Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Psyren]

But as I noted a number of DnD "like" games have been very good sellers, been compared to Baldurs gate without claiming to be DnD. I saw DnD comparisons to dragons age (also why I did not buy dragons age), which isn't DnD. I have seen Planescape compared to non-DnD properties. As I would suggest, Balfurs gate probably benefited TTRPGs more than DnD helped mske Baldur's gate successful, a lot of BG fans have never played AD&D. That is, DnD might have been good for BG n the very short term, in the long term, it was a good game, so even if you aren't a DnD fan, you will enjoy it.

DnD is popular, but that popularity likely will wane, we are closer to a high than a low.

I'm sorry but you're just mistaken about this.

Dragon Age was successful because it was developed and produced by, at the time (and possibly even still today, though companies like CDPR and Bethesda and Larian have gained considerable ground since then), the most well-known western RPG maker in the entire industry. Of course it would have gotten noticed by RPG fans whether it used the OGL or not; Bioware didn't need it, and to the extent that they did gain a reputation as great D&D-style RPG-makers, that came from their custom licenses with WotC that allowed them to use famous Forgotten Realms locations/characters/monsters, not the OGL (which explicitly doesn't).

Kingmaker meanwhile was created by a relatively unknown player (Owlcat) with the backing of a AAA billion-dollar publisher that was entering the genre for the first time (Deep Silver was previously known for games like Saints Row and Dead Island, not anything D&D-like.) Being able to wrap their creation in Pathfinder and the OGL was a win for them. And lest you think it was purely the Pathfinder name that got people's attention, I point you to Pathfinder's sole attempt to make a PF computer game that didn't use OGL mechanics - the failed MMO Pathfinder Online from Goblinworks. The moment people heard that game wouldn't play like Pathfinder the tabletop game, and would be more like a WoW or LOTRO clone, it rapidly died on the vine and is in limbo to this day.

TL;DR the OGL allowed two unknowns in the CRPG industry, one of whom has pockets nearly as deep as Hasbro's themselves, to shatter sales records without needing to make any kind of business deal with the IP-holder whose license their work was based on. And that's fine, they didn't do anything illegal. But expecting WotC to see that and say "yep, the OGL is working as intended, no changes needed" is beyond unrealistic. Did they go too far with 1.1, absolutely - but are they wrong for slamming on the brakes from a fiduciary standpoint, absolutely not.

Do you have a more specific statement to offer? My point is that a number of people, e.g. in this community, have expressed displeasure with OneD&D, to the extent that we shouldn't expect everyone to switch to it out of love for its mechanics.

They can't please everyone, nor should they try.

Of course they can. But the fact that they have to shows OneD&D isn't offering as much as coercing.

Yes, and that is their right to do so from where I'm sitting (though we won't know for sure until the courts weigh in, so I'll stop there.)

I could believe them doing it at some point--say, 5+ years--in the future. But they won't until their walled garden approach is shown to be a failure. I've remarked more in the D&DBeyond thread, but I expect it to be a success (for them).

We seem to be aligned.

[Atranen]

They can't please everyone, nor should they try.

Yes, and that is their right to do so from where I'm sitting (though we won't know for sure until the courts weigh in, so I'll stop there.)

Agreed and agreed; but we disagree about who they ought to please, and (perhaps) whether 'right' implies 'ought'.

It's also their right to stop publishing all D&D material and to say 'hey, we think this is a silly hobby, you should go outside'.

[Rynjin]

I And lest you think it was purely the Pathfinder name that got people's attention, I point you to Pathfinder's sole attempt to make a PF computer game that didn't use OGL mechanics - the failed MMO Pathfinder Online from Goblinworks. The moment people heard that game wouldn't play like Pathfinder the tabletop game, and would be more like a WoW or LOTRO clone, it rapidly died on the vine and is in limbo to this day.

This is a pretty gross misrepresentation of the issue with Pathfinder Online. That was a problem of mismanagement from top to bottom, one that I think Lisa Stevens learned from when negotiating with Owlcat and Deep Silver to publish Kingmaker for that matter.

Pathfinder Online was marketed poorly (read; not at all) and "lead developed" by a known industry grifter who was just there to make a quick buck at Paizo's expense.

The small audience doesn't actually matter as far as MMO development goes. I've seen games launch with and persist for years if not DECADES with a smaller audience than what backed and tried to Play pathfinder Online (see: Mortal Online as an example). The issue is that the game was never completed, and likely never INTENDED to be completed by Goblinworks; it was just meant to be a moneysink that eventually Paizo wised up about and stopped dumping cash into.

[ToranIronfinder]

I'm sorry but you're just mistaken about this.

Dragon Age was successful because it was developed and produced by, at the time (and possibly even still today, though companies like CDPR and Bethesda and Larian have gained considerable ground since then), the most well-known western RPG maker in the entire industry. Of course it would have gotten noticed by RPG fans whether it used the OGL or not; Bioware didn't need it, and to the extent that they did gain a reputation as great D&D-style RPG-makers, that came from their custom licenses with WotC that allowed them to use famous Forgotten Realms locations/characters/monsters, not the OGL (which explicitly doesn't).

Kingmaker meanwhile was created by a relatively unknown player (Owlcat) with the backing of a AAA billion-dollar publisher that was entering the genre for the first time (Deep Silver was previously known for games like Saints Row and Dead Island, not anything D&D-like.) Being able to wrap their creation in Pathfinder and the OGL was a win for them. And lest you think it was purely the Pathfinder name that got people's attention, I point you to Pathfinder's sole attempt to make a PF computer game that didn't use OGL mechanics - the failed MMO Pathfinder Online from Goblinworks. The moment people heard that game wouldn't play like Pathfinder the tabletop game, and would be more like a WoW or LOTRO clone, it rapidly died on the vine and is in limbo to this day.

Kingmaker, no idea, but as I said, every isometric designed RPG in a fantasy setting gets compared to Baldur's gate in their marketing including non-DnD systems, many of which are successful and have nothing to do with the OGL. The video gamers I know don't really care about DnD or the OGL. But going around in circles and getting boring so . . . . Out on this point, other than to note, most games seem to succeed or fail on their merits, not on the OGL.

As to Pathfinder the people I know who were interested didn't abandon it for this reason, but they again were MMO players who didn't do TTRPGs. Likely if TTRPG players are your base for a videogame, ad was true of that project, your base is too small, DDO has never been a market leader. Also as to timing, MMOs were on the wane during the time oathfinder online was.floated. DnD isn't as big outside in the long term of the TTRPG community as you seem to think.

And even inside, the TTRPG, high fantasy of the DnD variety gets very stale, urban fantasy, which DnD has never done well, may be the next major TTRPG competitors, and scifi games may make a comeback and eat into WOTC again, and D20 doesn't really do these settings well either.

[Psyren]

Agreed and agreed; but we disagree about who they ought to please, and (perhaps) whether 'right' implies 'ought'.

It's also their right to stop publishing all D&D material and to say 'hey, we think this is a silly hobby, you should go outside'.

They do have that right, and it's not in question (i.e. nobody can force them to make more D&D if they don't want to, or force them to stop making D&D if they do want to) so I have no dispute there. I'm debating the rights that are in question.

This is a pretty gross misrepresentation of the issue with Pathfinder Online. That was a problem of mismanagement from top to bottom, one that I think Lisa Stevens learned from when negotiating with Owlcat and Deep Silver to publish Kingmaker for that matter.

Pathfinder Online was marketed poorly (read; not at all) and "lead developed" by a known industry grifter who was just there to make a quick buck at Paizo's expense.

The small audience doesn't actually matter as far as MMO development goes. I've seen games launch with and persist for years if not DECADES with a smaller audience than what backed and tried to Play pathfinder Online (see: Mortal Online as an example). The issue is that the game was never completed, and likely never INTENDED to be completed by Goblinworks; it was just meant to be a moneysink that eventually Paizo wised up about and stopped dumping cash into.

None of this affects my main point - the Pathfinder name alone is not enough to guarantee success on a video game project. Positioning their game as "the next Baldur's Gate/NWN", even in a wink-nudge-we-didn't-say-that-ourselves manner, was still a clear benefit to them.

Kingmaker, no idea, but as I said, every isometric designed RPG in a fantasy setting gets compared to Baldur's gate in their marketing including non-DnD systems, many of which are successful and have nothing to do with the OGL. The video gamers I know don't really care about DnD or the OGL. But going around in circles and getting boring so . . . . Out on this point, other than to note, most games seem to succeed or fail on their merits, not on the OGL.

They do - but being able to lift not just the mechanics but their very expression wholesale/in large swathes from the SRD was to Owlcat's benefit. It guaranteed free buzz, an easy learning curve for the tabletop crowd, and ultimately, organic word of mouth promotion that a run of the mill isometric CRPG would not have gotten.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
This is a pretty gross misrepresentation of the issue with Pathfinder Online. That was a problem of mismanagement from top to bottom, one that I think Lisa Stevens learned from when negotiating with Owlcat and Deep Silver to publish Kingmaker for that matter.

…The issue is that the game was never completed, and likely never INTENDED to be completed by Goblinworks; it was just meant to be a moneysink that eventually Paizo wised up about and stopped dumping cash into.

Do you have any more information on all this?

[NichG]

They do have that right, and it's not in question (i.e. nobody can force them to make more D&D if they don't want to, or force them to stop making D&D if they do want to) so I have no dispute there. I'm debating the rights that are in question.

They can have the right to making D&D as horrible as they might want to. But at the same time, people have the right to collectively decide to punish them for doing so via social means such as collectively moving to other platforms, disparaging the company publically, boycotting their products, actively focusing efforts to compete against WotC's desired goals rather than just doing their own business passively, etc. And to the extent that people have been invited to be stakeholders in D&D via open-ended promises like the OGL - in the sense that they've made business decisions based on those promises - its even entirely reasonable for them to seek to punish WotC for reneging on those promises even when its harmful on the balance to their own immediate interests.

Showing that a community is collectively willing to take some losses in order to punish someone for reneging on promises makes it so that promises - including their spirit - are more likely to be kept in the future, even if there might exist ways to entirely legally break them.

The storm of bad PR and people echoing that is an example of the workings of a mechanism by which small independents can protect themselves from decisions by fiat by larger actors.

[Atranen]

They do have that right, and it's not in question (i.e. nobody can force them to make more D&D if they don't want to, or force them to stop making D&D if they do want to) so I have no dispute there. I'm debating the rights that are in question.

Yes, and my point is that question is not the important one. Whether or not they have the right to do something is a legal question that we can't (and that I have no desire to) get into. The interesting question in my view is what the consequences of them exercising that right are--as stewards of the game or as people who care about TTRPGs. If their concerns as a corporation go against the concerns a good 'steward of the game' would have, that's something worth worrying about.

And those concerns clearly are opposed. A 'steward of the game' is not worried about someone forking off an old version for their own use. A corporation needs to coerce everyone to adopt the new standard so they can keep selling subscriptions (and books).

It may be the corporation's right to do so. But we need to be clear-sighted about the fact that what they're doing will harm the game, and why.

EDIT: @NichG excellent post, the question is about how we as a community ought to act in response to an organization whose interests do not align with ours.

[Unoriginal]

But expecting WotC to see that and say "yep, the OGL is working as intended, no changes needed" is beyond unrealistic.

WotC saw that happening and said "yep, the OGL is working as intended, no changes needed" for two decades.

How was it "beyond unrealistic" to have expected them to keep doing what they've been doing for 22 years?

[warty goblin]

Right. One obvious flaw in the OGL from a corporate point of view is that it makes Wizards compete on quality. It's much better to compete on brand recognition, marketing, and more or less just owning the entire space. Wizards clearly has a dominant position there, which obviously helps for selling D&D 5E. Bit the continued existence of the OGL allows for either another 4th edition/Pathfinder situation, or other cases where they lose market share to similar but better products.


So it makes total sense to me why they want to shut that possibility down. However, I frankly give zero craps about benefitting Hasbro shareholders, and see no reason to carry any water for corporate rentseeking done in their name. From a consumer point of view retracting the OGL is entirely bad, precisely because it positions Wizards to not have to compete on quality, and I'm better served by a competitive marketplace.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right. One obvious flaw in the OGL from a corporate point of view is that it makes Wizards compete on quality. It's much better to compete on brand recognition, marketing, and more or less just owning the entire space. Wizards clearly has a dominant position there, which obviously helps for selling D&D 5E. Bit the continued existence of the OGL allows for either another 4th edition/Pathfinder situation, or other cases where they lose market share to similar but better products.


So it makes total sense to me why they want to shut that possibility down. However, I frankly give zero craps about benefitting Hasbro shareholders, and see no reason to carry any water for corporate rentseeking done in their name. From a consumer point of view retracting the OGL is entirely bad, precisely because it positions Wizards to not have to compete on quality, and I'm better served by a competitive marketplace.

This. Very much this. If WotC thought they had a winning product, they'd not bother with this (because of the obvious backlash potential) and just compete on the merits. But they don't think they can. Or worse, don't even want to try. And that makes me sad, as someone who cares about the space and the game. Monopoly power does not better products make.

[ToranIronfinder]

They do - but being able to lift not just the mechanics but their very expression wholesale/in large swathes from the SRD was to Owlcat's benefit. It guaranteed free buzz, an easy learning curve for the tabletop crowd, and ultimately, organic word of mouth promotion that a run of the mill isometric CRPG would not have gotten.

Considering how much of the industry has always engaged from borrowing, not so sure. TTRPG crowds are a very small component of video game marketing these days, maybe in the 80s, but even then Bards tale and Wizardry were better than a lot of SSI prooducts. The OGL 1.0a is ultimately a move away from frivolous lawsuits. Kind of hard to justify sueing someone for borrowing something like a.mind flayer or a displacer beast, when in point of fact these are things that TSR borrowed and relabled from various literary sources. Borrowing often without attribution has been the entire basis of the industry, including OD&D (as the old Hobbit fiasco demonstrates).

Though this does raise a question on the OGL that I'm not seeing answered though it is regerenced. Should there be a difference in the OGL between pure mechanics and lore? Considering class systems almost always have had lore types of connections? The mechanics of DND is far less unique to WOTC's IP (as they bear similarities to TSRs old competitor's mechanics) than say the Realms.

[Rynjin]

Do you have any more information on all this?

The source is DEEPEST FORUM LORE spread across both Paizo's own site and the official Goblinworks forums, and hard to find the bits and pieces since they were gathered as they happened, and the Goblinworks forums IIRC no longer exist.

Mostly because Goblinworks itself basically no longer exists? I'm pretty sure Paizo still owns the company name, but literally nobody works there anymore, they laid all of them off.

[Psyren]

Considering how much of the industry has always engaged from borrowing, not so sure. TTRPG crowds are a very small component of video game marketing these days, maybe in the 80s, but even then Bards tale and Wizardry were better than a lot of SSI prooducts. The OGL 1.0a is ultimately a move away from frivolous lawsuits. Kind of hard to justify sueing someone for borrowing something like a.mind flayer or a displacer beast, when in point of fact these are things that TSR borrowed and relabled from various literary sources. Borrowing often without attribution has been the entire basis of the industry, including OD&D (as the old Hobbit fiasco demonstrates).

Though this does raise a question on the OGL that I'm not seeing answered though it is regerenced. Should there be a difference in the OGL between pure mechanics and lore? Considering class systems almost always have had lore types of connections? The mechanics of DND is far less unique to WOTC's IP (as they bear similarities to TSRs old competitor's mechanics) than say the Realms.

D&D setting lore, mindflayers and beholders are explicitly not covered under any OGL. Even if they left 1.0a alone completely, you could not use it to make a game containing those element.

As for mechanics, again, not getting into that discussion as interpreting exactly where that line is drawn between mechanics and expression will require a legal judgement that we couldn't give here even if the mods allowed it (which they have not.)

people have the right to collectively decide to punish them for doing so via social means such as collectively moving to other platforms, disparaging the company publically, boycotting their products, actively focusing efforts to compete against WotC's desired goals rather than just doing their own business passively, etc.

I never said people didn't.

WotC saw that happening and said "yep, the OGL is working as intended, no changes needed" for two decades.

How was it "beyond unrealistic" to have expected them to keep doing what they've been doing for 22 years?

The Deep Silver thing didn't happen "22 years ago" - it happened in 2018, and then again in 2021. That's a sea change they have every justification to react to, and something that, even if the original framers of the OGL explicitly considered, is not something they did nearly a good enough job of spelling out.

This. Very much this. If WotC thought they had a winning product, they'd not bother with this (because of the obvious backlash potential) and just compete on the merits. But they don't think they can. Or worse, don't even want to try. And that makes me sad, as someone who cares about the space and the game. Monopoly power does not better products make.

I find this logic specious because their concern is not the quality of the tabletop game (which they have said the OGL will remain applicable to), it's subsidizing competitors in other markets like AAA video game publishers. The current OGL is badly written in that respect.

Moreover, it's not even that they don't want anyone making D&D video games. Clearly they do, as Larian's current license to make BG3 proves. They just want to make sure those licenses are fit for purpose rather than using the OGL, which is a very poor tool for licensing software development at the end of the day.

Again - protecting Green Ronin, Dreamscarred Press, Ghostfire Gaming, Kobold Press et al. who make supplements for the tabletop game are one thing. I can get behind that. But protecting THQ Nordic, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Activision-Blizzard and more is a completely different situation.

[Psyren]

Apologies for double-posting, but I assumed this was important - the new OGL draft 1.2 is live.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432...e-ogl-playtest

Before you scroll down and grab it, let me give you more details on what's in there:

• Protecting D&D's inclusive play experience. As I said above, content more clearly associated with D&D (like the classes, spells, and monsters) is what falls under the OGL. You'll see that OGL 1.2 lets us act when offensive or hurtful content is published using the covered D&D stuff. We want an inclusive, safe play experience for everyone. This is deeply important to us, and OGL 1.0a didn't give us any ability to ensure it.
• TTRPGs and VTTs. 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.
• Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
• Very limited license changes allowed. Only two sections can be changed once OGL 1.2 is live: how you cite Wizards in your work and how we can contact each other. We don't know what the future holds or what technologies we will use to communicate with each other, so we thought these two sections needed to be future-proofed.

In short, it's everything I expected.

[Rynjin]

The thing is, again, all of those companies you mentioned can still do anything they want in the arena of "video games vaguely like a tabletop game" without any issue. In 1.0, and 1.1 for that matter.

The OGL was a CYOA for Paizo, Owlcat, Deep Silver, etc. They didn't actually NEED it to make the game the exact same way it was made, except for a couple of terms that would have needed changing.

The OGL was always, in many ways, a convenience, not a necessity. Wizards has decided to take away that convenience for essentially no purpose. This ONLY hurts those smaller creators who just wanted to make some 3PP supplements for 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5e. The big boys can just do whatever they want without stepping on Wizards' copyright toes, and they're too big to sue into oblivion. Microsoft, for instance, could eat Hasbro for breakfast and barely burp afterward. EA could tangle and come out on top, even if it would be a PITA for both of them.

Apologies for double-posting, but I assumed this was important - the new OGL draft 1.2 is live.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432...e-ogl-playtest

rotecting D&D's inclusive play experience. As I said above, content more clearly associated with D&D (like the classes, spells, and monsters) is what falls under the OGL. You'll see that OGL 1.2 lets us act when offensive or hurtful content is published using the covered D&D stuff. We want an inclusive, safe play experience for everyone. This is deeply important to us, and OGL 1.0a didn't give us any ability to ensure it.
TTRPGs and VTTs. 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.
Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
Very limited license changes allowed. Only two sections can be changed once OGL 1.2 is live: how you cite Wizards in your work and how we can contact each other. We don't know what the future holds or what technologies we will use to communicate with each other, so we thought these two sections needed to be future-proofed.

In short, it's everything I expected.

"Actually, it's about stopping people from posting content we find harmful and non-inclusive."

Bold move, cotton, let's see how that works out for them.

[johnbragg]

This. Very much this. If WotC thought they had a winning product, they'd not bother with this (because of the obvious backlash potential) and just compete on the merits. But they don't think they can. Or worse, don't even want to try. And that makes me sad, as someone who cares about the space and the game. Monopoly power does not better products make.

I really think most of us are not looking in the same direction that WOTC / HAsbro is. Most of us are looking at other TTRPGs.

The CEO told the world, D&D is an "undermonetized brand." PAthfinder and Critical Role are small potatoes compared to whatever it is that they're working on to monetize that brand--movies, VTT / MMORPG / CRPG with AI DMs.

I suspect that they are worried about "big companies" benefiting from OGL products in emerging technology spaces. But they're not worried about Pathfinder or a Pathfinder CRPG or Critical Role etc. They're worried -- or they should be -- about Microsoft / Activision, Facebook / Meta, Apple, Google, Amazon.

Notice that after two weeks of bad press, which really isn't anything in the real world (unless losing D&D Beyond subscriptions is a bigger financial hit than I thought), they've retreated on claiming royalties. But they're still moving forward with --- something.

[Psyren]

The OGL was a CYOA for Paizo, Owlcat, Deep Silver, etc. They didn't actually NEED it to make the game the exact same way it was made, except for a couple of terms that would have needed changing.

Yes. Yes it was. A CYOA for companies that don't need one, and one that saved those companies considerable costs in figuring out where those lines were drawn.

And I get that that doesn't seem like a big deal to you; I'm merely explaining why it (still) matters to WotC. You don't have to agree, but expect them to not budge on the second bullet of my subsequent post.

I suspect that they are worried about "big companies" benefiting from OGL products in emerging technology spaces. But they're not worried about Pathfinder or a Pathfinder CRPG or Critical Role etc. They're worried -- or they should be -- about Microsoft / Activision, Facebook / Meta, Apple, Google, Amazon.

Exactly, they are.

[Rynjin]

Yes. Yes it was. A CYOA for companies that don't need one, and one that saved those companies considerable costs in figuring out where those lines were drawn.

And I get that that doesn't seem like a big deal to you; I'm merely explaining why it (still) matters to WotC. You don't have to agree, but expect them to not budge on the second bullet of my subsequent post.

I think you are drastically overestimating the costs involved. Especially when this would be a one-time cost, after which the OGL becomes less the "speedbump" it currently is and more like a sign saying "keep off the grass".

Remember that two of the key figures at Paizo wrote the damn thing, they know pretty well where the lines are off the top.

[ToranIronfinder]

D&D setting lore, mindflayers and beholders are explicitly not covered under any OGL. Even if they left 1.0a alone completely, you could not use it to make a game containing those element.

As for mechanics, again, not getting into that discussion as interpreting exactly where that line is drawn between mechanics and expression will require a legal judgement that we couldn't give here even if the mods allowed it (which they have not.)

Fair in part, particularly the last part but I guess it seems to me the OGL was always a white flag on frivolous law suits, and again, people seem to think DnD is far more original than it actually is. See again TSRs Hobbit fiasco.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sword Coast Legends came out on Steam, and was released alongside the OotA adventure season I think.
I played it a bit, wasn't bad but also didn't real hit me with a wow factor.
How did it do financially: did it make back its investment?
BG 3 seems to me quite a bit like that product.

[Ashtagon]

While I'm here, does anyone have any evidence that 1.1 leaks weren't of a draft? The Gizmodo article insinuate that it's a draft. The copy I saw was full of missing/bracketed bits.

On the back of *something*, it was announced that kickstarter had negotiated to only give 20% instead of 25% on any D&D related kickstarters. I doubt companies like that make formal announcements on the back of drafts; it would normally be on the back of a completed negotiation.

reference:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/...ors-and-gamers

[Xervous]

Submitting to a publicly traded corporate morality police that can find you guilty ex post facto sounds very appropriate for 202X, a pity we don’t have the flying cars though.

[BRC]

Yes. Yes it was. A CYOA for companies that don't need one, and one that saved those companies considerable costs in figuring out where those lines were drawn.

And I get that that doesn't seem like a big deal to you; I'm merely explaining why it (still) matters to WotC. You don't have to agree, but expect them to not budge on the second bullet of my subsequent post.



Exactly, they are.

I feel like these two points kind of move against eachother

The OGL is a CYOA, an agreement that let's both parties operate without the risk of treading into uncertain legal ground, since without it WOTC would probably be obligated to defend it's copyright even if it looked like they might lose.

There ARE ways to operate as Paizo does without the OGL, but you'd need to expend time and effort making your best legal guess at where the line is. The OGL simplified the whole arrangement.


Which is to say that if Google wanted to release a VTT system with tools that incorporates game mechanics, I don't think any version of the OGL could stop them, since the OGL is something you need to agree to, and google probably has the legal muscle to fight over that line if they want to.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Quick reaction as I'm reading the draft--

Better than I expected, but not as good as I hoped.

Good things:
1. Licensing the core mechanics (what that covers is still unknown but judging from the wording won't include spells or most other content such as classes, class features, species, etc) as CC is good. It clarifies that those things aren't protected at all by the OGL and will never be--they're free to use with only minimal restrictions.
2. Very limited ability to change it in the future (only notice and attribution).
3. Lack of any reporting/revenue clauses.
4. Clear "ownership" clauses.
5. A "Creator Product Badge" to indicate "officially OGL products".

Bad things:
1. 1.a + 1.c.i is still a huge question mark area. Want to publish your homebrew on an electronic forum in something other than PDF form? Unclear whether that's covered. Depending on how much falls into the CC zone, that may have larger or smaller effects. But likely, if you have a homebrew class that uses spells from the SRD, your options for publication are (a) printed or pdf or (b)VTT module. This kills <various sites I won't mention by name>, which is good, but also has a broad potential for collateral damage.
2. 6f is a huge hole, because they reserve the exclusive and unreviewable right to decide what those very vague terms mean.

[Pex]

A cynical theory I've heard is the original statement was bad on purpose so that when a better new OGL arrives everyone is relieved and looks over the fact upon signing they agree to no longer follow OGL 1.0a which is the real thing WOTC wants.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Quick reaction as I'm reading the draft--

Better than I expected, but not as good as I hoped.

Good things:
2. Very limited ability to change it in the future (only notice and attribution).

Bad things:
1. 1.a + 1.c.i is still a huge question mark area. Want to publish your homebrew on an electronic forum in something other than PDF form? Unclear whether that's covered. Depending on how much falls into the CC zone, that may have larger or smaller effects. But likely, if you have a homebrew class that uses spells from the SRD, your options for publication are (a) printed or pdf or (b)VTT module. This kills <various sites I won't mention by name>, which is good, but also has a broad potential for collateral damage.
2. 6f is a huge hole, because they reserve the exclusive and unreviewable right to decide what those very vague terms mean.

See I don't trust any changes they permit, even if they are small I'm scope. I'm sure that there is way to change those sections to make compliance impossible or excessively difficult.

I agree 6f is a non starter as they could always decide that "making too much money" was a violation and as written they would be correct

Also killing 1.0a, while expected, is still bad

[Rynjin]

A cynical theory I've heard is the original statement was bad on purpose so that when a better new OGL arrives everyone is relieved and looks over the fact upon signing they agree to no longer follow OGL 1.0a which is the real thing WOTC wants.

One of my least favorite things that has come out of this is the overuse of the word "cynical". This is just how businesses works, believing otherwise is naivete.

[PhoenixPhyre]

See I don't trust any changes they permit, even if they are small I'm scope. I'm sure that there is way to change those sections to make compliance impossible or excessively difficult.

I agree 6f is a non starter as they could always decide that "making too much money" was a violation and as written they would be correct

Also killing 1.0a, while expected, is still bad

Only the attribution section can really be weaponized, and doing so would be really really obvious (and unlikely IMO).

Killing 1.0a is a foregone conclusion. They'd never have even begun to publish a new OGL unless they thought they could get away with killing 1.0a. Because it basically allows you to ignore this new license entirely.

One unknown for me--what if you don't use anything from the 5.1 SRD (which is not yet published) and only use material from the 5.0 SRD? The license wasn't clear about that.

[Snowbluff]

A cynical theory I've heard is the original statement was bad on purpose so that when a better new OGL arrives everyone is relieved and looks over the fact upon signing they agree to no longer follow OGL 1.0a which is the real thing WOTC wants.

I've said it elsewhere (Treantmonk's server), but I really would like to think that the community would have learned from the recent misinformation to not lean on unverifiable information.