Results 1 to 30 of 1473
Thread: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-18, 01:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Location
- The Playground
Official OGL Discussion Thread
As many of you are aware, a document from Wizards of the Coast (WotC) regarding the future of the Open Game License (OGL) has met with a strong reaction from the gaming community. Independent of the One D&D discussion, which has been and continues to be a valid topic, this proposed change has sparked passionate debate.
The discussion surrounding the OGL has proven to be complicated, with previous comments already dipping past what is allowed on these boards. The Playground is (at least for some) an important place to have gaming conversations, and whether this issue is a fundamental one or a fleeting one, it does seem important to posters here. Like any thread, however, this is bound by the Forum Rules. The Forum Staff have discussed this at length, and we would like to point out the following topics should be avoided:
1) Legal Advice and Opinion (even speculative and theoretical)
2) Real World Politics including discussion of government actions, laws, and regulations, such as copyright and other intellectual property rights
3) Insulting Hasbro/WotC or its employees, some of whom do post or lurk here
4) Insulting others based on their opinions on this issue
Overall, we expect (and will require) a high level of civility in this thread. Expect it to be moderated tightly in hopes that it can be kept in-bounds and peaceful.
It may be that some aspects of this issue simply cannot be discussed here. While we acknowledge that that is probably limiting and even frustrating, the limits on topics and manner of discussion here are fundamental to the forum. A forum to discuss religious reactions to gaming or legal issues faced by content creators would be valuable, but we have broadly prohibited those topics here. There are many other outlets for exploring the legal issues involved, expressing one's rage, insulting or attacking others, and other reactions that aren't permitted here.
We hope this thread can be a space that allows for a meaningful discussion of the ramifications of this new landscape while also following our Forum Rules.The above words represent the consensus of the entire Giant in the Playground staff, including the moderators, the webmaster, and Rich Burlew.
(The PM box for this account is not regularly monitored; please direct any PMs to the forum staff to Roland St. Jude, the forum guru. Do send moderator applications to this account, though, as directed in the announcement thread. Thank you.)
-
2023-01-18, 01:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Thanks to the forum staff for creating this thread. There has been a new statement put out by WoTC within the hour, here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428...n-game-license
-
2023-01-18, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Pretty exciting that there's something to work off of here.
To be clear, I do not believe the 1.0a will remain as is. Looking what has been said about it and what WotC wants to accomplish with it (they would have no way to enforce a morality clause with older extant and functioning licenses existing), there does need to be an update.
Royalties and license back were my main burning issues, and it sounded like both were getting dropped, according to the last statement. License back seemed like a weird inclusion, but apparently is simply not unusual for a platform like DM's Guild or Youtube. It is a bit strange to apply it to a game system rather than a specific platform, however.Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
-
2023-01-18, 02:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Thanks to the forum staff! This is a topic I feel a need to talk about and few places that I can.
This new statement has 2 major issues for me:
1) They continue to push for deauthorizing the 1.0a OGL. That is a dealbreaker for me. I have skipped editions before based on taste, but deleting an open license that was intended, presented, and trusted to be perpetual and irrevocable is not acceptable.
2) They lied in this statement and even I noticed the lie. They are still pretending 1.1 was a "draft" despite it being sent out as part of contracts (allegedly). If I catch you lying to me, I won't trust you. Stop lying.
If they want a new OGL, then let the 1.0a OGL continue to exist and have the new OGL grant access to more. Maybe all 5.5+ SRDs use the 1.1 OGL. That is fine.Last edited by OldTrees1; 2023-01-18 at 02:04 PM.
-
2023-01-18, 02:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Well, the good news is that we have an actual apology, and a process to move forward on. Looking forward to a constructive dialogue.
-
2023-01-18, 02:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
It's a much better statement than they put out previously. It remains to be seen what exactly the new version looks like, and I'll withhold final judgement until I see that. But if they manage to propose something that gives them what they want without adversely affecting third parties, I could see myself continuing to buy from the company.
This is a simple and easy way for them to give me what I want.Last edited by Atranen; 2023-01-18 at 02:06 PM.
-
2023-01-18, 02:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I am worried the survey will require a D&D beyond account and they will use the upswing in accounts (due to people deleting their accounts previously) to ignore feedback given in the survey.
-
2023-01-18, 02:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-18, 02:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Thanks very much to the mods for creating this space!!
The wording of the statement makes it clear to me they plan to move forward with deauthorizing 1.0a. I'm not against this (depending on how they do it and what that ultimately means for existing works, anyway) - rather my primary concern is the provisions they will put into 2.0, especially the means for keeping it updated going forward. 30 days of notice for unilateral modification just did not cut it.
They addressed my remaining two "bright red lines" from the prior leak - the royalty, and the licenseback/ownership clause - so the modification clause is the only item of concern I personally have left.
It's a bit shrewd when you think about it. They will almost certainly get some reactivations this way, maybe even a resub or two. If nothing else, it will provide the most staunch protesting creator voices some covering fire - "I reactivated my account so I can make all our voices heard! I did it for YOU!"
And, as I said during the UA survey topics, it will likely also protect their feedback process from being influenced by botnets, sockpuppets and the like. That's going to be 100x more imperative here, since this survey will relate directly to their business rather than just the game.Last edited by Psyren; 2023-01-18 at 02:15 PM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-18, 02:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I tend to agree. Much as I don't want them to deauth 1.0a, it certainly seems they're going in that direction.
The royalty and licenseback clauses were my other two big issues as well. But until we see the actual [against-the-rules] terminology of the official non-"draft" license, I'm not holding my breath.
It's a bit shrewd when you think about it. They will almost certainly get some reactivations this way, maybe even a resub or two. If nothing else, it will provide the most staunch protesting creator voices some covering fire - "I reactivated my account so I can make all our voices heard! I did it for YOU!"
And, as I said during the UA survey topics, it will likely also protect their feedback process from being influenced by botnets, sockpuppets and the like. That's going to be 100x more imperative here, since this survey will relate directly to their business rather than just the game.Insert Clever Signature Here
-
2023-01-18, 02:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I will hold my opinion until I see the actual document.
If their new license was just basically 1.0a++ (add in a few "hey, we can't be sued if you do something dumb and get sued" clauses, make it clear that WotC is not associated with any BS you publish, clean up the language a bit), I'd be fine with a deauth/forced upgrade to the new license.
But I highly doubt that that will be the case. Instead, I expect they're going to try to prevent (as much as possible) a forking of the game and "encourage" everyone now publishing 5.0 material to move over to OneD&D.
But I've been wrong before. So I'm holding off on anything.
I did deactivate my subscription, but I didn't remove my account entirely. So I can still comment on the survey regardless.Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2023-01-18 at 02:21 PM.
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-18, 02:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Insert Clever Signature Here
-
2023-01-18, 02:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I'm still not sure they can deauthorize the 1.0a. There is nothing in the 1.0a agreement that allows them to deauthorize the agreement unless I missed something. Granted, fighting this would require a significant amount of resources to get a legal ruling saying so.
-
2023-01-18, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
-
2023-01-18, 02:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-18, 02:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2019
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Thanks for a place to discuss this. I wouldn't have thought to look for it outside of the D&D sections of the forum. Maybe an announcement there to point folks here would be helpful.
-
2023-01-18, 03:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Location
- Trafford, PA
- Gender
-
2023-01-18, 03:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
The thing is, doing nothing doesn't address either of their "core goals" as laid out in the press release. Per Kyle, these are: "protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment, and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."
The former gets into things like the NuTSR stuff we can't talk about here, so I'll skip that.
Focusing on the latter, that's perhaps the biggest gap in 1.0a that they'll want to close - right now, the kinds of products that can be made using 1.0a are vague at best; which is how you end up with companies like Owlcat making tens of millions of dollars without WotC seeing a thin dime, even when WotC laid the groundwork. That is only going to increase as these alternative D&D-derived experiences grow in popularity and visibility.
And keep in mind too that whatever version of the OGL they end up going with, even if they back off completely and stick with 1.0a, their company's name will be part of the license's language. I can understand Wizards of the Coast wanting some measure of control over which books are allowed to include the words "Wizards of the Coast" between their covers.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-18, 03:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Personally I play on derivatives of 3.5, so that means that for me the ogl 1.0a is important. Most products I am excited lately are updates to pathfinder 1st edition, that definitely uses the srd. So to me, personally, revoking or deauthorizing the ogl 1.0a has a negative impact. I can easily understand if the publishers I follow want to move on to greener pastures.
For my part I feel that this has been handled really really poorly. And I don't feel confident that this will improve.
As to the other points I don't think it's a good idea to just be happy the conceded them. If the ogl 1.0a was alive and well those other points wouldn't be necessary. And if they defacto gain now the capacity to revoke/deauthorize versions now then down the line there is nothing ensuring they won't keep doing that. I personally feel that that's important. And how a precendet is set here will impact us down the line.Thanks a lot Gengy for the awesome... just a sec... avatar. :)
-
2023-01-18, 03:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Yea, that's a fair point. And I do get it. Were it my company I'd feel the same way. But really, it would be as easy as updating 1.0a to explicitly denote approved media (and specifying what exactly is covered by "static"), thereby banning all other media. Of course, this would still make a lot of people mad, but it's probably the least-bad middle ground.
As to the other point, yea, not gonna touch that.Insert Clever Signature Here
-
2023-01-18, 04:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2016
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
It I think it's fair to say most of the damage has been done already. Even if wotc leaves the ogl 1.0a alone for the time being, the fact that they were at any point looking to kill it makes it risky to use going forward.
Furthermore, while we don't have ogl 2.0 yet, if it gives wotc the ability to modify the license, then it doesn't really matter what they take out, as they could always add it back in later. (Especially if said updates are forced and non-optional)
-
2023-01-18, 04:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
This is something that has started bugging me. 1.1, or the draft OGL, did not take legal effect (except maybe through Kickstarter?). I think that makes it a draft. They didn't mean for it to be a draft, but since they have to revise and/or start over, it becomes a draft retroactively.
And, what else are we supposed to call the leaked .......document? proposed contract?
You call it 1.1, but there's no assurance at all that Wizards will follow that numbering convention--they might call whatever they release on Friday "OGL 1.1, Draft Edition."https://thaumasiagames.blogspot.com/
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-Dad-is-the-DM
Homebrew quick-fixes for Cleric, Druid: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307326
Replacing the Cleric: The Theophilite packagehttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318391
Fighter feats: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310132
-
2023-01-18, 04:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Whether they "lied" about it being a draft or not depends a lot on the meaning of the term "draft" in this context, and that can't really be discussed here as it's a legal term.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-18, 05:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
This bit stands out to me:
Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.mew
-
2023-01-18, 05:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Location
- Trafford, PA
- Gender
-
2023-01-18, 05:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Waterdeep
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
If that statement is to be believed, happy to see some items being walked back. Will be interested to see how this plays out over the next few weeks.
Roll for it 5e Houserules and Homebrew
Old Extended Signature
Awesome avatar by Ceika
-
2023-01-18, 05:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Yeah. And this, for me[1], has always been the sticky point. Ok, one of the sticky points[2]. A forced revocation of 1.0a effective immediately (as opposed to effective on works for OneD&D or the like) is, to me, completely unacceptable. Because while I have no interest in OneD&D (for entirely content-based reasons), I would still like to "publish" (even at the "post on the internet for free" level) works for 5e. And having to update to a possibly-unconscionable (for all the other sticky reasons) license is a non-starter.
Plus the obvious anti-competitive, death-to-Paizo (who I'm not the biggest fan of, to be clear) reasons that make it a jerk move IMO.
[1] as someone who has no intent to commercially publish but does extensive homebrew that gets posted and thus falls afoul of various related issues.
[2] not fond of a bunch of the other provisions, some of which they've said they're walking back.Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-18, 05:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I consider myself an author first, a GM second and a player third.
The three skill-sets are only tangentially related.
-
2023-01-18, 05:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Location
- Trafford, PA
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-18, 05:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Given their stated "core goal" of limiting the OGL to Tabletop RPGs, this is wholly understandable. If they leave 1.0a intact and publish OGL 2.0 as a separate, parallel thing, someone could still decide to ignore the latter and just go make a new video game etc. using the former, even one worth millions - just like Owlcat did.
1) We'll have to wait to see the new version to know for sure - but I'd be very surprised if you're unable to use it to publish 5e homebrew even if you want to ignore 1DnD completely.
2) The new version is highly unlikely to kill Paizo either, especially not with the royalty and licenseback pieces removed. (It's moot once they switch gears to ORC anyway.)
This doesn't address either of their stated core goals though.Last edited by Psyren; 2023-01-18 at 05:56 PM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)