Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Brookshw]

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.

Not really, or, at least, necessarily, depends how the license is drafted. Kinda moot though.

Better product for purpose wins, at least for the moment.

Looks like the winner here is WoTC, they get to keep 3PP writing content for their game and the "All Roads Lead to D&D" market they wanted in the first place, we don't get any new approach to game design/mechanics (at least, that's what it looks like so far from the first Black Flag playtest materials).

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.

I would watch that.

[Segev]

Looks like the winner here is WoTC, they get to keep 3PP writing content for their game and the "All Roads Lead to D&D" market they wanted in the first place, we don't get any new approach to game design/mechanics (at least, that's what it looks like so far from the first Black Flag playtest materials).

Pretty much. I think it's a good thing, personally, but for those who see the part I bolded as a downside, remember that nothing prevents anybody from trying these new approaches. The market fracturing over D&D killing itself would have made for some new opportunity to be "heard," but innovation has been ongoing with a lot of different kinds of games out there. FATE, PBtA, and other such things exist. I'm not a fan, personally, but they're definitely out there.

It is unlikely that PBF or anything in the ORC would be more innovative than PF2 was, though. This isn't a problem, either; D&D-ish games that try to focus mechanics differently and try new things with the fantasy RPG formula are still good. And there's still room for them.

I would argue that SAGA edition d20 STar Wars was pretty innovative, and I think we may see more things like that with the 5.1 SRD being on CC and thus even more accessible.

PBF itself will either be something that gets watered down to a D&D 5e clone with a few serial numbers filed off, or will be at least that innovative, too. And, being 5e compatible, it'll see more play than it would've if D&D crumbled and PBF and other projects sprang up to try to fill the void, simply due to being able to latch onto existing 5e games without interruption.

[Psyren]

Kobold is prominent enough that if they come up with a fun race or subclass or spell of some kind I'll have a decent shot of getting my DM to approve it in our 5e/1DnD game. I might even throw them a couple of dollars in appreciation.

[Brookshw]

Pretty much. I think it's a good thing, personally, but for those who see the part I bolded as a downside, remember that nothing prevents anybody from trying these new approaches.

While technically correct, the shift does change the incentives for 3PP to be releasing content using diverse mechanics, i.e., its one thing for a mass number of publishers to release content under a new system, that's immediate market visibility, its another for individual small publishers to go it alone. I suspect the shift in incentives will be actively discouraging for most, as will the lack of support in overcoming initial barriers to entry which otherwise could have been born by the..consortium?

But I'll still root for the small publisher who decides to make a go at it.

[MonochromeTiger]

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.

No offense but that really makes no sense, even trying to look at it from the perspective of the standard detached Marketing-Exec-Business-Bro. It's kind of on par with the comment from a while ago of "what if they did this so they could bash ORC and others for not also going Creative Commons?"

I mean for it to work you'd need somebody to seriously think through a chain of events consisting of:
Step 1: make decision about very important thing we've sworn up and down we'd never get rid of making everyone hate us.
Step 2: make inflammatory comment doubling down and trying to justify how people just don't get it.
Step 3: put somebody, specifically somebody on the digital side instead of in the part people are really concerned about, in the path of the oncoming bus of community outrage to do damage control.
Step 4: backpedal hard with the realization of "oh wait we make money either way and this gives us less accountability.
Step 5: retain the people we probably would've retained anyway and be beloved by all and/or point out that the safety net agreements that are being left in the hands of people actually obligated not to break them are more restrictive than our desperate backpedaling. Cue "who's the real monster here?"

Even as a purely theoretical situation trying to ascribe way more forethought to some hypothetical person in WotC/Hasbro it comes across as the kind of terribly written super genius nonsense you find in comics and anime where the only way it isn't completely self defeating garbage is if they read the script ahead of time and skipped to the part that says "you win so do whatever you want."

[Psyren]

No. A specific open license for TTRPGs will be far superior to CC, provided it is protected properly against abuse by a for-profit company being the sole holder / interpreter.

Honest question - why? It seems to me that CC licenses have the biggest advantage by far of any license, i.e. already having been tested in court (in multiple jurisdictions, no less.) At least, if either side is trying to base their livelihood on it and looking for comparative certainty.

The SRD release to CC was clearly a direct response to the announcement of the intended OpenRPG license. And they've achieved the goal, keeping at least one large and visible 3PP that had signed on to ORC and a new game instead continuing to make 5e content.

No argument here, that's a win for WotC. But I consider it a successful saving throw rather than a machination.

[thethird]

Honest question - why? It seems to me that CC licenses have the biggest advantage by far of any license, i.e. already having been tested in court (in multiple jurisdictions, no less.) At least, if either side is trying to base their livelihood on it and looking for comparative certainty.

In my honest (non-lawyer) opinion, there has been controversy over words in the SRD released under CC such as Beholder, or Strahd von Zarovick. That's because the CC license doesn't allow to differentiate what's CC and what isn't (everything is CC within a work if the work is CC). The OGL does that, pretty easily. That's a pro to the OGL (which is a license designed from the ground up to be used in the particular scenario at hand).

Another pro, there is a LOT more material licensed under OGL than under CC. If you want to create something OGL gives you more tools.

There is another pro (tied to the above), the OGL self replicates for what's OGL content. That means that down the line you have a clear understanding of how you can use it. With the chosen CC license, by intent and design, it doesn't self replicate. Which is perfectly fine, but it makes the organic 3pp situation in which one keeps adding to others work more complicated. So by publishing under the OGL you increase the tools available for everyone by design, publishing under CC doesn't have that.

Of course any publisher can pick any route they want. I see a strong merit on the OGL, which let's me keep fluff and crunch separate within one specific book and that gives me more toys to play with.

[NichG]

In my honest (non-lawyer) opinion, there has been controversy over words in the SRD released under CC such as Beholder, or Strahd von Zarovick. That's because the CC license doesn't allow to differentiate what's CC and what isn't (everything is CC within a work if the work is CC). The OGL does that, pretty easily. That's a pro to the OGL (which is a license designed from the ground up to be used in the particular scenario at hand).

Another pro, there is a LOT more material licensed under OGL than under CC. If you want to create something OGL gives you more tools.

There is another pro (tied to the above), the OGL self replicates for what's OGL content. That means that down the line you have a clear understanding of how you can use it. With the chosen CC license, by intent and design, it doesn't self replicate. Which is perfectly fine, but it makes the organic 3pp situation in which one keeps adding to others work more complicated. So by publishing under the OGL you increase the tools available for everyone by design, publishing under CC doesn't have that.

Of course any publisher can pick any route they want. I see a strong merit on the OGL, which let's me keep fluff and crunch separate within one specific book and that gives me more toys to play with.

But you can use CC material (at least, this CC version) in an OGL product if you wanted to, so it's not like you're stuck in a CC ecosystem by choosing to use CC stuff. And you could always make your own thing CC-SA if you want the infectious property...

[NichG]

That's not my understanding.

WotC put the SRD under CC-BY, not CC-SA.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not my understanding.

WotC put the SRD under CC-BY, not CC-SA.

NichG is correct--CC-BY is the most "open" of the CC licenses. You can take something that's CC-BY and include it in a proprietary (ie all rights reserved) product as long as you give proper attribution. So you can also include it in any less restrictive license that doesn't have stupidly-viral terms. You could not do that with CC-SA.

CC-BY is basically "do whatever the heck you want, as long as you include the attribution clause". Very much different than, say, the software AGPL license.

[thethird]

But you can use CC material (at least, this CC version) in an OGL product if you wanted to, so it's not like you're stuck in a CC ecosystem by choosing to use CC stuff. And you could always make your own thing CC-SA if you want the infectious property...

That's indeed correct. But that's not a demerit of the OGL (nor of the CC license). You can use material from both concurrently.

Still I was trying to point the merits of one on relation to the other.

[False God]

Pretty much. I think it's a good thing, personally, but for those who see the part I bolded as a downside, remember that nothing prevents anybody from trying these new approaches. The market fracturing over D&D killing itself would have made for some new opportunity to be "heard," but innovation has been ongoing with a lot of different kinds of games out there.

I'm really not sure how you can write the first sentence, and then follow it up with the second, aside from the usual neo-capitalist jingoism.

A market dominated with a singular product is exactly what prevents new approaches from being tried.

A diverse market with a selection of products and approaches is a much healthier market. It doesn't mean the market is fractured, it means people can choose chocolate, vanilla, or neopolitan. Single-product-market dominance leads to purchaser apathy. If your choice is "McDonalds" or nothing then some buyers are going to choose nothing. And that number will increase the longer McDonalds and McDonalds-like are the only options available to them.

This is especially important to consider in a hobby where you don't have to re-buy the product. Once I've bought 5E, if there's no other games with notable products, player-bases and marketshare, then I'm done spending my money. The market should be diverse enough that you should have to make a real choice between buying 5E or WWWoD, or whatever and that once you've bought a product, you can go back and buy your second choice later.

Monopolies aren't healthy for markets. Regardless of if they are discrete monopolies where one company owns everything, or effective monopolies where everything is designed in the same mold of a singular product.

[Segev]

I'm really not sure how you can write the first sentence, and then follow it up with the second, aside from the usual neo-capitalist jingoism.

A market dominated with a singular product is exactly what prevents new approaches from being tried.

A diverse market with a selection of products and approaches is a much healthier market. It doesn't mean the market is fractured, it means people can choose chocolate, vanilla, or neopolitan. Single-product-market dominance leads to purchaser apathy. If your choice is "McDonalds" or nothing then some buyers are going to choose nothing. And that number will increase the longer McDonalds and McDonalds-like are the only options available to them.

This is especially important to consider in a hobby where you don't have to re-buy the product. Once I've bought 5E, if there's no other games with notable products, player-bases and marketshare, then I'm done spending my money. The market should be diverse enough that you should have to make a real choice between buying 5E or WWWoD, or whatever and that once you've bought a product, you can go back and buy your second choice later.

Monopolies aren't healthy for markets. Regardless of if they are discrete monopolies where one company owns everything, or effective monopolies where everything is designed in the same mold of a singular product.

It isn't a monopoly. If it were, I'd agree with you that it's unhealthy. But a monopoly keeps competition from playing in the market.

"The market fracturing" may have been a bad choice of words; I was using "market" as a synonym for "the customer base," and they're not quite the same thing. The customer base fracturing - i.e. breaking apart as they look in different directions where they once were focused on the same thing - would mean that the next-biggest publishers out there would have a chance at snapping up the primary attention of the various customers who now are looking for something to replace D&D. But anybody who thinks that you can only play one game system, period, is going to be wrong.

Innovation still can occur. I doubt, honestly, that even if WotC had fallen completely and D&D had somehow been nuked from orbit to the point that nobody would ever play any D&D-stamped game again, that the successors that the fragmented customer base would turn to would be, by and large, the indies. They'd be the next-biggest. White Wolf, if they're still functioning on anything but life support and a dwindling playerbase, would make a new push with Exalted 3e, just like they did when 4e came out. Paizo and Kobold Press would make their D&D-alikes as attempts to grab the "well, I lost my D&D" customers. FATE would see a small boost, but I suspect FATE has already seen that boost, and wouldn't have seen much more. Substitute any other "unusual mechanics" game for FATE, as I will say the same for each of them, to the degree they're already popular relative to the others.

Does that clarify how I can say all the things in my quote?

I'm not sure where you get "neo-capitalist jingoism" from it. I am thoroughly capitalist in the old school sense. I also am a fan of D&D, and not a huge fan of the direction Paizo has taken PF2. So I'm glad that a product I like (5e) is still supported and likely to get more third party support in the future.

[EggKookoo]

It isn't a monopoly. If it were, I'd agree with you that it's unhealthy. But a monopoly keeps competition from playing in the market.

Indeed, the mere existence of the OGL over the past few decades, and how it's been so freely used by 3rd parties, suggests WotC is less a monopoly and weirdly more like a utility. At least in practical functioning.

And personally, as someone who has played TTRPGs for years and years and years, and only a tiny fraction of that playtime being D&D, I have trouble understanding the concept that there's only one option for people. Sure, D&D dominates the market, but it was never really that hard to find other games even before the convenience of Amazon came along.

[NichG]

As I understand it that doesn't make a difference.

Regardless, if mixing is allowed it'd certainly make it a damn sight harder to properly distinguish what in the product is covered by which license.

Not any moreso than normal. Like, if I mention Hamlet in an article I hold the copyright to, that doesn't mean I own Hamlet now, and its not particularly confusing to anyone about whether I own Hamlet. If I then license that article out under CC-BY, that doesn't mean that now anyone publishing a version of Hamlet has to credit me - only if they're using text from my article that wasn't in Hamlet. So if I release something under OGL that uses CC-BY material, everything that I wrote that can't be drawn from another source is under OGL, not CC-BY; but I have to respect the terms of CC-BY to use the CC-BY material (e.g. I have to acknowledge the bits that are from elsewhere and credit the one who wrote them).

[Psyren]

The Hasbro/WotC Earnings Call happened a little earlier this week, led by Hasbro CEO Chris Cox (intentionally misspelled to stay on the right side of the board filter) and Hasbro CFO Deb Thomas; they briefly addressed the business side of the OGL stuff. Motley Fool has the full transcript for those who like to be bored with financial analysis, but I pulled out these D&D-related tidbits folks here might find interesting:

Chris Cox -- Chief Executive Officer
..
Hasbro Pulse was our fastest-growing channel, increasing 70% on robust fan demand across premiere industry entertainment properties. D&D Beyond delivered user growth in excess of 20% since we acquired the service in May of 2022 and, as forecasted, was EPS accretive in Q4.
...
Our growth in Wizards was not without challenges. We navigated significant supply chain disruptions that, while resolved for 2023, compressed our set release schedules in 2022, particularly in Q4. We were too aggressive in some of our pricing assumptions, notably, our 30th anniversary edition of Magic, and pulled back on available supply, impacting Q4 results. Lastly, on D&D, we misfired on updating our Open Game License, a key vehicle for creators to share or commercialize their D&D-inspired content.

Our best practice is to work collaboratively with our community, gather feedback, and build experiences that inspire players and creators alike. It's how we make our games among the best in the industry. We have since course corrected and are delivering a strong outcome for the community in game.
...
...
Jason Haas -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- Analyst

Thank you. That's helpful. And then you mentioned that -- I think you described it as a "misfiring" on some of the proposed changes to OGL. Was there any sort of financial impact to that in the first quarter? I think that-I guess the controversy is kind of behind us at this point. But just curious if there's anything to look out for in 1Q.

Chris Cox -- Chief Executive Officer

Yeah, I mean, we had some -- we had some subscription cancellations, but they were comparatively minor in the totality of both the D&D P&L and the Wizards P&L. You know, of course, we take anything like that seriously. We're in contact with the people who canceled. And, you know, in general, what we're finding is a lot of them are very open to restarting their subscriptions.

D&D Beyond is a great platform. It's a really good value, and it's something that's been a good growth factor for us. You know, we find it -- we feel, you know, about eight months into owning the asset, it's been a really good purchase for us. It was EPS accretive within six months of joining the company, and we had over 20% user growth through the end of 2022.

And the revenue growth was roughly commensurate with the user growth as well. So, you know, I think D&D should be on pace for a healthy 2023 with everything we have going on.

Jason Haas -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- Analyst

Great. Thank you.

[KorvinStarmast]

...Hasbro CEO Chris Cox... EPS accretive

I love it when he talks dirty financial like that.

[Witty Username]

No offense

None taken, it was mostly an attempt at humor, I don't have blue text on my phone which limits my sarcasm options. That and its more a comment to my observation that people are very willing to read all sorts of stuff as malicious ploting on Wotc's part, when, at least based on my experience of the mtg stuff, incompetence is the only certainty.

The non-humor element is that it is plain weird to me that the end result is not some compromise with the original plan, but abandon entirely, and make a move in the opposite direction of the original plan. My best guess is they had competing plans caught up in committee or something.

[KorvinStarmast]

at least based on my experience of the mtg stuff, incompetence is the only certainty.

The old adage 'don't assume malice when incompetence / stupidity is in play' seems to apply here.

My best guess is they had competing plans caught up in committee or something.

The impression I get is that there were "inside WotC" persons very much against the path forward, and they were sources of some of the leaks. That's a risky move that might have cost someone a job, so I am guessing that this was a position that was very strongly felt.

[Beleriphon]

The old adage 'don't assume malice when incompetence / stupidity is in play' seems to apply here.
The impression I get is that there were "inside WotC" persons very much against the path forward, and they were sources of some of the leaks. That's a risky move that might have cost someone a job, so I am guessing that this was a position that was very strongly felt.

New Coke versus Coca-Cola comes to mind. "We are not that dumb and we are not that smart." - Donald Keough

[Oramac]

Just throwing another Kyle Brink interview out there. This time it was with Bob World Builder.

Overall, more of the same. But there was one really interesting tidbit near the end. Apparently they are aware that Dark Sun is incredibly popular, but it "is problematic" as far as publishing goes. Sounds like a perfect place for a 3PP to jump in.

[KorvinStarmast]

Apparently they are aware that Dark Sun is incredibly popular, but it "is problematic" as far as publishing goes.

That term has gotten overused and abused to the point that I am getting tired of people using it as a throwaway.

[Oramac]

That term has gotten overused and abused to the point that I am getting tired of people using it as a throwaway.

Yea. I think at this point fans of Dark Sun are well aware of it's "problems" and probably don't care. Personally, I'd love to see it published, problems and all. But I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

[Brookshw]

Yea. I think at this point fans of Dark Sun are well aware of it's "problems" and probably don't care. Personally, I'd love to see it published, problems and all. But I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

I mean, it's a post apocalyptic s#@! hole, which was kinda the point, pretty much a setting where evil had won, that was kinda it's thing (and I loved it for it). Totally understand though no one's chomping at the bit to revive a setting steeped in genocide and slavery, they could take that out but it'd gut the setting in a lot of ways

[skyth]

See, I have no problem with Genocide and Slavery existing in a game world. D&D has a unique way of dealing with it - The alignment of people doing it is Evil. There's nothing wrong with a world where Evil has won and the adventurer's are there to try to make it better.

The issue exists when this sort of thing is not shown to be evil.

I mean, technically Ravenloft has kind of the same issues.

[Oramac]

See, I have no problem with Genocide and Slavery existing in a game world. D&D has a unique way of dealing with it - The alignment of people doing it is Evil. There's nothing wrong with a world where Evil has won and the adventurer's are there to try to make it better.

The issue exists when this sort of thing is not shown to be evil.

I mean, technically Ravenloft has kind of the same issues.

Agreed. Generally speaking, this is my issue with all of the "problems" put forth for any of the settings/races/species/whatever over the last few years. As the DM and/or adventure writer, it's my job to play the bad guys. Therefore, I must make the Bad Guys do Bad Things. Else why are the heroes even there?

These "problems", in my view, are not problems with the system. They are problems with the players (DM included) not properly communicating their expectations for a game. I truly believe a proper, official rule on hosting a Session Zero would do far more good in curtailing these problems than any amount of rewrites and publishing changes.

[Psyren]

That term has gotten overused and abused to the point that I am getting tired of people using it as a throwaway.

I'd say it's less a throwaway than it is a catch-all for all the myriad things he probably didn't want to bring up at the tail end of an unrelated interview.

See, I have no problem with Genocide and Slavery existing in a game world. D&D has a unique way of dealing with it - The alignment of people doing it is Evil. There's nothing wrong with a world where Evil has won and the adventurer's are there to try to make it better.

The issue exists when this sort of thing is not shown to be evil.

It's not that simple though. The "Evil" tag is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the publisher to officially sanction whatever content they want.

Sounds like a perfect place for a 3PP to jump in.

This is indeed the best solution. And hell, you might even get some of the most beloved creators for that IP if not any of the originals (who are still around.)

[EggKookoo]

It's not that simple though. The "Evil" tag is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the publisher to officially sanction whatever content they want.

You forgot the "for me" qualifier.

[skyth]

Labeling the behavior as evil is actually the opposite of sanctioning content. It's saying that there is something wrong with it.

Granted, one of the things that I wouldn't want included in an official (Or really, any) content is sexual assault, but that's because it can be triggering for people. And really, any gratuitous sexual thing would make me uncomfortable.

Stuff like torture could exist as long as it's not gratuitous - mentioning the torture is fine. Describing it in detail is not.

[Psyren]

Labeling the behavior as evil is actually the opposite of sanctioning content. It's saying that there is something wrong with it.

But not so wrong it kept them from publishing it and profiting from it, which I suspect is what he was getting at. Though only Kyle himself can definitively say what he meant by that.

You forgot the "for me" qualifier.

Where would I put that in a statement that had nothing to do with me?