place, department or area that the push to update the OGL originated from, that you know of?
• (7:54) Can you tell me what exactly does your role as executive produce of D&D entail?
• (8:22) What part, if any, did you play in all of the proposed updates to the OGL?
• (9:35) It’s interesting that you say that this has been in process for such a long time because I wanted to ask about why there was such a communication disconnect between the WotC team and the D&D Community - particularly the week of silence between the 1.1 leak and the first official response - which, for a lot of us, felt like it stretched on forever.
• (11:29) Unfortunately I have to ask about this draft thing - WotC keeps using the word “draft” to refer to this leaked OGL 1.1 and that you were soliciting community feedback, but we’ve also heard these documents were being sent to creators to be signed as a legally binding contract. From the outside it looks as though Wizards is lying by calling it a draft, can you explain the discrepancy there?
• (13:19) Do you mind telling me how the decision came about to put the SRD 5.1 into Creative Commons?
• (14:11) Since obviously a lot of trust and loyalty has been lost throughout this process, I’m curious what other material plans you have to rebuild that.
• (15:33) Wizards has previously stated there will be an updated SRD for OneD&D. Can you confirm whether or not Wizards is committed to providing an Open Gaming License for OneD&D?
• (16:06) A lot of people are asking about whether or not other things will be put into the Creative Commons, like previous editions of the SRD, any plans for that?
• (17:13) So a lot of people enjoy playing D&D with analog systems, like pencil & paper, printed books, stuff like that - do you think those players have a place in D&D’s future, or do you think there’s a shift to digital that’s happening?
• (17:47) So I know there are a lot of concerns just in general based on the world we live in about a shift to digital with a lot of microtransactions and things like that, is that a valid concern to have over DnDBeyond or the (Wizards) VTT?
• (18:20) Can you tell me about Wizards of the Coast’s goals with regards to third-party VTTs?
• (18:47) I think most people assume you see 3PVTTs as competitors due to the future of your own virtual tabletop being in competition with them.
• (19:08) How much support do you think is planned for homebrew and third-party content?

My favorite parts of this one:

1) Confirmation that OneD&D SRD (if it gets a separate one) will also be CC.
2) Ginny Di looking directly to camera at the "WAS IT A DRAFT OR NOT???" crusaders once and for all (12:49).
3) They will keep making physical product for as long as people keep wanting to buy it.

[JadedDM]

3) They will keep making physical product for as long as people keep wanting to buy it.

They say they will keep making physical products. But as Ginny points out, if they are investing all of their time and money into virtual, then aren't they essentially driving the market there?

[Psyren]

They say they will keep making physical products. But as Ginny points out, if they are investing all of their time and money into virtual, then aren't they essentially driving the market there?

Waiting until the market already prefers digital to start investing in digital would be.... pretty foolish on their part.

[JadedDM]

That's only assuming the market will do that. Remember the videogame industry as been crowing for years now that 'single player is dead' and that 'online only is the future' and yet single-player games dominate and online games generally do not. It's not uncommon for corporations to push things on the people whether they want it or not, and WotC is no different.

Also, I wanted to add, I don't like your implication that Ginny was somehow taking a swipe at the people asking the draft question. Her commentary was far more nuanced than you are making it sound.

"I honestly don't know how much more we can do with this line of questioning. Unless one of the people or publishers who was sent the OGL 1.1 in January shares the actual language from the emails, this just feels like a dead end. Some people are going to believe Wizards is lying no matter what, some people are gonna trust what Kyle just said. Frankly I don't see this as a very productive rabbit hole to dive down. Draft or not, it had been in the works for a long time and it was a terrible license. In my opinion, it shouldn't have been sent out in that state for signing or for feedback."

[Dr.Samurai]

There are many ways in which recent events could be characterized, so "Doing this means they're more likely to do something similar in the future" isn't very specific. Understanding the factors underlying these events seems like it might be helpful for more accurately guessing how future events might be similar.

Not that we can sanely trust a company spokesthing to give us a fully accurate and unbiased understanding of the relevant factors, but that's a different counterpoint from "Intentions don't matter". Personally, I'd recommend comparing this to stuff that WotC has done previously. A single incident on its own is not a long-term pattern of behavior.

Intentions matter insofar as we can be reliably sure of them.

In this new interview just linked, Ginny Di isn't buying the party line that they keep trotting out, and I expect that most people paying attention to this feel the same way. Because it's a pretty fair and reasonable assumption of their intentions. The move on the OGL was for profit alone. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but given how much the 3rd party community and content creators have done to make the game as popular as it is now, it was interpreted as a naked and greedy betrayal. That's a pretty reasonable take. The reasons given of needing to protect the brand from hateful content and avoid NFTs also doesn't pass the smell test for a number of reasons. Pretty reasonable to squint your eyes at that too. Finally, the reaction to all the backlash is a primarily self-serving move, and we can't put a tremendous amount of stock into it to speculate on what they might do going forward. Yes, we can enjoy the fact that 5e is protected now. That's awesome. But it doesn't change what WotC wants to do, and what they tried to do, and how they tried to do it.

It also doesn't change that the people in charge not only didn't get what they want, but had to cede something to the community in order to regain trust. That's incredibly blunderous. As I said before, those people are still there and still in charge.

SO we can't be 100% sure of their intentions. Obviously they are saying that it was all good and we took it the wrong way and blew it out of proportion etc. But I certainly don't think they've done anything to warrant any benefit of the doubt. They've bought themselves time with the srd going to the cc. That's great news for a lot of people. But their motivation there, again, can be easily guessed at, given the movement that grew against them.

2) Ginny Di looking directly to camera at the "WAS IT A DRAFT OR NOT???" crusaders once and for all (12:49).

Crusaders lol.

So do you agree with her that it likely wasn't a draft or if it was it's still shameful that they were parading that around for feedback? Because you appear to be representing this like she dunked on people wondering if it was a draft, which was not the case (at least, not outside of your own head).

[Psyren]

That's only assuming the market will do that.

I think that's a safe assumption, especially if we get another pandemic or variant, but we're allowed to disagree on that.

Also, I wanted to add, I don't like your implication that Ginny was somehow taking a swipe at the people asking the draft question. Her commentary was far more nuanced than you are making it sound.

So do you agree with her that it likely wasn't a draft or if it was it's still shameful that they were parading that around for feedback? Because you appear to be representing this like she dunked on people wondering if it was a draft, which was not the case (at least, not outside of your own head).

I don't think it was a "dunk" or a "swipe." Rather, she's saying that people asking this question* aren't going to get a different answer no matter how many different ways they think of to rephrase it, so at this point you have to decide if it's a dealbreaker or not for you personally and then follow through on that.

*ad nauseam in my view

[EggKookoo]

Also, I wanted to add, I don't like your implication that Ginny was somehow taking a swipe at the people asking the draft question. Her commentary was far more nuanced than you are making it sound.

She literally concluded her statement by saying it didn't matter because it was a terrible decision either way. She was swiping at WotC, if anything.

[Atranen]

They say they will keep making physical products. But as Ginny points out, if they are investing all of their time and money into virtual, then aren't they essentially driving the market there?

I'll believe it when I see it. Signs point to more investment in digital, and that has to come at the expense of something. I doubt they'll pull all physical products. But I do expect to see online only, subscriber only, or subscriber first releases.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll believe it when I see it. Signs point to more investment in digital, and that has to come at the expense of something. I doubt they'll pull all physical products. But I do expect to see online only, subscriber only, or subscriber first releases.

They've definitely pioneered the online-only route with MtG cards. Heck, they've even done it with (small) D&D content releases (the Tortle package never was printed). Will they do it more? Possibly. But yeah, I agree that they'll prioritize/incentivize online purchases and work toward making physical releases the (much more lucrative) special collectors edition type. Or otherwise cut costs (trade paperback format not hardcover? Dunno).

[Psyren]

I'll believe it when I see it. Signs point to more investment in digital, and that has to come at the expense of something. I doubt they'll pull all physical products. But I do expect to see online only, subscriber only, or subscriber first releases.

But "digital first" benefits physical too. It's another avenue to catch errors, issue clarifications and errata, typeset etc. before things are enshrined in print. Even the Giant does it.

They've definitely pioneered the online-only route with MtG cards. Heck, they've even done it with (small) D&D content releases (the Tortle package never was printed). Will they do it more? Possibly. But yeah, I agree that they'll prioritize/incentivize online purchases and work toward making physical releases the (much more lucrative) special collectors edition type. Or otherwise cut costs (trade paperback format not hardcover? Dunno).

^ See, Tortle is a perfect example of why this strategy is good. Something that limited in scope would never have made economic sense to print physically. By the time it did, when they had a critical mass of content to make MPMM, 4 years had passed. I'd much rather have the digital-only small release sooner.

[Atranen]

But "digital first" benefits physical too. It's another avenue to catch errors, issue clarifications and errata, typeset etc. before things are enshrined in print. Even the Giant does it.

The fact that some benefits exist does not mean that the idea is on the whole a good thing. It will help with editing. But it will also mean folks who do not subscribe may be out of luck on the newest content.

The OOTS comics are a different sort of thing, as they started as a digital product that moved to print.

[Tanarii]

They've definitely pioneered the online-only route with MtG cards. Heck, they've even done it with (small) D&D content releases (the Tortle package never was printed). Will they do it more? Possibly. But yeah, I agree that they'll prioritize/incentivize online purchases and work toward making physical releases the (much more lucrative) special collectors edition type. Or otherwise cut costs (trade paperback format not hardcover? Dunno).

Which ignores the entire point of TTRPGs: no electronic devices needed. /grognardgrognard

Reminds me of when someone tried to bring the XCOM board game to a board game day, explaining how cool it was you used a tablet to something something. And it everyone looked at them like they were a crazy person. So we tried it. Sure enough, it entirely missed the point, making things more complicated to figure out and prep, and without adding anything that a normal board game could do.

[EggKookoo]

Which ignores the entire point of TTRPGs: no electronic devices needed. /grognardgrognard

I will say that digital tools can be very helpful in the right circumstances. It's very nice to be able to get a spell description at a click or tap. One of the things adding friction to our table transitioning from 5e to PF2e is the lack of that convenience.

It's not about running the game per se.

[Atranen]

New interview just dropped:

A fascinating statement around 11 minutes here, about why it took so long to respond to the leak. Paraphrased: "there were new issues online being raised minute by minute, and we realized we had to address them with OGL 1.2".

I'm very curious where they're looking for "issues being raised online". Is wizards monitoring any discussion boards regularly for feedback? My guess would have been no, but this implies otherwise.

[Sparky McDibben]

A fascinating statement around 11 minutes here, about why it took so long to respond to the leak. Paraphrased: "there were new issues online being raised minute by minute, and we realized we had to address them with OGL 1.2".

I'm very curious where they're looking for "issues being raised online". Is wizards monitoring any discussion boards regularly for feedback? My guess would have been no, but this implies otherwise.

Hilariously, this OGL effort had been underway for over two years and NOBODY thought to consider any of the points the community raised. JFC.

[Trafalgar]

So Bank of America noticed the OGL Controversy and has given an "Underperform" rating to Hasbro. From a Business Insider article:

"Mainly, Hasbro is attempting to squeeze out as much profit as possible from its Wizards products in the short-term without any thought as to the long-term durability of its brands. And the over monetization is irking customers, according to BofA.

"We remain especially cautious on Hasbro's Wizards segment given its over-monetization of Magic. Wizards recently tried a similar tactic with D&D-proposing changes to its licensing agreement which led to substantial pushback from the community including calls to boycott the D&D movie," BofA explained."

Full Article is here.

[Dr.Samurai]

So Bank of America noticed the OGL Controversy and has given an "Underperform" rating to Hasbro. From a Business Insider article:

"Mainly, Hasbro is attempting to squeeze out as much profit as possible from its Wizards products in the short-term without any thought as to the long-term durability of its brands. And the over monetization is irking customers, according to BofA.

"We remain especially cautious on Hasbro's Wizards segment given its over-monetization of Magic. Wizards recently tried a similar tactic with D&D-proposing changes to its licensing agreement which led to substantial pushback from the community including calls to boycott the D&D movie," BofA explained."

Full Article is here.

I am absolutely shocked at this interpretation of WotC's actions, and to see such anti-corporate sentiments from a bank, of all places.

[Trafalgar]

I am absolutely shocked at this interpretation of WotC's actions, and to see such anti-corporate sentiments from a bank, of all places.

Nothing anticorporate about it. Banks tend to prioritize long term profitability and dividends over short term capital gains. A brokerage company would prefer anything that pushes up the stock price. Though these days, the line between a brokerage company and a bank is blurry at best.

[Psyren]

Hilariously, this OGL effort had been underway for over two years and NOBODY thought to consider any of the points the community raised. JFC.

Kyle stated some people at the table did, but they weren't sufficiently empowered (and that they are now.)

A fascinating statement around 11 minutes here, about why it took so long to respond to the leak. Paraphrased: "there were new issues online being raised minute by minute, and we realized we had to address them with OGL 1.2".

I'm very curious where they're looking for "issues being raised online". Is wizards monitoring any discussion boards regularly for feedback? My guess would have been no, but this implies otherwise.

This shouldn't be surprising; they own and control a forum themselves (D&D Beyond.) They also monitor the official D&D Discord. And a slew of the angry tweets were @-ing the DnDBeyond, D&D, and Wizards of the Coast handles.

[Atranen]

This shouldn't be surprising; they own and control a forum themselves (D&D Beyond.) They also monitor the official D&D Discord. And a slew of the angry tweets were @-ing the DnDBeyond, D&D, and Wizards of the Coast handles.

I've often been told "no one from wizards reads your Twitter/discord/etc complaint", so it's nice to see otherwise.

[Dr.Samurai]

Nothing anticorporate about it. Banks tend to prioritize long term profitability and dividends over short term capital gains. A brokerage company would prefer anything that pushes up the stock price. Though these days, the line between a brokerage company and a bank is blurry at best.

100%

People that were shocked at WotC's actions and predicted their naked attempt at short term profit would be at the long term expense of the community and the brand were labeled as anti-corporate and not understanding how companies/corporations/boards work etc etc etc.

[Psyren]

I've often been told "no one from wizards reads your Twitter/discord/etc complaint", so it's nice to see otherwise.

I still can't imagine who would have thought that, but okay.

100%

People that were shocked at WotC's actions and predicted their naked attempt at short term profit would be at the long term expense of the community and the brand were labeled as anti-corporate and not understanding how companies/corporations/boards work etc etc etc.

They screwed the pooch here, no question. Had they started with 1.2 + higher royalty they might have actually succeeded at getting more if not most of what they wanted.

[Tanarii]

Looks like Kobold Press has caved in:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...test-has-begun!

This makes far more sense than developing their own game from the ground up ... but only after 5.1 SRD was released as CC. So clearly not what the fanfare was originally about, since the fanfare came long before anyone knew that was going to happen. So instead it looks like Kobold Press caving in to do the easy thing. Pretty solid win for WotC in the public relations game, their latest maneuver was successful.

[Atranen]

Looks like Kobold Press has caved in:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...test-has-begun!

This makes far more sense than developing their own game from the ground up ... but only after 5.1 SRD was released as CC. So clearly not what the fanfare was originally about, since the fanfare came long before anyone knew that was going to happen. So instead it looks like Kobold Press caving in to do the easy thing. Pretty solid win for WotC in the public relations game, their latest maneuver was successful.

This is my take on it as well. I'll still probably back the Black Flag offerings, but a 5e fork has less interest now than it might have; unless Wizards really screws up with OneD&D, I'll probably stick with it for most of my games for the sake of accessibility.

[Dalinar]

Looks like Kobold Press has caved in:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...test-has-begun!

This makes far more sense than developing their own game from the ground up ... but only after 5.1 SRD was released as CC. So clearly not what the fanfare was originally about, since the fanfare came long before anyone knew that was going to happen. So instead it looks like Kobold Press caving in to do the easy thing. Pretty solid win for WotC in the public relations game, their latest maneuver was successful.

I'm confused what you think the news is here. PBF was pretty clearly communicated to be 5e-compatible from the start. Likely the CC thing only made that decision easier long after it was already decided.

[Witty Username]

So Bank of America noticed the OGL Controversy and has given an "Underperform" rating to Hasbro. From a Business Insider article:

Bank of America would know alot about losing customers and antagonistic corporate action, wouldn't it.

[Tanarii]

I'm confused what you think the news is here. PBF was pretty clearly communicated to be 5e-compatible from the start. Likely the CC thing only made that decision easier long after it was already decided.

It was originally supposed to be published under Paizo ORC.

So now they've done a switcheroo after WotC released SRD as CC, and instead made a 5e knockoff.

Kobold's announcement that they wouldn't raise the white flag on Jan 30th was when they did raise the white flag, by announcing they were going to make it 5e compatible.

[Witty Username]

It was originally supposed to be published under Paizo ORC. Which means it could not possibly be 5e compatable, because that would have required using the OGL. The entire point was to not do that.

So now they've done a switcheroo after WotC released SRD as CC, and instead made a 5e knockoff.

Kobold's announcement that they wouldn't raise the white flag on Jan 30th was when they did raise the white flag, by announcing they were going to make it 5e compatible.

Seems like the better move in any event, ORC would have all the now problems of the OGL (possibly revokable and what have you) as potential issues in the future. The CC is more stable ground because of the future proofing, and will be more resilient to such nonsense.
Better product for purpose wins, at least for the moment.
--
The 8-D chess theory, was this a move by Wotc to cause controversy? Afterall, if the goal was to get Hasbro to agree to something, plan a leak with disinformation to create a backlash, then Wotc gets greenlit by Hasbro to do damage control, moves to a less restricive lisence which limits Hasbro's short term profit options but gets D&D a more competitive position and some growth potential in the long term.
It would require Wotc to have a single concious thought which dooms the entire theory, but it is interesting given the apparent results.

[Psyren]

I doubt this was all some elaborate plan. More likely the one guy who was yelling "Creative Commons!" in the corner for a decade finally got heard once everyone else was stunned into silence.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
I doubt this was all some elaborate plan.

This.

It’s like the time my cat jumped onto the top of a large cardboard box—except the top flaps had all been folded down, leaving only empty space above an abyss. There was a moment of mad flailing in midair, and then my cat was splayed across the aperture, with each foot balanced precariously on the edge of a side panel.

It was an impressive recovery from near-disaster, and she came out on top, but definitely not the original plan.