# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Speculative: A (supposed) leak about the OGL 1.1

## PhoenixPhyre

Originally posted on reddit by the official account of one of the 5e podcasters/content creators (RollForCombat): https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment..._ogl_11_watch/




> We received an official leak of OGL 1.1! In our weekly Roll For Combat Live YouTube show, we were talking about what we know about OGL 1.1 when we received a leak of OGL 1.1 from a reliable source. This isn't a scam, a troll, or clickbait. We go over the new OGL 1.1 and what it means to One D&D and the future of D&D (it's not great...).
> 
> From our inside sources (we have multiple sources who confirmed this is true and part of the current OGL 1.1):
> 
> "This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."
> 
> "You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."
> 
> "You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. Were aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and Were more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us."
> ...


Note: I'm going to take this with a grain of salt until confirmed, although I saw chatter that other normally knowledgeable/reputable sources had confirmed the gist of it.

--------

Thoughts (I am not a lawyer):

If the quoted text is correct, this is an utter jerk move. 

1. Deauthorizing the OGL 1.0(a) means that no, you can't keep using it. For anything. Including if you're publishing 3e content. It's gone. Existing content is _likely_ fine, but get legal counsel. But if you want to publish anything new, you have to use the OGL 1.1. Sucks to be you.

2. They reserve the right to change the license without warning other than on the website/social media. Don't follow them obsessively and miss something? Sucks to be you.

3. WotC can take anything you create and sell it, alter it, or publish it as their own, without paying or even giving credit. And you can't do anything about it. Sucks to be you.

4. And you can't even sue. Sucks to be you.

So *assuming* that this is accurately quoted, this is basically worst-case. Worse even than 4e, because the 4e license didn't even attempt to deauth the previous license (which is what allowed Paizo to do PF). This not only prevents that but means Paizo can't publish any new OGL 1.0(a) content. Even for long-dead systems. Or anyone else. Pay up or get sued.

Obligatory disclaimer: *Assuming this is true.* But the sources are big-names and willing to put their names on this leak and claim it. So it's at least not zero reputation.

----------


## Segev

I question whether it's true, simply because "deauthorizing" a prior agreement and "replacing" it unilaterally with something that could arguably be used to try to take control of people's intellectual property without their permission, that was made in good faith under the "deauthorized" agreement, is begging for law suits.


Taken without any sort of ability asserted or attempted to act on pre-existing works... it'll kill anything but fan-made content. It's a clever way to ensure that no fanfic-type stuff can lead to WotC being sued if they come up with something similar without having heard of it, by making it explicit that anything fans make for D&D is now theirs to use as they see fit. But it's going to kill third party productions, since it's one step away from saying, "Yeah, we can just republish your entire body of work as ours, and screw you."

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I question whether it's true, simply because "deauthorizing" a prior agreement and "replacing" it unilaterally with something that could arguably be used to try to take control of people's intellectual property without their permission, that was made in good faith under the "deauthorized" agreement, is begging for law suits.
> 
> 
> Taken without any sort of ability asserted or attempted to act on pre-existing works... it'll kill anything but fan-made content. It's a clever way to ensure that no fanfic-type stuff can lead to WotC being sued if they come up with something similar without having heard of it, by making it explicit that anything fans make for D&D is now theirs to use as they see fit. But it's going to kill third party productions, since it's one step away from saying, "Yeah, we can just republish your entire body of work as ours, and screw you."


The 1.0(a) license contains a line like "even if we publish other versions, you can use any *authorized* version". So deauthorizing it (according to people who claimed to be IP lawyers on reddit) does actually accomplish the task of "you can't use the old version." Will there be lawsuits? Probably. But Hasbro has way deeper pockets than anyone else.

----------


## Envyus

According to other places the text leak is almost assuredly bull. It uses none of the proper jargon, and legal terms, and has various errors.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

It would be a disaster if that's true, I really hope it isn't. The language used is strange, it doesn't really read like a license document, but according to them the contents have been verified by several sources.

If anything it's the last quote that gives me pause on trusting this, perhaps its a bit too hopeful of me, but I just can't imagine after the public reaction to what they've already announced they would go on to say something like



> "Were aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and Were more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.


after "de-authorizing" the previous OGL in the process.

I still can't just accept this as fact, but I'll admit even my expectations for a positive outcome are waning.




> I question whether it's true, simply because "deauthorizing" a prior agreement and "replacing" it unilaterally with something that could arguably be used to try to take control of people's intellectual property without their permission, that was made in good faith under the "deauthorized" agreement, is begging for law suits.


That would be the second aspect I'm skeptical on, you'd figure what happens to all of the now de-authorized content is up in the air with the license no longer being "authorized" it would be unusable, how would that even work for things like Pathfinder which were created under the OGL and would now no longer have access to the licensed content?

Perhaps there is some legal precedence to such a thing I'm not aware of, it just seems like a legal nightmare.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> It would be a disaster if that's true, I really hope it isn't. The language used is strange, it doesn't really read like a license document, but according to them the contents have been verified by several sources.
> 
> If anything it's the last quote that gives me pause on trusting this, perhaps its a bit too hopeful of me, but I just can't imagine after the public reaction to what they've already announced they would go on to say something like
> 
> after "de-authorizing" the previous OGL in the process.
> 
> I still can't just accept this as fact, but I'll admit even my expectations for a positive outcome are waning.


I agree that the language used is strange. Which decreases my expectation of its truth. But it does put a clear marker out just due to the visibility (high-profile people saying this sort of thing)--WotC will _likely_ have to actively deny it. If they don't, the assumption (fair or not) will be that it has at least some validity.

----------


## Envyus

The last quote makes 0 sense. Something like that is not part of a legal document.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> I agree that the language used is strange. Which decreases my expectation of its truth. But it does put a clear marker out just due to the visibility (high-profile people saying this sort of thing)--WotC will _likely_ have to actively deny it. If they don't, the assumption (fair or not) will be that it has at least some validity.


It definitely could be taken as an effort to get WotC to divulge more information publicly to alleviate the growing unease that was truthfully only amplified with their half-hearted attempt at the end of December.

"Rumor's and misunderstandings" got us the late December post, if they are actually flat out lies we'll see what that earns us. It could really swing either way at this point, though my money is on there being no further explanation until the OGL 1.1 is public and probably most important to papa Hasbro, _enforceable_. For better or worse, I'm quite sure they'll want to have a solid foundation to fall back on instead of leaving themselves open to this rumor mill we have spinning now.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> It definitely could be taken as an effort to get WotC to divulge more information publicly to alleviate the growing unease that was truthfully only amplified with their half-hearted attempt at the end of December.
> 
> "Rumor's and misunderstandings" got us the late December post, if they are actually flat out lies we'll see what that earns us. It could really swing either way at this point, though my money is on there being no further explanation until the OGL 1.1 is public and probably most important to papa Hasbro, _enforceable_.


I agree with this. On both accounts. I'm leaning toward "probably not the actual text". But the sentiment is probably pretty close to being true.

----------


## Sigreid

> The last quote makes 0 sense. Something like that is not part of a legal document.


If this is legitimate at all. It reads like executive objectives before the lawyers reign them in.

----------


## OracleofWuffing

I feel that, in this context, "Official" and "Leak" are mutually exclusive terms.  If this is official, then it has been authorized for distribution so it shouldn't be considered a leak.  If this is a leak, then it was not authorized for distribution so it shouldn't be considered official.

Since this claims to be both... I feel this doesn't exist yet.

----------


## kazaryu

yeah...i find it hard to believe that the contents of the reddit post are a direct quote. At best they're a paraphrase, which may still be accurate. but I really don't see hasbro playing the pronoun game in their legally binding document. 

Im by no means any kind of an expert on such topics, but as a laymen, the excerpt in the reddit post reads more like...idk, a fanfic?


its also important to note that the original OGL didn't allow paizo to publish pathfinder. DnD (the company) can't copyright the concept of a d20 game system. they can't copyright specific mechanics like 'roll to attack'. and any of the stuff that they could copyright, paizo changed (i.e. renaming genasi,) as i understand it (again, laymen) from a legal standpoint, there's nothing preventing people from creating content that happens to be portable into dndn5e/3e or even 4e. They just have to be careful about the language they use in the content, and probably advertising.

----------


## Brookshw

> Thoughts (I am not a lawyer):


I am, focusing on IP and transactions with decade of experience in publishing and media.

While I agree that the license could be revoked (and that there's grounds to challenge that if you want to foot the bill), that 'leak' reads like a sour grapes paraphrase at best. I'll wait for the official release.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> yeah...i find it hard to believe that the contents of the reddit post are a direct quote. At best they're a paraphrase, which may still be accurate. but I really don't see hasbro playing the pronoun game in their legally binding document. 
> 
> Im by no means any kind of an expert on such topics, but as a laymen, the excerpt in the reddit post reads more like...idk, a fanfic?
> 
> 
> its also important to note that the original OGL didn't allow paizo to publish pathfinder. DnD (the company) can't copyright the concept of a d20 game system. they can't copyright specific mechanics like 'roll to attack'. and any of the stuff that they could copyright, paizo changed (i.e. renaming genasi,) as i understand it (again, laymen) from a legal standpoint, there's nothing preventing people from creating content that happens to be portable into dndn5e/3e or even 4e. They just have to be careful about the language they use in the content, and probably advertising.


Everything I've heard from experienced people is that if you want to avoid the OGL...get a lawyer. Or several. Because it's a dangerous path. It's not just the mechanics--you can't use _any of the presentation_. Including the look of the stat blocks, the descriptions of feats, _any_ of that. So yes, Paizo absolutely published PF1 under the OGL. And had to. You could publish another game that used exactly none of the content (and that goes a long way) without it, but it'd be difficult.

What do I expect from the new OGL?

I expect it to become a "fan/non-commercial" license explicitly. And as such, contain lots of poison pills that will "encourage" anyone interested in making money to seek out a "proper" commercial license. I  _don't_ expect it to try to revoke the OGL 1.0(a), but I do expect a clause like "if you use anything licensed 1.1 or above, you voluntarily give up your right to publish anything new under 1.0(a)." I expect it to contain an arbitration clause (the more formal form of the "you can't sue us" clause) and a "anything you make is ours to do with what we will." Which doesn't affect _fans_ very much--they're unlikely to sue or contest WotC using their stuff. But makes it utterly unpalatable for commercial operations.

Instead, commercial licenses will be more controlling. More oversight from WotC as to what they can publish and how, royalties above some threshold, non-disparagement clauses, etc. But won't have the "no 1.0(a)" clause and may allow use of other material. So they'll sell it as being more open...when really it's way more controlling.

----------


## Segev

Frankly, trying to be more controlling is a mistake, but it's one WotC will have to learn from. They're making the error of thinking 3rd party publishers are somehow profiting in a way that costs WotC money. Even if it's just, "We want a cut of what they make!" But they'll just reduce the 3rd party publishing, and see no upswing in their own sales. 

It's not even like ... certain directions we can't discuss here ... are the impetus. They have no need to force 3rd party publishers in line with the messaging and presentation they want, because I haven't seen any rash of 3rd party products that oppose it.

----------


## Psyren

> I am, focusing on IP and transactions with decade of experience in publishing and media.
> 
> While I agree that the license could be revoked (and that there's grounds to challenge that if you want to foot the bill), that 'leak' reads like a sour grapes paraphrase at best. I'll wait for the official release.


Thanks for weighing in; I'm inclined to agree.




> its also important to note that the original OGL didn't allow paizo to publish pathfinder. DnD (the company) can't copyright the concept of a d20 game system. they can't copyright specific mechanics like 'roll to attack'. and any of the stuff that they could copyright, paizo changed (i.e. renaming genasi,) as i understand it (again, laymen) from a legal standpoint, there's nothing preventing people from creating content that happens to be portable into dndn5e/3e or even 4e. They just have to be careful about the language they use in the content, and probably advertising.


I'd say it depends on your definition of "allow." Could Pathfinder have existed, and even reached its current form and prominence, without the OGL? Very probably. Would they have sunk all the capital necessary to design, playtest, illustrate, market and publish it without the added bit of assurance that they wouldn't need to worry about needing to fend off Hasbro's deep-pocketed legal department? That I think is a more open question. Similarly, if they didn't have the SRD to build on and instead had to scrutinize every bit of their own chosen language with a fine-toothed comb, at the _very_ least that would have had an adverse impact on their ability to churn out more product.

So while the OGL may not have strictly _enabled_ the creation of Pathfinder, I think it's fair to say it made it considerably _easier_ - and in the world of business, the two can often mean the same thing.




> Frankly, trying to be more controlling is a mistake, but it's one WotC will have to learn from. They're making the error of thinking 3rd party publishers are somehow profiting in a way that costs WotC money. Even if it's just, "We want a cut of what they make!" But they'll just reduce the 3rd party publishing, and see no upswing in their own sales.


I don't see how the royalty requirement reduces anything tbh. The folks making millions of the OGL like Paizo are not going to just strike out on their own and make something completely incompatible with it, that would invalidate 80% of their own catalogue. They're certainly not going to up and exit the industry entirely and take up basket-weaving. Besides which, Paizo benefits from D&D's continues success too - both directly (by being able to convert and sell their existing adventure paths through the system, like they did earlier this year with Abomination Vaults), and indirectly (by being the primary landing pad for playgroups wanting to strike out from D&D and try something else.)

Meanwhile the small creators that are publishing through it more as a hobby or side-gig to pay rent - those folks don't have to worry about the royalty either until they become wildly successful, at which point they're likely to simply join the first group.

----------


## Marcloure

You can't make a contract that states you can't sue the contractor, specially if it's world-wide. At least in Brazil, and I believe in the EU too, you can sue the contractor even if they do something that is technically legal and is on the contract if they act on bad faith or deceit.

----------


## Brookshw

> I'd say it depends on your definition of "allow." Could Pathfinder have existed, and even reached its current form and prominence, without the OGL? Very probably. Would they have sunk all the capital necessary to design, playtest, illustrate, market and publish it without the added bit of assurance that they wouldn't need to worry about needing to fend off Hasbro's deep-pocketed legal department? That I think is a more open question.


Even before WoTC took over the IP, TSR had its own game of whack-a-mole, fending off people writing supplements for D&D (to reasonable success). I suspect that avoiding having to play that game was at least a minor part of the reason for the SRD/OGL initially, even if not expressly acknowledged; and, as TSR did before them, recognizing widely disseminating the game's visibility (even in overlooking pirated copies at times in TSR's case) was better for their market.




> You can't make a contract that states you can't sue the contractor, specially if it's world-wide. At least in Brazil, and I believe in the EU too, you can sue the contractor even if they do something that is technically legal and is on the contract if they act on bad faith or deceit.


No comment, but to Phoenix's earlier point, set an arbitration clause and choice of law to Delaware, and you're putting a heavy thumb on the scales.

----------


## TyGuy

> You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. Were aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and Were more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us.


Is this a paraphrase from a middle party? Because there is a 0% chance that this is even in an OGL draft.

----------


## Psyren

> Is this a paraphrase from a middle party? Because there is a 0% chance that this is even in an OGL draft.


Look, grammar and basic legal literacy don't matter. As long as your "leak" can be interpreted as "WotC bad," people will unquestionably believe a Fortune 500 company's legal department must have crafted it.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

The language used is suspicious af. I doubt this is real. I'd be more upset that this is how they craft their legal documents lol.

----------


## Frogreaver

> Is this a paraphrase from a middle party? Because there is a 0% chance that this is even in an OGL draft.


It's not the actual OGL 1.1 in full legalese.

I think it's more like an executive summary of the significant differences at a recent point in time.  It also could change until WOTC actually publishes it.

Should you be skeptical?  Yes, it's sourced from a public facing anonymous source.  But some fairly 'in the know' people seem to trust the source and/or the initial outlet reporting the info from the anonymous source.  So it's not at the level of random anonymous forum/reddit poster either.  It's also hard to think the players involved would risk their reputation by purposefully making up the story.

The changes do align toward WOTC's stated move toward more monetization of D&D.  I think it's more likely to be true than not true at this point, but nothing definitive yet.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> This has to be fake news.  As I understand it, it isn't possible for them to "deauthorize" the OGL1.0 for existing content published under it and instead cover it with a new agreement.


For existing content? Likely not. Not without _big_ fights. For new content? Probably yes.

----------


## Frogreaver

> This has to be fake news.  As I understand it, it isn't possible for them to "deauthorize" the OGL1.0 for existing content published under it and instead cover it with a new agreement.


They can state they are doing whatever they want to state.  That doesn't mean they are right or that it would legally stand up in court.  Fear of a legal battle vs a very large company may actually be the best mechanism to push for adopting and complying with the OGL 1.1

----------


## Psyren

> Should you be skeptical?  Yes, it's sourced from a public facing anonymous source.  But some fairly 'in the know' people seem to trust the source and/or the initial outlet reporting the info from the anonymous source.  So it's not at the level of random anonymous forum/reddit poster either.  It's also hard to think the players involved would risk their reputation by purposefully making up the story.


They've said that about every "leak." Like the one swearing DnDBeyond was going to announce that $49.99/mo premium subscription tier, complete with a screenshot. "Ooh it's anonymous, but some folks 'in the know' trust the source!" And it turned out the big announcement was just the OneD&D playtest itself.

Frankly, unless it's from jaappleton, I'm not going to believe any of these "leaks."

----------


## animorte

> Frankly, unless it's from jaappleton, I'm not going to believe any of these "leaks."


A worthy source indeed. Speaking of which, what is the necessary incantation to summon this individual, and are any of us high enough level to cast it?

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> A worthy source indeed. Speaking of which, what is the necessary incantation to summon this individual, and are any of us high enough level to cast it?


If I recall, he was scolded by WotC once before and I wouldn't want him to jeopardize himself attaching his name to this sort of leak, assuming its even come to his attention at all. It's close enough to confidential _legal_ information that I would expect people to get in serious trouble for saying too much.

Which is why we're currently at the spot where sources are "anonymous but credible" and have to accept information at the words of others. Again, it absolutely _could_ be true but it could just as easily not be.

----------


## Raven777

> 1. Deauthorizing the OGL 1.0(a) means that no, you can't keep using it. For anything. Including if you're publishing 3e content. It's gone. Existing content is _likely_ fine, but get legal counsel. But if you want to publish anything new, you have to use the OGL 1.1. Sucks to be you.


This is not something they can do.

----------


## Frogreaver

> They've said that about every "leak." Like the one swearing DnDBeyond was going to announce that $49.99/mo premium subscription tier, complete with a screenshot.


Who is they here?

----------


## Psyren

> Who is they here?


Reddit, the source of this latest "leak."




> Which is why we're currently at the spot where sources are "anonymous but credible" and have to accept information at the words of others.


I think you'll find we have to do no such thing  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Frogreaver

> Reddit, the source of this latest "leak."


Reddit is not a person.  Reddit is a site.  It very much matters whether your person that claimed D&D Beyond was doing a 49.99 premium subscription and this person/people are the same and not if they just happen to post on the same site.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> I think you'll find we have to do no such thing


Let me correct my statement, we're _expected_ to accept the information is credible based on their word.

If there weren't an ongoing controversy based on the topic and the recent MTG 30 debacle I can't help but feel this sort of wild speculation would be treated like a "my uncle works at Nintendo" sort of story. People have been disgruntled enough with recent practice though that for them it's entirely believable given this amount of information.

----------


## Frogreaver

> Let me correct my statement, we're _expected_ to accept the information is credible based on their word.
> 
> If there weren't an ongoing controversy based on the topic and the recent MTG 30 debacle I can't help but feel this sort of wild speculation would be treated like a "my uncle works at Nintendo" sort of story. People have been disgruntled enough with recent practice though that for them it's entirely believable given this amount of information.


The people making this particular claim are established people in the TTRPG community.  They aren't just some anonymous username claiming my uncle works at WOTC and told me this.

----------


## Psyren

> The people making this particular claim are established people in the TTRPG community.


Never heard of them.




> Reddit is not a person.  Reddit is a site.  It very much matters whether your person that claimed D&D Beyond was doing a 49.99 premium subscription and this person/people are the same and not if they just happen to post on the same site.


There is still a certain kind/subject of post over there that gets upvoted and I think you know that. Groupthink exists.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> The people making this particular claim are established people in the TTRPG community.  They aren't just some anonymous username claiming my uncle works at WOTC and told me this.


Established people can still lie or be lied to. I'm not discounting their experience, I'm not claiming that they or their source is lying. It _could_ be true, but their establishment in the community doesn't in any way automatically validate their claims when all of the evidence they can provide as of yet is "several sources which I consider reliable say so".

If anything, the only reason I'm considering this as more credible than blatant fear mongering is out of respect for their positions in the industry. I don't believe they're sharing this information with bad intentions but their claims of trust in the source doesn't mean I have to trust the source as well.

----------


## Frogreaver

> Established people can still lie or be lied to. I'm not discounting their experience, I'm not claiming that they or their source is lying. It _could_ be true, but their establishment in the community doesn't in any way automatically validate their claims when all of the evidence they can provide as of yet is "several sources which I consider reliable say so".


I don't disagree, but it does give their statements alot more credibility than random reddit poster.  It could still be true or not true, but don't discount the claim as if they were a random redditor.




> If anything, the only reason I'm considering this as more credible than blatant fear mongering is out of respect for their positions in the industry. I don't believe they're sharing this information with bad intentions but their claims of trust in the source doesn't mean I have to trust the source as well.


You seem to agree here, so not really sure what you are disagreeing with me about unless you reading alot into what I said.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> You seem to agree here, so not really sure what you are disagreeing with me about unless you reading alot into what I said.


Who said we're disagreeing? I'm willing to not outright dismiss the claims based on their reputation, I'm not the one likening them to Reddit as a broad group. My point was that if the controversy wasn't still fresh surrounding the OGL that people wouldn't be so willing to go straight past plausibility into accepted truth. Sorry if that got lost in comparing it to old playground rumors.

----------


## catagent101

For the record, the person vouching for the anonymous source is Mark Seifter.

Idk what to make of this yet, I guess it's best to wait and see.

----------


## Frogreaver

> For the record, the person vouching for the anonymous source is Mark Seifter.
> 
> Idk what to make of this yet, I guess it's best to wait and see.


Want to explain who he is for those not in the know?

----------


## Unoriginal

> Originally posted on reddit by the official account of one of the 5e podcasters/content creators (RollForCombat): https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment..._ogl_11_watch/
> 
> 
> 
> Note: I'm going to take this with a grain of salt until confirmed, although I saw chatter that other normally knowledgeable/reputable sources had confirmed the gist of it.
> 
> --------
> 
> Thoughts (I am not a lawyer):
> ...



Darth Vader and Lando, in the Cloud City.

----------


## Mastikator

So that's what all the drama is about, another unconfirmed leak? Like the last one that turned out to be bogus?

Take the actual words of WotC announcement of a new OGL with a grain of salt. Take unconfirmed rumors with a heavy dose of "pics or it didn't happen". Stop believing in rumors. As far as I'm concerned this reddit poster is a liar looking for attention.

----------


## catagent101

> Want to explain who he is for those not in the know?


Oh yeah sure. One of the main devs of Pathfinder until last year, currently working on his Battlezoo stuff (supplement for both 5e and PF2e).

----------


## Oramac

> It reads like executive objectives before the lawyers reign them in.


This. A lot of it sounds like a brief outlining their goals, not a legally binding document. 

That said, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if WOTC tried all of this crap.

----------


## Sigreid

> So that's what all the drama is about, another unconfirmed leak? Like the last one that turned out to be bogus?
> 
> Take the actual words of WotC announcement of a new OGL with a grain of salt. Take unconfirmed rumors with a heavy dose of "pics or it didn't happen". Stop believing in rumors. As far as I'm concerned this reddit poster is a liar looking for attention.


I know at least with the company I work for some of the leaks are intentional for one of 2 reasons.  First, they will put out different stories to different internal groups to narrow down who is leaking. Second, to get a feel for how well ideas will be relieved before committing to them.

----------


## Snowbluff

Welcome to OGL Random Speculation, where everything is still made up and the points don't matter.  





> Oh yeah sure. One of the main devs of Pathfinder until last year, currently working on his Battlezoo stuff (supplement for both 5e and PF2e).


Only makes a it a bit more suspicious to me, if true. I feel like if anyone is willing the throw WotC under the bus, it'd be a Paizo dev.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

This doesn't read like any legal agreement I've ever seen. One of the big issues, the VTT issue creates questions about anti-trust concerns, it reminds me a little of the Microsoft/Netscape antitrust case, due to WOTC's marketshare. Ditto for poison pills.There is no clause in 1.0 or 1.0a that I have seen that allows for deauthorizing, no idea if that is significant, but a clause like this might only work on a forwardgoing basis, not a retroactive one. (That is, it might mean you can't use 1.0 or 1.1a on the new SRD). Revoking 1.0 or 1.0a, if competitors are using it now (Ithe OSR, mutant and masterminds and Pathfinder) might run into a number of similar potholes, particularly given the current regime. Not a lawyer, and not sure this is anything other than an executive wishlist (if that), but revoking prior OGLs will be a little more complicated than just claiming to be able to deauthroize 1.0 or 1.0a.

Buy if true, likely it will spur creators to move to other systems, DND is the biggest because it is the first and has the most name recognition, not because it is the best. The OGL was a mistake for WOTC, but my first RPG was WEG's star wars setting, then Mexhwarrior, so clearly bug games can and did thrive without OSR or WOTC. What the OGL did was move a lot of games to D20 that might have been otherwise built with other systems, WOTC would lose that competitive advantage, and people might get into an RPG through a licensed property not controlled by WOTC.  Or popularity could come from a livestream of YouTube playing shadowrun, OpenD6, GURPS, FATE, etc. Those who aren't getting into DnD as a fad have often moved to other games in the past, this could simply speed up that exodus. 

The question for creators isn't whether they will create material, but whether they will do so in DND or another system.

----------


## FluffyBugbears

Coming in late (and new! this is what finally pushed me to make an account, heh) but Gizmodo has published an article on the topic. The writer Linda Codega has been writing several articles about the new OGL as news has been released. They state that they've seen the full OGL 1.1 and according to their summarizing article (as well as the accompanying twitter thread) it would seem that the leaks have been accurate. At the very least, this is the third leak I've seen today (Indestructoboy on Youtube also posted some leaks) and not only has there been identical texts between the leaks, but the overall message between them seems to be the same. It also matches with how creatives like Griffon Saddlebag have been discussing them as well. 

(unable to post the link due to my post count being a Big Ol' Goose Egg, but if you google "gizmodo Dungeons & Dragons New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition" it'll turn up)

----------


## Unoriginal

> This doesn't read like any legal agreement I've ever seen. One of the big issues, the VTT issue creates questions about anti-trust concerns, it reminds me a little of the Microsoft/Netscape antitrust case, due to WOTC's marketshare. Ditto for poison pills.There is no clause in 1.0 or 1.0a that I have seen that allows for deauthorizing, no idea if that is significant, but a clause like this might only work on a forwardgoing basis, not a retroactive one. (That is, it might mean you can't use 1.0 or 1.1a on the new SRD). Revoking 1.0 or 1.0a, if competitors are using it now (Ithe OSR, mutant and masterminds and Pathfinder) might run into a number of similar potholes, particularly given the current regime. Not a lawyer, and not sure this is anything other than an executive wishlist (if that), but revoking prior OGLs will be a little more complicated than just claiming to be able to deauthroize 1.0 or 1.0a.
> 
> Buy if true, likely it will spur creators to move to other systems, DND is the biggest because it is the first and has the most name recognition, not because it is the best. The OGL was a mistake for WOTC, but my first RPG was WEG's star wars setting, then Mexhwarrior, so clearly bug games can and did thrive without OSR or WOTC. What the OGL did was move a lot of games to D20 that might have been otherwise built with other systems, WOTC would lose that competitive advantage, and people might get into an RPG through a licensed property not controlled by WOTC.  Or popularity could come from a livestream of YouTube playing shadowrun, OpenD6, GURPS, FATE, etc. Those who aren't getting into DnD as a fad have often moved to other games in the past, this could simply speed up that exodus. 
> 
> The question for creators isn't whether they will create material, but whether they will do so in DND or another system.


The OGL wasn't a mistake, it allowed WotC to reap the benefits from other people/companies doing their projects.

The current Hasbro/WotC corporate suits may see it as a mistake, but they're very much mistaken.

----------


## Snowbluff

> At the very least, this is the third leak I've seen today (Indestructoboy on Youtube also posted some leaks) and not only has there been identical texts between the leaks, but the overall message between them seems to be the same.


My question is, is this making the rounds being identical because it's real, or because multiple people are regurgitating a singular source. Furthermore, would fabricating a fake OGL that would grab a lot of attention, given the announcement and the speculation that has been going around, be difficult*. Just include notes that WotC has released to the public to seem feasible (maybe even to people who've been given 'snippets'), splash in some of the most extreme speculation, then put out into the world entirely anonymously.

----------


## Oramac

> (unable to post the link due to my post count being a Big Ol' Goose Egg, but if you google "gizmodo Dungeons & Dragons New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition" it'll turn up)


Link to the article is here. 

=================

Again, it claims to have seen a leaked document. However, this time the claim is to have seen the _ENTIRE_ OGL1.1, which it states is over 9000 words long (compared to under 900 for the original OGL). 

One bit that is a little more concrete is thus (quoted from the article; my emphasis added): "The document reads, if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after *January 13, 2023* and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial."

So, assuming this is to be believed, we should know something more by next Friday the 13th (and if that's not ominous, I don't know what is).

----------


## catagent101

Say what you will, but if this turns out to be a prank whoever this is put a lot of effort into it. 9000 words is a LOT.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Nothing wrong with speculation. I can't imagine content creators sitting on a potential "leak" because it may or may not be xyz. We're all adults so we all know it might be true, false, and somewhere in between. And I can't imagine a leak occurring, and then the people that might be directly impacted also not engaging in conversation and speculation.

We'll just have to wait and see, and discuss in the interim  :Small Big Grin: .

----------


## Snowbluff

> Say what you will, but if this turns out to be a prank whoever this is put a lot of effort into it. 9000 words is a LOT.





> The new Dungeons & Dragons Open Gaming License, a document which allows a vast group of independent publishers to use the basic game rules created by D&D owner Wizards of the Coast, significantly restricts the kind of content allowed and requires anyone making money under the license to report their products to Wizards of the Coast directly, according to an analysis of a leaked draft of the document, dated mid-December.


Looking at the article, the statement that it's 9000 words long is a secondhand, unsourced account. There is an analysis of a leak being put into words for an article. They only mention a leaked draft once, so I'm not sure if io9 has the OGL 1.1 to begin with.

----------


## FluffyBugbears

> My question is, is this making the rounds being identical because it's real, or because multiple people are regurgitating a singular source. Furthermore, would fabricating a fake OGL that would grab a lot of attention, given the announcement and the speculation that has been going around, be difficult*. Just include notes that WotC has released to the public to seem feasible (maybe even to people who've been given 'snippets'), splash in some of the most extreme speculation, then put out into the world entirely anonymously.


That's a really good point, and something I've also wondered! To clarify my post, the direct leaks each were three paragraphs long, and appeared to be taken from different sections of the document. The text of the first paragraph was identical, the other paragraphs were different. Codega did not post the full document (likely to protect the source), but since they claim the document is nearly 10'000 words long... Well, either they lied about getting a copy of the text (a big risk as a journalist), it's real, or they were duped by a false document. 

If someone faked it, that sure was a way to spend their winter holidays.




> Looking at the article, the statement that it's 9000 words long is a secondhand, unsourced account. There is an analysis of a leak being put into words for an article. They only mention a leaked draft once, so I'm not sure if io9 has the OGL 1.1 to begin with.


Codega also made a Twitter thread on the topic. In it they said that they received the leak yesterday and state the length given in the article - so it's firsthand, but still unsourced I suppose


(PS: thanks Oramac for posting the link!)

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> Link to the article is here. 
> 
> =================
> 
> Again, it claims to have seen a leaked document. However, this time the claim is to have seen the _ENTIRE_ OGL1.1, which it states is over 9000 words long (compared to under 900 for the original OGL). 
> 
> One bit that is a little more concrete is thus (quoted from the article; my emphasis added): "The document reads, if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after *January 13, 2023* and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial."
> 
> So, assuming this is to be believed, we should know something more by next Friday the 13th (and if that's not ominous, I don't know what is).


Note that the author has clarified that the document was dated early/mid December, so the timetable may have been changed since then. The document itself might be as well, though it's hard to imagine much content having changed significantly. It's likely that part of the reason for the link would be to try and pressure Wizards to make changes before they are fully locked in.

----------


## Snowbluff

> That's a really good point, and something I've also wondered! To clarify my post, the direct leaks each were three paragraphs long, and appeared to be taken from different sections of the document. The text of the first paragraph was identical, the other paragraphs were different. Codega did not post the full document (likely to protect the source), but since they claim the document is nearly 10'000 words long... Well, either they lied about getting a copy of the text (a big risk as a journalist), it's real, or they were duped by a false document. 
> 
> If someone faked it, that sure was a way to spend their winter holidays.
> 
> 
> 
> Codega also made a Twitter thread on the topic. In it they said that they received the leak yesterday and state the length given in the article - so it's firsthand, but still unsourced I suppose
> 
> 
> (PS: thanks Oramac for posting the link!)


Ah, found it! The twitter thread. This clears a lot of things up, more succinctly than the article does. This definitely sounds like less of a second hand account, so I won't write the article off entirely.

EDIT: Facetiously, I will say ChatGPT really took off over the winter break. It wouldn't take as long to put something 9000 words long together as you would think.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Psyren

> Link to the article is here.


Thanks for the link! So far, according to the article, its doing exactly what they said it would do - restrict the OGL to actual gaming books/PDFs and introduce the reporting and royalty requirements. I'm not exactly seeing the smoking gun here, though the actual release may contain something that isn't being previewed yet?

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> Ah, found it! The twitter thread. This clears a lot of things up, more succinctly than the article does. This definitely sounds like less of a second hand account, so I won't write the article off entirely.


I think at this point, we can safely (if not definitely) conclude that the leaked doc is indeed a draft version of the OGL 1.1 (as of early/mid December, per the reporter). I find it hard to believe (if not impossible) that this work is falsified. I find it impossible to believe that the reporter is lying.

The biggest questions, for me, are to what degree this leaked draft represents the final document, and how much of it was still being negotiated. Given their initial timeframe (which has already been missed), it seems likely that as of this draft, Wizards thought this document was pretty final. Whether that's changed since then...

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> The OGL wasn't a mistake, it allowed WotC to reap the benefits from other people/companies doing their projects.
> 
> The current Hasbro/WotC corporate suits may see it as a mistake, but they're very much mistaken.


Perhaps, I'm thinking from a business point of view, it did water down their property a bit. There have been some very good and very bad 3rd party books.

 Most things have trade offs, the OGL for OpenD6 likely killed that system, unfortunately, though it gave players access to mini6, etc. Getting royalties from their IP isn't an issue in my book, in general, but some moves can't be revoked easily if at all, which is my main point. Apple created Android in a sense markets respond.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Thanks for the link! So far, according to the article, its doing exactly what they said it would do - restrict the OGL to actual gaming books/PDFs and introduce the reporting and royalty requirements. I'm not exactly seeing the smoking gun here, though the actual release may contain something that isn't being previewed yet?





> Perhaps, I'm thinking from a business point of view, it did water down their property a bit. There have been some very good and very bad 3rd party books.
> 
>  Most things have trade offs, the OGL for OpenD6 likely killed that system, unfortunately, though it gave players access to mini6, etc. Getting royalties from their IP isn't an issue in my book, in general, but some moves can't be revoked easily if at all, which is my main point. Apple created Android in a sense markets respond.


I will say that the article and the youtube video do not necessarily make the same claims. I'm just saying that there is some potential veracity to a leak that may be much larger than the OGL 1.0. The article does not mention ownership or waiving a right to sue, these very well could be different leaks entirely, if that. 

I also agree that royalties for large, commercial text creators and non-text works were already expected to not be covered by this arrangement. Nor do I really have an issue either of these things. WotC was pretty clear with how they handle things like VTTs and video games already, and the fan created content agreement apparently is remaining, if the tweet thread is anything to go by.*

----------


## EggKookoo

> I think at this point, we can safely (if not definitely) conclude that the leaked doc is indeed a draft version of the OGL 1.1 (as of early/mid December, per the reporter).


I work for a big Fortune 500 company with an in-house legal department, and I work with the legal folks periodically. Absolutely 100% "legal" copy gets written by people not in that department and then passed by them for review. Happens all the time. In fact, our legal team won't write first draft stuff themselves. They want the PR and comms people to write it, so they (the legal team) know what the intent is. Only then do they rewrite it or ask for changes to make it ready for prime time. I'm a web developer (not a copywriter or even a designer) and even I have had to write up boilerplate legalese from time to time because a client wanted to just have something there "for the time being."

So don't take the non-professionality of this copy to mean it's not coming from an authentic source. It could be early draft stuff.

----------


## Psyren

I think the one part of this I find potentially concerning is the "unauthorized 1.0" bit. I don't know what that means for existing or new non-D&D stuff using the older license. I expect currently existing stuff will be covered and new stuff will have to use the new license, which is pretty standard, but won't know until we have the full thing.

I'm fine with the limitations on covered content, the reporting requirement, and the royalty requirement. As stated previously, they've been up front on all three of these things.

As for things like Critical Role, Youtube etc., the Fan Content Policy still applies so all those should be fine. It means those creators can't paywall their content or otherwise monetize it directly, but they can still do things like Patreon and ads to make a living so I'm fine with that too.




> I will say that the article and the youtube video do not necessarily make the same claims. I'm just saying that there is some potential veracity to a leak that may be much larger than the OGL 1.0. The article does not mention ownership or waiving a right to sue, these very well could be different leaks entirely, if that. 
> 
> I also agree that royalties for large, commercial text creators and non-text works were already expected to not be covered by this arrangement. Nor do I really have an issue either of these things. WotC was pretty clear with how they handle things like VTTs and video games already, and the fan created content agreement apparently is remaining, if the tweet thread is anything to go by.*


I agree completely and didn't even bother with the Youtube video. The io9 article (and twitter thread from its author) are much more reputable and less hysterical anyway.

----------


## Oramac

> I'm fine with the limitations on covered content, the reporting requirement, and the royalty requirement. As stated previously, they've been up front on all three of these things.


I'm generally ok with these too. I don't like them, but I can live with them. 

The one major thing I _can't_ abide is giving up all ownership and control over my work.

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> I think the one part of this I find potentially concerning is the "unauthorized 1.0" bit. I don't know what that means for existing or new non-D&D stuff using the older license. I expect currently existing stuff will be covered and new stuff will have to use the new license, which is pretty standard, but won't know until we have the full thing.


The article author (who does have the full thing but is not a lawyer, but has been talking with lawyers knowledgeable on this sort of thing) agrees, and says that previous publications using OGL are fine, but anything published in the future will have to use OGL 1.1. See for example, https://twitter.com/lincodega/status...21441046089728. She's discussing a lot more on twitter that didn't appear in the article, if you're curious.

----------


## Akal Saris

> Darth Vader and Lando, in the Cloud City.


Shaka, when the walls fell!

----------


## Psyren

> The article author (who does have the full thing but is not a lawyer, but has been talking with lawyers knowledgeable on this sort of thing) agrees, and says that previous publications using OGL are fine, but anything published in the future will have to use OGL 1.1. See for example, https://twitter.com/lincodega/status...21441046089728. She's discussing a lot more on twitter that didn't appear in the article, if you're curious.


Indeed, I read the Twitter thread too. I wonder what that might mean for things like Starfinder 2 or PF3?

----------


## Snowbluff

> Indeed, I read the Twitter thread too. I wonder what that might mean for things like Starfinder 2 or PF3?


I will say as an aside, I was surprised to find out that PF2 was still using OGL when it was being playtested/released, given how different it is. I guess that used it to avoid any legal confrontation, but I can't imagine it would be too difficult for them to justify not operating/publishing under the license entirely, and they are big enough that they'd be able to cover the cost difference in legal fees and the WotC licensing agreement if they did (literally millions of dollars). It's already hard enough to copyright game mechanics as is, and elves and dwarves are public domain. 

Of course, a Pathfinder 3 might be exactly the sort of thing to completely disentangle themselves from WotC legally. While I strongly dislike PF2, I wish them luck on future development, especially if it offers them the creative, legal, and financial freedom they would enjoy.

----------


## ZRN

Two points:

First, it's not uncommon to leak documents like this as a trial balloon. WOTC could have been circulating this version of the OGL revision to third-party companies to see how pissed off they were before moving forward. 

Second, the attempt to apply restrictive terms to fan productions seems impractical. What are they gonna do, sue or shut down D20, Critical Roll, and every other Twitch streamer that plays the game? 

I expect the final version of this will be a bit more modest. I also expect that they'll be clearer that this license applies to anything derived from WOTC's new products, not retroactively to everything published in the last 22 years under OGL 1.0.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I think the one part of this I find potentially concerning is the "unauthorized 1.0" bit. I don't know what that means for existing or new non-D&D stuff using the older license. I expect currently existing stuff will be covered and new stuff will have to use the new license, which is pretty standard, but won't know until we have the full thing.
> 
> I'm fine with the limitations on covered content, the reporting requirement, and the royalty requirement. As stated previously, they've been up front on all three of these things.


Yes. But the license issue is a problem as well. If XYZ publishes the "nottherealms" settingusing 5e, does this mean WOTC can use monsters created for your setting anytime they wish? If nottherealms is popular, and you dislike dealing with WOTC, sp you publish with your own system, that they can print an alternate DnD version of the setting? 

The issue isn't just IP, a lot of talk on this one, but given WOTC marketshare, there are anti-trust implications to all of this as well. If this is the OGL, well it may be time for creators to talk to the FTC.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Second, the attempt to apply restrictive terms to fan productions seems impractical. What are they gonna do, sue or shut down D20, Critical Roll, and every other Twitch streamer that plays the game?


 Fan productions aren't handled by the OGL to begin with. They operate under a separate agreement with WotC, though I think Critical Role specifically has a license. 



> I expect the final version of this will be a bit more modest. I also expect that they'll be clearer that this license applies to anything derived from WOTC's new products, not retroactively to everything published in the last 22 years under OGL 1.0.


Totally possible that the final version is less daunting. However, looking at what's been written on the subject, prior, existing content can continue to be published. OGL 1.0a may be revoked, but that doesn't mean prior works can be taken down on this basis. See BeholderEyeDr's comment above.

----------


## Mastikator

> I know at least with the company I work for some of the leaks are intentional for one of 2 reasons.  First, they will put out different stories to different internal groups to narrow down who is leaking. Second, to get a feel for how well ideas will be relieved before committing to them.


Okay then I heard a rumor that WotC will hand out unicorns to everyone that buys their books in 2024 as a reward.
Who cares that it's impossible, unsubstantiated and the rumor is based on spite, what matters is that sometimes corporations offer bribes to their customers to buy a good reputation. That's a good enough reason to trust some random idiot on the internet

----------


## Psyren

> Yes. But the license issue is a problem as well. If XYZ publishes the "nottherealms" settingusing 5e, does this mean WOTC can use monsters created for your setting anytime they wish? *If nottherealms is popular*, and you dislike dealing with WOTC, sp you publish with your own system, that they can print an alternate DnD version of the setting? 
> 
> The issue isn't just IP, a lot of talk on this one, but given WOTC marketshare, there are anti-trust implications to all of this as well. If this is the OGL, well it may be time for creators to talk to the FTC.


Well, if bold happens _because_ you built on WotC's license rather than going it alone, that could be seen as a cost of doing business. But I'll wait to see the exact provision around that before passing judgement.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Indeed, I read the Twitter thread too. I wonder what that might mean for things like Starfinder 2 or PF3?


Or someone using PFs OGL/SRD.

----------


## Sigreid

> Okay then I heard a rumor that WotC will hand out unicorns to everyone that buys their books in 2024 as a reward.
> Who cares that it's impossible, unsubstantiated and the rumor is based on spite, what matters is that sometimes corporations offer bribes to their customers to buy a good reputation. That's a good enough reason to trust some random idiot on the internet


Oh, I have no idea if this is legit or not.  Just pointing out that large companies aren't strangers to disinformation when it comes to sensitive topics.

My only personal interest in this right now is I don't want these clowns changing my virtual content I've already bought.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Well, if bold happens _because_ you built on WotC's license rather than going it alone, that could be seen as a cost of doing business. But I'll wait to see the exact provision around that before passing judgement.


True in part, the popularity of DnD might also be enhanced by 3rd party creators. But my pointnis, they seem to be using market power to crack down on competitors. Microsoft tried this and were hammered pretty badly (though that didn't help netscape).

The licensee issue, the retroactively for previous SRDs and VTT issues might have antitrust issues--something I've brought up, but I'm not seeing discussed. And I suspect WOTCs legal department knows this and the end result will be more moderate, but I think the big question isn't DnD as IP, it's whether DND qualifies as a monopoly.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> My only personal interest in this right now is I don't want these clowns changing my virtual content I've already bought.


That's the inherent risk to buying things virtually. You buy an access code, not an interest in the underlying asset. And they can change it at will. Amazon's shown that clearly, as have others.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> True in part, the popularity of DnD might also be enhanced by 3rd party creators. But my pointnis, they seem to be using market power to crack down on competitors. Microsoft tried this and were hammered pretty badly (though that didn't help netscape).
> 
> The licensee issue, the retroactively for previous SRDs and VTT issues might have antitrust issues--something I've brought up, but I'm not seeing discussed. And I suspect WOTCs legal department knows this and the end result will be more moderate, but I think the big question isn't DnD as IP, it's whether DND qualifies as a monopoly.


If they said "this only applies to OneD&D", I'd have no issue. People could continue using the 5e SRD's materials, but any use of OneD&D's materials would be under the 1.1 license. Retroactively nuking an existing license, even if existing content is safe (but preventing any new content from being written without accepting the 1.1 license) pushes a lot of "unfair competition" buttons in my head.

----------


## Oramac

> My only personal interest in this right now is I don't want these clowns changing my virtual content I've already bought.


Sadly, unless all your virtual content is through DDB, I think that's all but guaranteed at this point.

----------


## Sigreid

> Sadly, unless all your virtual content is through DDB, I think that's all but guaranteed at this point.


Fantasy Grounds, actually.  I'd expect DDB to be more vulnerable to arbitrary update.

Changing my existing licensed products without an opt out would be a sure way to make Hadbro dead to me.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> If they said "this only applies to OneD&D", I'd have no issue. People could continue using the 5e SRD's materials, but any use of OneD&D's materials would be under the 1.1 license. Retroactively nuking an existing license, even if existing content is safe (but preventing any new content from being written without accepting the 1.1 license) pushes a lot of "unfair competition" buttons in my head.


VTTs and long term claims to a license are issues even in OneDND. Monopolies are essentially limited in the moves they can make, so they can't subvert the freemarket.

----------


## Oramac

> The licensee issue, the retroactively for previous SRDs and VTT issues might have antitrust issues--something I've brought up, but I'm not seeing discussed.


True, but likely irrelevant. Nobody has the funding to pursue that kind of legal battle, and WOTC/Hasbro know it. Even if the major competitors and third party publishers combine their efforts, Hasbro still has deeper pockets. 




> Fantasy Grounds, actually.  I'd expect DDB to be more vulnerable to arbitrary update.
> 
> Changing my existing licensed products without an opt out would be a sure way to make Hadbro dead to me.


Let me rephrase: DDB is safer in that it's unlikely to be killed completely. Other licensed virtual products may just be killed off entirely, not updated/modified.

----------


## Kane0

> Frankly, unless it's from jaappleton, I'm not going to believe any of these "leaks."


Was just going to say this myself

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> True, but likely irrelevant. Nobody has the funding to pursue that kind of legal battle, and WOTC/Hasbro know it. Even if the major competitors and third party publishers combine their efforts, Hasbro still has deeper pockets.


True, unless it is a class action, or if the FTC, a division of the US government fines them for monopolistic practices. It will be more moderate, I think, for these reasons.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> That said, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if WOTC tried all of this crap.


 Hasbro, the bigger dog in the junkyard, is in a position to bully people with lawyers and threats of lawyers. 



> I know at least with the company I work for some of the leaks are intentional for one of 2 reasons.  First, they will put out different stories to different internal groups to narrow down who is leaking. Second, to get a feel for how well ideas will be relieved before committing to them.


 Aye. 



> The OGL wasn't a mistake, it allowed WotC to reap the benefits from other people/companies doing their projects.
> 
> The current Hasbro / WotC corporate suits may see it as a mistake, but they're very much mistaken.


 They see dollar signs somewhere in an "under monetized" product.  



> So, assuming this is to be believed, we should know something more by next Friday the 13th (and if that's not ominous, I don't know what is).


 Coincidence?  I think not!   :Small Smile:  



> Ah, found it! The twitter thread. This clears a lot of things up, more succinctly than the article does.


 Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Far more informative than this thread, in the main.  



> I'm not exactly seeing the smoking gun here, though the actual release may contain something that isn't being previewed yet?


 Your Defenders of the Coast patch is in the mail.  


> If they said "this only applies to OneD&D", I'd have no issue. People could continue using the 5e SRD's materials, but any use of OneD&D's materials would be under the 1.1 license. Retroactively nuking an existing license, even if existing content is safe (but preventing any new content from being written without accepting the 1.1 license) pushes a lot of "unfair competition" buttons in my head.


 They have the pocket change necessary for the legal fees.  They don't care what's fair, they care about _not being under monetized_.  :Small Wink:

----------


## Oramac

> True, unless it is a class action, or if the FTC, a division of the US government fines them for monopolistic practices. It will be more moderate, I think, for these reasons.


I admit I don't know a ton about the antitrust stuff, but I really don't see the FTC giving a damn about something like this. But, the mere fact that it _could_ happen might be enough for WOTC/Hasbro to dial it down a bit. Here's hoping.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I admit I don't know a ton about the antitrust stuff, but I really don't see the FTC giving a damn about something like this. But, the mere fact that it _could_ happen might be enough for WOTC/Hasbro to dial it down a bit. Here's hoping.


The current FTC are extreme hawks, hard seeing them be8ng uninterested. Also class action suits sre often funded by the lawyers until settlement when they take a cut. So it's not as tough to sue as you might think, otherwise insurance companies would never pay injury claims.

----------


## Sigreid

> True, but likely irrelevant. Nobody has the funding to pursue that kind of legal battle, and WOTC/Hasbro know it. Even if the major competitors and third party publishers combine their efforts, Hasbro still has deeper pockets. 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase: DDB is safer in that it's unlikely to be killed completely. Other licensed virtual products may just be killed off entirely, not updated/modified.


Well, what I bought is stored on my machine so all I really need is for them to not feed me an unwanted update to the file.

----------


## Psyren

> Or someone using PFs OGL/SRD.


PF doesn't actually have one, that would still be WotC's.




> Your Defenders of the Coast patch is in the mail.


I'll take that patch over a Hysteria Hat, no matter how shiny the metal  :Small Amused: 




> Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Far more informative than this thread, in the main.


On that we agree!




> The current FTC are extreme hawks, hard seeing them be8ng uninterested. Also class action suits sre often funded by the lawyers until settlement when they take a cut. So it's not as tough to sue as you might think, otherwise insurance companies would never pay injury claims.


Let's not forget the EFF as well  - the VTT stuff would likely fall into their purview, and they're quite used to punching upward.

----------


## Jervis

I find it hilarious that people are defending this. WotC can do no harm I suppose. Im convinced that WotC could announce that theyre building a doomsday device and certain people would defend them for it at this point. Pulling the rug out from under people on older OGL versions with a statement that it can be changed at any time with only a months notice is asking for trouble. And of course the obligatory mention that they have the right to use whatever you make for whatever they want is bs of the greatest regard. I truly hope this is the second coming of 4E and WotC gets a financial broken jaw over this.




> Indeed, I read the Twitter thread too. I wonder what that might mean for things like Starfinder 2 or PF3?


Realistically this doesnt effect them. You cant copyright systems under US law, thats been held up in court. WotC might try to sue them but realistically its gonna fail hard.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

I'll be interested to see the final product; a 'draft circulating' isn't the same thing as the OGL that has gotten the lawyers to go final on the fine/detailed points of the language.  

I don't know how many drafts I' ran up the chain over the years (how many hundreds) on various policy documents; the final result was usually related to what our office or G-Code/N-Code proposed, but was always modified somewhat before it went final.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I find it hilarious that people are defending this. WotC can do no harm I suppose. Im convinced that WotC could announce that theyre building a doomsday device and certain people would defend them for it at this point. Pulling the rug out from under people on older OGL versions with a statement that it can be changed at any time with only a months notice is asking for trouble. And of course the obligatory mention that they have the right to use whatever you make for whatever they want is bs of the greatest regard. I truly hope this is the second coming of 4E and WotC gets a financial broken jaw over this.


I think, given that this didn't come from WotC themselves, it's reasonable to be skeptical. What I don't get is all the hate for just speculating in general. There does seem to be a strain of "people that expect something bad are morons that are jumping the gun", which I think is unreasonable. Part and parcel of the new zeitgeist; don't question what comes down from on high.

I don't think there's much reason to only receive the news that WotC/Hasbro wants to squeeze more money out of D&D as "a good thing" with signs of only good things to come. That seems exceptionally foolish to me.

I'm open to being pleasantly surprised that they will make their profit while increasing my enjoyment of the game somehow, and that WotC doesn't bungle their newest initiative, as they've done before. But I'm not hopeful about it, and I don't think that's doomsaying or wearing a hysteria hat. I think it's pretty reasonable.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I'm open to being pleasantly surprised that they will make their profit while increasing my enjoyment of the game somehow, and that WotC doesn't bungle their newest initiative, as they've done before. But I'm not hopeful about it, and I don't think that's doomsaying or wearing a hysteria hat. I think it's pretty reasonable.


 What they did with forum content (fan generated) and 4e digital tools/content doesn't lend confidence...

----------


## Jervis

> I think, given that this didn't come from WotC themselves, it's reasonable to be skeptical. What I don't get is all the hate for just speculating in general. There does seem to be a strain of "people that expect something bad are morons that are jumping the gun", which I think is unreasonable. Part and parcel of the new zeitgeist; don't question what comes down from on high.
> 
> I don't think there's much reason to only receive the news that WotC/Hasbro wants to squeeze more money out of D&D as "a good thing" with signs of only good things to come. That seems exceptionally foolish to me.
> 
> I'm open to being pleasantly surprised that they will make their profit while increasing my enjoyment of the game somehow, and that WotC doesn't bungle their newest initiative, as they've done before. But I'm not hopeful about it, and I don't think that's doomsaying or wearing a hysteria hat. I think it's pretty reasonable.


Im expecting the 4E GSL two the electric boogaloo. As a side note, expect the Critical Roll role playing game in the next few months, its gonna be 5E with every mention of 5E scrubbed off and enough small changes to make it legally distinct. I like 5e and all but Id love to see the death of the dnd monolith in gaming. Id love it if their royalties policy is the thing that finally knocks them off their high horse though the stuff about granting WotC a license to what you create and the VTT anti-competition stuff are whats making me consider no longer producing content for the game. 

But yeah I see very little reason to doubt that WotC would do this after there recent announcement. That said im gonna probably leave this thread and go to the other OGL 1.1 thread just to not juggle anything else.

----------


## EggKookoo

> As a side note, expect the Critical Roll role playing game in the next few months, its gonna be 5E with every mention of 5E scrubbed off and enough small changes to make it legally distinct.


A lot of people suspect CR has a custom arrangement with WotC and won't be affected by this at all.

What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> A lot of people suspect CR has a custom arrangement with WotC and won't be affected by this at all.


 I have a similar belief. 



> What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.


 They probably get hosed.  :Small Mad:

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> A lot of people suspect CR has a custom arrangement with WotC and won't be affected by this at all.
> 
> What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.


Their setting is published by wotc and they have an ongoing sponsorship with dndbeyond, which is owned by wotc.

Of all the content creators to say are going to go "off brand" this is possibly the least realistic one to make such claims for.

----------


## Oramac

> the stuff about granting WotC a license to what you create...are whats making me consider no longer producing content for the game.


Same. I can handle royalties. I can't handle giving up ownership of _my work_. 




> A lot of people suspect CR has a custom arrangement with WotC and won't be affected by this at all.
> 
> What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.


This. With the popularity of CR, I'd be absolutely shocked if they didn't have a custom agreement already in place. 

Those other YT channels? Simple answer: they die, and WOTC gives zero ****s.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Their setting is published by wotc and they have an ongoing sponsorship with dndbeyond, which is owned by wotc.
> 
> Of all the content creators to say are going to go "off brand" this is possibly the least realistic one to make such claims for.


Hasbro needs CR more than CR needs Hasbro. They likely do have a marketing agreement that is mutually beneficial. But I doubt anyone is going after youtube games. Bad PR.

----------


## Snowbluff

> I'll take that patch over a Hysteria Hat, no matter how shiny the metal





> There does seem to be a strain of "people that expect something bad are morons that are jumping the gun", which I think is unreasonable. Part and parcel of the new zeitgeist; don't question what comes down from on high.


I may seem reticent to make comments or support arguments that are entirely made up or based on unsubstantiated statements, because there's not a lot to talk about and it really just makes people unhappy. I don't want to contribute to a negative non-discussion with information none of us have.

For example, I will not speak on the doomed status of Youtube content creation, especially when I don't think the OGL necessarily was what protected that content.

----------


## Psyren

> What I want to know is what happens to the smaller YT channels that make money basically off of people just watching them play D&D.


Fan Content Policy, which both Codega and WotC themselves confirmed will still exist.

What that means is that those smaller channels can't charge people to watch them play D&D, but they can put ads on their videos or plug their Patreon for support, or sell their own channel merch that doesn't specifically reference any of D&D's IP etc.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Fan Content Policy, which both Codega and WotC themselves confirmed will still exist.
> 
> What that means is that those smaller channels can't charge people to watch them play D&D, but they can put ads on their videos or plug their Patreon for support, or sell their own channel merch that doesn't specifically reference any of D&D's IP etc.


Well that's good news, especially for WotC. I hope they understand that Stranger Things and Critical Role are only part of their renaissance.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I may seem reticent to make comments or support arguments that are entirely made up or based on unsubstantiated statements, because there's not a lot to talk about and it really just makes people unhappy. I don't want to contribute to a negative non-discussion with information none of us have.
> 
> For example, I will not speak on the doomed status of Youtube content creation, especially when I don't think the OGL necessarily was what protected that content.


I think there's value in speculation. We don't have to wait for the final drop before we talk amongst ourselves about what may or may not be happening.

The human mind is an incredible machine and we're more than capable of handling speculative talk. It's not like we're completely unfamiliar with monetization, the people involved, past initiatives, current alternatives, consequences of actions, etc etc etc.

The poo-pooing of the speculation smells a lot like "unless you know something definitively, being concerned is inappropriate". And that seems like a colossal waste of our mental capacity. I also wouldn't want those types of people making any important decisions, as forecasting and predicting are incredibly important tools for decision-making. At least, decision-making that you hope to be fruitful and successful.

I don't know enough to predict what will happen. I know that if you put the squeeze on people some of them will leave, some of them will consider it the cost of doing business, many won't be impacted, etc etc. 

But we have to be free to talk about it and go through the motions. I mean... why wouldn't we?

----------


## Mastikator

> I think, given that this didn't come from WotC themselves, it's reasonable to be skeptical. What I don't get is all the hate for just speculating in general. There does seem to be a strain of "people that expect something bad are morons that are jumping the gun", which I think is unreasonable. Part and parcel of the new zeitgeist; don't question what comes down from on high.
> 
> I don't think there's much reason to only receive the news that WotC/Hasbro wants to squeeze more money out of D&D as "a good thing" with signs of only good things to come. That seems exceptionally foolish to me.
> 
> I'm open to being pleasantly surprised that they will make their profit while increasing my enjoyment of the game somehow, and that WotC doesn't bungle their newest initiative, as they've done before. But I'm not hopeful about it, and I don't think that's doomsaying or wearing a hysteria hat. I think it's pretty reasonable.


I can't speak for others but I for one am sick and tired of rumors from anonymous sources who have no credibility and no evidence being treated as anything but a made up story. If I start a thread saying "_I have leaked documents that I can't post anywhere lest I be banned- but essentially they say this:
It will not be possible to buy books anymore
It will not be possible to buy books on dndbeyond, all content will come in the form of loot boxes
Hashbro are planning on buying up as much of the TTRPG market as possible, then banning all non-1D&D games_"
Your response should not be to be skeptical, your response should be to outright disbelieve me. People have been doing this for well over a century, make up some outrageous lie for clicks or upvotes or to get people to buy their tabloids.

For the sake of diplomacy let me phrase it like this: please consider the credibility of the source, and the evidence they provide before you _consider_ believing it.

----------


## Psyren

> Well that's good news, especially for WotC. I hope they understand that Stranger Things and Critical Role are only part of their renaissance.


Yeah and the Policy is really useful for them to have. It means WotC has a recourse if someone, say, runs a really offensive D&D campaign that glorifies all manner of board-inappropriate topics that goes viral and damages the brand, they can C&D it to stop the spread.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I can't speak for others but I for one am sick and tired of rumors from anonymous sources who have no credibility and no evidence being treated as anything but a made up story. If I start a thread saying "_I have leaked documents that I can't post anywhere lest I be banned- but essentially they say this:
> It will not be possible to buy books anymore
> It will not be possible to buy books on dndbeyond, all content will come in the form of loot boxes
> Hashbro are planning on buying up as much of the TTRPG market as possible, then banning all non-1D&D games_"
> Your response should not be to be skeptical, your response should be to outright disbelieve me. People have been doing this for well over a century, make up some outrageous lie for clicks or upvotes or to get people to buy their tabloids.
> 
> For the sake of diplomacy let me phrase it like this: please consider the credibility of the source, and the evidence they provide before you _consider_ believing it.


I think this makes sense, if actions were being taken based on the rumor/leak.

But here we're just talking. We know a change is coming. We know they want more money. We know they're taking actions to make that happen.

So it's fine to speculate. Maybe the leak is complete BS. What will change because this thread happened?

----------


## Snowbluff

> I mean... why wouldn't we?


I'm not saying anyone is not free to do anything. I am saying baseless speculation (not what you've been posting personally, some of the things I've seen in general) is lowering the quality of discussion and causing emotional harm. In the time between this post and your last one, multiple people posted comments that foretold the death of DnD youtube, and judging by their tones in their statements, were very upset about that. This is despite that the content is outside the scope of the topic agreement, and an extant separate policy already covering that topic separately, which furthermore was determined to be still extant according to a potential leak.

If the Fan Content Policy was scrapped, or at least there was a proposed announcement of it being scrapped, we would have something to work off of. But this has happened and some people ruined their day over something that wasn't going to happen in the first place. I would say that people are not familiar with a lot of these topics, so discussing them can be good. But on the other hand the exchange was not very constructive.

----------


## Segev

> Yeah and the Policy is really useful for them to have. It means WotC has a recourse if someone, say, runs a really offensive D&D campaign that glorifies all manner of board-inappropriate topics that goes viral and damages the brand, they can C&D it to stop the spread.


Unfortunately, it also means that, if WotC so deems, they could C&D such a thing for the sin of, for example, declaring dwarves good and kobolds evil. Or for having no orc wizards in the campaign. Or for NOT supporting certain board-inappropriate topics or promoting certain positions on them.

Just imagine, for example, if somehow adherents of your least favorite commentator took over D&D and decided that Critical Role had to promote their commentator's outlook or they couldn't do their show.

----------


## BeholderEyeDr

> I can't speak for others but I for one am sick and tired of rumors from anonymous sources who have no credibility and no evidence being treated as anything but a made up story. If I start a thread saying "_I have leaked documents that I can't post anywhere lest I be banned- but essentially they say this:
> It will not be possible to buy books anymore
> It will not be possible to buy books on dndbeyond, all content will come in the form of loot boxes
> Hashbro are planning on buying up as much of the TTRPG market as possible, then banning all non-1D&D games_"
> Your response should not be to be skeptical, your response should be to outright disbelieve me. People have been doing this for well over a century, make up some outrageous lie for clicks or upvotes or to get people to buy their tabloids.
> 
> For the sake of diplomacy let me phrase it like this: please consider the credibility of the source, and the evidence they provide before you _consider_ believing it.


The article about the leaked OGL draft is from a reputable reporter, on a reputable platform, who is vouching for a reputable source. It's also being corroborated by people in the know, such as the Kickstarter director of games who was involved in negotiating the terms presented in the article/leak. This is about as legit as leaks get (though you can certainly just categorically discount leaks if you want, I suppose). I totally understand skepticism about the earlier leaks (I felt the same), but the situation has changed with today's news.

----------


## Jervis

> Yeah and the Policy is really useful for them to have. It means WotC has a recourse if someone, say, runs a really offensive D&D campaign that glorifies all manner of board-inappropriate topics that goes viral and damages the brand, they can C&D it to stop the spread.


Corporations having power to say no to how someone uses their product is a bad thing, regardless of any opinion on the content. Never will i ever support corporate control of another entitys transformative work via IP law. Thats like saying a shirt company has the right to shut down a news boardcast because someone was wearing a shirt they made while doing something they disapproved of. Utter nonsense.

----------


## Psyren

> Corporations having power to say no to how someone uses their product is a bad thing, regardless of any opinion on the content. Never will i ever support corporate control of another entitys transformative work via IP law. Thats like saying a shirt company has the right to shut down a news boardcast because someone was wearing a shirt they made while doing something they disapproved of.


This isnt about "using their product." This about _broadcasting_ their product alongside something damaging, hateful or reprehensible. You can run your games however you want privately, the policy doesn't prevent that.




> Unfortunately, it also means that, if WotC so deems, they could C&D such a thing for the sin of, for example, declaring dwarves good and kobolds evil. Or for having no orc wizards in the campaign. Or for NOT supporting certain board-inappropriate topics or promoting certain positions on them.
> 
> Just imagine, for example, if somehow adherents of your least favorite commentator took over D&D and decided that Critical Role had to promote their commentator's outlook or they couldn't do their show.


I'm not saying that's impossible, however improbable. I'd still rather them have recourse against bad actors than not.




> The article about the leaked OGL draft is from a reputable reporter, on a reputable platform, who is vouching for a reputable source. It's also being corroborated by people in the know, such as the Kickstarter director of games who was involved in negotiating the terms presented in the article/leak. This is about as legit as leaks get (though you can certainly just categorically discount leaks if you want, I suppose). I totally understand skepticism about the earlier leaks (I felt the same), but the situation has changed with today's news.


Sure, but there's a lot of stuff Codega didn't state in her article or Twitter thread at all that is being guessed at. And other things she explicitly refuted (like the destruction of youtube d&d) that are still making the rounds anyway.

----------


## Unoriginal

> As a side note, expect the Critical Roll role playing game in the next few months, its gonna be 5E with every mention of 5E scrubbed off and enough small changes to make it legally distinct.


Critical Role's setting is officially a WotC publication now. And WotC *never* let a setting go once it's in their power, even when they refuse to publish anything in it.

If it was just the 5e mechanics they used, like at the start, they might try to do their own system, but Critical Role will simply never be able to afford losing the right to use the setting and the characters they've spent years building their fandom on.

I'm more expecting the CR people to take the giant novelty check and start shilling D&Done in the next few months to a year.





> Hasbro needs CR more than CR needs Hasbro. They likely do have a marketing agreement that is mutually beneficial.


It doesn't matter who needs whom more, what matters is who has the power to shut down the other.

Hasbro without Critical Role loses a few millions. Critical Role without Hasbro has 0 content they can make money of, aside from a couple one-shots. 




> But I doubt anyone is going after youtube games. Bad PR.


Bad PR never stopped corporate suits from trying something. May stop them from succeeding, though, but when it happens a lot of small businesses figure out it's time to stop.

----------


## stoutstien

Honestly if wizard wants to shoot their gift horse in the head via a overly restrictive licensing agreement the market will adjust. The growing popularity of TTRPGs won't miss a beat.

----------


## Segev

> I'm not saying that's impossible, however improbable. I'd still rather them have recourse against bad actors than not.


I'd legitimately rather they not. They already have that recourse over their IP. They can use the power of words and their position as a prominent company to combat any association issues, and can deny rights to use Beholders and the like. (After all, you can't use a Beholder in your own fictional story without WotC licensing it to you.) But they should not have the ability to say, "You can't play D&D because we don't like how you're playing it."

----------


## kazaryu

> It doesn't matter who needs whom more, what matters is who has the power to shut down the other.
> 
> Hasbro without Critical Role loses a few millions. Critical Role without Hasbro has 0 content they can make money of, aside from a couple one-shots.


pretty sure you don't need an OGL to make money playing a game on stream. i mean i could be wrong but...i mean a huge chunk of youtube/twitch income comes from exactly that.

----------


## Psyren

> I'd legitimately rather they not. They already have that recourse over their IP. They can use the power of words and their position as a prominent company to combat any association issues, and can deny rights to use Beholders and the like. (After all, you can't use a Beholder in your own fictional story without WotC licensing it to you.) But they should not have the ability to say, "You can't play D&D because we don't like how you're playing it."


All the specific examples I have for why this is necessary would go against board rules so I'll leave it there. We can agree to disagree.




> Bad PR never stopped corporate suits from trying something. May stop them from succeeding, though, but when it happens a lot of small businesses figure out it's time to stop.


Again, they specifically said youtube is fine. Yet this keeps coming up.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> pretty sure you don't need an OGL to make money playing a game on stream. i mean i could be wrong but...i mean a huge chunk of youtube/twitch income comes from exactly that.


They do have self published content that relies on the ogl as well though, the tal'dorei reborn setting book and the blood hunter are the top examples.

----------


## Jervis

> This isnt about "using their product." This about _broadcasting_ their product alongside something damaging, hateful or reprehensible. You can run your games however you want privately, the policy doesn't prevent that.


Again, youre either missing the point or being intentionally obtuse. My entire point was about making something while using something else. Does a camera manufacturer or someone that makes editing software have the right to say what you can record or edit with it? No? Same applies here. Brand protection should never give them a right to that.

----------


## Unoriginal

> pretty sure you don't need an OGL to make money playing a game on stream. i mean i could be wrong but...i mean a huge chunk of youtube/twitch income comes from exactly that.


The campaign setting the Critical Role people created is now WotC's, and such Hasbro's. 

If they try making money out of it without Hasbro's agreement, they can get shut down. Or at least, they can get lawyered until it's no longer profitable to even attempt it.

Funny story about that: Critical Role argued the same about content creators making money out of fan content based on their work, resulting in those content creators getting a cease & desist.




> Again, they specifically said youtube is fine. Yet this keeps coming up.


Expecting corporate suits to speak the truth is the first mistake many people make when thinking about business-related shenanigans.

----------


## Segev

> All the specific examples I have for why this is necessary would go against board rules so I'll leave it there. We can agree to disagree.


I suspect my specific examples as to why this is not only unnecessary, but bad, would find that we do, indeed, have to agree to disagree, even if we were allowed to discuss them here. 

I am of the opinion that we should err on the side of allowing offense to occur in the name of preventing "but that's offensive!" from being used to silence all who you disagree with. Specific examples, obviously, are off the table, here. But I think we fundamentally disagree on where that line should be drawn. Which is okay, since neither of us are actually making these decisions.

----------


## Brookshw

> What that means is that those smaller channels can't charge people to watch them play D&D, but they can put ads on their videos or plug their Patreon for support, or sell their own channel merch that doesn't specifically reference any of D&D's IP etc.


A useful point of comparison in this conversation is the GW IP policy update which went into effect in 2021 when GW was moving more into the digital space, I'm sure WoTC was watching closely to see the impact.

And the impact seems to have been fairly minimal; sure, a few fan sites threw in the towel, but for the most part it remained business as usual. There's still ads and other private monetization going on, people still produce content, etc., and it certainly didn't seem to hurt GW's bottom line. From what I recall, the only time someone claimed to have received a C&D resulting from the change, it turned out to be a big hoax.

Basically, GW used common sense in it's enforcement (including not grabbing people's IP which they were entitled to have done for years), the hysteria calmed down, no major competitors arose, and everyone got on with it.

Also, do people not read the T&C's of DDB,? They're already giving away licenses to their IP.....

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I suspect my specific examples as to why this is not only unnecessary, but bad, would find that we do, indeed, have to agree to disagree, even if we were allowed to discuss them here. 
> 
> I am of the opinion that we should err on the side of allowing offense to occur in the name of preventing "but that's offensive!" from being used to silence all who you disagree with. Specific examples, obviously, are off the table, here. But I think we fundamentally disagree on where that line should be drawn. Which is okay, since neither of us are actually making these decisions.


I agree with you in general, many debates IRL come down to where are lines drawn and who draws them. As someone studying an appropriate field, I'm not sure most corporate types ought to be drawing the lines, most lack even basic expertise in metaethics (the study of conflicts between various ethical schools of thought). True of most moderns, as pseudointellectualism has largely reigned in ethical debates (both sides of the aisle fingered here) for the past decade or so. 

But it is one thing to avoid associated a game with Hitler or Stalin, which hurts a brand and another to take a stance on issues involving current political debates where a strong divide exists. Bad idea to make your product unmarketable to half the country.

----------


## Psyren

> I suspect my specific examples as to why this is not only unnecessary, but bad, would find that we do, indeed, have to agree to disagree, even if we were allowed to discuss them here. 
> 
> I am of the opinion that we should err on the side of allowing offense to occur in the name of preventing "but that's offensive!" from being used to silence all who you disagree with. Specific examples, obviously, are off the table, here. But I think we fundamentally disagree on where that line should be drawn. Which is okay, since neither of us are actually making these decisions.


While I can't cite any specific examples, I can quote the parts of the forum rules themselves related to things WotC might not want their brand associated with in an egregious instance of fan content:




> Hate SpeechGraphic ViolenceIllegal drugsIllegal/Criminal activityExplicit SexualityProfessional Advice


Some of these are obviously bad, and WotC having the ability to revoke a content creator's ability to broadcast their game in conjunction with them is an important protection to have, especially for repeat offenders or highly-publicized cases. 

Others are a bit more open to interpretation - I can imagine quite a few rogues who get up to "criminal activity" in a _gaming_ context after all) - but if you, for example, use your video of a gaming session as a step by step tutorial on how to commit certain kinds of crime _in real life_, it's reasonable to expect that you might be asked to edit your video or take it down.




> A useful point of comparison in this conversation is the GW IP policy update which went into effect in 2021 when GW was moving more into the digital space, I'm sure WoTC was watching closely to see the impact.
> 
> And the impact seems to have been fairly minimal; sure, a few fan sites threw in the towel, but for the most part it remained business as usual. There's still ads and other private monetization going on, people still produce content, etc., and it certainly didn't seem to hurt GW's bottom line. From what I recall, the only time someone claimed to have received a C&D resulting from the change, it turned out to be a big hoax.
> 
> Basically, GW used common sense in it's enforcement (including not grabbing people's IP which they were entitled to have done for years), the hysteria calmed down, no major competitors arose, and everyone got on with it.


Precisely - and again, your perspective/experience on this topic is always appreciated. Nobody is going to send you a takedown notice because you decided your world's orcs have blue hair.




> Also, do people not read the T&C's of DDB,? They're already giving away licenses to their IP.....


I assume you mean this passage from the ToS:

_5.2. License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content._
It seems pretty similar to the language used in the article I think. The difference being that the above only applies to things published via DnDBeyond or a WotC forum - I think.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

From a tweet further down the stream by Linda Codega



> @lincodega
> 2h
> Replying to 
> @BrotherMingGame
> royalties are a small part of this  theres a lot of this language that is deeply restrictive and controlling, which is what a lot more people are upset about._ WotC is turning an open sandbox into a walled garden._


 Nice turn of phrase there.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I'm not saying anyone is not free to do anything. I am saying baseless speculation (not what you've been posting personally, some of the things I've seen in general) is lowering the quality of discussion and causing emotional harm. In the time between this post and your last one, multiple people posted comments that foretold the death of DnD youtube, and judging by their tones in their statements, were very upset about that. This is despite that the content is outside the scope of the topic agreement, and an extant separate policy already covering that topic separately, which furthermore was determined to be still extant according to a potential leak.
> 
> If the Fan Content Policy was scrapped, or at least there was a proposed announcement of it being scrapped, we would have something to work off of. But this has happened and some people ruined their day over something that wasn't going to happen in the first place. I would say that people are not familiar with a lot of these topics, so discussing them can be good. But on the other hand the exchange was not very constructive.


I agree with your take on baseless speculation and I agree that people shouldn't have bad days over this.

I just want to be cautious that we're not grouping everyone together and rolling our eyes and saying "oh here we go again, more Chicken Littles worrying about nothing", just because some handful of people can't handle a rumor or leak without having a bad day about it. If the posts were more concern-centric I'd be more inclined to agree with you that's what's happening. But I think it's pretty clear that some people are being regarded as tin foil hat types for daring to wonder aloud if a corporation looking to squeeze more profits out of D&D might make some missteps in their attempt to do that. Especially given that they've made missteps before.

Sure, it might be a little less stressful to be a dutiful little soldier eating pies in the sky, defending WotC/Hasbro at every opportunity but... who wants to be that guy?

-------------------------------------------

Anyways, at the end of the day I know two things; Hasbro can't stop me and my friends from playing D&D, and they can't make me buy their products. As the "Demand' part of "Supply & Demand", I feel entitled to have an opinion about what they'll be supplying going forward, how they'll be supplying it, and what restrictions they'll be applying to 3rd party suppliers. I've complained more than enough times on this forum about the first part, and I've heard (online and in person) people wonder what is going to happen to all the digital content they've purchased for the game so far, and this OGL impacts the third part (as there is obviously a thriving 3rd party market supporting the game in ways that WotC refuses to).

It's funny though that in a time when corporations are the ultimate boogeyman, WotC/Hasbro is apparently a unicorn, rising out of the muck on a bridge made of rainbows, ascending as a paragon of good business practice and fair monetization.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Critical Role's setting is officially a WotC publication now. And WotC *never* let a setting go once it's in their power, even when they refuse to publish anything in it.
> 
> If it was just the 5e mechanics they used, like at the start, they might try to do their own system, but Critical Role will simply never be able to afford losing the right to use the setting and the characters they've spent years building their fandom on.
> 
> I'm more expecting the CR people to take the giant novelty check and start shilling D&Done in the next few months to a year.


No idea, CR probably has an agreement with WOTC, it's possible Mercer protected his copyright to the setting in the process when he did so. TSR and WOTC have run settings under license before the 3 D20 Star Wars being an example.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Anyways, at the end of the day I know two things; Hasbro can't stop me and my friends from playing D&D, and they can't make me buy their products. As the "Demand' part of "Supply & Demand", I feel entitled to have an opinion about what they'll be supplying going forward, how they'll be supplying it, and what restrictions they'll be applying to 3rd party suppliers. I've complained more than enough times on this forum about the first part, and I've heard (online and in person) people wonder what is going to happen to all the digital content they've purchased for the game so far, and this OGL impacts the third part (as there is obviously a thriving 3rd party market supporting the game in ways that WotC refuses to).
> 
> It's funny though that in a time when corporations are the ultimate boogeyman, WotC/Hasbro is apparently a unicorn, rising out of the muck on a bridge made of rainbows, ascending as a paragon of good business practice and fair monetization.


I agree with all of this. Personally, my trust in Hasbro, given, well, their past history and the statements they've made and the people they've hired, as well as my trust in WotC (whose MtG arm is notorious for customer-hostile, money-grubbing, ultra-litigation-happy behavior), is at an all-time ebb. So I'm naturally predisposed to take things like this seriously.

As someone who would _like_ (in a pipe-dream sense) to publish a setting that widely deviates from their new procrustean formula and who has a voluminous amount of material on a wiki already, these sorts of things make me want to go and do another scrub. I already try to avoid using any stat blocks or even referencing directly SRD/other material, but some has leaked through.

In all probability, I'll continue to play 5.0 D&D, but that will drift further and further. Once I can't find new players, I'll find another system that I can retrofit to work for me. Unless something radically changes, I won't be buying any further WotC products and will struggle to find the value in continuing my D&D Beyond subscription, even though it's quite useful for some of my players. But the cost/value proposition becomes worse with every change.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> I find it hilarious that people are defending this. WotC can do no harm I suppose. Im convinced that WotC could announce that theyre building a doomsday device and certain people would defend them for it at this point. Pulling the rug out from under people on older OGL versions with a statement that it can be changed at any time with only a months notice is asking for trouble. And of course the obligatory mention that they have the right to use whatever you make for whatever they want is bs of the greatest regard. I truly hope this is the second coming of 4E and WotC gets a financial broken jaw over this.


Honestly, D&D 5e has had far too much of a monopoly on the industry and them losing out for a bit would probably be good for the long-term health of TTRPGs.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Honestly, D&D 5e has had far too much of a monopoly on the industry and them losing out for a bit would probably be good for the long-term health of TTRPGs.


Indeed. I don't really feel the need to take sides between multimillion dollar corporations, and I am probably skipping ODD, but what if, after a chain of legal battles going the worst way possible, PF3 is good? That would be awesome!





> Anyways, at the end of the day I know two things; Hasbro can't stop me and my friends from playing D&D, and they can't make me buy their products. As the "Demand' part of "Supply & Demand", I feel entitled to have an opinion about what they'll be supplying going forward, how they'll be supplying it, and what restrictions they'll be applying to 3rd party suppliers. I've complained more than enough times on this forum about the first part, and I've heard (online and in person) people wonder what is going to happen to all the digital content they've purchased for the game so far, and this OGL impacts the third part (as there is obviously a thriving 3rd party market supporting the game in ways that WotC refuses to).
> 
> It's funny though that in a time when corporations are the ultimate boogeyman, WotC/Hasbro is apparently a unicorn, rising out of the muck on a bridge made of rainbows, ascending as a paragon of good business practice and fair monetization.


Indeed. Much like PheonixPhyre lack of faith in Hasbro, I didn't have a huge amount of faith in a digital tool from WotC moving forward. I f this goes really poorly, I guess all of this side-eyeing and preference for hard copies will have paid off, at least. I do think that for a company apparently under-monetizing (and by that they apparently mean not selling enough books to players), they probably should have created and published more player oriented books like Tasha's and Xanathar's. 

Maybe I can convince my table to play PF1 if we run out of 5e content. Fingers crossed.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Daphne

> I find it hilarious that people are defending this. WotC can do no harm I suppose. Im convinced that WotC could announce that theyre building a doomsday device and certain people would defend them for it at this point.


But have you considered that it might make *business sense* to build a doomsday device? Or maybe that *they have information we don't* showing that people want the world to end? And just because they're building a doomsday device does not mean they're gonna use it, *stop being hysterical*!

----------


## Psyren

> Indeed. I don't really feel the need to take sides between multimillion dollar corporations, and I am probably skipping ODD, but what if, after a chain of legal battles going the worst way possible, PF3 is good? That would be awesome!


Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.

Again though, I see plenty of opportunity here for creators to just... stick with 1.1 and keep making money. They need to clarify a few things like "static electronic files" and the "grant license" clause, but I still see plenty of opportunity here for third party creators to make money.




> Indeed. Much like PheonixPhyre lack of faith in Hasbro, I didn't have a huge amount of faith in a digital tool from WotC moving forward. I f this goes really poorly, I guess all of this side-eyeing and preference for hard copies will have paid off, at least. I do think that for a company apparently under-monetizing (and by that they apparently mean not selling enough books to players), they probably should have created and published more player oriented books like Tasha's and Xanathar's.


Unfortunately, that takes a lot of design time to avoid flooding the market with poorly-balanced dross the way 3.5 (and even latter PF1 - hi Shifter!) did. As much as I wish we had more subclasses and feats, I'll take the stuff we do get being balanced better any day.




> Maybe I can convince my table to play PF1 if we run out of 5e content. Fingers crossed.


Mine migrated the other way shortly before Tasha's. Going back would be a pretty titanic effort I think (not that I want to - yet anyway.)

----------


## Sparky McDibben

So, this might be genuine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqFFdHWEuvM

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.


 My hunch is you probably have to opt in if you print ODD material due to section 9, and you are signing away your personal rights otherwise.  My guess (still a philosopher and not a lawyer) is this may be an unenforceable jargon that doesn't work, sort of like the school permission slips we signed as kids.


I assume someone creating a setting in the future could skirt the license requirement, say by a rules book with Stats codes (M1 M2, M3 for monster 1, monster 2, monster 3) in the back released under the OGL, and then referring to the codes in the setting book, ("for stats on monster worms see M1 in Stat book") as non OGL material, or other tricks, tedious perhaps, but I wouldn't give any corporation any license to a setting I created for any reason. One could even do this in a system neutral way by creating a 5e, Gurps and Fate compatible set of stats.

----------


## EggKookoo

> So, this might be genuine:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqFFdHWEuvM


Assuming this is true and WotC doesn't change course, this is the beginning of the end of D&D.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> Assuming this is true and WotC doesn't change course, this is the beginning of the end of D&D.


I don't know about beginning of the end, but it does mean that right now we are...

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Assuming this is true and WotC doesn't change course, this is the beginning of the end of D&D.


So many D&D 5e fans about to experience their first D&D 4e situation. Brace yourself for it.

----------


## Raven777

> Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.


It could be Kobold Press or Ghostfire Gaming.

I maintain that 5e's chassis (advantage, bounded accuracy, proficiency, action types) with 3.PF classes, archetypes and spells would be the best game ever.

I just want a game with classic Sorcerer and Shadow Enchantment / Conjuration / Evocation O.o

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.
> 
> Again though, I see plenty of opportunity here for creators to just... stick with 1.1 and keep making money. They need to clarify a few things like "static electronic files" and the "grant license" clause, but I still see plenty of opportunity here for third party creators to make money.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that takes a lot of design time to avoid flooding the market with poorly-balanced dross the way 3.5 (and even latter PF1 - hi Shifter!) did. As much as I wish we had more subclasses and feats, I'll take the stuff we do get being balanced better any day.
> 
> 
> ...





> It could be Kobold Press or Ghostfire Gaming.
> 
> I maintain that 5e's chassis (advantage, bounded accuracy, proficiency, action types) with 3.PF classes, archetypes and spells would be the best game ever.
> 
> I just want a game with classic Sorcerer and Shadow Enchantment / Conjuration / Evocation O.o


Mutants and Masterminds uses the OGL 1.0, though heavily modified. Green Ronin would be in the mix along with Paizo, though I believe they now have an in-house system, which is used for the Expanse.

----------


## animorte

Everything Changed

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Mutants and Masterminds uses the OGL 1.0, though heavily modified. Green Ronin would be in the mix along with Paizo, though I believe they now have an in-house system, which is used for the Expanse.


And this is why I suspect Hasbros legal department will say no to much of this. What happens with something as heavily modified as MnM is? If getting rid of the OGL was this easy, why didn't they do it sooner? My guess is this is executive talking points, not a final copy legal had approved, and if they did, it may not be enforceable.

----------


## Jervis

> 25672717[/URL]] I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.


Yeah, Id feel bad for all three of them but Id personally be happy. 

Memes aside if actually like to see someone like whitewolf pounce on the opportunity. TBH a lot of 5e players would probably like story games like the storyteller system or Fate more than 5E if my experience is anything to go by. 5E has this weird devision between being a dungeon crawler and a story game because its trying to serve a very large fanbase that want very different things. 




> 25672709[/URL]]But have you considered that it might make *business sense* to build a doomsday device? Or maybe that *they have information we don't* showing that people want the world to end? And just because they're building a doomsday device does not mean they're gonna use it, *stop being hysterical*!


 :Small Cool:  Heh

----------


## Snowbluff

> Yeah, Id feel bad for all three of them but Id personally be happy.


 Ice cold.  :Small Tongue: 




> Another possibility is that someone challenges their attempt to override the "perpetual" clause in the older OGL, wins, and uses it to make a 5e retroclone that skips 1DD and the 1.1 requirements entirely. I must admit, it would be amusing if that were PF3, even though they'd probably alienate all their PF2 fans in the process.





> It could be Kobold Press or Ghostfire Gaming.
> 
> I maintain that 5e's chassis (advantage, bounded accuracy, proficiency, action types) with 3.PF classes, archetypes and spells would be the best game ever.
> 
> I just want a game with classic Sorcerer and Shadow Enchantment / Conjuration / Evocation O.o


Ye! I mean, I've considered mashing a mod together for 3.5/PF1 anyway. Just kinda fill in parts that are easily changeable. 



> Again though, I see plenty of opportunity here for creators to just... stick with 1.1 and keep making money. They need to clarify a few things like "static electronic files" and the "grant license" clause, but I still see plenty of opportunity here for third party creators to make money.


 True, I guess that mostly depends on the individual corporations however. I'm not sure about how much overhead some of them have, so what exactly what parts of their company would do. Maybe some of them might write off the licensing fee on their taxes (though I asked a tax accountant and he said he's never seen this done in practice). I brought up Paizo before because they do have millions of dollars on the line for this and hundreds of employees, so they have a lot to gain and a lot of overhead as is to avoid being tied up in a royalty agreement. 





> Unfortunately, that takes a lot of design time to avoid flooding the market with poorly-balanced dross the way 3.5 (and even latter PF1 - hi Shifter!) did. As much as I wish we had more subclasses and feats, I'll take the stuff we do get being balanced better any day.
> 
> 
> 
> Mine migrated the other way shortly before Tasha's. Going back would be a pretty titanic effort I think (not that I want to - yet anyway.)


I will say that their slow process hasn't necessarily created what people have been hailing as balanced. While I'm not one to primarily make my purchases on game balance, they did buff bladesinger and a lot of people don't like twilight cleric. There's a bunch of unused UA that could have been touched up and released pretty readily, like Stone Sorc. 

Not that I'm saying that they should publish just anything, just that they could have made more releases, filling some of the gaps. There are definitely options for WotC here that don't involve pissing off a lot of people and potential inviting a lot of legal battles.

----------


## Brookshw

> I assume you mean this passage from the ToS:
> 
> _5.2. License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content._
> It seems pretty similar to the language used in the article I think. The difference being that the above only applies to things published via DnDBeyond or a WotC forum - I think.


That looks like what I'm recalling, yes (oh, look, WoTC recognizes to use "irrevocable" in licenses, and not to rely on "perpetual"). There's a lot of interesting things on the legal side that can be discussed about this, like the passage of the CASE Act in 2019 making it more practical for them to sue, or the expanding nature of infringement and how publishers can get clever in shutting things down, even when it doesn't directly copy their content (see for example, Penguin and the Dr. Suess estate's spat over the book _The Cat Not In The Hat_). Not gonna touch the antitrust stuff other than to say I think it's barking up the wrong tree.


But, at the end of the day, how much any of that matters is going to be largely academic I suspect. I see people linking "content creator"'s panic videos, and remember similar videos when GW pulled a similar move, MWG had a big long one about it. Know who's still making and monetizing content? MWG.




> It could be Kobold Press


I'd love to see KP make their own game system, Wolfgang Baur did some great work with Midgard!

----------


## GreenDragonPage

MCDM/Matt Colville has stated: 

"Regarding the OGL 1.1, MCDM has taken advice from counsel and we don't think it affects the development of Flee, Mortals! If/when other products are affected, we'll let the community know.

No matter what, we'll keep making dope-ass stuff and we're excited for the future of MCDM!"

https://twitter.com/helloMCDM/status...37673049305088

Which is super interesting.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Honestly, D&D 5e has had far too much of a monopoly on the industry and them losing out for a bit would probably be good for the long-term health of TTRPGs.





> Indeed. I don't really feel the need to take sides between multimillion dollar corporations, and I am probably skipping ODD, but what if, after a chain of legal battles going the worst way possible, PF3 is good? That would be awesome!


This is my opinion as well. (Well, not _Pathfinder 3_, but the other stuff.)




> Everything Changed


I'm not sure what you intended to link, but we don't have access to the doc.

----------


## EggKookoo

> MCDM/Matt Colville has stated: 
> 
> "Regarding the OGL 1.1, MCDM has taken advice from counsel and we don't think it affects the development of Flee, Mortals! If/when other products are affected, we'll let the community know.
> 
> No matter what, we'll keep making dope-ass stuff and we're excited for the future of MCDM!"
> 
> https://twitter.com/helloMCDM/status...37673049305088
> 
> Which is super interesting.


Generally, most people are thinking that even if 1.1 deauthorizes 1.0, it hasn't done it yet. If that's the case, current products are still safe, and that will probably be the case until the official launch of 1D&D next year

----------


## animorte

> I'm not sure what you intended to link, but we don't have access to the doc.


Yup, was struggling with that. Thanks, should be fixed!

----------


## TaiLiu

> Yup, was struggling with that. Thanks, should be fixed!


That's funny.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> Yup, was struggling with that. Thanks, should be fixed!


10 / 10, very solid. :D

----------


## Unoriginal

> If getting rid of the OGL was this easy, why didn't they do it sooner?


Several things:

1. It's not that easy, it's just that Hasbro has enough power and money to do it and either dodge or beat any court cases coming from that change, when 3.X/4e-era WotC definitively couldn't afford to try.

2. Even at its worst, WotC recognized that it was better to have other content creators work with their system, with was basically free advertisement for D&D as it regularly reminded people D&D was a thing and that you could buy stuff from it. Now they're under mandate by corporate suits that are far removed from the situation and the suits think 5e does not monetizes itself enough, which obviously mean that all those "freeloaders using the corporate assets for free" must be cut off.

----------


## Psyren

> MCDM/Matt Colville has stated: 
> 
> "Regarding the OGL 1.1, MCDM has taken advice from counsel and we don't think it affects the development of Flee, Mortals! If/when other products are affected, we'll let the community know.
> 
> No matter what, we'll keep making dope-ass stuff and we're excited for the future of MCDM!"
> 
> https://twitter.com/helloMCDM/status...37673049305088
> 
> Which is super interesting.


Sounds like he at least is not running for the hills, at least not yet. Telling...




> Everything Changed


"Harmony" is a strong word  :Small Tongue: 




> That looks like what I'm recalling, yes (oh, look, WoTC recognizes to use "irrevocable" in licenses, and not to rely on "perpetual"). There's a lot of interesting things on the legal side that can be discussed about this, like the passage of the CASE Act in 2019 making it more practical for them to sue, or the expanding nature of infringement and how publishers can get clever in shutting things down, even when it doesn't directly copy their content (see for example, Penguin and the Dr. Suess estate's spat over the book _The Cat Not In The Hat_). Not gonna touch the antitrust stuff other than to say I think it's barking up the wrong tree.


Yeah, I don't know how credible it would be to argue that they have a monopoly. Market leader, sure - but even within the TTRPG space there are plenty of alternatives, never mind board games or games more generally.




> But, at the end of the day, how much any of that matters is going to be largely academic I suspect. I see people linking "content creator"'s panic videos, and remember similar videos when GW pulled a similar move, MWG had a big long one about it. Know who's still making and monetizing content? MWG.


Lovely.




> Several things:
> 
> 1. It's not that easy, it's just that Hasbro has enough power and money to do it and either dodge or beat any court cases coming from that change, when 3.X/4e-era WotC definitively couldn't afford to try.
> 
> 2. Even at its worst, WotC recognized that it was better to have other content creators work with their system, with was basically free advertisement for D&D as it regularly reminded people D&D was a thing and that you could buy stuff from it. Now they're under mandate by corporate suits that are far removed from the situation and the suits think 5e does not monetizes itself enough, which obviously mean that all those "freeloaders using the corporate assets for free" must be cut off.


Yeah, those poor multimillionaire "freeloaders..."

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Several things:
> 
> 1. It's not that easy, it's just that Hasbro has enough power and money to do it and either dodge or beat any court cases coming from that change, when 3.X/4e-era WotC definitively couldn't afford to try.
> 
> 2. Even at its worst, WotC recognized that it was better to have other content creators work with their system, with was basically free advertisement for D&D as it regularly reminded people D&D was a thing and that you could buy stuff from it. Now they're under mandate by corporate suits that are far removed from the situation and the suits think 5e does not monetizes itself enough, which obviously mean that all those "freeloaders using the corporate assets for free" must be cut off.


Attoeney's filing a class action suit for dozens of plantiffs, with an FTC letter us a big disincentive. I have a lawsuit filed from an auto accident a few years ago, the lawyer gets a percentage if we win, which we should, due to injuries. Lawyers in class actions work the same way, so it may not be as hard to sue as you might think. And I do think the FTC will be interested in this, including the bit about gaining an irrevocable license or controls on VTTs, not to mention the impact on the OSR, PF, MnM, etc., as well as for someone writing on the MnM OGL, since they would have to scrub works for terminology. I think it is a bit of a mess to revoke the old OGL for old content. 

You know, very little time for going as I age, but I had a few setting ideas, for my kid when he gets older, possibly a niece and nephew. The themes of the settings are important enough that I will not be granting license to anyone, ever. I doubt I will publish, not my intent, but I think I will use an OpenD6 engine for development, why? OGL 1.1. Enough other people do similar things, and the WOT monopoly fades. Of course, I prefer D6 anyway, but then a lot of people have systems they prefer over DnD and the fad gamers won't be around forever.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Yeah, I don't know how credible it would be to argue that they have a monopoly. Market leader, sure - but even within the TTRPG space there are plenty of alternatives, never mind board games or games more generally.


I'm sure Microsoft thought the same of bundling explorer with their OS. I would have agreed with you at one point. Antitrust law is tricky, but it does seem to me that marketshare is high enough that it will raise prices on producers (to cover the royalties), it would drastically hurt VTTs if they explicitly couldn't use the most popular system on the market. The claim for an irrevocable license is a serious ine, because it one, later challenge the IP of creators who may not actually be drawing on DND Lore, they are only interested in mechanics in an early stage and change engines later down the line, etc. It's complicated, I'll leave it at that, and I think that is the real issue that WOTC needs to have internally and ultimately externally. I'm not a lawyer, but checking the FTC website, it's complicated.

----------


## Ogun

Will I ever buy another Hasbro product?
I doubt it, but I would support a crowd funded defense of the 1.0 license.
The open gaming license allowed Pathfinder to thrive when players and creators were dissatisfied with 4 edition.
I think DnD and the entire TTRPG hobby became  better because of  that competitive pressure.

As for the 1.1 "Open" license, well if WotC really thinks that their contributions to a creators success entitles them to this kind of lopsided agreement, so be it.
Some will sign on and others won't. 
It's kind of brilliant really.
 WotC has decided that, rather than making better products for DnD, they will  try to destroy or exploit any entity that is.

----------


## animorte

> That's funny.





> 10 / 10, very solid. :D


 :Small Smile: 




> "Harmony" is a strong word


 :Small Big Grin:  You know, I considered that while making it, since it seems to be uniting us more than ever!

----------


## Snowbluff

> But, at the end of the day, how much any of that matters is going to be largely academic I suspect. I see people linking "content creator"'s panic videos, and remember similar videos when GW pulled a similar move, MWG had a big long one about it. Know who's still making and monetizing content? MWG.


This is an interesting thought. I took a look at reddit and a lot of people don't know what the OGL is or what it does. I'm willing to bet a fair chunk of the DnD community never uses 3PP to begin with. My general impression is that this will be way more impactful on games that aren't DnD. Even if 1.1 releases in such a bad state, most people won't even notice. Yes, the gaming experience in total is worsened, but mostly on the high investment fraction of the playerbase. DnD 4e actually did sell despite a terrible licensing system as well, it seems.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Yeah, those poor multimillionaire freeloaders...


Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't actually see those multimillionaires as people who should be giving more of their money to Hasbro?

Or are you saying that those multimillionaires *are* freeloaders and they should give more of their money to Hasbro?

----------


## Psyren

> Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't actually see those multimillionaires as people who should be giving more of their money to Hasbro?
> 
> Or are you saying that those multimillionaires *are* freeloaders and they should give more of their money to Hasbro?


I'm saying that a royalty isn't going to scare off someone who can make millions from writing game books. (Though, again, I think it could stand to be lowered.)




> This is an interesting thought. I took a look at reddit and a lot of people don't know what the OGL is or what it does. I'm willing to bet a fair chunk of the DnD community never uses 3PP to begin with. My general impression is that this will be way more impactful on games that aren't DnD. Even if 1.1 releases in such a bad state, most people won't even notice. Yes, the gaming experience in total is worsened, but mostly on the high investment fraction of the playerbase. DnD 4e actually did sell despite a terrible licensing system as well, it seems.


For good or ill, I'd say they did one thing right - planning to release the OGL soon (or intentionally "leaking" it now?) was the way to go. They'll make whatever concessions they deem necessary, and the residual outrage will die down well before OneD&D debuts.

Had this news dropped next year along with the new edition it would have completely dwarfed all the fanfare of the books themselves.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I'm saying that a royalty isn't going to scare off someone who can make millions from writing game books. (Though, again, I think it could stand to be lowered.).


I'm not sure how many creators are making millions, don't forget that they are apparantly wanting to collect on revenue, not profits. I think there are a number of problems with big dogs in the industry outside of WOTC, buy the revenue can be deceiving, some players are generating large revenues, but not large profits, since many crowdfunding efforts seem to underestimate production and creation costs, particularly when you can't print at scale, or go overboard on artwork. 

But the effects would be far reaching. If you are Green Ronin, do you really want another company having a worldwide, irrevocable, sublicensable rights to publish components for freeport or freedom city? MnM has its own OGL, but it is derived from 3.x and they have never included their setting as open material. The language of the new OGL would seem to suggest if they publish a new adventure in their long standing setting without creating an entirely new system first, WOTC could then print a few Freedom city sourcebooks, and even if WOTC chose not to do so, it still, the possibility becomes a sword of damocles over Green Ronin if they ever bevame a true competitor. Now take this same issue and apply it to the OSR movement (OSR books are being sold under OGL 1.0, after all), does this, then include all future adventures for every indie studio using OSE, Labrynth Lords, Castles and Crusades, etc? Paizo still seems to reference the OGL on the PRD for 2.0, not sure what they are using it for (OpenD6 and Fate do the same thing, though I doubt WOTC could go after these systems, the only thing OpenD6 borrows is the contract, itself). It has some pretty far reaching implications.

It's too much power to influence the market, and controls too much of the space in the end. It's not about the money, though the desired amount is highly exorbitant, it's a problem with the larger impacts.

Again, not an alarmist, WOTC doesn't want to spend time in court, and a number of entities would fight this, a number of smaller creators will go to other systems, to avoid the hassle, etc. (I've read a thread where two lawyers in the field have differing opinions on if the OGL 1.0 can or cannot be revoked, it was interesting).  Even if they win the case, well its a lot of money to pursue. So I expect their legal department will step in here with some sanity, and likely that was why it wasn't released as allegedly scheduled. But let's not suggest others are simply being greedy for WOTC property, they have a livelihood, and 20 years of their own sweat at stake and most are likely not that well off.

----------


## Serafina

Demanding a percentage of revenue is pretty ruinous.

Let's run a math example on this, and assume a kickstarter that reaches a goal of $1,000,000 (one million dollars). That is a lot, but it has happend.
You charge 25$ for a digital PDF, and another 25$ for a printed book, the same for a map, the same for other physical rewards.. Your stretch goals include several doublings of specific rule content (classes, races, spells, etc.), virtual tabletop tokens, a bonus adventure, and a soundtrack.

Now, if you have to pay a percentage of your revenue, it is important to keep in mind that your *costs go up.* In our case, by 20%.
The PDFs are basically free to deliver, and the initial kickstarter goal should be small enough so as to be below the 750k treshhold anyhow. But what happens if you go above the 750k, and with any physical books or other individual rewards that have a cost to deliver, or stretchgoal rewards that have a notable cost to deliver?

So you reach 750k, and at this point kickstarters typically go up by people upgrading their pledge to include physical books, maps, cards, or items such as pins, stickers etc.
You _also_ have to pay for any of the stretch goals - such as the soundtrack, which you likely have to pay someone to develop.

So let us assume that you go from 750k to 1 million, 50% of which is due to people upgrading to ordering physical books (5$ profit margin), 25% of which is due to them ordering maps (10$ profit margins) and 25% of which is due to people just ordering the PDFs, each of which split into 25$ sections of course. Those 250k would thus compose a profit of about $111,800.

But we also promised to deliver a Soundtrack, and assuming we deliver a decent-quality soundtrack (500$/minute) at a good length (half an hour) that will cost us $15,000 to deliver. Doesn't break the bank, but brings the profit down to about 90k. Keep in mind that realistically, this would encompass more stretch goals, and I am being really generous here too.

But that is if we do not have to pay 20% Revenue to WotC. What happens if we do have to do that?
Well, let's substract that as an additional cost. Out of those 250k, we now have to pay 50k to WotC. *Oh - that more than halves our profits!*

Remember - I am being really generous here.
What happens if people order way more physical rewards and you barely make money of those? If you do not make 5$ of profit off the books, but rather none, there goes 25k. Same if the maps only make 5$ of profit rather than 10$. That can happen. 
You'll more likely promise more rewards - what if that eats another 10k? That is not unrealistic for two or three stretchgoals, such as map tokens and e.g. writing a whole adenture with additional art!
At that point, the additional profit from those 250k goes down to only about 5000 dollars! While WotC gets to keep 50000 - ten times as much.


Sure, that is only for succesful kickstarters.
But also, this is an example for kickstarters. Where you only have to pay 20% of your revenue. If you run a company that releases several books - well,  guess what, this won't be calculated per book, and also it'll be 25% so it'll be even worse.


Edit:
Oh, and this gets worse if we suppose the people who run this succesful kickstarter previously released D&D-adjacent stuff, and are selling it. They'll have to pay 25% of the revenue of all those sales - which are unrelated to the kickstarter directly - to WotC!

So on a PDFf or 20$, now 5$ would go to WotC just because you ran a succesful kickstarter this year!
On a physical book for 25$, 6$25c would go to WotC. But wait, we assumed that you only make 5$ profit off that physical book in the first place - *so unless you jack up the prices , you are now suddenly making a loss!* If you do, you owe more to WotC (e.g. 7$50c at 30$ per book, leaving you with only 2$50 of profit, rather than 10$).

----------


## EggKookoo

> Yeah, those poor multimillionaire freeloaders...


Freeloaders? Are you even close to being serious here?

The OGL was always intended to benefit WotC. It only existed for that purpose. If you made money with an OGL product, WotC was freeloading off of you. If not in direct revenue in terms of core book sales propped up by your product, in terms of market share dominance, which is insanely valuable.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Yeah, those poor multimillionaire freeloaders...


Wizards of the Coast's largest competitor makes 37 million a year in revenue.

Wizards of the Coast themselves make a 1,000 million a year in revenue, or in more simple terms; a billion, twenty-seven times more than their nearest competitor. 

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to have more clamped-down control on the market than they already do.

----------


## Serafina

> Yeah, those poor multimillionaire freeloaders...


It is important to note that a vast majority of what constitutes any TTRPG, including D&D, can not be meaningfully copyrighted or trademarked.

Like, you obviously can't copyright or trademark the D&D classes, since they all use generic names. You may be able to do that for the names specific class features or subclasses - e.g. you could probably make a case for "Eldritch Knight" - but only to the extent of protecting the name, not the concept. After all, a spellcaster whomst also uses a sword shows up in fantasy plenty of times.

The same goes for the vast majority of the monsters. There are a few that are actually original D&D creations, such as the Beholder, which could fall under copyright. For others, WotC could try to apply for a trademark. But for most of them, you can do no such thing, because they are generic, see above.

And quite importantly, you can not copyright or trademark rules. There is no definition of copyright under which I can protect "roll a D20 plus a bonus to see if your attack hits", or "roll a D20 plus a bonus to see if you are protected against an effect", or "you can move this far in a round, and certain terrain slows you down." You obviously have copyright to the written-out rulebook as a whole, but this doesn't stop anyone from taking the individual rules and applying them to their own game, any more than your use of a phrase in a book or technique in a painting can be copyrighted (it's a bit different with music but that is also special and silly).

Settings as a whole obviously have copyright and can be trademarked, but note how the existense of Lord of the Rings doesn't stop me from writing a story with Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Wizards, and evil magical treasures.



All this is to say that people taking inspiration from D&D, even very close inspiration, are in no way freeloaders.
The OGL was a clever move on WotCs part because it allowed them to bind other creators more closely to them. The vast majority of works under the OGL could have been written and published without it, but if so they would not have strenghtend the D&D brand. As they did before WotC released 4E and abandoned the OGL, and started doing again once they released 5E and started using it again.


Demanding 25% of the revenue from people who do marketing for you is just naked rent-seeking and greed.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Demanding 25% of the revenue from people who do marketing for you is just naked rent-seeking and greed.


Absolutely. The frustrating thing here is TSR had a habit of strongarm-suing companies that made competing or compatible products. WotC's OGL was a way to repair the brand's reputation after such tactics and grant "permission" for things it never had ownership over. Companies "freeloaded" by being able to make their products without worrying about WotC bankrupting them with frivolous legal expenses. Yes, that benefited these companies but it's kind of like that joke about the mobster who comes to your door demanding protection money. "Protection from whom?" "Protection from me!" (There's another better version but I don't want to get the thread locked.)

WotC is just going back to the old TSR methods, coated with an "OGL" to make it seem like they're still playing along as they have for the past 20 years. Technically, yes, I'm speculating, but this is at heart what they tried to do in the 4e GSL days, but couldn't. The only difference is that they think they can now.

I don't think they can. This will smash the entire industry down into a small fraction of what it currently is, but also one that's much more diversified. See, WotC thinks because D&D is popular with the broader culture right now, that broad audience will carry them forward. But as many big entertainment companies are learning in the Age of Geek, the broad audience is fickle. It's the core audience -- the people who liked your product for years when it wasn't cool to do so -- it's those people who keep you alive. The broad audience didn't get into D&D because of Stranger Things (et al). Stranger Things created a common language between the core and broad audience, and it was those core players who got their normie friends involved. As soon as the core audience stops promoting it, the broad audience will drop D&D like a rotten cabbage and move on to the next shiny thing that gives them geek cred. I've seen this pattern repeat itself year after year with various IPs for decades, large and small.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Freeloaders? Are you even close to being serious here?
> 
> The OGL was always intended to benefit WotC. It only existed for that purpose. If you made money with an OGL product, WotC was freeloading off of you. If not in direct revenue in terms of core book sales propped up by your product, in terms of market share dominance, which is insanely valuable.


While true, I don't think Hasbro's suits are seeing that truth.

Hasbro says D&D is under-monetized, and a bit later this "new license" business happens. That means they saw people making money out of corporate assests that (partially) belong to them and demanded to know why WotC is letting them without taking "their" cut.

----------


## EggKookoo

> While true, I don't think Hasbro's suits are seeing that truth.
> 
> Hasbro says D&D is under-monetized, and a bit later this "new license" business happens. That means they saw people making money out of corporate assests that (partially) belong to them and demanded to know why WotC is letting them without taking "their" cut.


Which means the current heads of WotC are incapable of explaining its value to Hasbro, or it no longer has value.

I'm not saying the OGL didn't benefit 3rd party developers. Of course it did. But it was intended to benefit WotC just as much if not more. WotC didn't create the OGL out of the goodness of its heart. It was created in an attempt to cash in on 3rd party development in the form of prompting core book sales and crowding out non-d20/OGL content. Do you remember people complaining about the latter at the time? I do.

If by doing so it allowed WotC to stop punishing those developers for doing nothing wrong, and in the process those developers flourished, that was great. But that wasn't the goal, since WotC could have at any time just stopped doing that without the need for any licensing. But doing so would be admitting they really don't own most of what D&D is. The OGL was just a switch from an overt threat of legal action to a covert one.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Which means the current heads of WotC are incapable of explaining its value to Hasbro, or it no longer has value.
> 
> I'm not saying the OGL didn't benefit 3rd party developers. Of course it did. But it was intended to benefit WotC just as much if not more. WotC didn't create the OGL out of the goodness of its heart. It was created in an attempt to cash in on 3rd party development in the form of prompting core book sales and crowding out non-d20/OGL content.


Absolutely. 

The OGL was great for WotC, but they either failed to convince their bosses of that fact, or there was enough leadership shakes-up that whoever is in charge doesn't care about the money and perks it brought to WotC in the past either.

----------


## Frogreaver

So far the best evidence Ive seen that this is true are the details of the 20% royalty for kickstarter (that was stated in the leak) has been confirmed by kickstarter.

----------


## Raven777

Isn't it weird that Kickstarter would process that 20-25% fee themselves? Shouldn't the royalties on any funds collected be strictly between the crowdfunded entity and WotC themselves, with Kickstarter as a neutral, non-involved third party payment processor? It feels like my bank suddenly deciding when and how my taxes are paid.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Isn't it weird that Kickstarter would process that 20-25% fee themselves? Shouldn't the royalties on any funds collected be strictly between the crowdfunded entity and WotC themselves, with Kickstarter as a neutral, non-involved third party payment processor? It feels like my bank suddenly deciding when and how my taxes are paid.


Sounds like WotC visited the Kickstarter offices and worked out a deal. I think they did something similar with HeroForge a year or so ago.

----------


## Zanos

A 25% share of _revenue_ is insane. Margins in the industry are razor thin and that basically functions to put _every_ competitor out of business, or at least effectively cap their revenue(not profit) at 750k, because you'd be operating at a loss above that. Typical profit margins are <10%, even for very healthy companies. 
The new OGL _only_ applies to books and static electronic content(pdfs), which means that you will need an entirely custom contract with WOTC if you want to, say, make a VTT module. Which lines up with WOTCs obvious goal of creating a walled garden where you have to pay for everything and aren't allowed to use any content without their say. Frankly it seems like they're just sour grapes that they missed the VTT train and now are trying to use their legal arm to squash competition because they haven't been able to capture enough profit with the offerings they do have in the area.

Revoking the 1.0 OGL doesn't seem like something that would hold up legally at all, but it might not matter since Hasbro is orders of magnitude larger than any other competitor in this space and can certainly afford to bankrupt them with legal costs. I'd be interested in seeing a response from Paizo or Green Ronin on this. I guess it also means if I felt like publishing something compatible with 3.X in 2023 you can't do that anymore without lawyers breathing down your neck.

----------


## Psyren

> Freeloaders? Are you even close to being serious here?


I was only poking fun at the term; I'm not the one who mentioned it first. I'll go back and edit in quotation marks to make that clearer.




> I'm not sure how many creators are making millions, don't forget that they are apparantly wanting to collect on revenue, not profits. I think there are a number of problems with big dogs in the industry outside of WOTC, buy the revenue can be deceiving, some players are generating large revenues, but not large profits, since many crowdfunding efforts seem to underestimate production and creation costs, particularly when you can't print at scale, or go overboard on artwork.


There aren't a lot, no. It won't apply to the majority of creators. But I think it's safe to say they wouldn't have had revenues that size or make such a name for themselves without building on that license in the first place. The amount might be too high, but the idea makes sense to me.




> But the effects would be far reaching. If you are Green Ronin, do you really want another company having a worldwide, irrevocable, sublicensable rights to publish components for freeport or freedom city?


That provision is definitely my biggest concern personally.




> But let's not suggest others are simply being greedy for WOTC property, they have a livelihood, and 20 years of their own sweat at stake and most are likely not that well off.


Again, I'm not the one who brought that term in (see above). And I'm all for a license that allows people to earn a livelihood. But there is value in the leg-up it provides, past a threshold that value is indeed creating competition. Maybe it's the accountant in me but I can understand how the intent of this thing might have drifted from its actuals over time.

----------


## Dragonus45

> The 1.0(a) license contains a line like "even if we publish other versions, you can use any *authorized* version". So deauthorizing it (according to people who claimed to be IP lawyers on reddit) does actually accomplish the task of "you can't use the old version." Will there be lawsuits? Probably. But Hasbro has way deeper pockets than anyone else.


This is a massive clown fiesta of a question, but "authorized" in the context of the OGL is, but WotC's own direct statement on their website, almost certainly a past participle. It's plain that the original intention was that the agreement was authorized in a singular moment and now is perpetually valid and all the people who have been publishing for decades under that interpretation in good faith could likely get a real day in court out of this money be damned. (I Am Not A Lawyer, that was not legal advice)




> Absolutely. 
> 
> The OGL was great for WotC, but they either failed to convince their bosses of that fact, or there was enough leadership shakes-up that whoever is in charge doesn't care about the money and perks it brought to WotC in the past either.


Yea WotC doesn't seem to grasp that their print few books and put even less in them strategy for rules content only thrives in a world where other people are making that content they aren't interested in for them.


As a side note, the morality clause in here is particularly sickening. WotC does not deserve publishing rights to veto or censor other peoples content just because they say they do, and even if they did have the best intentions in the world I simply don't trust them to make these decisions. Someone book is going to get nuked because using the phrase "race" for races or using racial stats instead of the current generic boring build-a-bear model they are moving towards, and that will be the whole ballgame.

----------


## Zanos

> There aren't a lot, no. It won't apply to the majority of creators. But I think it's safe to say they wouldn't have had revenues that size or make such a name for themselves without building on that license in the first place. The amount might be too high, but the idea makes sense to me.


WOTC profits indirectly off of the OGL by throttling competing systems, which is why 3.X was so wildly successful and 4e flopped. Before the OGL every publisher was making different games; after the OGL everyone was making stuff compatible with 3.X. There was a resurgence in different game systems during the 4e years since making compatible content was such a huge hurdle. So maybe there's actually a hidden blessing in Hasbro being greedy.




> The 1.0(a) license contains a line like "even if we publish other versions, you can use any *authorized* version". So deauthorizing it (according to people who claimed to be IP lawyers on reddit) does actually accomplish the task of "you can't use the old version." Will there be lawsuits? Probably. But Hasbro has way deeper pockets than anyone else.


"Authorized version" isn't a defined legal concept; and The Law(tm) cares more about the way things have been actually used in practice than exacting wording. If the wording is arbitrary, courts will enforce the precedent that has been set by behavior; which according to documentation penned by WOTC themselves is that you can use previous versions of the OGL if desired.

The actual concern that is hasbro is a multi-billion dollar company, and their largest competitor pulls in _maybe_ 10 mil in revenue and will almost certainly be bankrupted by a protracted legal battle.

----------


## Brookshw

> That provision is definitely my biggest concern personally.


Frankly, I don't see why. WoTC already noted they'd negotiate other licenses with companies, and, if you're going to make a serious commercial go at something and act like a company, well, then go an negotiate a license like a real company. That's standard business practice. You can still be a commercial producer without needing to rely on the OGL.




> As a side note, the morality clause in here is particularly sickening. WotC does not deserve publishing rights to veto or censor other peoples content just because they say they do, and even if they did have the best intentions in the world I simply don't trust them to make these decisions. Someone book is going to get nuked because using the phrase "race" for races or using racial stats instead of the current generic boring build-a-bear model they are moving towards, and that will be the whole ballgame.


Morality clauses are pretty standard in the entertainment industry, having something like that here to protect their brand isn't shocking or unusual. If that bothers you, you should probably stop buying any products from companies that have celebrity endorsement or offer sponsorship of any kind, including "content creator" fan hype stuff. Remember how some major youtube personalities have gotten dropped like hot potatoes by sponsors for expressing racist sentiments? Pretty sure no one was going "oh, those mean companies, not sponsoring a hate monger"...

----------


## stoutstien

> WOTC profits indirectly off of the OGL by throttling competing systems, which is why 3.X was so wildly successful and 4e flopped. Before the OGL every publisher was making different games; after the OGL everyone was making stuff compatible with 3.X. There was a resurgence in different game systems during the 4e years since making compatible content was such a huge hurdle. So maybe there's actually a hidden blessing in Hasbro being greedy.


I've been thinking along the same lines. It might be time for wizard to do it's almost ritualistic destruction of thier own brand for new models to gain ground.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Frankly, I don't see why. WoTC already noted they'd negotiate other licenses with companies, and, if you're going to make a serious commercial go at something and act like a company, well, then go an negotiate a license like a real company. That's standard business practice. You can still be a commercial producer without needing to rely on the OGL.


Without the OGL, you're stuck at your entire business model being hostage to WotC's whims. And they can be as abusive as they want _and you don't have a choice_.

Because that whole "you can publish without the OGL" thing? You're just asking to be sued. Because the precedent here is anything but clear. And Hasbro/WotC has a history of abusive litigation, relying on their deep pockets and lawyers on staff to raise the costs beyond what any competitor can pay.

----------


## Raven777

> Frankly, I don't see why. WoTC already noted they'd negotiate other licenses with companies, and, if you're going to make a serious commercial go at something and act like a company, well, then go an negotiate a license like a real company. That's standard business practice. You can still be a commercial producer without needing to rely on the OGL.


Negotiating a big leagues license right of the bat stifles start-small-grow-big organic growth.

----------


## Psyren

> Frankly, I don't see why. WoTC already noted they'd negotiate other licenses with companies, and, if you're going to make a serious commercial go at something and act like a company, well, then go an negotiate a license like a real company. That's standard business practice. You can still be a commercial producer without needing to rely on the OGL.


I concur in principle, but again, I don't know how much power the license actually gives them. It makes sense to me that if you're publishing something on DDB you're giving up the rights to it, but this seems like it applies that to anything that gets printed or PDFed too.

With that said, I agree with your underlying sentiment for sure.




> This is a massive clown fiesta of a question, but "authorized" in the context of the OGL is, but WotC's own direct statement on their website, a past participle. It simple means that the agreement was authorized in a singular moment and now is perpetually valid.


I imagine this debate will be at the heart of the (inevitable?) court case. 




> Yea WotC doesn't seem to grasp that their print few books and put even less in them strategy for rules content only thrives in a world where other people are making that content they aren't interested in for them.


While it's possible to change the license in a way that prevents this from happening, I don't see that being the case with most of these updates. The benefits to using the license will still make it worthwhile.




> As a side note, the morality clause in here is particularly sickening. WotC does not deserve publishing rights to veto or censor other peoples content just because they say they do, and even if they did have the best intentions in the world I simply don't trust them to make these decisions. Someone book is going to get nuked because using the phrase "race" for races or using racial stats instead of the current generic boring build-a-bear model they are moving towards, and that will be the whole ballgame.


What Brookshw said. This kind of provision is common sense.

----------


## Dragonus45

> WOTC profits indirectly off of the OGL by throttling competing systems, which is why 3.X was so wildly successful and 4e flopped. Before the OGL every publisher was making different games; after the OGL everyone was making stuff compatible with 3.X. There was a resurgence in different game systems during the 4e years since making compatible content was such a huge hurdle. So maybe there's actually a hidden blessing in Hasbro being greedy.


It's even worse for 5e because the system is so simple and they publish so little for it. Pre covid I ran a lot of public gaming and the life cycle of new players coming into D&D tended to go like this. They get around to their 5th or 6th character after playing through the campaign books and adventure modules for a year or two, they realize things feel remarkably samey with all their characters, and then get introduced to other systems where they could express themselves better now that 5e taught them the basics of what RPing was, but the alternate path that stayed in 5e was finding homebrew they liked and moving to home games where they keep buying the adventure paths and new core books to use aongside whatever new class or subsystem they liked and just bought and that keeps 5e at the forefront. Even people whole RPG systems and setting to play in buy the adventurers for ideas and stat blocks. Sure, a decent few stayed really into just core D&D with no third party stuff, but those people instead latched onto the Adventurer's League system itself for their dopamine and AL has been not so great the past few years, my city used to have a massive AL scene that matched cities much larger then ours, but not anymore.




> I imagine this debate will be at the heart of the (inevitable?) court case.


(IANAL) Among other things, but outside of being a big gorilla with a lot of money Hasbro isn't on excellent footing here. That FAQ answer they put out has real weight.



> While it's possible to change the license in a way that prevents this from happening, I don't see that being the case with most of these updates. The benefits to using the license will still make it worthwhile.


Why would it be? Most of these publishers are entirely capable of jumping ship and moving over better profit margins in a more secure environment by not submitting themselves to this absolute farce of a legal document. 





> What Brookshw said. This kind of provision is common sense.


There is no universe or timeline where it would ever be common sense to give a corporation with a vested interest in maintaining the most milquetoast and generic image with the least controversy possible the right to act as a publisher and censor the content of everyone else. It's almost as heinous and violating as the claim to "own" the IPs of everyone who uses the OGL. It's anti art, anti progress, and it is decidedly NOT OPEN in the slightest.




> Morality clauses are pretty standard in the entertainment industry, having something like that here to protect their brand isn't shocking or unusual. If that bothers you, you should probably stop buying any products from companies that have celebrity endorsement or offer sponsorship of any kind, including "content creator" fan hype stuff. Remember how some major youtube personalities have gotten dropped like hot potatoes by sponsors for expressing racist sentiments? Pretty sure no one was going "oh, those mean companies, not sponsoring a hate monger"...


These are neither sponsorships nor endorsements, and WotC is not the publisher of the material to make these decisions, as much as they retroactively want to declare themselves as such.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Again, I'm not the one who brought that term in (see above). And I'm all for a license that allows people to earn a livelihood. But there is value in the leg-up it provides, past a threshold that value is indeed creating competition. Maybe it's the accountant in me but I can understand how the intent of this thing might have drifted from its actuals over time.


Fair enough, my concerns are less about WOTC's making a profit and more about the power they get over the jndustry as a whole. A lot of systems used the OGL in good faith to publish settings and adventures, that had the OGL not been available would have been built differently, hose companies have become dependent on the OGL to expand their existing products. If this had been done before Pathfinder, MnM or the OSR systems had become established, it wouldn't be as big a deal, now I think itnhas a drastic impact on the hobby as a whole.

  That and the similarities to the Microsoft/Netflix case--well it at least let's me know my setting will probably use D6 without borrowing from d20 (I had thought of some conversion metrics to make some issues easier, including a variation of an older "D6 in D6," idea published on an old angelfish-type site years ago  but I'll build it from scratch instead). That probably won't be published, but just in case . . .

----------


## Brookshw

> Without the OGL, you're stuck at your entire business model being hostage to WotC's whims. And they can be as abusive as they want _and you don't have a choice_.


No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms. "I want to rely upon other companies ecosystems and IP, and capitalize on their good will" is not a business model, at least, not a respectable or sympathetic one.




> Negotiating a big leagues license right of the bat stifles start-small-grow-big organic growth.


What is "organic growth"? Also, not necessarily, lots of small companies negotiate licenses with larger companies on very reasonable terms. Heck, I think probably 75% of the contracts, probably more, I've done are with smaller companies.




> These are neither sponsorships nor endorsements, and WotC is not the publisher of the material to make these decisions, as much as they retroactively want to declare themselves as such.


 Really? Companies aren't getting a benefit from utilizing WoTC's good will and ecosystem? I guess if they're not, then why do they want the OGL and to publish in relations to WoTC's content? Seems like they'd be better off just walking away.

----------


## Dragonus45

> No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms. "I want to rely upon other companies ecosystems and IP, and capitalize on their good will" is not a business model, at least, not a respectable or sympathetic one.


Actually it is quite the business model. It has been ever since the OGL dropped and explicitly gave people permission to do so in perpetuity, to their own benefit and profit. It turned out that that ecosystem was way healthier that way, a rising tide raises all ships and so on.

----------


## Brookshw

> Actually it is quite the business model. It has been ever since the OGL dropped and explicitly gave people permission to do so in perpetuity, to their own benefit and profit. It turned out that that ecosystem was way healthier that way, a rising tide raises all ships and so on.


If your business model is "I want to use someone else's good will and ecosystem, and get a free lunch, but not have to actually listen to them or be restrained", don't expect a lot of sympathy.

----------


## Zanos

> If your business model is "I want to use someone else's good will and ecosystem, and get a free lunch, but not have to actually listen to them or be restrained", don't expect a lot of sympathy.


The previous OGL was very open and made both WOTC and their "competitors" a lot of money. Also, this is basically the entire model for desktop software these days, at least for Windows and Linux. When your earnings are highly dependent on market saturation of your product, making your ecosystem open is generally to your benefit.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms. "I want to rely upon other companies ecosystems and IP, and capitalize on their good will" is not a business model, at least, not a respectable or sympathetic one.


At T = 0, they have a licensed business model. At T = 1, they have a choice.

a) create an entirely new game, from scratch. With 0 time to prepare, no built in fan base, no opportunity to do any research. Just "new game or never publish anything again". Note--you can't even publish a new edition of your existing library, and things like Archives of Neryis? Completely illegal and must be immediately torn down. Effectively, you're out of business until you can build an entirely new business from the ground up.
b) give in to whatever WotC wants.

Basically _no one_ has the ability to do (a) without going out of business. Pivoting on a dime is risky _best case_, and most of those pivots fail.

This is a transparent attempt to drive competitors out of business by anti-competitive practices. Pure monopolistic practices. Personally, the FTC should get involved. There's no question that WotC has monopoly power in the TTRPG industry--they make something like 100x the revenues _of all competitors combined_. And this kind of behavior is exactly what what the anti-trust laws were designed to cover.

----------


## Oramac

> Memes aside if actually like to see someone like whitewolf pounce on the opportunity. TBH a lot of 5e players would probably like story games like the storyteller system or Fate


I've used both whitewolf and Fate, and have been seriously thinking about rewriting all my content for one of those systems, should OGL1.1 come to pass as-is (or, as rumored, at least).

----------


## Segev

I would be careful with White Wolf, if you're concerned about WotC being draconian and/or imposing their views on things. White Wolf is run, from my experience, by the kind of people who are leading to the mistakes and bad decisions WotC is making. They have some great games, of which I am a fan, but as a business and company, I would prefer to be beholden to Hasbro and WotC than White Wolf. And that's not saying I would want to be depending on WotC's good will in any way, shape, manner, or form...but at least WotC has structures in place that are somewhat protective.

I do not see how a license, granted in perpetuity, can be simply revoked. They can lock 5.1 content behind their new 1.1 license, but they can't lock 5.0 content that was released with the 1.0 license, nor 3.5 content that was released under the now-ancient OGL, behind a new license. 

I am pretty sure whatever company made "Advanced 5e" will be able to keep producing their works under the old license, and the only threat they face legally is the pseudo-legal "sue them into oblivion because we can, muhuhahahaha" tactic of bigger companies swamping smaller ones in legal fees even when the bigger company has no actual case.


So, yes, I actually could see 5.0 lasting a lot longer after 5.1 comes out than 3.0 did after 3.5 came out, in terms of newly-published 3rd party support.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I concur in principle, but again, I don't know how much power the license actually gives them. It makes sense to me that if you're publishing something on DDB you're giving up the rights to it, but this seems like it applies that to anything that gets printed or PDFed too.


Yes, but DDB puts on non-compete type clauses, if you print a nottherealms saberknight, you couldn't do a savage world versions elsewhere. That is OK if you just want to pitch a generic subclass, but not for bigger things.




> While it's possible to change the license in a way that prevents this from happening, I don't see that being the case with most of these updates. The benefits to using the license will still make it worthwhile.


The only reason why the benefits are worthwhile will be because OGL 1.0 changed the ecosystem. A lot of properties used the OGL rather than reinventing the wheel and developing in-house systems. I think you have this backwards, WOTC would likely have a smaller chunk of the pie outside of the New fad gamers if the OGL hadn't undercut competitors.  Running competing systems out of the market and then changing the tes is a bit like running the competition out of business then raising the price.[/QUOTE]

----------


## Dr.Samurai

The only thing to do is create my own game, without the OGL, but still compatible with D&D, and force them to sue me. Thinking that they'll defeat me with their deep pockets, I'll surprise them by representing myself. Some light reading and a few YouTube videos should be enough to prepare me for court, especially since I already do a lot of arguing on these forums.

There'll be a few setbacks, but as the plucky underdog, I'll use creative and out-of-the-box argumentation to win the day. Hasbro won't see it coming, and the courts will have no choice but to dismiss their claims, with prejudice. Everyone will be free to create their own content and a renaissance of TTRPGs will begin.

Everyone will raise me up as a hero but I'll just say something like "I didn't do this for me, I did it for all of you. And the children." and then walk toward the horizon, in the middle of the street, with some cool music playing.

----------


## Psyren

> No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms. "I want to rely upon other companies ecosystems and IP, and capitalize on their good will" is not a business model, at least, not a respectable or sympathetic one.
> 
> 
> 
> What is "organic growth"? Also, not necessarily, lots of small companies negotiate licenses with larger companies on very reasonable terms. Heck, I think probably 75% of the contracts, probably more, I've done are with smaller companies.
> 
>  Really? Companies aren't getting a benefit from utilizing WoTC's good will and ecosystem? I guess if they're not, then why do they want the OGL and to publish in relations to WoTC's content? Seems like they'd be better off just walking away.


Great post.




> The previous OGL was very open and made both WOTC and their "competitors" a lot of money. Also, this is basically the entire model for desktop software these days, at least for Windows and Linux. When your earnings are highly dependent on market saturation of your product, making your ecosystem open is generally to your benefit.


It also birthed their largest competitor, to this day, with the potential to do that an unlimited number of times in the future. I'm in favor of a license that lets third parties safely interact with WotC's product, but there is such a thing as being _too_ open. (And that's putting aside the skeezy stuff like NFTs that the original license couldn't possible have foreseen two decades prior.)

----------


## Brookshw

> This is a transparent attempt to drive competitors out of business by anti-competitive practices. Pure monopolistic practices. Personally, the FTC should get involved. There's no question that WotC has monopoly power in the TTRPG industry--they make something like 100x the revenues _of all competitors combined_. And this kind of behavior is exactly what what the anti-trust laws were designed to cover.


No, and I'd urge you to go read the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act, and key cases about antitrust law, before continuing that assertion. Nothing about WoTC's actions deprive new entrants into the field or prevent competition, they're depriving people of their ability to use WoTC's content to compete with WoTC, and even offering them an on ramp if they do want to work with WoTC's content. I've seen you hold up Microsoft as an example in another situation; while its been maybe 5 years since I last read that case, the similarities between WoTC's actions and MS's actions are completely apples and oranges. Note, also, that aside from Pathfinder, every sizable competitor of WoTC has been able to do so without relying upon the OGL.

----------


## Dragonus45

> If your business model is "I want to use someone else's good will and ecosystem, and get a free lunch, but not have to actually listen to them or be restrained", don't expect a lot of sympathy.


Why not, WotC still explicitly benefits from them existing and gains goodwill from that ecosystem even existing, which the third party content creators are literally creating. Having that table be open to eat at is literally the incentive they have to participate. WotC set those rules for a reason, now they want to play take backs.

----------


## Serafina

The new restriction of the OGL will also get really funky with Kickstarter Stretch Goals like Soundtracks, Virtual Tokens, Maps, and all that jazz, none of which are books or static electronic content like PDFs.

Those should _obviously_ be fine, since they'll be original art over which WotC has absolutely no authority.

But I'm betting they'll try to contest that, because otherwise, basically no Kickstarter will go over 750k on content that arguably needs the OGL alone (as argued, that is basically none in the first place). And also just because of corporate greed.

Of course, by the terms of the OGL, such a Kickstarter can't even include such stretchgoals in the first place, so get ****ed even more I guess.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> No on both counts. You can't use WoTC's content to build your products, you're still free to create whatever game you want. And, yes, you do have a choice, you can negotiate or walk away if they're using abusive terms.


Their granting themselves an irrevocable license to the creators intellectual properties means, no you may not be, as they could start using your setting. Either you go with someone else in the first place, or they essentially can live rent free in your IP. This is a problem, a big one.




> Really? Companies aren't getting a benefit from utilizing WoTC's good will and ecosystem? I guess if they're not, then why do they want the OGL and to publish in relations to WoTC's content? Seems like they'd be better off just walking away.


That is what Microsoft thought when they started bundling explorer with Windows. 

The problem is, the OGL drained WOTC of competitors, WEG had issues, but the OGL was probably the final nail in their coffin. The OSR, Paizo et al used the OGL in good faith, and it impacts a wide swath of the market.

----------


## Raven777

> If your business model is "I want to use someone else's good will and ecosystem, and get a free lunch, but not have to actually listen to them or be restrained", don't expect a lot of sympathy.


You'd be getting sympathy from the entire (and successful) FOSS movement.

As for your earlier question about organic growth, it refers to a natural, gradual expansion without the need for an other entity's input or permission. Like FOSS in software, the original OGL allows anyone in their basement to pick up the SRD as a base and expand from there with their own ideas. They can slowly pick up a following, increase their expertise and revenue, and gradually develop influence and leverage to then interact with large entities like WotC on a more equal or advantageous footing.

Which, you know, I understand that a psychopathic tiger like a corporation is in fact not incentivized to let other tigers develop and thrive on their turf. But, you know, being predatory and exclusive is a trait we should stifle and discourage in human enterprise, not encourage.




> but there is such a thing as being _too_ open.


Hard, ontological, irreconcilable disagree.

----------


## Zanos

> It also birthed their largest competitor, to this day, with the potential to do that an unlimited number of times in the future. I'm in favor of a license that lets third parties safely interact with WotC's product, but there is such a thing as being _too_ open. (And that's putting aside the skeezy stuff like NFTs that the original license couldn't possible have foreseen two decades prior.)


It birthed their largest competitor strictly because of missteps made by WOTC involving _not_ having an OGL. There's a reason you don't see any 4e content anywhere on the internet, and it's not just because 4e was unpopular; 4e was _not_ released under an OGL. Difficulty of 3rd parties adding content for 4e contributed to it being unpopular(in addition to the system being built from the ground up to support a VTT that never materialized), and led to the birth of Pathfinder.

But still, keep in mind that Paizos revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to WOTC. WOTC isn't angry that people are playing Pathfinder, they're angry that people are releasing 5e products they aren't getting a cut of, seemingly forgetting that other people being able to make extensions to your system is the reason it stays healthy.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> This is a transparent attempt to drive competitors out of business by anti-competitive practices. Pure monopolistic practices. Personally, the FTC should get involved. There's no question that WotC has monopoly power in the TTRPG industry--they make something like 100x the revenues _of all competitors combined_. And this kind of behavior is exactly what what the anti-trust laws were designed to cover.


Yes, if the OGL were not in place, WOTC would be facing a lot of competing systems already. WEG might still be in business, though they had significant problems in their accounting as I understand it. Green Ronin would have used something else to build mutants and masterminds. If the OGL had never been issued, the current license wouldn't be a big deal, but after undermining competing systems for 20 years, yeah its a problem.

----------


## Snowbluff

> It birthed their largest competitor strictly because of missteps made by WOTC involving _not_ having an OGL. There's a reason you don't see any 4e content anywhere on the internet, and it's not just because 4e was unpopular; 4e was _not_ release under an OGL. Difficulty of 3rd parties adding content for 4e contributed to it being unpopular(in addition to the system being built from the ground up to support a VTT that never materialized), and led to the birth of Pathfinder.


I think a lot of people are overstating GSL as a major factor in the relative unpopularity at all. DnD 4e was already a huge departure from 3.5. It's largest, most successful competitor system wouldn't exist at all without OGL. WotC was essentially competing against a reprint of its own product, using an unfamiliar one. Despite this, 4e still sold well. Not having a good 3PP license did contribute, but this is a relatively small factor for a vast majority of the market that was playing 4e, especially considering that it was a content heavy system with many releases. 

This is also why I don't put a lot of stock in PF2 being a replacement for 5e. It's a large departure in the same way 4e was in a lot of ways. Asking people to move to entirely new system for 4e was a big ask back then, and it would be a big ask now.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> But still, keep in mind that Paizos revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to WOTC. WOTC isn't angry that people are playing Pathfinder, they're angry that people are releasing 5e products they aren't getting a cut of, seemingly forgetting that other people being able to make extensions to your system is the reason it stays healthy.


Especially given the lack of content that WotC puts out, and the questionable quality, it seems crazy to then turn around and throttle the people that ARE making 5E content.

----------


## Dragonus45

> Especially given the lack of content that WotC puts out, and the questionable quality, it seems crazy to then turn around and throttle the people that ARE making 5E content.


I call it the "print little and put less in" strategy. I had assumed it was a deliberate attempt to leverage third party creators to make rules content that would then push their adventures which are where they clearly have been putting the effort for the last few years. Now I have to attribute even more of their current success then I have been to luck.

----------


## Zanos

> I think a lot of people are overstating GSL as a major factor in the relative unpopularity at all. DnD 4e was already a huge departure from 3.5. It's largest, most successful competitor system wouldn't exist at all without OGL. WotC was essentially competing against a reprint of its own product, using an unfamiliar one. Despite this, 4e still sold well. Not having a good 3PP license did contribute, but this is a relatively small factor for a vast majority of the market that was playing 4e, especially considering that it was a content heavy system with many releases. 
> 
> This is also why I don't put a lot of stock in PF2 being a replacement for 5e. It's a large departure in the same way 4e was in a lot of ways. Asking people to move to entirely new system for 4e was a big ask back then, and it would be a big ask now.


It's difficult to measure exactly how much an individual decision impacted 4th edition, since neither of us are WOTC insiders with access to transcripts of their postmortem meetings. But I can take a look at TT games that are open to extension from third parties and generally see that they are healthy, and I look at locked up systems and generally see that they are not, so I think dismissing it as a strongly contributing factor is unwise. After all, WOTC's biggest competitor _is_ a system that allows third parties to publish their own rules fairly liberally, and are relatively healthy compared to other non-D&D rpgs. 




> Especially given the lack of content that WotC puts out, and the questionable quality, it seems crazy to then turn around and throttle the people that ARE making 5E content.


Nine years later and there's still, what, two books that are dedicated to expanding player options? Previous editions had dozens. And you can argue that balance was worse, but it's not like 5e balance is particularly good.

----------


## Oramac

> Especially given the lack of content that WotC puts out, and the questionable quality, it seems crazy to then turn around and throttle the people that ARE making 5E content.





> Nine years later and there's still, what, two books that are dedicated to expanding player options? Previous editions had dozens. And you can argue that balance was worse, but it's not like 5e balance is particularly good.


Not only that, but there's a grand total of one published adventure up to 20th level. In nine years? That's just WOTC willfully ignoring half the game.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> No, and I'd urge you to go read the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act, and key cases about antitrust law, before continuing that assertion. Nothing about WoTC's actions deprive new entrants into the field or prevent competition, they're depriving people of their ability to use WoTC's content to compete with WoTC, and even offering them an on ramp if they do want to work with WoTC's content. I've seen you hold up Microsoft as an example in another situation; while its been maybe 5 years since I last read that case, the similarities between WoTC's actions and MS's actions are completely apples and oranges. Note, also, that aside from Pathfinder, every sizable competitor of WoTC has been able to do so without relying upon the OGL.


I think that was me. Actually this undermines not only Paizo, but the OSR, Mutants and Masterminds etc. are heavily reliant on the OGL. Even OpenD6 uses WOTCs contract form, likely to prevent something like the TSR lawsuit against Gygax. The problems are the twin threats of retroactivity and their claim to a license of other companies intellectual property. 

If, 1.1 applied only to ODD going forward. The licensing clause effectively makes it impossible for a setting creator to change their minds and switch systems later. Reading this, if Mutants and Masterminds 4e uses a completely non-OGL system, but prints a Freedom city module for their current system, then WOTC could print a competing Freedom City sourcebook using Green Ronins IP. Retroactivity is the second issue, if this was only going on future released products, again not as big a deal, butbthose reliant on the OGL for what they have already created are in serious trouble with the deauthorization clause. If those two issues are removed, I don't have a problem with the rest.

My comparison to apple was the VTT issue, and reading the FTCs description of the caseblast night I still think it is apt.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Critical Role's setting is officially a WotC publication now. And WotC *never* let a setting go once it's in their power, even when they refuse to publish anything in it.
> 
> If it was just the 5e mechanics they used, like at the start, they might try to do their own system, but Critical Role will simply never be able to afford losing the right to use the setting and the characters they've spent years building their fandom on.
> 
> I'm more expecting the CR people to take the giant novelty check and start shilling D&Done in the next few months to a year.


 That's a good prediction, I am on your bandwagon. Professional actors as shills isn't a new way to make a buck. (_What's in your wallet?_) 



> Hasbro without Critical Role loses a few millions. Critical Role without Hasbro has 0 content they can make money of, aside from a couple one-shots.


Bingo. 



> Funny story about that: Critical Role argued the same about content creators making money out of fan content based on their work, resulting in those content creators getting a cease & desist. 
> Expecting corporate suits to speak the truth is the first mistake many people make when thinking about business-related shenanigans.


 +2



> 1. It's not that easy, it's just that Hasbro has enough power and money to do it and either dodge or beat any court cases coming from that change, when 3.X/4e-era WotC definitively couldn't afford to try.


 Key difference, thanks for reminding folks.  



> 2. Even at its worst, WotC recognized that it was better to have other content creators work with their system, _which was basically free advertisement for D&D as it regularly reminded people D&D was a thing and that you could buy stuff from it_. Now they're under mandate by corporate suits that are far removed from the situation and the suits think 5e does not monetizes itself enough, which obviously mean that all those "freeloaders using the corporate assets for free" must be cut off.


 I think that's a valid analysis.  



> The open gaming license allowed Pathfinder to thrive when players and creators were dissatisfied with 4 edition.
> I think DnD and the entire TTRPG hobby became  better because of  that competitive pressure.


 Likely true. 



> WotC has decided that, rather than making better products for DnD, they will  try to destroy or exploit any entity that is.


 I had not seen it through that lens, but that seems a valid perspective. 



> Sounds like WotC visited the Kickstarter offices and worked out a deal. I think they did something similar with HeroForge a year or so ago.


 +3



> Everyone will raise me up as a hero but I'll just say something like "I didn't do this for me, I did it for all of you. And the children." and then walk toward the horizon, in the middle of the street, with some cool music playing.


 Naah, go the edge lord route, it will get you more clicks.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## EggKookoo

> Because that whole "you can publish without the OGL" thing? You're just asking to be sued. Because the precedent here is anything but clear. And Hasbro/WotC has a history of abusive litigation, relying on their deep pockets and lawyers on staff to raise the costs beyond what any competitor can pay.


Disney really needs to make a successful fantasy adventure movie. With cthonian tentacle-faced antagonists.

----------


## Imbalance

This all just sounds like it would be a really good year for TESVI to be released.

----------


## Snowbluff

> It's difficult to measure exactly how much an individual decision impacted 4th edition, since neither of us are WOTC insiders with access to transcripts of their postmortem meetings. But I can take a look at TT games that are open to extension from third parties and generally see that they are healthy, and I look at locked up systems and generally see that they are not, so I think dismissing it as a strongly contributing factor is unwise. After all, WOTC's biggest competitor _is_ a system that allows third parties to publish their own rules fairly liberally, and are relatively healthy compared to other non-D&D rpgs.


 Okay, but what constitutes "healthly?" 4e sold well and is still played today. It's level of content dwarfs most systems to this day. It's aged, which would constitute a shrinking population and interest dies, but that applies to 3.5 and PF1 as well. 

Compound with the relative size of WotC compared to it's competitors. I think PhoenixPhyre is right, WotC is 100x bigger than its next nearest competitor. A large part of is going to be other properties, but do you really think 3PP is driving so many book sales that it's a major factor for keeping the game played for most players? This, of course, loops back into the oddness of trying to extract royalties to begin with. WotC products simply sell a lot better, and getting the same level of marketing and support for 3PP is simply not possible. 

You even stated yourself, 5e doesn't have a lot of player oriented content for how long it's been out. You don't think the market for what 3PP would be smaller if it had to compete with more 1PP?

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I call it the "print little and put less in" strategy. I had assumed it was a deliberate attempt to leverage third party creators to make rules content that would then push their adventures which are where they clearly have been putting the effort for the last few years. Now I have to attribute even more of their current success then I have been to luck.





> Nine years later and there's still, what, two books that are dedicated to expanding player options? Previous editions had dozens. And you can argue that balance was worse, but it's not like 5e balance is particularly good.





> Not only that, but there's a grand total of one published adventure up to 20th level. In nine years? That's just WOTC willfully ignoring half the game.







> Disney really needs to make a successful fantasy adventure movie. With cthonian tentacle-faced antagonists.


Lmao, the only solution that will work!

----------


## Segev

> Disney really needs to make a successful fantasy adventure movie. With cthonian tentacle-faced antagonists.


Mickey Mouse vs. the Cranium Rats!

----------


## Zanos

> Okay, but what constitutes "healthly?" 4e sold well and is still played today. It's level of content dwarfs most systems to this day. It's aged, which would constitute a shrinking population and interest dies, but that applies to 3.5 and PF1 as well.


From a personal standpoint, I'd consider something healthy if I can consistently find groups to play with. From a business standpoint though, it's only healthy if it makes money. 4e clearly wasn't doing well enough for WOTC, and it's lifespan was shorter as a result. I don't think it's contentious that 4e underperformed, and I'm surprised you'd argue that it's a success, at least financially.

Although for what it's worth, I can't consistently find a group for 4e, whereas I can for 3.5, pf1e and pf2e, and obviously 5e. I've even had more luck finding groups playing 2nd edition than 4e. A quick check on R20 shows 4 LFG ads for D&D 4e, whereas there's two pages of results for 3.5(not including pathfinder), and a full page for AD&D. So I'd also consider it a failure from that perspective. 




> Compound with the relative size of WotC compared to it's competitors. I think PhoenixPhyre is right, WotC is 100x bigger than its next nearest competitor.


D&D is "the brand" in this industry, so yeah, there are different standards to use to evaluate a D&D edition and a 3rd party system.




> A large part of is going to be other properties, but do you really think 3PP is driving so many book sales that it's a major factor for keeping the game played for most players? This, of course, loops back into the oddness of trying to extract royalties to begin with. WotC products simply sell a lot better, and getting the same level of marketing and support for 3PP is simply not possible.


The largest buyers of D&D books are generally DMs, which is both anecdotal and IIRC confirmed by Hasbro earnings calls. While players might not be scourging up every third party tome they can get their hands on, a lot of the DMs I know(and myself, although not for 5e as I no longer actively play it) are always looking for more cool TT books to buy. DMs generally drive the hobby, being a necessity for a game to run, so if you aren't keeping DMs interested in your system, there's a good chance it will become unhealthy. 




> You even stated yourself, 5e doesn't have a lot of player oriented content for how long it's been out. You don't think the market for what 3PP would be smaller if it had to compete with more 1PP?


Not really? It's not like PF1E or 3.5 third party markets greatly suffered from the abundance of available first party material.

----------


## Oramac

So this just dropped. An actual IP lawyer reviewing the leaked OGL1.1. 

TL;DR: assuming it's legit, it's as bad as we all thought. 

Link to article. 

And with a bit of OSINT, the writer's LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter pages, should you wish to research him.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

As a note, the Fan Content Policy does _not_ cover homebrew, settings, any use in any game (explicitly excluded), or any use of game mechanics (except as covered by the OGL). So _no_, if you want to homebrew something (aka the entire forums here, or anything for any of your games), you need to accept the OGL and abide by its restrictions. Period. Full stop. No legal cover otherwise.

So yes, this predatory change _does_ critically affect every single DM who does anything other than running a stock published campaign using only WotC assets.




> The key is that it is your creation. It should go without saying, but Fan Content does not include the verbatim copying and reposting of Wizards IP (e.g., freely distributing D&D® rules content or books...
> 
> You cannot incorporate Wizards patents, *game mechanics (unless your Fan Content is created under the D&D Open Game License)*...


Yes, that includes things like use of spell names. Or class names. Or subclass names. Or monster stat blocks, even if modified. Or _fighting styles_. Or the text of _darkvision_. Or...

----------


## EggKookoo

> Yes, that includes things like use of spell names. Or class names. Or subclass names. Or monster stat blocks, even if modified. Or _fighting styles_. Or the text of _darkvision_. Or...


Preventing other TTRPGs from using basic d20 + mod mechanics is absolutely unenforceable, and WotC knows it. Which is why they'll have to resort to clubbing with lawyers in the attempt to drive them out of business.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> So this just dropped. An actual IP lawyer reviewing the leaked OGL1.1. 
> 
> TL;DR: assuming it's legit, it's as bad as we all thought. 
> 
> Link to article. 
> 
> And with a bit of OSINT, the writer's LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter pages, should you wish to research him.


Actually I'm seeing lawyers debating this issue, some in IP law and some elsewhere. It's not really straightforward.  But this is also why I think we ought to request the FTC to look into this. If it forces Green Ronin to shelve their Freedom city product or risk granting a license to another company, Paizo, the OSR studios, etc., well that retroactive move is a pretty big impact on pricing etc.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> So this just dropped. An actual IP lawyer reviewing the leaked OGL1.1. 
> 
> TL;DR: assuming it's legit, it's as bad as we all thought.


Nice summary at the end. (Of course it is; he's an attorney. Doing that comes with the job  :Small Smile: )



> Wizards of the Coast is a cool company that publishes one of our favorite pastimes. However, they are not your friends, and if we do not find a way to #OpenDnD then it will probably diminish this incredible game we have come to love.

----------


## Oramac

> Actually I'm seeing lawyers debating this issue, some in IP law and some elsewhere. It's not really straightforward.  But this is also why I think we ought to request the FTC to look into this. If it forces Green Ronin to shelve their Freedom city product or risk granting a license to another company, Paizo, the OSR studios, etc., well that retroactive move is a pretty big impact on pricing etc.


I've seen several non-IP lawyers talking about it, but that article is the first I've seen of a real IP lawyer commenting on the OGL1.1. Can you link to other IP lawyers talking about it? (I'm legitimately interested in reading it)

As far as getting the FTC involved, I'm certainly not opposed to it, though I question how effective it may be. That said, it really can't hurt, so why not?

----------


## KorvinStarmast

I think that a defense of the 1.0(a) license, might attract enough gofundme/other crowdfunding if it is initiated as a class action suit.  

As an aside: It seems to me that it might be good to merge this with the other thread. Or not. Up to the Mods. 
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-1-Coming-2023

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Preventing other TTRPGs from using basic d20 + mod mechanics is absolutely unenforceable, and WotC knows it. Which is why they'll have to resort to clubbing with lawyers in the attempt to drive them out of business.


Well...it's complicated. The precedent here is _super_ fuzzy and minimal, on top of copyright's already fuzzy guidance. So do it at your own risk.

And it's not just the d20 + mod stuff. You want to use the text of a fighting style? Or talk about "advantage" meaning 2d20kh? That's mechanics and you can't use it without the OGL.

----------


## EggKookoo

> And it's not just the d20 + mod stuff. You want to use the text of a fighting style? Or talk about "advantage" meaning 2d20kh? That's mechanics and you can't use it without the OGL.


Well, right, the mechanic and the text describing the mechanic are two very separate things.

"Roll your to-hit die. If it fails, roll it again to get a second chance!" is not WotC-owned, but explains the idea of advantage. You could even come up with your own shorthand term for it ("Pump the dice" or "Do a double-tap" or whatever fits the look & feel of your game's setting).

WotC would run into prior art all over the place if they tried to claim ownership on something as basic as "roll a die and add a number to it."

----------


## Psyren

> Hard, ontological, irreconcilable disagree.


There really is. Things like the morality clause in the Fan Content Policy exist to restrict openness, but are completely necessary.




> I think a lot of people are overstating GSL as a major factor in the relative unpopularity at all. DnD 4e was already a huge departure from 3.5. It's largest, most successful competitor system wouldn't exist at all without OGL. WotC was essentially competing against a reprint of its own product, using an unfamiliar one. Despite this, 4e still sold well. Not having a good 3PP license did contribute, but this is a relatively small factor for a vast majority of the market that was playing 4e, especially considering that it was a content heavy system with many releases. 
> 
> This is also why I don't put a lot of stock in PF2 being a replacement for 5e. It's a large departure in the same way 4e was in a lot of ways. Asking people to move to entirely new system for 4e was a big ask back then, and it would be a big ask now.


This.




> Nine years later and there's still, what, two books that are dedicated to expanding player options? Previous editions had dozens. And you can argue that balance was worse, but it's not like 5e balance is particularly good.


There's way more than two. Xanathar's and Tasha's may be the biggest/most universal but we've gotten a ton of player options and supplements outside of those.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Actually I'm seeing lawyers debating this issue, some in IP law and some elsewhere. It's not really straightforward.  But this is also why I think we ought to request the FTC to look into this. If it forces Green Ronin to shelve their Freedom city product or risk granting a license to another company, Paizo, the OSR studios, etc., well that retroactive move is a pretty big impact on pricing etc.





> I've seen several non-IP lawyers talking about it, but that article is the first I've seen of a real IP lawyer commenting on the OGL1.1. Can you link to other IP lawyers talking about it? (I'm legitimately interested in reading it)
> 
> As far as getting the FTC involved, I'm certainly not opposed to it, though I question how effective it may be. That said, it really can't hurt, so why not?


I think we should indeed report to the FTC. I think the injurious effect on non-DnD OGL systems is probably going to be the biggest impact, so it should be brought to question if it is an unfair or predatory business practice.

----------


## Psyren

> I think we should indeed report to the FTC. I think the injurious effect on non-DnD OGL systems is probably going to be the biggest impact, so it should be brought to question if it is an unfair or predatory business practice.


Also the EFF could weigh in on the VTT question, I feel.

To reiterate, I'm not opposed to pushing back on this draft OGL and getting better terms for third party creators. But I can also understand how OGL 1.0(a) might need an update too.

----------


## Dragonus45

> There really is. Things like the morality clause in the Fan Content Policy exist to restrict openness, but are completely necessary.


Is there a reason you really want a billion dollar corporation should be making decisions about what acceptable morality is to the rest of us or to other publishers who they don't own? 





> I think we should indeed report to the FTC. I think the injurious effect on non-DnD OGL systems is probably going to be the biggest impact, so it should be brought to question if it is an unfair or predatory business practice.


I hope it does get brought up but I don't hold up a lot of hope. 




> To reiterate, I'm not opposed to pushing back on this draft OGL and getting better terms for third party creators. But I can also understand how OGL 1.0(a) might need an update too.


Thanks to the great foresight of at least one person involved who understood what "open" means and safeguarded the rest of us section 9 of the OGL exists so any updates effectively have to be consensual with the third party publishers.

----------


## Raven777

> There really is. Things like the morality clause in the Fan Content Policy exist to restrict openness, but are completely necessary.


I think you mean _desirable_, for subjective and strategic or moral reasons private to the IP owner. But someone developing and distributing a OneD&D _Book of Erotic Fantasy_ is not an _existential_ threat to WotC.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> I think you mean _desirable_, for subjective and strategic or moral reasons private to the IP owner. But someone developing and distributing a OneD&D _Book of Erotic Fantasy_ is not an _existential_ threat to WotC.


No, but that NuTSR Star Frontiers bullsh*t is a catastrophic branding problem.

----------


## Psyren

> Is there a reason you really want a billion dollar corporation should be making decisions about what acceptable morality is to the rest of us or to other publishers who they don't own?


I believe broadcasting things like hate speech or advocating harm should be preventable and have enforceable consequences, including the deplatforming of individuals who do those things. If you don't, I don't really know what else to tell you.




> I think you mean _desirable_, for subjective and strategic or moral reasons private to the IP owner. But someone developing and distributing a OneD&D _Book of Erotic Fantasy_ is not an _existential_ threat to WotC.


I'd say that depends entirely what's in it. A OneD&D FATAL certainly would be.

----------


## Raven777

> No, but that NuTSR Star Frontiers bullsh*t is a catastrophic branding problem.


Maybe. Not one that justifies stifling the entire ability of third parties to use the system. Or to paraphrase Voltaire, _I disapprove of FATAL, but I will defend to the death your right to make it_.

----------


## Psyren

> Maybe. Not one that justifies stifling the entire ability of third parties to use the system. Or to paraphrase Voltaire, _I disapprove of FATAL, but I will defend to the death your right to make it_.


You have the right to *make* whatever you want. How you _disseminate_ it is another matter entirely.

----------


## Dragonus45

> I think you mean _desirable_, for subjective and strategic or moral reasons private to the IP owner. But someone developing and distributing a OneD&D _Book of Erotic Fantasy_ is not an _existential_ threat to WotC.


It's not even just that, say I want to write a dark fantasy campaign setting based on series like Berserk. Just having to dangle on a thread and hope WotC doesn't nuke me for daring to push boundaries or do something that might make someone over there uncomfortable so they use their ill defined terms that let them unilaterally make decisions about that is untenable.

----------


## CountDVB

> Yes, if the OGL were not in place, WOTC would be facing a lot of competing systems already. WEG might still be in business, though they had significant problems in their accounting as I understand it. Green Ronin would have used something else to build mutants and masterminds. If the OGL had never been issued, the current license wouldn't be a big deal, but after undermining competing systems for 20 years, yeah its a problem.


Maybe we should create our own OGL or something equivalent to it. Like, OGL only covers the D20 system and everything associated with the core stuff, but a lot of that is nebulous, right?

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> It's not even just that, say I want to write a dark fantasy campaign setting based on series like Berserk. Just having to dangle on a thread and hope WotC doesn't nuke me for daring to push boundaries or do something that might make someone over there uncomfortable so they use their ill defined terms that let them unilaterally make decisions about that is untenable.


Yeah, given the state of language these days, I wouldn't take chances with a company, vulnerable to online mobs wearing hysteria hats, interpreting which words are "hateful" and "causing harm". Yikes, no thanks. No reason to believe their decision will be grounded in reality whatsoever, and therefore predictable, practical, etc.

----------


## CountDVB

> As a note, the Fan Content Policy does _not_ cover homebrew, settings, any use in any game (explicitly excluded), or any use of game mechanics (except as covered by the OGL). So _no_, if you want to homebrew something (aka the entire forums here, or anything for any of your games), you need to accept the OGL and abide by its restrictions. Period. Full stop. No legal cover otherwise.
> 
> So yes, this predatory change _does_ critically affect every single DM who does anything other than running a stock published campaign using only WotC assets.
> 
> Yes, that includes things like use of spell names. Or class names. Or subclass names. Or monster stat blocks, even if modified. Or _fighting styles_. Or the text of _darkvision_. Or...


I think trying to copyright things like fireball or the wizard class will go about as well as Disney attempting to copyright Dia De Los Muertos

----------


## Zanos

> No, but that NuTSR Star Frontiers bullsh*t is a catastrophic branding problem.


I actually don't think anyone who doesn't already play D&D cares about this, and I don't think people who are currently buying D&D products are going to stop buying D&D products because of it. I wasn't even sure what you were talking about until I googled it and remember that it happened. It's certainly not a good reason to clamp down on the license, part of the burden of having an open systems is that you accept that sometimes weird people make gross stuff. People just laugh at it and move on. It's not as though there's some deep reservoir of (obviously) racist RPG books that have made a killing.

Some of us remember how stupid the satanic panic was and don't see moral outrage as a good reason to clamp down.




> Yeah, given the state of language these days, I wouldn't take chances with a company, vulnerable to online mobs wearing hysteria hats, interpreting which words are "hateful" and "causing harm". Yikes, no thanks. No reason to believe their decision will be grounded in reality whatsoever, and therefore predictable, practical, etc.


+1. Can't wait to get sued because I have tolkien orcs in my setting.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I believe broadcasting things like hate speech or advocating harm should be preventable and have enforceable consequences, including the deplatforming of individuals who do those things. If you don't, I don't really know what else to tell you.


A bit ad hom here, someone may disagree with you not because they approve of hate speech, but because they believe deplatforming to be a greater harm. 

But, speaking as a philosopher working in fields related to ethics, the real problem with hate speech is who gets to define it, and by what standard. Some examples are clear cut, but many situations will be interpreted differently by those in different ethical schools of thought, an emotivist/ moral intuitionist will assess some cases differently from Kantians, Muslims, Christians or Utilitarians. Most gaming company execs, and unfortunately many laymen in general, don't have the background when dealing with the finer points of these discussions to really step in successfully.

----------


## Dragonus45

> I believe broadcasting things like hate speech or advocating harm should be preventable and have enforceable consequences, including the deplatforming of individuals who do those things. If you don't, I don't really know what else to tell you.


But why do you want a billion dollar corporation to make this decision? What about them says they have the right and ability to make those decisions about fine lines in fraught and difficult discussions to decide what is and is not valid art or expression in an RPG system or setting?

----------


## Raven777

> You have the right to *make* whatever you want. How you _disseminate_ it is another matter entirely.


Dissemination would be market fronts like DM's Guild or DriveThrough RPG. But if a license on a _system_ claims being open, it shouldn't turn around and restrict who or what it's open for.
That's why I say my position is ontological and irreconcilable. I empathize with your "some appalling content ought to be restricted" position, but you're going to find it hard to convince a free speech absolutist who sees this position as a first step down a slippery slope of arbitrary, reactionary restrictions. You say "some restrictions" and I say "zero restrictions" and the gap between those is irrevocably mathematical, it's not a malleable spectrum where we can philosophize a compromise.

----------


## Psyren

> Some of us remember how stupid the satanic panic was and don't see moral outrage as a good reason to clamp down.


Non sequitur - that push was coming from outside the industry entirely, it had nothing to do with the IP holders trying to protect the brand they cultivated from being dragged through the muck.




> Dissemination would be market fronts like DM's Guild or DriveThrough RPG. But if a license on a _system_ claims being open, it shouldn't turn around and restrict who or what it's open for.


That provision is what would allow them to go to DTRPG and say "please don't give this person a prominent platform with which to damage our IP."




> free speech absolutist


Yeah, I already figured.

----------


## Ogun

> No, but that NuTSR Star Frontiers bullsh*t is a catastrophic branding problem.


I has no idea about this!
Now that I do, I think it had the makings of a great strawman antagonist for WotC.
No matter what, anything they print should be better than that mess...

----------


## Psyren

> I has no idea about this!
> Now that I do, I think it had the makings of a great strawman antagonist for WotC.
> No matter what, anything they print should be better than that mess...


I find "strawman" strange considering this was a real thing they actually had to fight recently.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Most gaming company execs, and unfortunately many laymen in general, don't have the background when dealing with the finer points of these discussions to really step in successfully.


 The mental image I have is of twelve-year- olds with flame throwers. 



> That's why I say my position is ontological and irreconcilable. I empathize with your "some appalling content ought to be restricted" position, but you're going to find it hard to convince a free speech absolutist who sees this position as a first step down a slippery slope of arbitrary, reactionary restrictions. You say "some restrictions" and I say "zero restrictions" and the gap between those is irrevocably mathematical, it's not a malleable spectrum where we can philosophize a compromise.


 It's the thin end of the wedge.

----------


## Brookshw

> Why not, WotC still explicitly benefits from them existing and gains goodwill from that ecosystem even existing, which the third party content creators are literally creating. Having that table be open to eat at is literally the incentive they have to participate. WotC set those rules for a reason, now they want to play take backs.


That table was always WoTC's, they get to decide the rules for it. I get people want to keep eating there, because its an easy meal, but that doesn't mean it was ever theirs. Personally, I'll always have more respect for people who make their own tables. Also, the community doesn't get to decide for WoTC whether WoTC wants whatever benefit the community offers, that's their choice, we don't get to take it away from them (and they also get the consequences, if any). 




> Their granting themselves an irrevocable license to the creators intellectual properties means, no you may not be, as they could start using your setting.


 You're granting them a non-exclusive license, big difference. Also, this is consistent with what you already give them for posting content to DDB.




> I think that was me.


 Phoenix has made the point as well, though you may have also brought it up. At any rate, there seems to be some misconception about what antitrust law is designed to avoid; its objective is to prevent artificial and prohibitive barrier to market entry or artificial price inflation through agreement for the benefit of consumers. Someone being in a market dominant position is not sufficient to trigger it, just because they're big, doesn't mean they have to be nice. OGL was them holding the door to market entry open for people, they're free to stop doing that at any time, and leave it to people to have to deal with the natural barriers of entry (e.g., product development, advertising, etc.), but that's not them creating barriers.

The MS case (which, again, I last read maybe 5 years ago and could be rusty on the details of) relied upon MS using its position to actively close doors and create barriers artificial barriers of entry. If memory serves, two important distinctions were changing browsers on people and controlling usage. Contrasted against WoTC, they're just not the same thing in the slightest. For WoTC to engage in conduct like MS was, they'd need to come into my home and stop me from being able to open and play the other games I own, and swapping out whats on my shelf for their games. None of that is going to happen.




> Actually this undermines not only Paizo, but the OSR, Mutants and Masterminds etc. are heavily reliant on the OGL.


 Sure, but those aren't major competitors, I don't think any of those games (outside of PF) have broken the top 5 in the last 20ish years. The major competitors are able to compete without needing to rely upon the OGL.




> You'd be getting sympathy from the entire (and successful) FOSS movement.


 Okay. Shame the FOSS crowd is selective, depending upon the individual, about what they release as OS, and what they commercialize.




> But, you know, being predatory and exclusive is a trait we should stifle and discourage in human enterprise, not encourage.


 I don't encourage eminent domain behavior either unless is serves a very definitive public good like a hospital, school or library, rather than a leisure activity. 





> Mickey Mouse vs. the Cranium Rats!


Hah! Nice. Mickey Mouse AS a Cranium Rat!

----------


## Ogun

> I find "strawman" strange considering this was a real thing they actually had to fight recently.


Good point. 
I should have said it differently.
I'm sure TV tropes has a concise term/explanation,  but I dare not go look lest I get sucked in.
Suffice to say, it's useful to have someone who is terrible to compare yourself to.

----------


## Zanos

> Non sequitur - that push was coming from outside the industry entirely, it had nothing to do with the IP holders trying to protect the brand they cultivated from being dragged through the muck.


Of course they're related, it's just people throwing a fit about the perception that D&D is associated with moral nastiness. In both cases it wasn't actually true, and in both cases it was overblown by people with agendas. And TSR did take steps to distance D&D from satanism, which was largely negatively received and later reverted. If anything this one is _less_ meaningful because unlike with the panic, there's no general public perception that D&D is a hive of racists because of an irrelevant book created by an irrelevant publisher.

So I'm sorry if I don't buy that Hasbro needs to tighten the OGL to prevent people from thinking D&D is for racists, because someone actually made something racist with the OGL and nobody associated it with the larger community.

----------


## Psyren

> That table was always WoTC's, they get to decide the rules for it. I get people want to keep eating there, because its an easy meal, but that doesn't mean it was ever theirs. Personally, I'll always have more respect for people who make their own tables. Also, the community doesn't get to decide for WoTC whether WoTC wants whatever benefit the community offers, that's their choice, we don't get to take it away from them (and they also get the consequences, if any).


Yes, and they're not even taking the table away. They're just making sure it's still doing what it was designed to do, give an easy way for newcomers to sit down and eat. Not to load up several trays and then open their own stall at the front door, or to arrange every dish, pose next to them and start a food blog.




> Of course they're related, it's just people throwing a fit about the perception that D&D is associated with moral nastiness. In both cases it wasn't actually true, and in both cases it was overblown by people with agendas. And TSR did take steps to distance D&D from satanism, which was largely negatively received and later reverted. If anything this one is _less_ meaningful because unlike with the panic, there's no general public perception that D&D is a hive of racists because of an irrelevant book created by an irrelevant publisher.


If you think a brand can't be harmed by what it is allowed to be juxtaposed with without challenge, especially here where failing to protect your brand can even be interpreted as tacit consent (not just for that particular assailant, but any number of future ones), I'm not sure what else to tell you other than the world doesn't work that way.

----------


## Dragonus45

> Non sequitur - that push was coming from outside the industry entirely, it had nothing to do with the IP holders trying to protect the brand they cultivated from being dragged through the muck.
> 
> That provision is what would allow them to go to DTRPG and say "please don't give this person a prominent platform with which to damage our IP."


And clearly potential damage to the IP could only come from within the industry? 




> That table was always WoTC's, they get to decide the rules for it. I get people want to keep eating there, because its an easy meal, but that doesn't mean it was ever theirs. Personally, I'll always have more respect for people who make their own tables. Also, the community doesn't get to decide for WoTC whether WoTC wants whatever benefit the community offers, that's their choice, we don't get to take it away from them (and they also get the consequences, if any).


I think it needs to be made clear that WotC already decided and authorized the rules. They organized a bit potluck so they could get the big table and make sure that everyone was eating at it and not anyone else's. The rules being exceedingly generous and perpetual was how they got people to come and bring their food to the potluck to begin with. You have this way of describing the third party publishers like they are mongrel dogs off the street coming to WotC's table and eating their table scraps and now WotC want's to charge them but that aint it. They brought food to WotC and everyone got to eat. Including WotC, who have undeniably with zero counter argument or opposition benefited from this. Your respect is irrelevant here as well? why would you respecting them have any bearing on their rights. 




> You're granting them a non-exclusive license, big difference. Also, this is consistent with what you already give them for posting content to DDB.


Which is probably why so many people avoid publishing through the DMs guild or DDB and self publish through kickstarter instead, unless they are already in the WotC ecosystem.




> Yes, and they're not even taking the table away. They're just making sure it's still doing what it was designed to do, give an easy way for newcomers to sit down and eat. Not to load up several trays and then open their own stall at the front door, or to arrange every dish, pose next to them and start a food blog.


They are absolutely taking the table away though. 100%, it's gone. They are transforming it into a hypothetical table that very few will every try to bring food too again because they moved the potluck to the top of Mount Everest.

----------


## Psyren

> And clearly potential damage to the IP could only come from within the industry?


I'm saying that particular issue is not related to the OGL at all. The existence or absence of an OGL would not have prevented that event from occurring.

----------


## EggKookoo

> A bit ad hom here, someone may disagree with you not because they approve of hate speech, but because they believe deplatforming to be a greater harm.


Or to put it another way, you have the right to disapprove of whatever you like. How you *object* to it is another matter entirely.

----------


## Brookshw

> Some of us remember how stupid the satanic panic was and don't see moral outrage as a good reason to clamp down.


Bit off topic, but people still seem to be equating D&D to....things.

Also, let's not discuss that article further.




> I think it needs to be made clear that WotC already decided and authorized the rules. They organized a bit potluck so they could get the big table and make sure that everyone was eating at it and not anyone else's. The rules being exceedingly generous and *perpetual* was how they got people to come and bring their food to the potluck to begin with. You have this way of describing the third party publishers like they are mongrel dogs off the street coming to WotC's table and eating their table scraps and now WotC want's to charge them but that aint it. They brought food to WotC and everyone got to eat. Including WotC, who have undeniably with zero counter argument or opposition benefited from this. Your respect is irrelevant here as well? why would you respecting them have any bearing on their rights.


And now the potluck is over. And that bolded part? That didn't mean irrevocable, I get that there is some basis to complain about this (and challenge it), but in part its people taking legal language at face value and not being familiar with contract law; to a certain point, it's caveat emptor, they took the benefit and didn't recognize that it wasn't everything they thought it was. I don't think of third party publishers as mongrels, but I do see a big difference in someone actually doing their own thing, and someone who piggybacks on someone else's success.




> Which is probably why so many people avoid publishing through the DMs guild or DDB and self publish through kickstarter instead, unless they are already in the WotC ecosystem.


 And more power to them. I'm continuously impressed that Rifts and GURPS keep on plugging away, and love smaller games. I think at this points RIFTS is basically down to one guy doing all the lifting? I forget his name, Chris something maybe? Good on ol' Chris whatshisface.

----------


## EggKookoo

> And TSR did take steps to distance D&D from [...], which was largely negatively received and later reverted.


Just to warn you, the mods on this site _will_ lock this thread for misspelling Santa. You might want to do a little editing just to be safe.

----------


## Raven777

> So I'm sorry if I don't buy that Hasbro needs to tighten the OGL to prevent people from thinking D&D is for racists, because someone actually made something racist with the OGL and nobody associated it with the larger community.


To throw a branch to Psyren, a business might find it needs to ward itself against an effect where they start attracting undesirable customers by association and chasing away desirable ones.

----------


## Psyren

Raven could you edit that link by any chance?




> A bit ad hom here, someone may disagree with you not because they approve of hate speech, but because they believe deplatforming to be a greater harm.


To be 100% clear, I didn't say anyone here "approves of hate speech"; I said they don't believe it worth deplatforming a bad actor over (which appears to match what you said.) Needless to say, I disagree with that stance utterly.

And sure, I agree that "who gets to define it" is an important consideration, but given that the company that invested the most into building up the IP has the most to lose when it comes to potential damage, even through inaction, the greater discretion to make that determination should reside with them.

----------


## Raven777

> Raven could you edit that link by any chance?


Done. My mistake.

----------


## Psyren

> Done. My mistake.


Much appreciated  :Small Smile:

----------


## Dragonus45

> I'm saying that particular issue is not related to the OGL at all. The existence or absence of an OGL would not have prevented that event from occurring.





> Also, let's not discuss that article further.


It is relevant to the discussion of things that might make a panicky billion dollar corporation decide to pull the plug on a third party rather then deal with backlash though. 




> And sure, I agree that "who gets to define it" is an important consideration, but given that the company that invested the most into building up the IP has the most to lose when it comes to potential damage, the greater discretion to make that determination should reside with them.


It's very important who gets to decide these things, and I don't get why you think a billion dollar corporation should get to be the arbiter here when they are not the publisher of the material. Why should the decision to decide what is or isn't valid in the RPG space belong to them?

----------


## Psyren

> It is relevant to the discussion of things that might make a panicky billion dollar corporation decide to pull the plug on a third party rather then deal with backlash though.


That sounds like a good reason for third parties to be conscientious and err on the side of caution about how they use other people's licenses, which is as it should be. 




> It's very important who gets to decide these things, and I don't get why you think a billion dollar corporation should get to be the arbiter here when they are not the publisher of the material. Why should the decision to decide what is or isn't valid in the RPG space belong to them?


You can publish quite a lot that is "valid in the RPG space" _without_ using WotC's license. Dozens of other companies have done exactly that. There is no requirement for you to use the OGL to enter the space at all.

----------


## Brookshw

> Why should the decision to decide what is or isn't valid in the RPG space belong to them?


That's an overreach, they only decide what's using their content, you can publish whatever you want on your own.

Also what Psyren said.

----------


## Zanos

> To throw a branch to Psyren, a business might find it needs to ward itself against an effect where they start attracting undesirable customers by association and chasing away desirable ones.


Fair, but I don't think people are flocking to this material. There have been a _lot_ of explicitly racist RPGs over the years, and none of them are popular. Again, we've already seen material like this under previous and current OGLs, and there was no incredible influx of racists into the hobby. So as far as I can tell this is just trying to use a moral straw man as an excuse to establish more control, which is a common tactic.

----------


## Ogun

Is free speech absolutism compatible with copyright and trademark laws at all?
I'm not trying to be funny, the thought just now struck me.

If they are not, then the licensing doesn't matter anyway, the very idea of licensing is an infringement on free speech.
If copywriter and trademarks are compatible with free speech absolutism, shouldn't an IP owner should have final say over how their IP is used, as part of their to speech rights?

I am not personally invested in the distinction, just curious about the implications. 

Just a related side note,  who here rembers the Book Of Vile Darkness?
It was controversial before it came out, but frankly it was tame if for no other reason than it described evil as being evil, and even included downsides built in to the rules and flavor it was presenting.
That distinction is not present in ttrpgs most reviled content.

----------


## Dragonus45

> That sounds like a good reason for third parties to be conscientious and err on the side of caution about how they use other people's licenses, which is as it should be.


Wait, so the chilling effect if a billion dollar corporation censoring products they have no publishing rights too is to be desired?




> You can publish quite a lot that is "valid in the RPG space" _without_ using WotC's license. Dozens of other companies have done exactly that. There is no requirement for you to use the OGL to enter the space at all.


It isn't a requirement no, but you can't say it isn't by deliberate design the best place to enter from in order to reinforce the D20 systems market share and often the only way for indie names to gain any recognition. 




> That's an overreach, they only decide what's using their content, you can publish whatever you want on your own.


No one is using their content though. They are using the content on the SRD through the OGL which is an open license for someone to then make _their_ own content that WotC has no right to interfere with.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> You're granting them a non-exclusive license, big difference. Also, this is consistent with what you already give them for posting content to DDB.


Even on DBB it is I think a problem, but the point is the new OGL does this essentially to all product. Personally if I were a creator I would never use DBB because of this issue.

 [/quote]Phoenix has made the point as well, though you may have also brought it up. At any rate, there seems to be some misconception about what antitrust law is designed to avoid; its objective is to prevent artificial and prohibitive barrier to market entry or artificial price inflation through agreement for the benefit of consumers. Someone being in a market dominant position is not sufficient to trigger it, just because they're big, doesn't mean they have to be nice. OGL was them holding the door to market entry open for people, they're free to stop doing that at any time, and leave it to people to have to deal with the natural barriers of entry (e.g., product development, advertising, etc.), but that's not them creating barriers. [/quote]


I'm not sure you are actually addressing my points, there are really 3 I think that should be treated as anti-competitive practices.

1. The OGL 1.0, because it has been in operation for 20 years, has changed the ecosystem system. Competing systems were shelved because it was cheaper to just use the shiny kit someone else marketed. I personally think the OGL was part of why WEG went out of business, though certainly not the only one, they spent their money on movie licenses to an extent that undercut their model, despite the elegance and power of the D6 system. Changing it retroactively therefore is a bit like artificially lowering your price to harm your competitors and then raising the price when there is less competition, (which is a monopolistic practice). I would have agreed with you if this wasn't impacting 20 years of the gaming industry as a whole. And it does seem to be leading back to something like TSR's suing of Gygax, the OGL has impacted gamer terminology in ways that could lead to frivolous lawsuits that have no merit but to bankrupt a competitor. 

2. The demand for license effectively means you can never renegotiate the contract in more favorable terms in the future, which is also anti-competitive and has some anti-trust impacts, particularly for legacy creators impacted by 1. If limited to DBB OK, or mechanics, fine, but once you start discussing a creator's settings, lore, etc this becomes a huge problem.




> The MS case (which, again, I last read maybe 5 years ago and could be rusty on the details of) relied upon MS using its position to actively close doors and create barriers artificial barriers of entry. If memory serves, two important distinctions were changing browsers on people and controlling usage. Contrasted against WoTC, they're just not the same thing in the slightest. For WoTC to engage in conduct like MS was, they'd need to come into my home and stop me from being able to open and play the other games I own, and swapping out whats on my shelf for their games. None of that is going to happen.


3. Now we get to MS. I was only making this case for VTTs not the entire ecosystem, which is related and exacerbating, but different. The problem is, VTTs let players create games, and store documents. Selling DND official peripherals would be one thing, and I can see disallowing it, but DND seems to be suggesting DMs can't use these systems at all even with player created resources, unless you use their platform. It will likely lead to the collapse of competitors, especially if they shutdown Paizo and the OSR, effectively their marketshare jmis such thsf you have to deal with DnD to have an effective platform. For that matter you also have to deal with kickstarter, which impacts that business model, as well.  That is what happened to Netscape, 




> Sure, but those aren't major competitors, I don't think any of those games (outside of PF) have broken the top 5 in the last 20ish years. The major competitors are able to compete without needing to rely upon the OGL.


I'm not sure any competitor has sufficient marketshare to be considered major. FASA is gone, its businesses being a shadow of their former selves on the RPG feont. WOTC appears to be that big. Paizo has an out with Savage worlds, but Iexpect some kind of frivllpus suit to try to shut them down. Green Ronin appears to be on lifesupport.  But I think the problem is, there is no Pepsi to WOTC's coke, most of the competition are small studios making ogl products, **** down a few of them and WOTC control over the market as a whole.

----------


## Segev

> Is free speech absolutism compatible with copyright and trademark laws at all?
> I'm not trying to be funny, the thought just now struck me.
> 
> If they are not, then the licensing doesn't matter anyway, the very idea of licensing is an infringement on free speech.
> If copywriter and trademarks are compatible with free speech absolutism, shouldn't an IP owner should have final say over how their IP is used, as part of their to speech rights?
> 
> I am not personally invested in the distinction, just curious about the implications. 
> 
> Just a related side note,  who here rembers the Book Of Vile Darkness?
> ...


You can control how people use your IP by refraining from licensing it to them, or by having specific licenses that tell you how you can use it. A license that says you can use it except when the license-granter says you can't, post hoc, is not really a license at all.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> You can control how people use your IP by refraining from licensing it to them, or by having specific licenses that tell you how you can use it. A license that says you can use it except when the license-granter says you can't, post hoc, is not really a license at all.


If it turns out that the requirement to send WotC details when you plan to use the license commercially is a vetting process it wouldn't really be a post-hoc agreement since the December post clarified that went hand in hand with accepting the terms. If they are going down that line I'd expect the specifics of the license to put more clarity on that.

It would be scummy and spit in the face of what an _open_ license is, but it wouldn't really be a "gotcha" moment later on, it's something the creator would have known could happen if they ever sought to use the license commercially.

If this extends beyond the commercial user into the free user space, then I'd say you're correct.

----------


## Segev

> If it turns out that the requirement to send WotC details when you plan to use the license commercially is a vetting process it wouldn't really be a post-hoc agreement since the December post clarified that went hand in hand with accepting the terms. If they are going down that line I'd expect the specifics of the license to put more clarity on that.
> 
> It would be scummy and spit in the face of what an _open_ license is, but it wouldn't really be a "gotcha" moment later on, it's something the creator would have known could happen if they ever sought to use the license commercially.
> 
> If this extends beyond the commercial user into the free user space, then I'd say you're correct.


Yeah, agreed. Especially on the part where having to ask permission with full details of what you're going to publish before you are allowed to use the OGL not really being an "O" GL. 

The trouble still remains, even with that, though, that the "we can alter this with 30 days notice at any time" clause means that they still can revoke, essentially, any granted license with nearly no notice. Meanwhile, they retain the right to what you made under that license. So they could ACTIVELY stop a competitor from publishing something, rather than just using their greater distribution power to overwhelm them, if they wanted, while publishing that creator's work, themselves, and keeping all the money.

The biggest bone of contention is going to be their attempt to "deauthorize" the earlier version of the OGL. I don't think they can actually do that. That'd be like a credit card company trying to get away with using the "we can change this agreement any time" language to justify retroactively changing payment due dates and interest rates so that everyone who ever used the credit card now retroactively was 20 days late paying off their bills even if they paid them on time under the old agreement, and also owes 200% interest per day. This would not fly in court, I don't think.

Similarly, I don't think "well, we SAID you had a license, and it WAS authorized, but now it isn't," will fly in stopping third party publishers from publishing 3.0, 3.5, PF1 (since they're contributors to the OGL), and 5.0 content. And, if WotC isn't careful about separating what they put of 5.1 into only being contributed to the 1.1-licensed SRD (perhaps in an effort to "show" that they're "really the same license, tee-hee"), they might accidentally open 5.1 material up to the 1.0 OGL, since it would then be part of the SRD that the 1.0 license covered.

Heck, the whole section on "authorized" licenses might make the fact that 1.1 is a "version update" of 1.0, "honest," legally bind anything released under 1.1 to being allowable to use under 1.0's terms.

But then, I'm no lawyer. I'm sure there will be lots of legal arguments made about this. Courts may well have to decide.

----------


## Psyren

> Fair, but I don't think people are flocking to this material. There have been a _lot_ of explicitly racist RPGs over the years, and none of them are popular. Again, we've already seen material like this under previous and current OGLs, and there was no incredible influx of racists into the hobby. So as far as I can tell this is just trying to use a moral straw man as an excuse to establish more control, which is a common tactic.


Just because none of them have managed to harm the brand or hobby yet, does not mean no recourse is ever warranted.




> Wait, so the chilling effect if a billion dollar corporation censoring products they have no publishing rights too is to be desired?


That's what you sign up for by basing your success on their license, yes. You are free to not do that.




> It isn't a requirement no, but you can't say it isn't by deliberate design the best place to enter from in order to reinforce the D20 systems market share and often the only way for indie names to gain any recognition.


And I think it still would be. Certainly creators like Colville don't seem worried.

Do I think our pushback can get us a better deal, sure. Do I think the original should stay unchanged forever, no (though of course, ultimately it's not about what I think.)

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Bit off topic, but people still seem to be equating D&D And now the potluck is over. And that bolded part? That didn't mean irrevocable, I get that there is some basis to complain about this (and challenge it), but in part its people taking legal language at face value and not being familiar with contract law; to a certain point, it's caveat emptor, they took the benefit and didn't recognize that it wasn't everything they thought it was. I don't think of third party publishers as mongrels, but I do see a big difference in someone actually doing their own thing, and someone who piggybacks on someone else's success.


No, they clearly at the time meant it to be irrevocable, the author made thst clear. They may have sellers remorse now, but the original intent was clear, they are playing to an error in their own verbage.

----------


## Dragonus45

> Just because none of them have managed to harm the brand or hobby yet, does not mean no recourse is ever warranted.


And they have a big platform to make their displeasure known from, but that displeasure doesn't translate to publishing rights. 




> That's what you sign up for by basing your success on their license, yes. You are free to not do that.


No, the license is pretty clear that this was never on the table. At least the people have been working from for decades in good faith before WotC decided to flip the table on them potentially illegally. 





> And I think it still would be. Certainly creators like Colville don't seem worried.
> 
> Do I think our pushback can get us a better deal, sure. Do I think the original should stay unchanged forever, no (though of course, ultimately it's not about what I think.)


That must be why dozens of creators and publishers have been stating an intention to abandon 5e for their own systems or other systems with OGL's that aren't heinous crimes against decency.

----------


## Zanos

> Just because none of them have managed to harm the brand or hobby yet, does not mean no recourse is ever warranted.


They can use methods of recourse that don't involve legal control mechanisms. Usually when people use moral evils that aren't threats to convince you that they need control, their intentions aren't very good.

----------


## Brookshw

> No one is using their content though. They are using the content on the SRD through the OGL which is an open license for someone to then make _their_ own content that WotC has no right to interfere with.


No, OGL content is still WoTC's content, they're just making it available to you through that license. They didn't bequeath it to the public domain. 




> Even on DBB it is I think a problem, but the point is the new OGL does this essentially to all product. Personally if I were a creator I would never use DBB because of this issue.


 Completely understood, I wouldn't either. 




> I'm not sure you are actually addressing my points, there are really 3 I think that should be treated as anti-competitive practices.


 I didn't entirely, was short on time and wanted to make the more general point regarding clarifying the purpose of anittrust laws.




> 1. The OGL 1.0, because it has been in operation for 20 years, has changed the ecosystem system. Competing systems were shelved because it was cheaper to just use the shiny kit someone else marketed. I personally think the OGL was part of why WEG went out of business, though certainly not the only one, they spent their money on movie licenses to an extent that undercut their model, despite the elegance and power of the D6 system. Changing it retroactively therefore is a bit like artificially lowering your price to harm your competitors and then raising the price when there is less competition, (which is a monopolistic practice). I would have agreed with you if this wasn't impacting 20 years of the gaming industry as a whole. And it does seem to be leading back to something like TSR's suing of Gygax, the OGL has impacted gamer terminology in ways that could lead to frivolous lawsuits that have no merit but to bankrupt a competitor.


 I don't agree. WoTC isn't lowering their price to the point they're losing money to drive out competitors, so its not at the level you'd see being a concern in most antitrust suits (frankly, they're priced pretty consistently with their competitors in my opinion). Plus, nothing they're doing prevents someone from actually launching their own game line, so the market entry barriers aren't changing, its just that the hand up isn't available anymore. I also disagree with the analogy, maybe something better would have been, to stick close with the intent of your analogy (I think), I don't know, someone from a boy band who decides to launch a solo career, something like that. As to Gygax and TSR, you're referring to Dangerous Dimensions/Journey's? The issue where Gygax went on to make a new game who's initials were "D&D"? I think we can see why that would have been a legitimate concern. 




> 2. The demand for license effectively means you can never renegotiate the contract in more favorable terms in the future, which is also anti-competitive and has some anti-trust impacts, particularly for legacy creators impacted by 1. If limited to DBB OK, or mechanics, fine, but once you start discussing a creator's settings, lore, etc this becomes a huge problem.


I'm not sure what you mean by demand for license. Do you mean if a content creator wanted to later grant an exclusive license to their content but was barred by the non-exclusive license already granted to WoTC (assuming they took the deal?). Or that people are demanding a license opportunity to WoTC content (which is available through the OGL or can be negotiated separately?) None of that seems to have any antitrust implications.




> 3. Now we get to MS. I was only making this case for VTTs not the entire ecosystem, which is related and exacerbating, but different. The problem is, VTTs let players create games, and store documents. Selling DND official peripherals would be one thing, and I can see disallowing it, but DND seems to be suggesting DMs can't use these systems at all even with player created resources, unless you use their platform. It will likely lead to the collapse of competitors, especially if they shutdown Paizo and the OSR, effectively their marketshare jmis such thsf you have to deal with DnD to have an effective platform. For that matter you also have to deal with kickstarter, which impacts that business model, as well.  That is what happened to Netscape,


You mean DMs are prohibited from using WoTC content in other systems? Ya know, making a copy of them, and using that copy elsewhere? Yeah, makes sense, that's normal, generally you don't get to just make copies of people content and use it elsewhere? I think I had this discussion with Psyren in the other chain, if you're using non-WoTC assets in a VTT, then there's no OGL license implication. WoTC deciding where you can take copies of their content isn't breaking any rule or abnormal, and certainly not an anittrust issue, you can still use those systems. I mean, I'd love for Nintendo to release Zelda for PC, ain't gonna happen, and they have every right not to do so. 




> I'm not sure any competitor has sufficient marketshare to be considered major. FASA is gone, its businesses being a shadow of their former selves on the RPG feont. WOTC appears to be that big. Paizo has an out with Savage worlds, but Iexpect some kind of frivllpus suit to try to shut them down. Green Ronin appears to be on lifesupport.  But I think the problem is, there is no Pepsi to WOTC's coke, most of the competition are small studios making ogl products, **** down a few of them and WOTC control over the market as a whole.


 There doesn't have to be a Pepsi to WoTC's coke, and just because there isn't, doesn't mean WoTC is under some obligation to let everyone take a sip, or that letting people take sips under their terms and conditions is actually a problem. Also, the big competitors aren't using the OGL, Shadowrun, WoD, GW, etc., those are generally in the top 5, none of them rely on the OGL.

Edit:




> No, they clearly at the time meant it to be irrevocable, the author made thst clear. They may have sellers remorse now, but the original intent was clear, they are playing to an error in their own verbage.


What they said outside of the four corners of the original document is subject to the parole evidence rule, maybe you can get it in, but from a drafting perspective, even if you did, I don't see it mattering over common contracting practices and language. There's an argument to be made, I'm skeptical that it would be successful, but that's something to be resolved at trial.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Raven could you edit that link by any chance?
> 
> 
> 
> To be 100% clear, I didn't say anyone here "approves of hate speech"; I said they don't believe it worth deplatforming a bad actor over (which appears to match what you said.) Needless to say, I disagree with that stance utterly.
> 
> And sure, I agree that "who gets to define it" is an important consideration, but given that the company that invested the most into building up the IP has the most to lose when it comes to potential damage, even through inaction, the greater discretion to make that determination should reside with them.


verbiage. My objection is the need for caution in second person sentences. Agree or disagree with a freespeech absolutist, starlets like yours can be construed as a personal attack. 

Of course, DND wants to be careful of associations, the problem with them defining hate speech in many areas is, they are defaming people in the process, so they have a duty to exercise more care than they do.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Is free speech absolutism compatible with copyright and trademark laws at all?
> I'm not trying to be funny, the thought just now struck me.
> 
> If they are not, then the licensing doesn't matter anyway, the very idea of licensing is an infringement on free speech.
> If copywriter and trademarks are compatible with free speech absolutism, shouldn't an IP owner should have final say over how their IP is used, as part of their to speech rights?
> 
> I am not personally invested in the distinction, just curious about the implications. 
> 
> Just a related side note,  who here rembers the Book Of Vile Darkness?
> ...


Yes, they are compatible, and no it is a bit more complicated than that.

----------


## Dragonus45

> No, OGL content is still WoTC's content, they're just making it available to you through that license. They didn't bequeath it to the public domain.


But the works you create with it is _not_ their content thus they have no right or say in it.

----------


## Xervous

The notion of WotC reaching down from on high to smite those they deem to have strayed in terms of oppositions on ambiguous topics reminds me a lot of the moderation practices on RPG.net

Thats not a comforting future for D&D when money is the driving conviction. 

Still, Im getting the feeling that OGL 1.1 might just turn out to be an avoidable Faustian bargain that merely grants access to D&DOne goodies.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> No, OGL content is still WoTC's content, they're just making it available to you through that license. They didn't bequeath it to the public domain. 
> 
>  Completely understood, I wouldn't either. 
> 
>  I didn't entirely, was short on time and wanted to make the more general point regarding clarifying the purpose of anittrust laws.
> 
>  I don't agree. WoTC isn't lowering their price to the point they're losing money to drive out competitors, so its not at the level you'd see being a concern in most antitrust suits (frankly, they're priced pretty consistently with their competitors in my opinion). Plus, nothing they're doing prevents someone from actually launching their own game line, so the market entry barriers aren't changing, its just that the hand up isn't available anymore. I also disagree with the analogy, maybe something better would have been, to stick close with the intent of your analogy (I think), I don't know, someone from a boy band who decides to launch a solo career, something like that. As to Gygax and TSR, you're referring to Dangerous Dimensions/Journey's? The issue where Gygax went on to make a new game who's initials were "D&D"? I think we can see why that would have been a legitimate concern.


Substance of the case included things like the healing skoll was too much like the spell cure light wounds, etc. Although even the initials would be a problem since DD had no and.






> I'm not sure what you mean by demand for license. Do you mean if a content creator wanted to later grant an exclusive license to their content but was barred by the non-exclusive license already granted to WoTC (assuming they took the deal?). Or that people are demanding a license opportunity to WoTC content (which is available through the OGL or can be negotiated separately?) None of that seems to have any antitrust implications.


My visit to the FTCs site makes me not so sure of this.





> You mean DMs are prohibited from using WoTC content in other systems? Ya know, making a copy of them, and using that copy elsewhere? Yeah, makes sense, that's normal, generally you don't get to just make copies of people content and use it elsewhere? I think I had this discussion with Psyren in the other chain, if you're using non-WoTC assets in a VTT, then there's no OGL license implication. WoTC deciding where you can take copies of their content isn't breaking any rule or abnormal, and certainly not an anittrust issue, you can still use those systems. I mean, I'd love for Nintendo to release Zelda for PC, ain't gonna happen, and they have every right not to do so.


Copies of handbooks, sure, character sheets, etc. Well now we are I think getting I to territory.




> There doesn't have to be a Pepsi to WoTC's coke, and just because there isn't, doesn't mean WoTC is under some obligation to let everyone take a sip, or that letting people take sips under their terms and conditions is actually a problem. Also, the big competitors aren't using the OGL, Shadowrun, WoD, GW, etc., those are generally in the top 5, none of them rely on the OGL.


True but it does limit what they are allowed to do. Again, if this only affected forward going products, no issue, but making this retroactive after enticing people to use your product, yeah, it's a problem.




> What they said outside of the four corners of the original document is subject to the parole evidence rule, maybe you can get it in, but from a drafting perspective, even if you did, I don't see it mattering over common contracting practices and language. There's an argument to be made, I'm skeptical that it would be successful, but that's something to be resolved at trial.


Not a lawyer here, but spent time in interp. Too much of the legal profession is engaged in pragmaticist or continental approach to interp, which I have opinions about as an analytical philosopher I won't go into here. I wasn't discussing the law, though, I was only noting the point itself was wrong, the intention at the time was clear.

----------


## Raven777

> verbiage. My objection is the need for caution in second person sentences. Agree or disagree with a freespeech absolutist, starlets like yours can be construed as a personal attack.


I think anyone who's been on this forum long enough to know Psyren knows he's not a personal attack kind of person. Over the years he's been one of the most knowledgeable and polite forumites I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I think anyone who's been on this forum long enough to know Psyren knows he's not a personal attack kind of person. Over the years he's been one of the most knowledgeable and polite forumites I've ever had the pleasure of reading.


I assumed that it was accidental. But the problem of metaethics is most people think everyone is building their ethical system on the same foundation, when in point of fact, the biggest contention in ethics is what is the good, ie what is the foundation and what therefore are the ethical priorities when conflicts between ethical goods collide.

----------


## Brookshw

> But the works you create with it is _not_ their content thus they have no right or say in it.


The stuff that of theirs that you put into it still is.




> Substance of the case included things like the healing skoll was too much like the spell cure light wounds, etc. Although even the initials would be a problem since DD had no and.


 I mean, file off the serial number and, yeah, I think you can see why its an issue. 




> My visit to the FTCs site makes me not so sure of this.


 I'm still not sure what you were getting it, if you can clarify, I can try and respond further. 




> Copies of handbooks, sure, character sheets, etc. Well now we are I think getting I to territory.


 Ironically, forms are generally not protected by copyright (like, maybe if you had graphical embellishments or something that would be protected, there's an old case about it regarding a nursing intake form), and yet just about every RPG I've ever seen expressly gives you permission to copy their form character sheet. Go figure. 




> Not a lawyer here, but spent time in interp. Too much of the legal profession is engaged in pragmaticist or continental approach to interp, which I have opinions about as an analytical philosopher I won't go into here. I wasn't discussing the law, though, I was only noting the point itself was wrong, the intention at the time was clear.


 That's fine, I'm trying to keep the jargon to a minimum (and actual advice excluded). Also, you're not wrong, I'm pretty sure I take a very different view of these things as a lawyer than I might otherwise have.




> I think anyone who's been on this forum long enough to know Psyren knows he's not a personal attack kind of person. Over the years he's been one of the most knowledgeable and polite forumites I've ever had the pleasure of reading.


Pretty sure my very first interaction with Psyren about a decade ago started off with him telling me "You're wrong"  :Small Big Grin:  I've enjoyed the many debates since then, even when we absolutely disagree on points.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I think anyone who's been on this forum long enough to know Psyren knows he's not a personal attack kind of person. Over the years he's been one of the most knowledgeable and polite forumites I've ever had the pleasure of reading.


To put it another way, I think he said it in a way that could be considered a personal attack, not that he meant it this way, the second point is advice, ethical discussions are best kept to third person pronouns unless as ansubject to a verb that verb implies thought, belief etc. Then it turns into flamewars.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Raven777 doesn't speak for all of us, and I think "precise" is much more important than "polite", and can save people a lot of time and headache.

Going back to something that was said pages ago... how could this impact homebrew? Is the idea that the contents of the homebrew subforum would belong to WotC under the new OGL?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I mean, file off the serial number and, yeah, I think you can see why its an issue.


 so all healing mechanisms in RPGs are off the table, got it. As are elves and dwarfs (also part of the suit), sorry Tolkien. 

It was over reach, however you look at it.

 The OGL also sort of prevented a lot of frivolous lawsuits. 

,I'd say in practice, WOTC is going to make it impossible to play DND on any VTSS other than theirs, just as MS made it difficult to use Netscape unless you used OSWarp, etc. Something that as the major power in the field.theu weren't allowed to do.

----------


## Dragonus45

> The stuff that of theirs that you put into it still is.


That isn't the part that matters though.

----------


## Raven777

> I'd say in practice, WOTC is going to make it impossible to play DND on any VTSS other than theirs, just as MS made it difficult to use Netscape unless you used OSWarp, etc. Something that as the major power in the field.theu weren't allowed to do.


I should go check the Alchemy Discord to see what's the mood/reaction in there, since that's my VTT of choice since I discovered it. I'll report what I see.

----------


## Zanos

> so all healing mechanisms in RPGs are off the table, got it. As are elves and dwarfs (also part of the suit), sorry Tolkien. 
> 
> It was over reach, however you look at it.
> 
>  The OGL also sort of prevented a lot of frivolous lawsuits. 
> 
> ,I'd say in practice, WOTC is going to make it impossible to play DND on any VTSS other than theirs, just as MS made it difficult to use Netscape unless you used OSWarp, etc. Something that as the major power in the field.theu weren't allowed to do.


Locking down VTTs is definitely part of their intent, considering VTTs are specifically excluded from operating under the OGL, and the release of WOTC's VTT is slated for next year.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Fair, but I don't think people are flocking to this material. There have been a _lot_ of explicitly racist RPGs over the years, and none of them are popular. Again, we've already seen material like this under previous and current OGLs, and there was no incredible influx of racists into the hobby. So as far as I can tell this is just trying to use a moral straw man as an excuse to establish more control, which is a common tactic.


 I tend to agree. If they were profitable, more of them would be out there, I suspect.  



> Of course, DND wants to be careful of associations, the problem with them defining hate speech in many areas is, they are defaming people in the process, so they have a duty to exercise more care than they do.


 Indeed. It's the defaming bit. 



> But the problem of metaethics is most people think everyone is building their ethical system on the same foundation, when in point of fact, the biggest contention in ethics is what is the good, ie what is the foundation and what therefore are the ethical priorities when conflicts between ethical goods collide.


 Nicely put, I am gonna bookmark that.  :Small Smile: 



> Going back to something that was said pages ago... how could this impact homebrew? Is the idea that the contents of the homebrew subforum would belong to WotC under the new OGL?


 Only if the homebrew is of D&Done stuff and makes someone over $50K, I suspect.  Otherwise, it's in the noise level.  


> I should go check the Alchemy Discord to see what's the mood/reaction in there, since that's my VTT of choice since I discovered it. I'll report what I see.


 Please do, I'll be interested for that input.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Raven777 doesn't speak for all of us, and I think "precise" is much more important than "polite", and can save people a lot of time and headache.
> 
> Going back to something that was said pages ago... how could this impact homebrew? Is the idea that the contents of the homebrew subforum would belong to WotC under the new OGL?


Anyone asking these questions should talk to a lawyer. However, we can do some first-principles analysis based on the text we have.

Homebrew is
a) not covered under the Fan Content Policy, because it involves mechanics from the game and (frequently) game text such as the text of the Extra Attack ability.
b) _sorta_ covered under OGL 1.0(a), although it's not called out as being compliant properly (no inclusion of the text of the OGL). But it's fuzzy.
c) absolutely _not_ covered, nor can it be covered, under OGL 1.1. It's absolutely non-compliant, because it's not a static electronic document. And things like the formatting of class tables is absolutely copyrightable. Monster stat block formatting is copyrightable, as are things like ability names and text.
d) possibly covered under Fair Use. But that's an affirmative defense[1] to a lawsuit, not a license.

Thus, all I can see is that it is *unlicensed infringement*, possibly defendable using Fair Use arguments under the OGL 1.1 regime.

Private homebrew for your own offline games? Yeah, they can't do anything about this.

Publicly posted homebrew? Probably dicey. Although unlikely to actually get noticed or in trouble for.

[1] ie the burden of proof is on you, after you get sued. It defends you against penalties, not against suit. And is notoriously fuzzy. Anyone attempting to rely on it should work closely with a specialist lawyer.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Anyone asking these questions should talk to a lawyer. However, we can do some first-principles analysis based on the text we have.
> 
> Homebrew is
> a) not covered under the Fan Content Policy, because it involves mechanics from the game and (frequently) game text such as the text of the Extra Attack ability.
> b) _sorta_ covered under OGL 1.0(a), although it's not called out as being compliant properly (no inclusion of the text of the OGL). But it's fuzzy.
> c) absolutely _not_ covered, nor can it be covered, under OGL 1.1. It's absolutely non-compliant, because it's not a static electronic document. And things like the formatting of class tables is absolutely copyrightable. Monster stat block formatting is copyrightable, as are things like ability names and text.
> d) possibly covered under Fair Use. But that's an affirmative defense[1] to a lawsuit, not a license.
> 
> Thus, all I can see is that it is *unlicensed infringement*, possibly defendable using Fair Use arguments under the OGL 1.1 regime.
> ...


Setting info is the real dicey part given the license. Does saying, the mayor of "notthedales" is a fight 2/rogue arcane trickster 3 woth X stats and Z weapons mean that WOTC can include "notthedales" along with stats for other major characters in "notthedales" in future products. A strict reading if posted would seem to suggest yes. What about asking for advice on a board on that cyberknight subclass for your return of the revenge of the empire setting?

The licensing thing really is chilling the industry, unless you are doing system neutral settings, which can be boring.

----------


## Psyren

> And they have a big platform to make their displeasure known from, but that displeasure doesn't translate to publishing rights.


If someone is actively harming you or your brand, "displeasure" is insufficient. If someone moves into my yard and spray paints obscenities onto the side of my house, I can do more than merely express displeasure, even if I'm the one who invited them into my yard as a guest originally.




> No, the license is pretty clear that this was never on the table.


There is only one place where the clarity of the license can ultimately be tested, and it isn't here.




> That must be why dozens of creators and publishers have been stating an intention to abandon 5e for their own systems or other systems with OGL's that aren't heinous crimes against decency.


I'm well aware that there is quite a bit of saber-rattling going on from both sides. The market will decide the true value of the license at the end of the day.




> c) absolutely _not_ covered, nor can it be covered, under OGL 1.1. It's absolutely non-compliant, because it's not a static electronic document. And things like the formatting of class tables is absolutely copyrightable. Monster stat block formatting is copyrightable, as are things like ability names and text.


Am I missing something? What's stopping you from sharing (and even selling) your 1.1 homebrew on paper, a PDF, or epub?

----------


## Zanos

> If someone is actively harming you or your brand, "displeasure" is insufficient. If someone moves into my yard and spray paints obscenities onto the side of my house, I can do more than merely express displeasure, even if I'm the one who invited them into my yard as a guest originally.


It's more like you have a neighbor that tosses a dog turd over the fence once every two years, and you respond by mounting m60s on our house facing in every direction. And when the other neighbors say that they think that maybe m60s mounted on your roof are a bit of an over-reaction(and some of them are pointing at them) to a turd toss, you say that you need them to make sure people aren't going to disrupt your lawn anymore. I mean, why's it matter? It's not like you're going to shoot _them._

----------


## ToranIronfinder

Anyway, here is an alternative. Doubt they will try to claim your IP anytime soon.

http://opend6.wikidot.com/srd

----------


## Dragonus45

> If someone is actively harming you or your brand, "displeasure" is insufficient. If someone moves into my yard and spray paints obscenities onto the side of my house, I can do more than merely express displeasure, even if I'm the one who invited them into my yard as a guest originally.


You didn't invite them to your yard. You bought some land and made a public park with it and said everyone was invited. You can tell people you don't want them playing in your park, but you don't get to tell them they can't use it. That right was already given up, and I don't trust a billion dollar corporation to do so ethically by any definition. Why do you?





> There is only one place where the clarity of the license can ultimately be tested, and it isn't here.






> Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?
> 
> A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.






> I'm well aware that there is quite a bit of saber-rattling going on from both sides. The market will decide the true value of the license at the end of the day.


No professional business will ever submit themselves to this document as it stands.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Am I missing something? What's stopping you from sharing (and even selling) your 1.1 homebrew on paper, a PDF, or epub?


Practically speaking? The fact that you just gave WOTC an irrevocable license to use your homebrew, so of if is successful, effectively it is no longer yours. This is just a ploy to swindle small players out of their IP due to their market share.

A lot of this will be adjudicated.  Enworld had a post last night with lawyers making claims both ways on the ability of WOTC to deauthorize the old OGL. It was an interesting discussion, to say the least. Two claimed to be in IP areas of law; if WOTC goes this way, it likely will go to court, by current stakeholders. But then as I noted last night, this is why I think Hasbro legal will likely say no, lawsuit would hurt them quite a bit.

For the small guy, it is a good reason not to publish a setting using DnD, if you haven't already done so, since I assume the big shift by their legal will not remove the license granting clause.

----------


## EggKookoo

> No professional business will ever submit themselves to this document as it stands.


If the rumors are true, OGL 1.1 is worse than the GSL, and people weren't busting down doors to sign that.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Am I missing something? What's stopping you from sharing (and even selling) your 1.1 homebrew on paper, a PDF, or epub?


I was specifically responding to "the homebrew forum of this website." If all you put is a link to a pdf, sure. You _might_ get away with it. But if you put any mechanical details into your post (which is the convention here), you're SOL--you've created an unlicensed derivative work. Heck, the same goes (but with much clearer fair use arguments) for _simply posting a quote from the rulebook to answer a RAW question_. You've reproduced their copyrighted text, in full, without coverage from a license. That's a open-and-shut violation, even if fair use can prevent penalties.

Copyright law is much more extensive than most people think and is _scary_ fuzzy. Under the OGL 1.1, the only safe option is to lawyer up for _anything_ you make available outside your own personal presence in any format but paper. Are they likely to come after you? No. Are you on legally-tricky ground? Yes.

----------


## Dragonus45

> If the rumors are true, OGL 1.1 is worse than the GSL, and people weren't busting down doors to sign that.


The Gizmodo article is reliable, enough to call more substantial than just rumors. It is as actually as bad as it looks.

----------


## Psyren

> You didn't invite them to your yard. You bought some land and made a public park with it and said everyone was invited. You can tell people you don't want them playing in your park, but you don't get to tell them they can't use it. That right was already given up, and I don't trust a billion dollar corporation to do so ethically by any definition. Why do you?


Because the alternative, IP and brands you can't protect, means investing in IP at all becomes a sucker's game. Especially once your brand goes global and paints a huge target on your back.




> No professional business will ever submit themselves to this document as it stands.


Let me be clear - neither am I. I'm in favor of the stuff WotC themselves said would be in it in their own press release. I'm _not_ in favor of all the details found in this "leak."

Stuff I'm in favor of:
 - The ability to keep bad actors from using the license
 - The ability to arbitrate who counts as a bad actor (which can be challenged if need be) 
 - The ability to get a cut of the profits for a very successful licensee
 - The license being updated to account for new and future technologies
 - Sunsetting the old license

Stuff I'm not in favor of:
 - Getting a huge chunk of gross revenues _before_ profits
 - Getting lopsided irrevocable ownership rights to anything anyone else publishes under the license
 - Being able to modify the license unilaterally any way they please with only 30 days notice

I know I might be coming off as wholly charitable to the leaked draft, but I'm not - I'm just trying to present a more nuanced viewpoint than "the whole thing is awful, abandon ship!"

----------


## Segev

Ultimately, I think this all comes down to whether their "de-authorization" clause is legally enforceable. I don't think it is. This is a version of the OGL, by its own statement. WotC signed on to 1.0(a) being authorized, and wrote it, themselves, unilaterally, which makes it absolutely something they're beholden to. 1.0(a) says that any content contributed to ANY version of the OGL can use any authorized version of the license to publish that material. 1.0(a) doesn't grant WotC authority to "de-authorize" any versions of the license; in fact, it suggests that this is not a thing since multiple authorized versions can exist and thus updates to it simply provide new versions of the license to choose from. 

I think they'll be unable to defend the de-authorization in court, if it comes to it, because it sounds a lot like deciding, after the work has been done, you're going to unilaterally issue a new contract for the work that has you paying half what the old one agreed on, and trying to claim you "de-authorized" the previous contract and instantiated this new one.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Because the alternative, IP and brands you can't protect, means investing in IP at all becomes a sucker's game. Especially once your brand goes global and paints a huge target on your back.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be clear - neither am I. I'm in favor of the stuff WotC themselves said would be in it in their own press release. I'm _not_ in favor of all the details found in this "leak."
> 
> Stuff I'm in favor of:
>  1. The ability to keep bad actors from using the license
>  2. The ability to arbitrate who counts as a bad actor (which can be challenged if need be) 
> ...


1. Yeah, no. You've got two choices. Either you have an open license at all, one that allows people to unilaterally accept it and give up the ability to police things _at the license level_[1], or you require specific vetting and require individual licenses. You can't get both by "we reserve the right to cut you off without warning for any reason we want". Not in any justice. All you've done is laid a trap.
2. It can't be challenged. They reserve the absolute right to cut anyone off for any reason they want, at any time, even if they were otherwise in conformance. And keep all the other people's derivative works.
3. This is both unnecessary and legally iffy. And is super anti-competitive. It's explicitly designed to force Paizo to come begging for a special license, to which they can attach any terms they want and Paizo has no leverage at all. And smaller operations? Just SOL.

[1] You can still do what people have done since time immemorial in the FOS community--disavow, publicly distance, even sue if they breached the license, etc. But you _can't_ just say "ok, you're in breach, as defined and determined solely by us at our convenience, get bent." That's hard to claim as being an actual contract.

----------


## Brookshw

> so all healing mechanisms in RPGs are off the table, got it. As are elves and dwarfs (also part of the suit), sorry Tolkien.


 Pump the breaks a bit, it's the unique parts that are protected, not the parts that previously existed in the public domain (though I guess there's an argument for selection and arrangement).





> The OGL also sort of prevented a lot of frivolous lawsuits.


 It saved WoTC from having to be a C&D machine*, agreed.

*Though in fairness, a lot of companies don't want to punch down if they don't feel they have to, doubly so if the activity is in their interest. I've certainly sat in meetings with senior leadership and watched them all nod to each other saying "yeah, that's cool what they did, we don't need to mess with them"




> I'd say in practice, WOTC is going to make it impossible to play DND on any VTSS other than theirs, just as MS made it difficult to use Netscape unless you used OSWarp, etc. Something that as the major power in the field.theu weren't allowed to do.


MS made it difficult for a competitor's software to be in the market and used period, which is different from limiting where their licensees products can be used (without an additional license).* Here, WoTC isn't stopping new entrants, they're stopping you from using their stuff to be an entrants.

*Now, there is something to be said about the Sherman Act preventing geographical territories and how that might relate, but that's a bit of a different matter and there's more flexibility there.




> That isn't the part that matters though.


 if WoTC's part doesn't matter, why are you using content subject to the license? 




> Locking down VTTs is definitely part of their intent, considering VTTs are specifically excluded from operating under the OGL, and the release of WOTC's VTT is slated for next year.


Definitely.

----------


## Zanos

> Because the alternative, IP and brands you can't protect, means investing in IP at all becomes a sucker's game. Especially once your brand goes global and paints a huge target on your back.


Clearly not, considering OGL 1.0 has exited for over twenty years, has been heavily tested as already posted, and hasn't become some gigantic PR nightmare for WOTC.




> - The ability to keep bad actors from using the license
>  - The ability to arbitrate who counts as a bad actor (which can be challenged if need be)


I'm not in favor of WOTC being the moral arbiter of who can create D&D content. I don't know why you are, considering their history.




> - The ability to get a cut of the profits for a very successful licensee


Again, WOTC indirectly profits from keeping players locked into the 5e ecosystem, which was how previous successful editions established dominance.




> - The license being updated to account for new and future technologies


While I agree that NFTs are probably something that shouldn't be tolerated, the current draft basically says that if it's not a PDF, you can get bent; most likely to throttle competition from other, vastly superior VTT offerings like Foundry, and to prevent competition with WOTC licensed games(despite sacking half of them)




> - Sunsetting the old license


I don't see anything compelling that's wrong with the old license, but I do hope you're not in favor of them sunsetting the old license for _old material_. It would be crazy if they pulled the 3.5 SRD out from under Paizo after abandoning that system for 20 years.





> Ultimately, I think this all comes down to whether their "de-authorization" clause is legally enforceable. I don't think it is. This is a version of the OGL, by its own statement. WotC signed on to 1.0(a) being authorized, and wrote it, themselves, unilaterally, which makes it absolutely something they're beholden to. 1.0(a) says that any content contributed to ANY version of the OGL can use any authorized version of the license to publish that material. 1.0(a) doesn't grant WotC authority to "de-authorize" any versions of the license; in fact, it suggests that this is not a thing since multiple authorized versions can exist and thus updates to it simply provide new versions of the license to choose from. 
> 
> I think they'll be unable to defend the de-authorization in court, if it comes to it, because it sounds a lot like deciding, after the work has been done, you're going to unilaterally issue a new contract for the work that has you paying half what the old one agreed on, and trying to claim you "de-authorized" the previous contract and instantiated this new one.


While I agree, I think this is unlikely to matter given the difference in size between Hasbros war chest and anyone that would care to oppose them.

----------


## animorte

> As an aside: It seems to me that it might be good to merge this with the other thread. Or not. Up to the Mods.


Yes, this thought occured to me as well.



> You have the right to *make* whatever you want. How you _disseminate_ it is another matter entirely.


This.



> I think trying to copyright things like fireball or the wizard class will go about as well as Disney attempting to copyright Dia De Los Muertos


I made a similar statement about Disney and their reimagining of Hans Christian Andersen several pages ago (or the other thread).



> Dissemination would be market fronts like DM's Guild or DriveThrough RPG. But if a license on a _system_ claims being open, it shouldn't turn around and restrict who or what it's open for.


Indeed, the definition of "open" does not seem to align with their sentiment. I don't know _how_ much it's intending to restrict, rather expecting demanding to benefit.

Edit: Oh crud, I got way behind again. Oh well.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Because the alternative, IP and brands you can't protect, means investing in IP at all becomes a sucker's game. Especially once your brand goes global and paints a huge target on your back.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be clear - neither am I. I'm in favor of the stuff WotC themselves said would be in it in their own press release. I'm _not_ in favor of all the details found in this "leak."
> 
> Stuff I'm in favor of:
>  - The ability to keep bad actors from using the license
>  - The ability to arbitrate who counts as a bad actor (which can be challenged if need be) 
> ...


That is clear, I think, the issue of retroactiviy needs some type of grandfathering clause for those already using th OHL until they have time to develop systems.

When it comes to defining bad actors, as I said, the tricky part is, they do it in a way that is defamatory, ad hoc. It does seem to me they need to very carefully state a priori specific things that qualify, ie specific disallowable words, etc, that require objective proveable breach. But not when the text of the document discusses hate speech in general terms. The burden of proof is on WOTC to remove someone from a general license. 

Not this is an ethical, not a legal, definition of defamation, burden of proof I am applying. This isn't legal advice about who could or couldn't sue WOTC for defamation/libel/slander.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Ultimately, I think this all comes down to whether their "de-authorization" clause is legally enforceable. I don't think it is. This is a version of the OGL, by its own statement. WotC signed on to 1.0(a) being authorized, and wrote it, themselves, unilaterally, which makes it absolutely something they're beholden to. 1.0(a) says that any content contributed to ANY version of the OGL can use any authorized version of the license to publish that material. 1.0(a) doesn't grant WotC authority to "de-authorize" any versions of the license; in fact, it suggests that this is not a thing since multiple authorized versions can exist and thus updates to it simply provide new versions of the license to choose from. 
> 
> I think they'll be unable to defend the de-authorization in court, if it comes to it, because it sounds a lot like deciding, after the work has been done, you're going to unilaterally issue a new contract for the work that has you paying half what the old one agreed on, and trying to claim you "de-authorized" the previous contract and instantiated this new one.


In otherwords, what is the scope of a past participle, since it can overlap with perfect and pluperfect participles.

----------


## Psyren

> 1. Yeah, no. You've got two choices. Either you have an open license at all, one that allows people to unilaterally accept it and give up the ability to police things _at the license level_[1], or you require specific vetting and require individual licenses. You can't get both by "we reserve the right to cut you off without warning for any reason we want". Not in any justice. All you've done is laid a trap.
> 2. It can't be challenged. They reserve the absolute right to cut anyone off for any reason they want, at any time, even if they were otherwise in conformance. And keep all the other people's derivative works.


That depends on how they word the termination clause. I'm fine with this part of the io9 article: _"The company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory._ This would allow someone who doesn't feel they're being those things to challenge their loss of the license.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Pump the breaks a bit, it's the unique parts that are protected, not the parts that previously existed in the public domain (though I guess there's an argument for selection and arrangement).


 I'm going by the specifics of that case, pretty much everything listed could be applied to any fantasy RPG, or you know, your medpac looks like a healing potion so . . . . A lot of the points of commonality in the TSR day (They Sue Everyone) was pretty open ended, a lot of companies post the OGL just to keep from facing that type of challenge. Sometimes IP suits remind me of enron accounting practices.





> MS made it difficult for a competitor's software to be in the market and used period, which is different from limiting where their licensees products can be used (without an additional license).* Here, WoTC isn't stopping new entrants, they're stopping you from using their stuff to be an entrants.


 when you pretty much control the market, I think thst is a bit of a distinction without a difference. They basically can leverage this to control the entire VTSS space for products outside their own.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> That depends on how they word the termination clause. I'm fine with this part of the io9 article: _"The company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory._ This would allow someone who doesn't feel they're being those things to challenge their loss of the license.


I'm not, that reasoning leads to Kafka traps, the prosecutor/judge/jury is the same person. It puts the burden of proof on the person arguing the negative position (I'm not X) and that is logically and rhetorically flawed. 

Legal to do it this way, maybe. Rational, no.  Moral, well I guess to an anti-rationalist, french post-structuralist, etc. AS WOTC is therefore defaming someone if they use these terms, they are morally obligated to present something far more specific and concrete in the contract (speaking from within my own ethical tradition and basic analytical philosophy). These types of words are too easily reinterpreted at will.

 Third parties it seems would be necessary to adjudicate questions, preferably a mutually agreeable third party.  The lawyers would know on what grounds someone could raise a suit, but usually defamation laws don't favor those who have been defamed, good or ill, and the courts are bad arbiters for ones reputation, too slow. Yet an outside arbiter is needed, preferably one who is relatively neutral and nuanced (boy that is tough these days).

----------


## Cheesegear

> That depends on how they word the termination clause. I'm fine with this part of the io9 article: _"The company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory._ This would allow someone who doesn't feel they're being those things to challenge their loss of the license.


Thayans are overtly and obviously Evil.
Thay, and Thayans, both pre- and post-Szass Tam, are based off a real-world, non-western, non-white culture.

How many complaints about the depiction of Thayans can a module of mine have, before it gets pulled?

----------


## Brookshw

> Sometimes IP suits remind me of enron accounting practices.


 You're not wrong  :Small Big Grin:  I'm hoping we get something interesting and useful out of the Prince/Warhol case in front of the SJC currently (can't recall the photogs name).





> when you pretty much control the market, I think thst is a bit of a distinction without a difference. They basically can leverage this to control the entire VTSS space for products outside their own.


I disagree, that the market may disincentives many participants for lack of other options is not the same as WoTC having done something wrong, nothing they're doing is stopping other games from being played on VTT in accordance with their own terms, or, frankly, limiting you from using one as long as you aren't using WoTC assets. I can't reasonably say "you're a successful product and therefore guilty!"

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I disagree, that the market may disincentives many participants for lack of other options is not the same as WoTC having done something wrong, nothing they're doing is stopping other games from being played on VTT in accordance with their own terms, or, frankly, limiting you from using one as long as you aren't using WoTC assets. I can't reasonably say "you're a successful product and therefore guilty!"


Not if WOTC has enough market share to limit their actions to avoid market manipulation, which they have, particularly since this will presumably put Paizo and most OSR studios out of business. If they offer a flat rate for plug ins or selling books to all VTSS, sure, but their size likely prevents deal cutting with favored platforms, (otherwise it forms a cabal), particularly since it would appear the VTSS would be liable for how gaming groups use their products.

Antitrust ideas in theory at least, per some reading last year dealing with some of Rand's arguments, are not to prevent companies from success, but to prevent market dominators from subverting the market. I think ultimately the three issues I've entailed do that, I suspect building a monopoly is the intent. 

But deauthorizing will likely go to court if put out, and given that a past participle in English covers the same semantic domain as a perfect participle or pluperfect participle, it's not as simple as anyone things, since they did not secure the right to deauthorize the old OGL.

----------


## Zanos

> Thayans are overtly and obviously Evil.
> Thay, and Thayans, both pre- and post-Szass Tam, are based off a real-world, non-western, non-white culture.
> 
> How many complaints about the depiction of Thayans can a module of mine have, before it gets pulled?


It's really weird that there's no qualifier here for real world bigotry, considering what drives so much conflict in TTRPGs. Especially with so much recent discourse about "[insert fantasy race] is obviously a racist sterotype!"

----------


## Cheesegear

> It's really weird that there's no qualifier here for real wolrd bigotry, considering what drives so much conflict in TTRPGs. Especially with so much recent discourse about "[insert fantasy race] is obviously a racist sterotype!"


"Culture and/or Government with non-liberal values has foreseeable, obvious and disastrous non-liberal outcomes. Adventurers must stop it. Bigotry claimed."

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> That depends on how they word the termination clause. I'm fine with this part of the io9 article: _"The company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory._ This would allow someone who doesn't feel they're being those things to challenge their loss of the license.


All of those terms are way too vague for contract language. Because all it takes is WotC's say so. Other language is clear that it's revokable at WotC 's sole, unreviewable discretion for any or no reason.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Given how we've seen those terms used in everyday life, this is basically carte blanche to revoke at any time on a whim.

----------


## Brookshw

> Not if WOTC has enough market share to limit their actions to avoid market manipulation, which they have, particularly since this will presumably put Paizo and most OSR studios out of business. If they offer a flat rate for plug ins or selling books to all VTSS, sure, but their size likely prevents deal cutting with favored platforms, (otherwise it forms a cabal), particularly since it would appear the VTSS would be liable for how gaming groups use their products.


 Sure, no argument they need to be careful and that most favored nations clauses are tricky, we refuse to do them.




> Antitrust ideas in theory at least, per some reading last year dealing with some of Rand's arguments, are not to prevent companies from success, but to prevent market dominators from subverting the market. I think ultimately the three issues I've entailed do that, I suspect building a monopoly is the intent.


 Agreed re: market manipulation, we've been discussing several key aspects of that so far. I disagree with you that those issues lead to the type of market manipulation antitrust is concerned with, but w/e, that happens. Fun thing about law, there's rarely an "answer", it's more that "here are the strengths of a position, the weaknesses, and possible courses and outcomes". Incidentally, since you seem interested in the topic, you might want to check of the Chicago Law Review's antitrust stuff, personal opinion, the Chicago School of Law pretty much owns antitrust law in the US.




> But deauthorizing will likely go to court if put out, and given that a past participle in English covers the same semantic domain as a perfect participle or pluperfect participle, it's not as simple as anyone things, since they did not secure the right to deauthorize the old OGL.


There's room to challenge them, certainly. I think they'll be successful ultimately, and not just because of deeper pockets (but it's a practical concern), but arguments against their actions aren't meritless.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Agreed re: market manipulation, we've been discussing several key aspects of that so far. I disagree with you that those issues lead to the type of market manipulation antitrust is concerned with, but w/e, that happens. Fun thing about law, there's rarely an "answer", it's more that "here are the strengths of a position, the weaknesses, and possible courses and outcomes". Incidentally, since you seem interested in the topic, you might want to check of the Chicago Law Review's antitrust stuff, personal opinion, the Chicago School of Law pretty much owns antitrust law in the US.


Hard to say, thing about the FTC, politics is as important as law. Current situations involving other corps is strong for the OSR, Paizo, etc. My reading was toward some economic things that affect something I'm writing but it's tangential enough (and likely well out of board bounds or interests), but I was noting some distinctions between Rand and earlier works within that particular area of philosophy. 

Of course law in the EU will be an even bigger matter, less lax than the FRC can be at times. Google and Amazon have both faced billion euro fines as I recall.





> There's room to challenge them, certainly. I think they'll be successful ultimately, and not just because of deeper pockets (but it's a practical concern), but arguments against their actions aren't meritless.


No idea. Logically, the challengers have a much better case. Morally (as this was always represented by WOTC as irrevocable for material already in the SRD, I would have a very different take if this were not retroactive, but as it stands it seems blatantly dishonest), I think the challangers are in the better position as well, which is good for public opinion. Legally . . .  the en discussion was interesting, no idea since neither ethics nor logic seem to influence case law as much as they should.

 I'm hoping the D6 current ownership clarifies something by adding irrevocable to their OGL though that may be hard since the OGL is copyrighted by Wizards. Problem is, the current company that owns it is in disarray as I understand it. Otherwise, it looks like the rest of the industry will likely be out of business soon.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Sure, no argument they need to be careful and that most favored nations clauses are tricky, we refuse to do them.
> 
>  Agreed re: market manipulation, we've been discussing several key aspects of that so far. I disagree with you that those issues lead to the type of market manipulation antitrust is concerned with, but w/e, that happens. Fun thing about law, there's rarely an "answer", it's more that "here are the strengths of a position, the weaknesses, and possible courses and outcomes". Incidentally, since you seem interested in the topic, you might want to check of the Chicago Law Review's antitrust stuff, personal opinion, the Chicago School of Law pretty much owns antitrust law in the US.
> 
> 
> There's room to challenge them, certainly. I think they'll be successful ultimately, and not just because of deeper pockets (but it's a practical concern), but arguments against their actions aren't meritless.


FYI, my ultimate opinion is, because they won't want to go to court, and it's bad optics to help oneself to smaller studios IP, and WOTC doesn't want to create an android to their apple or a coke to their Pepsi (ie a large scale corpoation that could steal their dominance), I expect this will be scaled back, otherwise it will simply lead to another competitor not built on the OGL. After all, one reason I like D6 is, in the end, it's a much better system, and the only good argument for DND isn't the quality of its mechanics, it is that it is the biggest game in town. I'm sure some WOTC people are aware that this might lead to a flight to better engines, making WOTC look weaker in the long run.

If not, time for the RPG gearheads to come up with a truly open system.

----------


## Psyren

> Thayans are overtly and obviously Evil.
> Thay, and Thayans, both pre- and post-Szass Tam, are based off a real-world, non-western, non-white culture.
> 
> How many complaints about the depiction of Thayans can a module of mine have, before it gets pulled?


Are you in the right thread? We're talking about the OGL, Thay isn't covered by that.




> Clearly not, considering OGL 1.0 has exited for over twenty years, has been heavily tested as already posted, and hasn't become some gigantic PR nightmare for WOTC.


It doesn't have to become a "gigantic PR nightmare" to be undesirable. 




> I'm not in favor of WOTC being the moral arbiter of who can create D&D content. I don't know why you are, considering their history.


You don't know why I think the owner of property should be able to control who uses it? Do you own a house or car perchance?




> Again, WOTC indirectly profits from keeping players locked into the 5e ecosystem, which was how previous successful editions established dominance.


Not denying there's a benefit, just saying I think a royalty for the most successful licenseholders is a reasonable concept.




> While I agree that NFTs are probably something that shouldn't be tolerated, the current draft basically says that if it's not a PDF, you can get bent; most likely to throttle competition from other, vastly superior VTT offerings like Foundry, and to prevent competition with WOTC licensed games(despite sacking half of them)


Just because Foundry can't use the OGL doesn't mean it won't be allowed to exist. They just have to negotiate a license like Roll20 has/will.




> I don't see anything compelling that's wrong with the old license, but I do hope you're not in favor of them sunsetting the old license for _old material_. It would be crazy if they pulled the 3.5 SRD out from under Paizo after abandoning that system for 20 years.


I don't mind either way. If PF1 is grandfathered in I'd be fine with that, if PF3 is forced to use 1.1 I'd be fine with that too (barring the "not fine" aspects I stated earlier.)

----------


## Cheesegear

> Are you in the right thread? We're talking about the OGL, Thay isn't covered by that.


Okay, then call it Not!Thay. I don't care.
I'm responding to the thing you advocated for...




> That depends on how they word the termination clause. I'm fine with this part of the io9 article: _"The company may terminate the agreement if third-party creators publish material that is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory._ This would allow someone who doesn't feel they're being those things to challenge their loss of the license.


...And how doing it your way would be terrible - just in a different way.

----------


## Psyren

> All of those terms are way too vague for contract language. Because all it takes is WotC's say so.


Nah, there are morals clauses in all sorts of contracts and licenses. It's not too vague at all. 




> Okay, then call it Not!Thay. I don't care.
> I'm responding to the thing you advocated for...
> 
> 
> 
> ...And how doing it your way would be terrible - just in a different way.


I think the nature of the complaints would matter moreso than the volume.

----------


## Brookshw

> Hard to say, thing about the FTC, politics is as important as law. Current situations involving other corps is strong for the OSR, Paizo, etc. My reading was toward some economic things that affect something I'm writing but it's tangential enough (and likely well out of board bounds or interests), but I was noting some distinctions between Rand and earlier works within that particular area of philosophy.


Fair. To the FTC point, I'm not sure that a spat about a leisure activity would even hit their radar, I suspect any activity would have to be civilly brought.




> Of course law in the EU will be an even bigger matter, less lax than the FRC can be at times. Google and Amazon have both faced billion euro fines as I recall.


I don't know the first thing about antitrust law in the EU, but international copyright treaties are generally closer to it's law and generally favor the original author (WoTC in this case). I thought Google and Amazons issues were privacy related, but I could easily be wrong 





> I'm hoping the D6 current ownership clarifies something by adding irrevocable to their OGL though that may be hard since the OGL is copyrighted by Wizards. Problem is, the current company that owns it is in disarray as I understand it. Otherwise, it looks like the rest of the industry will likely be out of business soon.


Nah. People thought the sky was falling when GW pulled a very similar shift in their IP policy. It didn't amount to much. 




> FYI, my ultimate opinion is, because they won't want to go to court, and it's bad optics to help oneself to smaller studios IP, and WOTC doesn't want to create an android to their apple or a coke to their Pepsi (ie a large scale corpoation that could steal their dominance), I expect this will be scaled back, otherwise it will simply lead to another competitor not built on the OGL. After all, one reason I like D6 is, in the end, it's a much better system, and the only good argument for DND isn't the quality of its mechanics, it is that it is the biggest game in town. I'm sure some WOTC people are aware that this might lead to a flight to better engines, making WOTC look weaker in the long run.
> 
> If not, time for the RPG gearheads to come up with a truly open system.


I hoped for that when GW pulled it's shift, but, like I said, it stayed business as usual.




> Nah, there are morals clauses in all sorts of contracts and licenses. It's not too vague at all.


 Also, go Google morality clause examples, they're usually much broader than Psyren's examples, and there's usually case law to fall back on to establish what the terms mean.

----------


## Cheesegear

> I think the nature of the complaints would matter moreso than the volume.


I think it comes down to two separate but related things, and unfortunately, it's subjective;

1. What are the allowed demographics of bad people?
2. Is an author who isn't one of those, "allowed" to write that villain?
3. Are people who aren't in the USA, subject to the USA?  :Small Wink: 

Creating villains - whether they be individuals or institutions - requires authoring someone negative. Authoring a negative characterisation of an 'Other' - Coded or Overt - invites complaints. Creating an _institution_ of negative 'Others' (e.g; Thayans) is simply a recipe for disaster.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Also, go Google morality clause examples, they're usually much broader than Psyren's examples, and there's usually case law to fall back on to establish what the terms mean.


They're _also_ almost entirely in the context of employment or relationship law. *Not* intellectual property law. And they generally involve high-profile people and are negotiated individually and have very specific triggers. They're also known to be difficult to enforce--the NBA's moral turpitude clause has never been successfully invoked. Plus, they tend to require court enforcement. Unlike this case, where one party reserves the right to _unilaterally and unreviewably_ end the contract at their discretion if they dislike what you say. Someone accuses you of doing something bad (which can happen innocently, maliciously, mistakenly, or anything in between) and WotC agrees? Poof, everything you've written belongs solely to WotC, not to you any more.

And generally, they're used when one party is the _official_ public face of another company. That is not the case here at all. Distinguishing between 3rd party used the OGL (often something that's not blatantly obvious, since you can't claim compatibility under the OGL) and said something stupid and *WotC* said something stupid is...stupidly simple. Which tends to disfavor such clauses.

----------


## Segev

Hm. Here's another way to look at it that I think makes the "de-authorization" impossible to enforce: They're trying to use v. 1.1 to "de-authorize" earlier versions. You would have to agree to v. 1.1 for their de-authorization to take effect, though. 

"I'm not using v. 1.1, so the de-authorization clause isn't in effect, and v. 1.0(a) is an authorized version (it says so, and WotC agreed to this when they wrote it), and I am using v. 1.0(a)."

I'm not sure which of several arguments would hold up best in court, but I just can't see a court that isn't basically looking for an excuse to give WotC whatever they want in this allowing this "de-authorization" nonsense to work. As I have said elsewhere, it's akin to deciding that you'll re-write the contract to repair your car so you only have to pay half what was originally agreed upon, after you've taken the car back and had the work done on it, without the permission or say-so of the repairmen.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Hm. Here's another way to look at it that I think makes the "de-authorization" impossible to enforce: They're trying to use v. 1.1 to "de-authorize" earlier versions. You would have to agree to v. 1.1 for their de-authorization to take effect, though. 
> 
> "I'm not using v. 1.1, so the de-authorization clause isn't in effect, and v. 1.0(a) is an authorized version (it says so, and WotC agreed to this when they wrote it), and I am using v. 1.0(a)."


Wasn't that in effect one of the "poison pills" of the SGL? If you agreed to it, you had to also agree to abandon the OGL?

----------


## Psyren

> I think it comes down to two separate but related things, and unfortunately, *it's subjective;*


Yes, that's the whole point.




> They're _also_ almost entirely in the context of employment or relationship law. *Not* intellectual property law. And they generally involve high-profile people and are negotiated individually and have very specific triggers. They're also known to be difficult to enforce--the NBA's moral turpitude clause has never been successfully invoked. Plus, they tend to require court enforcement. Unlike this case, where one party reserves the right to _unilaterally and unreviewably_ end the contract at their discretion if they dislike what you say. Someone accuses you of doing something bad (which can happen innocently, maliciously, mistakenly, or anything in between) and WotC agrees? Poof, everything you've written belongs solely to WotC, not to you any more.
> 
> And generally, they're used when one party is the _official_ public face of another company. That is not the case here at all. Distinguishing between 3rd party used the OGL (often something that's not blatantly obvious, since you can't claim compatibility under the OGL) and said something stupid and *WotC* said something stupid is...stupidly simple. Which tends to disfavor such clauses.


You listing all the ways they can be contested doesn't help your point. It means they are actually reasonable to have/fight.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> You listing all the ways they can be contested doesn't help your point. It means they are actually reasonable to have/fight.


In very specific contexts, yes. But in others? They _can_ be reasonable, legally. I don't think that _in this instance_, they're _morally_ acceptable, regardless of raw legality. Because it boils down to "we don't like what you wrote for any reason? Or anything else we choose to say? Or nothing at all, just don't like competing with you? We can take everything you've ever written, slander you as X-ist, and you've agreed not to sue us over it. Screw you."

Personally, I think that such policing makes an utter mockery of the word "open". It's not an open license. It's an _invitation to accept a very closed, restricted, one-sided license_. Under extremely unfair (ethically) terms. Are they _legally allowed_ to do it? Probably. *Should they* (morally and ethically)? I don't think they should (opinion).

----------


## Cheesegear

> Personally, I think that such policing makes an utter mockery of the word "open". It's not an open license.


It reads as a 3rd Party License Agreement, not an "O"GL.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> You listing all the ways they can be contested doesn't help your point. It means they are actually reasonable to have/fight.


Perhaps, but who has the burden of proof here? Theoretically one can fight a Kafkatrap, practically, not so much. The burden of proof is always properly placed on the accuser, not the accused. To tar someone's name should require the highest standards of proof. To often in corporate policy that gets the first reversed, and has a low bar rather than a high one on the second. A man's good name, being worth more than silver or gold.That is why I think it is an ethical problem as stated (granted that this assumes very basic analytical philosophy).

----------


## False God

> In very specific contexts, yes. But in others? They _can_ be reasonable, legally. I don't think that _in this instance_, they're _morally_ acceptable, regardless of raw legality. Because it boils down to "we don't like what you wrote for any reason? Or anything else we choose to say? Or nothing at all, just don't like competing with you? We can take everything you've ever written, slander you as X-ist, and you've agreed not to sue us over it. Screw you."
> 
> Personally, I think that such policing makes an utter mockery of the word "open". It's not an open license. It's an _invitation to accept a very closed, restricted, one-sided license_. Under extremely unfair (ethically) terms. Are they _legally allowed_ to do it? Probably. *Should they* (morally and ethically)? I don't think they should (opinion).


A "license" that lets folks do whatever willy nilly with no enforcement wouldn't be a license.  And it would actively damage their legal standing to keep copyright on WotC's own material.  If a company doesn't exercise its copyright rights, it can be argued that they don't actually have their copyright.  Thats why companies prohibit fan-made creations that are a little "too good" and occassionally come down on people who aren't doing anything at all, because it is necessary for the copyright holders to exercise their copyright control.

WotC doesn't need to slander someone as X-ist, in fact they don't need anything more than a "no shirt, no shoes" sort of "dress code" for using their material.  If you're not living up to whatever standards they set (and they don't need to be complex or detailed) for or WotC doesn't like the color of your hat, they can ask you to leave the building.

While I agree they'd have issues "taking your stuff", and I think any sort of "license" that gives them permission to do so would be an absolutely bonkers terrible decision, they certainly should be able to control, for whatever whimsy enters their mind, who gets to use their stuff and who doesn't.  

Again, a "license" where another party can do whatever they want, is nothing of the sort, it's more an abdication of copyright control (which again, a copyright holder MUST exercise to maintain their copyright) than any sort of "license".

----------


## Segev

> A "license" that lets folks do whatever willy nilly with no enforcement wouldn't be a license.


Is the OGL as it stood before this whole debacle of a conversation came about - and as it technically currently exists now, since the leak isn't an "in effect" release of the new version - not a "license?"

Because I don't think it currently has a clause in it that says, "If we decide to claim we think you're a nasty person, or just decide we want to, we can unilaterally deny you the right to do what this license allows you to do."

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Fair. To the FTC point, I'm not sure that a spat about a leisure activity would even hit their radar, I suspect any activity would have to be civilly brought.


 sort of what I thought on Microsofts current acquisitions at first (as a share holder). 






> don't know the first thing about antitrust law in the EU, but international copyright treaties are generally closer to it's law and generally favor the original author (WoTC in this case). I thought Google and Amazons issues were privacy related, but I could easily be wrong


 we are talking about two different things here. Google was hit with some issues about how advertisers got special treatment, Amazon for their third party marketplace.  US code needs updating.







> Nah. People thought the sky was falling when GW pulled a very similar shift in their IP policy. It didn't amount to much.


 no idea of what GW is. Been away a bit, came vack in with thoughts on a setting for my kid. Most of the groups I know of, Catalyst (and shadowrun isn't for children either in terms of setting or crunch), mech warrior isn't for the nonrich nonprofessional gamer), Green Ronin's mutants and Masterminds, etc., seem to be on lifesupport with the exception of Paizo, Whitewolf (which I'm not touching and not only due to their politics, but the themes, etc. Certainly not for kids) and small indie OSR publishers, which seems like a significant chunk of the non-WOTC market one person on another forum noted WOTC and OGL make up more than 80% these days, that seems like a lot. Hence my antitrust concerns. If there are open systems I'm unaware of, or if, as I noted, WOTC weren't essentially reneging on claims that much of the industry appears to now rely upon, I would lilely be on your side of this. So I guess Savage world's and D6 (admittedly my preferred system) interest me for homebrew. WOTC no longer does for these reasons. Even if they pull back, I couldn't trust them in the future.




> Also, go Google morality clause examples, they're usually much broader than Psyren's examples, and there's usually case law to fall back on to establish what the terms mean.


True, I didn't say this was isolated or legal abalysis. Ethics is more within my bailiwick. I stated that the bar on standard of proof is set to low in terms of rationally coming to a conclusion and the move to put the burden of proof on someone defending their reputation rather than those attacking it, again an issue of rationality. Merely noting that others behave in the same irrational and unethical manner doesn't really make a better case.

For gaming, between objectively bad exegesis of works by writers like Tolkien on the one hand, and "edge lords" makes it precarious. People confuse influence based on actual ancient myths, universalish archetypes or ancient history with a statement on some modern issue about which they care more than they think. I frankly wouldn't trust WOTC to be fair in their analysis, Google and YouTube certainly aren't, which is a problem in one's cultural gatekeepers, which WOTC is, at least for the hobby is, as a whole.

So at least for me, it's clarifying that it will be D6 or Savage worlds (which I've never played or run) it is, since I don't really like fate (too light a mechanic).

----------


## Raven777

> A "license" that lets folks do whatever willy nilly with no enforcement wouldn't be a license.


The MIT license is widespread in software.
So is the BSD license.
So is the Apache 2 license.

Good ol' beerware also counts.

Ultimately, all a license needs is specifying if and how you allow others to use your work.

I think your post also amalgamates copyright with trademark. The latter is what can be lost when not defended over long periods.

----------


## Brookshw

> *They're also almost entirely in the context of employment or relationship law. Not intellectual property law.* And they generally involve high-profile people and are negotiated individually and have very specific triggers. *They're also known to be difficult to enforce--the NBA's moral turpitude clause has never been successfully invoked*. *Plus, they tend to require court enforcement*. Unlike this case, where one party reserves the right to _unilaterally and unreviewably_ end the contract at their discretion if they dislike what you say. Someone accuses you of doing something bad (which can happen innocently, maliciously, mistakenly, or anything in between) and WotC agrees? *Poof, everything you've written belongs solely to WotC, not to you any more.*


To the bolded parts in order:
1) Not quite, they're very tied up in trademark law and rights of publicity (which is kinda the 5th wheel of IP and still trying to figure out it's footing, sorta), which overlaps in this area with entertainment law. I tell you from experience, I've drafted and negotiated plenty of such clauses when dealing with media contracts, and in the same document, we also dealt with trademarks, copyrights, good will, and publicity. This is not an unusual place for them. Heck, more recently I've seen them woven subtly into various facilities usage contracts and other relatively low profile agreements for average joes.

2) Not really, ever notice how sponsorships get dropped on a dime when a spokesperson or someone else associated with a brand does something Stupid(TM)? Guess what was behind that and let them drop them like they were hot? A contract. The dropped individual might fight it in court, and maybe successfully (I mean, what's the standard for porn? I know it when I see it?).

3) Not quite. The portions that incorporate the content subject to the license can no longer be reproduced, you can salvage, rework, and re-release it if you want. WoTC does not have any exclusivity or right to prohibit derivative works, not like you're signing a non-compete (which, depending on applicable law, usually at the state level, can be either very easy or very hard to enforce).




> And generally, they're used when one party is the _official_ public face of another company. That is not the case here at all. Distinguishing between 3rd party used the OGL (often something that's not blatantly obvious, since you can't claim compatibility under the OGL) and said something stupid and *WotC* said something stupid is...stupidly simple. Which tends to disfavor such clauses.


See above. Not sure why you think WoTC getting to say something is stupid would disfavor the clause.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> A "license" that lets folks do whatever willy nilly with no enforcement wouldn't be a license.  And it would actively damage their legal standing to keep copyright on WotC's own material.  If a company doesn't exercise its copyright rights, it can be argued that they don't actually have their copyright.  Thats why companies prohibit fan-made creations that are a little "too good" and occassionally come down on people who aren't doing anything at all, because it is necessary for the copyright holders to exercise their copyright control.
> 
> WotC doesn't need to slander someone as X-ist, in fact they don't need anything more than a "no shirt, no shoes" sort of "dress code" for using their material.  If you're not living up to whatever standards they set (and they don't need to be complex or detailed) for or WotC doesn't like the color of your hat, they can ask you to leave the building.
> 
> While I agree they'd have issues "taking your stuff", and I think any sort of "license" that gives them permission to do so would be an absolutely bonkers terrible decision, they certainly should be able to control, for whatever whimsy enters their mind, who gets to use their stuff and who doesn't.  
> 
> Again, a "license" where another party can do whatever they want, is nothing of the sort, it's more an abdication of copyright control (which again, a copyright holder MUST exercise to maintain their copyright) than any sort of "license".


Actually....lots and lots of licenses are exactly that. For example, see the MIT license which only has the "yeah, you need to say who you took this from, but otherwise can do whatever the heck you want with it." And is used _lots_ of places. Or the various CC licenses. *Those* are open licenses. And are very very common.

This? This is a veiled threat.

And no, copyright owners (unlike trademark) do *not* have to maintain or exercise any control. Heck, they don't even have to _register_. Copyright is inherent and immutable unless a court rules against you, which doesn't happen on just abandonment grounds[1]. It can't even (in some countries) be given away.

[1] which is why orphan copyright is such a big deal in anime licensing, for instance.




> 3) Not quite. The portions that incorporate the content subject to the license can no longer be reproduced, you can salvage, rework, and re-release it if you want. WoTC does not have any exclusivity or right to prohibit derivative works, not like you're signing a non-compete (which, depending on applicable law, usually at the state level, can be either very easy or very hard to enforce).


Actually, copyright is _exactly_  the right to prohibit derivative works. That's its basic defintion. If you don't have a license, _any_ derivative work is a violation. And if you've been denied a license explicitly, you're on notice, which increases the damage potential _tremendously_. Literally, without a license _you have no right at all to use the product in a new work_.

And the last part--the whole point is that it's not confusing at all _who is speaking_. Which speaks against the _moral_ (at least) validity of such contracts. If 3rd parties were agreeing to be _the public representatives for WotC as a company_, speaking on their behalf? Yeah. That'd make sense. In this case, where they can't even claim compatibility _or even use the name D&D_? Not nearly as much.

----------


## Dragonus45

> Because the alternative, IP and brands you can't protect, means investing in IP at all becomes a sucker's game. Especially once your brand goes global and paints a huge target on your back.


Totally irrelevant, and antithetical to the concept of having an open license. WotC isn't the publisher, WotC has no right to dictate content, and they should never have a right to dictate content. 





> Let me be clear - neither am I. I'm in favor of the stuff WotC themselves said would be in it in their own press release. I'm _not_ in favor of all the details found in this "leak."
> 
> Stuff I'm in favor of:
>  - The ability to keep bad actors from using the license
>  - The ability to arbitrate who counts as a bad actor (which can be challenged if need be) 
>  - The ability to get a cut of the profits for a very successful licensee
>  - The license being updated to account for new and future technologies
>  - Sunsetting the old license


So you are in favor of literally the most toxic and unpleasant aspects of this other then them claiming the ownership rights? 





> Stuff I'm not in favor of:
>  - Getting a huge chunk of gross revenues _before_ profits
>  - Getting lopsided irrevocable ownership rights to anything anyone else publishes under the license
>  - Being able to modify the license unilaterally any way they please with only 30 days notice
> 
> I know I might be coming off as wholly charitable to the leaked draft, but I'm not - I'm just trying to present a more nuanced viewpoint than "the whole thing is awful, abandon ship!"


There is no more nuanced viewpoint then that unless the draft turns out to have added an extra digit to the money they are trying to steal and several extra digits to the word count of the Not Very O GL on accident. 




> *Though in fairness, a lot of companies don't want to punch down if they don't feel they have to, doubly so if the activity is in their interest. I've certainly sat in meetings with senior leadership and watched them all nod to each other saying "yeah, that's cool what they did, we don't need to mess with them"


So we at the phase of this where we just hope and pray WotC decides not to start throwing punches at the little people after declaring war on them?





> if WoTC's part doesn't matter, why are you using content subject to the license?


Because WotC, to their own benefit, made the basic building blocks free to use forever. Why wouldn't someone use those bits to then make their own product that they own and WotC has no right to interfere with. 








> Are you in the right thread? We're talking about the OGL, Thay isn't covered by that.


To clarify since I guess you got confused on what part of the thread was being discussed here. That was a hypothetical example of the kind of thing this garbage "morality" clause might interfere with that just happened to use some of WotC's PI. Although I just realized that despite committing highway robbery on the indie developers they still won't be allowed to use a Mind Flayer in their content for all the money they are paying unless they change up the way PI works. That's kind hilarious to me.





> It doesn't have to become a "gigantic PR nightmare" to be undesirable.


What do the desires of a multi billion dollar corporation have to do with what other people do in their art?





> You don't know why I think the owner of property should be able to control who uses it? Do you own a house or car perchance?


They already made that decision though, back in 2000. It's called the OGL and it's literally what we are here talking about. 

In their own words. 



> Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?
> 
> A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.





> Not denying there's a benefit, just saying I think a royalty for the most successful licenseholders is a reasonable concept.


Remember that a huge point in favor of creating the OGL internally was to relieve Hasbro of the pressure of trying to turn a profit on potentially niche products and allow smaller companies with better margins on small batch printing to take up that slack. Now, consider what trying to steal a percentage of their revenue that could easily double the profit margins on these projects would do to them. Reconsider how unreasonable it sounds. 







> I don't mind either way. If PF1 is grandfathered in I'd be fine with that, if PF3 is forced to use 1.1 I'd be fine with that too (barring the "not fine" aspects I stated earlier.)


So after literally casting them out into the cold and screwing them over something fierce going into 4e that WotC is now owed a percentage of Paizo's revenue because Paizo managed to thrive?

----------


## Particle_Man

One way to square the circle would be to sweeten the pot, by putting more usable stuff into OGL 1.1 than was released in OGL 1.0.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> One way to square the circle would be to sweeten the pot, by putting more usable stuff into OGL 1.1 than was released in OGL 1.0.


No, "give us an irrevocable license to your IP (meaning once in you can never back out) and a changeable, but draconian percentage of your gross revenues, and we will give you more shinies" isn't a great appeal. I'd say better designers should be looking to other systems or learning to create their own.

By the way, any books on how to come up with your own system so you aren't hostage to others available? 

As I think trying to create a monopoly is the intent of WOTC on these points, what steps should systems not actually derived from DnD take from the type of frivolous suits TSR was known for? That is, a lawsuit based on common jargon in the industry that becomes the basis for what a sane, non-lawyer, would consider nonsense comparisons?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

Also to specify something I noted, "authorized" in section 9 is a past participle of "to authorize" (noted by the context, as the same form is used of a simple past tense verb, or as part of a perfect participle, etc). A participle is a verbal adjective. English has two participle forms, present and past, with the past participle covering several distinct uses that are divided between other participles in other languages.

The past participle can refer to something that happened, in the case of to authorize, this means it went through a process of authorizing. The second is a statement of a status due to going through said type of status. If the former, deauthorizing is something that shouldn't be assumed grammatically, and Dancey's statements and the context would seem to imply this is the proper reading. Without a clause noting the possibility of deauthorization, well that becomes a deeper issue. So not a lawyer but that is the grammatical point that might have been less than clear in my previous post.

----------


## Brookshw

> And no, copyright owners (unlike trademark) do *not* have to maintain or exercise any control. Heck, they don't even have to _register_. Copyright is inherent and immutable unless a court rules against you, which doesn't happen on just abandonment grounds[1]. It can't even (in some countries) be given away.


 True, though the copyright holder does still need to worry about the statute of limitations and latches principal, if they know about infringement and "sit" on it for too long, they can lose their right to do anything about it, in that specific case.




> [1] which is why orphan copyright is such a big deal in anime licensing, for instance.


 It would be nice to see the US adopt the UK's Orphan Works process.






> Actually, copyright is _exactly_  the right to prohibit derivative works. That's its basic defintion. If you don't have a license, _any_ derivative work is a violation. And if you've been denied a license explicitly, you're on notice, which increases the damage potential _tremendously_. Literally, without a license _you have no right at all to use the product in a new work_.


 You're missing the point. You've granted WoTC an irrevocable non-exclusive right to the use the work which incorporates their asset. You, the copyright holder, still have your right to create a derivative work, however, if you want to do so then removing WoTC's content would be the course of action here if the license was somehow terminated, i.e., I make a setting _The Land of X_, use WoTC content, something happens, they pull the license, I can still release _The Land of X_ as long as it doesn't contain WoTC content as a derivative. Of course, you've effectively also given WoTC a license to do so, and theoretically (though probably not likely) could be competing with each other through the original and derivative work if they wanted to release the original. I doubt this would happen, and it, were the work actually successful enough for this to be an issue, the windfall nature of the termination and resulting actions would make for some interesting legal opportunity.

Edit: you're right that being denied a license can increase the likelihood of an intentional infringement finding, but as we saw with the 2LiveCrew Pretty Woman case, it's just a factor and not dispositive. (Though in the context I agree it may be a significant factor).




> And the last part--the whole point is that it's not confusing at all _who is speaking_. Which speaks against the _moral_ (at least) validity of such contracts. If 3rd parties were agreeing to be _the public representatives for WotC as a company_, speaking on their behalf? Yeah. That'd make sense. In this case, where they can't even claim compatibility _or even use the name D&D_? Not nearly as much.


 The claim about compatibility needs some unpacking (more than I'm going to do here), generally under TM you can make factual statements about products being compatible, you just can't use that as a cornerstone of your advertising, so to speak. As to the rest, you may not think it belong here, but I'm not surprised in the slightest, and, well, freedom to contract and all that.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I doubt this would happen, and it, were the work actually successful enough for this to be an issue, the windfall nature of the termination and resulting actions would make for some interesting legal opportunity.


If this is so obvious, I wonder why there's language in the document about WotC retaining ownership at all. It's not exactly "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" but it's related.

----------


## Brookshw

> If this is so obvious, I wonder why there's language in the document about WotC retaining ownership at all. It's not exactly "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" but it's related.


Personal opinion, but I think it's to avoid scrubbing their website where you posted stuff. What I don't expect is that if you release a _Tales of X_ version for GURPS (with appropriate licensing with Steve Jackson), that WoRC is going to actively start pushing the version you have with them.

Unrelated, to go back to morality clauses for a moment, it's extremely common for copyright holders to insist on seeing the context their content is being used in before granting a licensed, this is usually to check for the same type of issues a morality clause concerns itself with. Here, since WoTC isn't going to see that context, it's no surprise they at least want recourse if someone uses their content for something Stupid(TM).

@Phoenix, regarding that derivative work discussion, after thinking about my last post I feel we're getting too close to giving advice for my taste, I'm withdrawing from that subtopic.

----------


## Psyren

> Totally irrelevant, and antithetical to the concept of having an open license. WotC isn't the publisher, WotC has no right to dictate content, and they should never have a right to dictate content.


They are the licenseholder, so yes, they have a say in how the license is used. 




> So you are in favor of literally the most toxic and unpleasant aspects of this other then them claiming the ownership rights?


Should I even bother saying i disagree with this characterization? 




> There is no more nuanced viewpoint then that unless the draft turns out to have added an extra digit to the money they are trying to steal and several extra digits to the word count of the Not Very O GL on accident.


"Trying to steal" is a naked appeal to emotion. The fact is that the companies that achieved huge success under the OGL would have had a much harder time doing so without it. Stating that the OGL was never intended to subsidize direct competition in every market is reasonable.




> So we at the phase of this where we just hope and pray WotC decides not to start throwing punches at the little people after declaring war on them?


I said quite clearly that I'm okay with licensees getting a better deal than what is presented in the leak. I predict they'll soften the terms, back off of some of the provisions, and then this backlash will die down ahead of 1DnD's release. Either that or people will quit en masse and I'll find other things to do with my free time. Either way I'm not going to lose sleep.




> Because WotC, to their own benefit, made the basic building blocks free to use forever. Why wouldn't someone use those bits to then make their own product that they own and WotC has no right to interfere with.
> ...
> They already made that decision though, back in 2000. It's called the OGL and it's literally what we are here talking about.


And if they lose the battle to "de-authorize" the existing one then that's fine, some people will use it forever. But expecting them not to try at all is frankly naive.




> To clarify since I guess you got confused on what part of the thread was being discussed here. That was a hypothetical example of the kind of thing this garbage "morality" clause might interfere with that just happened to use some of WotC's PI.


Nobody is going to yank your license for putting evil wizards in your campaign world. Hyperbolic hypotheticals like this are impossible to take seriously.




> What do the desires of a multi billion dollar >corporation have to do with what other people do in their art?


When you're using their IP to do it, a great deal it turns out.




> Remember that a huge point in favor of creating the OGL internally was to relieve Hasbro of the pressure of trying to turn a profit on potentially niche products and allow smaller companies with better margins on small batch printing to take up that slack. Now, consider what trying to steal a percentage of their revenue that could easily double the profit margins on these projects would do to them. Reconsider how unreasonable it sounds.


What's unreasonable is expecting a license created two decades ago to never be re-examined or revised, even in the face of entirely unforeseeable technological advances and business models.




> So after literally casting them out into the cold and screwing them over something fierce going into 4e that WotC is now owed a percentage of Paizo's revenue because Paizo managed to thrive?


Appeal to emotion again, Paizo was never "cast into the cold." They are a multi-million dollar business, not anyone's poor granddad.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Appeal to emotion again, Paizo was never "cast into the cold." They are a multi-million dollar business, not anyone's poor granddad.


I'm so glad we're opposed to appeals to emotion around here. Otherwise we might see some fearmongering!

----------


## Psyren

> I'm so glad we're opposed to appeals to emotion around here. Otherwise we might see some fearmongering!


Can you imagine?  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I'm so glad we're opposed to appeals to emotion around here. Otherwise we might see some fearmongering!


Indeed. We might be duped into agreeing to something because otherwise it might... hurt someone's feelings or something.

----------


## strangebloke

Look, I'm not going to claim its inherently immoral to control your IP (though the laws here are in severe need of reform, I wouldn't view this as a particularly abusive case)

I am going to claim its stupid as hell and is going to break their fanbase and destroy their relative control of the TTRPG market.

DND 5e is a platform that via OGL anyone can publish on. Nobody can play Sandy Petersen's _Call of Cthulhu_ supplement without buying the PHB, and once you have the PHB you're going to look at XGTE, TCOE, etc. Every book that gets published in 5e-space pushed adoption of 5e, and this virtuous cycle led to 5e growing massively year after year after year while also being incredibly profitable. Win Win cooperation between multiple TTRPG companies! Amazing!

Looking at such massive, unmitigated success and saying "boy we need to change things up" seems to be an unforced error, one that's been repeated many times across many media franchises. Walled Gardens do not make for fertile ground. 

Because what happens next? Companies break with the brand, collaborate with each other, and steal your lunch. DNDone isn't 5e, it has to pull people over FROM 5e. It's not 5e vs. Matt Colville, its DNDone versus 5e and Matt Colville _everyone else_.

Switching editions AND 
pushing the VTT super hard at the expense of FLGS AND 
trying to tax 3pp (which kneecaps a primary monetization scheme of content creators) AND
producing only small amounts of content with a high degree of variability

One of these they could get away with. Two, would be manageable. All four? No way. DNDone is very aptly named

----------


## Dragonus45

[QUOTE=Psyren;25674181]They are the licenseholder, so yes, they have a say in how the license is used. 

If that was their concern they should have added it into the OGL then I guess? But the point was that they didn't want or need that power and that still holds true for certain. 




> Should I even bother saying i disagree with this characterization?


I'm not saying your toxic, but I don't get why you want this multi billion dollar corporation to get away with highway robbery trying to pull a fast one on the entire RPG industry.





> "Trying to steal" is a naked appeal to emotion. The fact is that the companies that achieved huge success under the OGL would have had a much harder time doing so without it. Stating that the OGL was never intended to subsidize direct competition in every market is reasonable.


No it's accurate fact. WotC is trying to drive the competition out of business out of petty short sighted greed because they cannot grasp that the OGL is working as intended and made them a billion dollars and anyone who is brave or foolish enough to stay in this ecosystem past this point is going to have WotC's hands in their pockets where they absolutely do not belong. 




> I said quite clearly that I'm okay with licensees getting a better deal than what is presented in the leak. I predict they'll soften the terms, back off of some of the provisions, and then this backlash will die down ahead of 1DnD's release. Either that or people will quit en masse and I'll find other things to do with my free time. Either way I'm not going to lose sleep.


Even if the terms are "better" in a numerical sense the entire situation is at best corporate incompetence on a massive scale to even try and include any version of these provisions in any way shape or form. 





> And if they lose the battle to "de-authorize" the existing one then that's fine, some people will use it forever. But expecting them not to try at all is frankly naive.


Naive is thinking they will get away with this and still make a billion dollars again or that anyone is going to be making third party content under this new agreement. It's going to be a great time to be an IP lawyer I bet because anyone who does want to stay in 5e we is going to need one to double check they aren't infinging on 5e's rules expressions when they start making "compatible with" claims. Although in retrospect WotC trademarking "Worlds Greatest Roleplaying Game" was probably done in anticipation of this exact move.  




> Nobody is going to yank your license for putting evil wizards in your campaign world. Hyperbolic hypotheticals like this are impossible to take seriously.


Ok I'm gonna have to ask you to engage with the other half of this hypothetical and not the bit where they are wizards. Not the wizard part, the part where Thayans/The Hypothetical Evil Wizards could be considered a racist portrayal. Which is already a real complaint people make about them and WotC probably softens them up as a result before too long. You can't even have a race of former slaves throw off their oppressors anymore without it WotC doing a panicky retcon. Why do you insist this multi billion dollar corporation get to decide the bounds of what is acceptable RPG material when they clearly have a vested interest in maintaining a lowest common denominator milquetoast aesthetic. Incidentally, this is one of those things the OGL is excellent for. It lets them present very careful neutral material that tackles no hard subjects and instead pushes that risk onto the smaller third party publishers 




> When you're using their IP to do it, a great deal it turns out.


No, because they gave up that right. I don't know what they were thinking when they did but I thank the stars for it because it was remarkably forward thinking of them and the best thing they ever could have done for the community. 




> What's unreasonable is expecting a license created two decades ago to never be re-examined or revised, even in the face of entirely unforeseeable technological advances and business models.


What is unreasonable about expecting an open license that states in plain terms it can be used in perpetuity to have been made in good faith? People have been using it in good faith to publish products for decades? That was the point of it. WotC got their billion dollars too because it worked as intended for them. Why are you pushing this billion dollar corporations greedy bad faith efforts to screw over the entire industry like it's some righteous cause to recover their lost rights from a terrible deal they made?





> Appeal to emotion again, Paizo was never "cast into the cold." They are a multi-million dollar business, not anyone's poor granddad.


Were you playing around the turn from 3.5 other to 4e? When WotC was super secretive about the GSL and cut Paizo, a company incidentally created by WotC to take over the publishing of a couple of older magazines called Dungeon and Dragon, out of the loop on what was going to happen and yanked their license for the magazines and generally put them between the worst kind of rock and hard place expecting them to either sign onto the GSL and take the poison pill it initially was presented with or fold as a company? That's the time they were "cast into the cold." and it's an accurate description.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Switching editions AND 
> pushing the VTT super hard at the expense of FLGS AND 
> trying to tax 3pp (which kneecaps a primary monetization scheme of content creators) AND
> producing only small amounts of content with a high degree of variability
> 
> One of these they could get away with. Two, would be manageable. All four? No way. DNDone is very aptly named


Yes.

I'm not concerned about us players. We're about to get a bunch of new options!




> No, because they gave up that right. I don't know what they were thinking when they did but I thank the stars for it because it was remarkably forward thinking of them and the best thing they ever could have done for the community.


The commonly-accepted answer is that WotC wanted to distance itself from the bad feels that TSR made with its litigious nature. Plus, a healthy 3rd party market would benefit WotC's bottom line in the form of core book sales. And that happened.

A more cynical answer is that by giving other companies a reason/excuse to make OGL products, the entire TTRPG market space would become indistinguishable from D&D. That also happened to some degree, although WotC gutted it with the whole 4e/GSL thing. They righted course with 5e.

My cynical interpretation -- which is one I had at the time and I still do -- is that they were thinking that if they could get enough people to agree to a license that implied WotC owned more than it actually did, they could use years of compliance with that license to claim that they do, in fact, own that stuff. Look, everyone agrees with us! Why else would they be using our license all this time?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Yes.
> 
> I'm not concerned about us players. We're about to get a bunch of new options!


I've seen at least one 3PP creator (DMDave, now rebranded as GMDave) officially say that they are ditching D&D entirely and making their own system. No more publications under either OGL. Including the lines that basically "we talked to a lawyer and realized there was no way we could fight this in court. Minimum 2 years before a verdict, then 4+ years of appeals, all against Hazbro's lawyers."

The fact that WotC hasn't come out now and at least released _something_ trying to quell the panic means that likely the leaks are absolutely true _or even understating the issues._ Or (more hopefully), they're frantically working to scrub back the most offensive parts.

As for me, my decision will depend on whether the revocation clause stays. Even if it's not enforceable, it's an avenue of risk. If it stays, I'll pull any of my publicly-posted homebrew that isn't system agnostic and find a new system[1] entirely for any new campaigns and see if there's a seamless way to transition existing campaigns if I find a suitable new system fast enough. Sucks, but I will not condone this action or continue using anything WotC has a hand in. They will be dead to me. If it doesn't stay and only applies to new material, I'll continue playing 5e while I turn the 5e system (1.0a OGL) into a new system. Either way, I'm not buying anything new they publish and will end my D&D Beyond subscription when it expires (to avoid inconveniencing my ongoing campaigns).

[1] one _not_ using any version of the OGL. So no Pathfinder.

----------


## stoutstien

> I've seen at least one 3PP creator (DMDave, now rebranded as GMDave) officially say that they are ditching D&D entirely and making their own system. No more publications under either OGL. Including the lines that basically "we talked to a lawyer and realized there was no way we could fight this in court. Minimum 2 years before a verdict, then 4+ years of appeals, all against Hazbro's lawyers."
> 
> The fact that WotC hasn't come out now and at least released _something_ trying to quell the panic means that likely the leaks are absolutely true _or even understating the issues._ Or (more hopefully), they're frantically working to scrub back the most offensive parts.
> 
> As for me, my decision will depend on whether the revocation clause stays. Even if it's not enforceable, it's an avenue of risk. If it stays, I'll pull any of my publicly-posted homebrew that isn't system agnostic and find a new system[1] entirely for any new campaigns and see if there's a seamless way to transition existing campaigns if I find a suitable new system fast enough. Sucks, but I will not condone this action or continue using anything WotC has a hand in. They will be dead to me. If it doesn't stay and only applies to new material, I'll continue playing 5e while I turn the 5e system (1.0a OGL) into a new system. Either way, I'm not buying anything new they publish and will end my D&D Beyond subscription when it expires (to avoid inconveniencing my ongoing campaigns).
> 
> [1] one _not_ using any version of the OGL. So no Pathfinder.


I'm glad I've been working that direction for the last few years. My games are already different enough from anything they published it's only a hop and a skip to take the final step. 
DnD(as a brand) has always been a player recruiting tool for me above a system.

----------


## strangebloke

> The fact that WotC hasn't come out now and at least released _something_ trying to quell the panic means that likely the leaks are absolutely true _or even understating the issues._ Or (more hopefully), they're frantically working to scrub back the most offensive parts.


The conspiracy minded part of my brain wonders if this 'leak' wasn't an intentional move to test the waters.

They've really not bee quiet on this for that long. News cycles move fast and people as hasbro might still be on vacation.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Were you playing around the turn from 3.5 other to 4e? When WotC was super secretive about the GSL and cut Paizo, a company incidentally created by WotC to take over the publishing of a couple of older magazines called Dungeon and Dragon, out of the loop on what was going to happen and yanked their license for the magazines and generally put them between the worst kind of rock and hard place expecting them to either sign onto the GSL and take the poison pill it initially was presented with or fold as a company? That's the time they were "cast into the cold." and it's an accurate description.


I think Psyren was definitely around that time.  :Small Wink: 

Though I will reiterate what they had say: Multimillion company was totally fine and still exists over a decade later. WotC was obliged to offer a different deal that was compatible with their new edition, and Paizo was in their rights to do what they did and make a system they could continue to publish under. I wouldn't say "Paizo STOLE 3.5!"

----------


## EggKookoo

> I wouldn't say "Paizo STOLE 3.5!"


And to be _faiiiiiir_, WotC arguably abandoned 3.5 at the time, OGL and all.

----------


## Segev

Could the people who wrote Linux decide to change the license on Linux such that everyone who has Linux owes them money if they want to keep running it?

Could the people who wrote Linux decide to change the license on all derivatives of Linux such that no new ones may be distributed without paying a fee to the originators of Linux?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Could the people who wrote Linux decide to change the license on Linux such that everyone who has Linux owes them money if they want to keep running it?
> 
> Could the people who wrote Linux decide to change the license on all derivatives of Linux such that no new ones may be distributed without paying a fee to the originators of Linux?


It depends on the details of the licenses involved. There aren't general rules here to the best of my knowledge. For this particular case--unlikely. Although see the Unix vs SCO fights for when this goes wrong.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Could the people who wrote Linux decide to change the license on Linux such that everyone who has Linux owes them money if they want to keep running it?
> 
> Could the people who wrote Linux decide to change the license on all derivatives of Linux such that no new ones may be distributed without paying a fee to the originators of Linux?


Good question! 




> The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.


Of course, there's a lot here, but this statement combined with the preamble might make it hard to argue it could be used to collect royalties. I'm not a lawyer (tm), but I think intent might matter, especially when stated. 



> And to be _faiiiiiir_, WotC arguably abandoned 3.5 at the time, OGL and all.


Yeah. I'll add WotC to the bucket of people who weirdly still use a 20 year old document to describe this relationship.

----------


## EggKookoo

Are licenses irrevocable by default?

This exchange contains a reference to Jacobson v. Katzer, which (according to the poster) implies that open licenses that do not mention revocability are irrevocable by default and can only be revoked in a specific case if a violation has happened.

Even assuming this interpretation is relevant to how things will play out with the OGL, there's still the "no longer authorized" language, which could relate to the 1.0 itself or just a way of identifying authorized licenses.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Another legal concept here is _reliance_. Contracts (and licenses are contracts) are generally interpreted _not_ according to the literal meaning, but according to the _mutual understanding_ of the parties at the time of the contract, with ambiguities interpreted against the drafter (because they could have written it better). And going back and saying "I know we've been saying for 20 years that it means XYZ, but we're going to hold you to ABC despite all the time you've relied on that understanding" is _highly_...contentious. Not _illegal_, but tends to make the scales tip in a very different direction.

So my expectation (maybe irrational hope?) is that in the final, legally-worded version, the OGL 1.1 will _not_ attempt to revoke the 1.0a license outright. Because that impinges heavily on very very entrenched reliance interests and would be legally risky. Instead, they'll do some combination of
a) if you want to publish anything on D&D Beyond, Roll20, or any other "authorized" source, you need to agree to the OGL 1.1.
b) if you agree to the OGL 1.1, you agree to discontinue making new works under the OGL 1.0a permanently. You can still republish existing works as long as there are no substantial changes.
c) if you want to use anything OneD&D, including any new SRD, you have to agree to OGL 1.1.

That accomplishes everything they can _morally and ethically_  hope for as far as the competition--preventing any _OneD&D_ based "forks" and (hopefully in their eyes) weening the ecosystem off of the 1.0a OGL over time because of how excellent...sorry. I just can't finish that sentence. And all of those things would be fairly legally "safe".

As far as "not helping the competition"--the entire point of open standards (and yes, the OGL 1.0 _is_ or at least claims to be an open standard) is that you _give up_ control to encourage people to standardize on this, well, standard. This sort of thing is omnipresent in the software industry--basically everyone but Apple (and Apple participates when it behooves them to, but rarely cedes any of their own stuff to the standards committees) heavily participates, including giving free, irrevocable, no-registration use of patents and trademarks as long as you're following the standards. Monopoly-power players are expected to "play nice"--win based on the value of their ongoing innovation, not strangle the competition through unfair licensing terms on critical pieces of "infrastructure". I wouldn't speculate as to whether a court would order the disgorgement of the OGL 1.0. Courts are going to do what courts do. But it'd be similar to someone with a critical patent on a piece of wifi hardware/protocols saying "yeah, we've been licensing that to the competition for decades. But now y'all have to pay up and only build what we say you can build." It would not go over well either in the market (companies would work around it) or in the courts.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> "Trying to steal" is a naked appeal to emotion. The fact is that the companies that achieved huge success under the OGL would have had a much harder time doing so without it. Stating that the OGL was never intended to subsidize direct competition in every market is reasonable.


 I'm not so sure this is emotional, that does appear to be the implications at least, though I think they want a monopoly. This is an inference, not an emotion, it looks a lot like a run the competition out of business thing. 

As to the latter Part, though, I think one point of disagreement is that it is untrue, though I suspect Hasbro executives agree with you. If it weren't for the OGL, a lot of the games existing today would exist, but with either other open systems or with more proprietary, in house systems. Certainly a common system, like a common OS for a computer has some advantages to consumers and manufacturers. Learning a large number of systems can be tedious, but it has downsides as well. D20 became the standard system, because of the OGL, not I think because it was the best (having played the West End Games version of the Star Wars games and two editions of the D20 version, it's pretty clear the WOTC version was inferior in most ways, unless you wanted to play "dnd in space"), but because DND is the first game many people play, and while West End Games or Fasa had better game design talent than WOTC, they had less business acumen.

Because the OGL was advertised as irrevocable, and because of the statements about section 9 of OGL 1.0a, a lot of designers reverted to D20 as the OS for the industry, this was an advantage for WOTC more than the rest of the industry, due to the quality issues. D20 (unlike 2nd edition) has a huge power creep that makes it unsuitable for anything other than extremely "high" fantasy, and I think if the OGL had not been in place, we would have a standard engine, but it would be a better one than we have now. 

The OSR started during the period when the 2nd  edition went out of print, and that created a new branch of the industry, with what is more interesting fare. Many of the studios using the OGL have good designers with good ideas making interesting settings, they would still be doing that if the OGL were never released. 






> And if they lose the battle to "de-authorize" the existing one then that's fine, some people will use it forever. But expecting them not to try at all is frankly naive.


 I'm not naeve, a bit cynical perhaps, but not naeve. I thought at the time of release the OGL was a mistake for WOTC, and I understand their sellers remorse. I felt the same way when I have sold some shares in companies. But my objection isn't to something that raises WOTC's profits. If they had stated OGL 1.1 was for someone wanting to publish for One DND or for SRD updates effective after the OGL were released, and using OGL 1.1 came with terms that included not using OGL 1.0a for further DnD products, (minus issues where you have indicated you and I agree such as the licensing issue and the exorbitant rate of royalties), still no problem. I think the end of OGL 1.0a for WOTC is good for the industry, will create more competition and raise the status of other games.  What I find objectionable is the integrity issue, when you maintain for 20 years that an open license is irrevocable, then I think you are bound by those declarations. 

Writing this paragraph tells me we may be separated over the type of metaethical foundational claims I was noting before, I can see why a consequentialist would reject the type of moral realism that underlies my concerns over integrity rather than the current situation. Not an issue I will push here, since a debate about this issue isn't really appropriate for a gaming bulletin board. But I think here, even a consequentialist the monopolistic possibilities here. It hits so many potential engines it will give WOTC a monopoly in the space.

About my only thought on the OGL itself was to make a Mashup of D6 and Mini6 with DnD (DnDs attributes and some of their skills, a class system for role protection, but
with the D6 engine for a central mechanic), largely because it would allow an OSR feel that would allow for some easier transitions to D6 than anything else. But a good thing about the OGL going away (effectively at least) this will no longer be a concern, and I'll start with the D6 line as it stands, and make a few changes as I go.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Look, I'm not going to claim its inherently immoral to control your IP (though the laws here are in severe need of reform, I wouldn't view this as a particularly abusive case)
> 
> I am going to claim its stupid as hell and is going to break their fanbase and destroy their relative control of the TTRPG market.
> 
> DND 5e is a platform that via OGL anyone can publish on. Nobody can play Sandy Petersen's _Call of Cthulhu_ supplement without buying the PHB, and once you have the PHB you're going to look at XGTE, TCOE, etc. Every book that gets published in 5e-space pushed adoption of 5e, and this virtuous cycle led to 5e growing massively year after year after year while also being incredibly profitable. Win Win cooperation between multiple TTRPG companies! Amazing!
> 
> Looking at such massive, unmitigated success and saying "boy we need to change things up" seems to be an unforced error, one that's been repeated many times across many media franchises. Walled Gardens do not make for fertile ground. 
> 
> Because what happens next? Companies break with the brand, collaborate with each other, and steal your lunch. DNDone isn't 5e, it has to pull people over FROM 5e. It's not 5e vs. Matt Colville, its DNDone versus 5e and Matt Colville _everyone else_.
> ...


True, but monopolies have their advantages as well, particularly for dinosaurs facing more talented, smaller companies, or say, when you don't pay or treat your people as well as they might do by putting out their own shingle. 

But the gaming industry has also had a lot of talented designers who were terrible business men, see TSR and West End Games.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I've seen at least one 3PP creator (DMDave, now rebranded as GMDave) officially say that they are ditching D&D entirely and making their own system. No more publications under either OGL. Including the lines that basically "we talked to a lawyer and realized there was no way we could fight this in court. Minimum 2 years before a verdict, then 4+ years of appeals, all against Hazbro's lawyers."
> 
> The fact that WotC hasn't come out now and at least released _something_ trying to quell the panic means that likely the leaks are absolutely true _or even understating the issues._ Or (more hopefully), they're frantically working to scrub back the most offensive parts.
> 
> As for me, my decision will depend on whether the revocation clause stays. Even if it's not enforceable, it's an avenue of risk. If it stays, I'll pull any of my publicly-posted homebrew that isn't system agnostic and find a new system[1] entirely for any new campaigns and see if there's a seamless way to transition existing campaigns if I find a suitable new system fast enough. Sucks, but I will not condone this action or continue using anything WotC has a hand in. They will be dead to me. If it doesn't stay and only applies to new material, I'll continue playing 5e while I turn the 5e system (1.0a OGL) into a new system. Either way, I'm not buying anything new they publish and will end my D&D Beyond subscription when it expires (to avoid inconveniencing my ongoing campaigns).
> 
> [1] one _not_ using any version of the OGL. So no Pathfinder.


As I noted on the other post, someone said there is no brightside to this, no it means we may see some development for OpenD6. The OGL really hampered development of competing systems, so in a few years, other systems may be bigger.

----------


## Brookshw

> Are licenses irrevocable by default?
> 
> This exchange contains a reference to Jacobson v. Katzer, which (according to the poster) implies that open licenses that do not mention revocability are irrevocable by default and can only be revoked in a specific case if a violation has happened.
> 
> Even assuming this interpretation is relevant to how things will play out with the OGL, there's still the "no longer authorized" language, which could relate to the 1.0 itself or just a way of identifying authorized licenses.


Interesting case, though it looks like it was more (in brief) whether there was a triable contract issue, found there was, kicked it down, it was eventually settled with the licensed content user paying a settlement.

@toran, will get back to you after the kids are down.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Unrelated, to go back to morality clauses for a moment, it's extremely common for copyright holders to insist on seeing the context their content is being used in before granting a licensed, this is usually to check for the same type of issues a morality clause concerns itself with. Here, since WoTC isn't going to see that context, it's no surprise they at least want recourse if someone uses their content for something Stupid(TM).


I had a longer post in this that I deleted. I agree properties have a right to protect their image. I also think they have a number of moral duties, including a moral duty to avoid undeservedly defaming someone. This includes care in areas where different metaethical traditions disagree. This is a bit different from legal duties perhaps, and other ethicists might state the point differently but something like this seems to be inferable in moat ethical traditions. Recent history, including some issues with WOTC, imply that this duty to undeservedly defame someone is not being performed, though to be fair this is something that is common in modern western culture these days.

This is tough in an open license situation, as performing this duty requires thought and in some cases rigor. What is adjudicated behind closed doors in private agreements is adjudicated in the public sphere, you can't say something like, we have decided to go seperate ways for reasons we will not discuss, meaning balancing the duty not defame with the proper desire to protect your IP is fraught. 

Some checks I think are needed as a result, atnleast in the current _zeitgeist_ (barring our culture returning to rationality which seems unlikely at this moment in time), particularly since defining this kind of thing falls outside of corporate expertise and their proper sphere of influence (the latter perhaps being more debatable). I'm not against all types of moral clauses but it seems to me it must therefore be more tightly defined and requires some type of mutually agreeable moderation clause.

To be clear I am not saying they have no right to protect an IP, I am saying this right must be balanced with the rights of others to their reputations. It's "not either or," it's "both and." This might seperate my own thoughts from other commentators, as it appears to me the discussion as a whole seems to assume it is either a person has a right to their good name or WOTC has a right to protect their IP.

----------


## Psyren

@Brookshw: any thoughts on *this ENWorld thread on the OGL?* They seem to believe the 1.0a is not as safe from revocation/de-authorization as people might think.

*Spoiler: @Dragonus45*
Show




> If that was their concern they should have added it into the OGL then I guess? But the point was that they didn't want or need that power and that still holds true for certain. 
> ...
> I'm not saying your toxic, but I don't get why you want this multi billion dollar corporation to get away with highway robbery trying to pull a fast one on the entire RPG industry.
> ...
> No it's accurate fact. WotC is trying to drive the competition out of business out of petty short sighted greed because they cannot grasp that the OGL is working as intended and made them a billion dollars and anyone who is brave or foolish enough to stay in this ecosystem past this point is going to have WotC's hands in their pockets where they absolutely do not belong. 
> ...
> Even if the terms are "better" in a numerical sense the entire situation is at best corporate incompetence on a massive scale to even try and include any version of these provisions in any way shape or form.
> ...
> Naive is thinking they will get away with this and still make a billion dollars again or that anyone is going to be making third party content under this new agreement. It's going to be a great time to be an IP lawyer I bet because anyone who does want to stay in 5e we is going to need one to double check they aren't infinging on 5e's rules expressions when they start making "compatible with" claims. Although in retrospect WotC trademarking "Worlds Greatest Roleplaying Game" was probably done in anticipation of this exact move.
> ...


I know you weren't saying _I_ was toxic  :Small Smile: 

However, I disagree that the very idea of updating the OGL means destroying the ecosystem. I think the value proposition still has a lot of potential to be worthwhile for these third parties. As I mentioned previously, I don't want the OGL 1.1 to go through as presented in this leak, but I would be okay with a revised version that addresses the three points I made previously.

And yes - I'm even okay with a completely open-source competitor like OpenD6 or whatnot.




> Ok I'm gonna have to ask you to engage with the other half of this hypothetical and not the bit where they are wizards. Not the wizard part, the part where Thayans/The Hypothetical Evil Wizards could be considered a racist portrayal.


Nah, I'll pass, I've said my peace on this bit. If you and Cheesegear don't think it's possible for your work to portray evil creatures in a way that will allow you to safely use a WotC license to do so, then don't use their license, it's that simple. You can make your own game from scratch that portrays Not!Thayans, slavers, orcs, etc in any way you desire.




> Were you playing around the turn from 3.5 other to 4e? When WotC was super secretive about the GSL and cut Paizo, a company incidentally created by WotC to take over the publishing of a couple of older magazines called Dungeon and Dragon, out of the loop on what was going to happen and yanked their license for the magazines and generally put them between the worst kind of rock and hard place expecting them to either sign onto the GSL and take the poison pill it initially was presented with or fold as a company? That's the time they were "cast into the cold." and it's an accurate description.


I was indeed around then (I've been playing since late 2e), and this is a very different circumstance. Back then, WotC was trying to move away from their popular system while the competition was trying to continue it; now Paizo are the ones who have moved away. There might be a third player to arise if 1.0a can't be deauthorized however.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> @Brookshw: any thoughts on *this ENWorld thread on the OGL?* They seem to believe the 1.0a is not as safe from revocation/de-authorization as people might think.


This is the one I thought was interesting, not because they said it was or wasn't safe (I've seen a number of different takes on that point) but the interplay and debate on the legality in terms of contract law and in terms of jurisdiction.

----------


## Raven777

There's two lawyers in the thread (a legislature lawyer and a contract lawyer, neither works day to day with IP or TTRPG). They disagree on the revocability, notably on the grounds of _intent_, in context of the FAQ and how the OGL's been interpreted for the past 20 years. Especially taking into account case law or doctrines under different legislations, and so on.

Which actually leads to the thread's best take:




> as a non lawyer (unless you count rules lawyer) I find it facinating that two people read legal documents and statutes and run into the same thing we do all day everyday on this very site... we have similar training/background, read the same text, and get two opposing answers.


I.e: full circle back to "a judge would have to decide", because in my own humble dilettante opinion, this really is a novel problem that hasn't been solved before.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> This is the one I thought was interesting, not because they said it was or wasn't safe (I've seen a number of different takes on that point) but the interplay and debate on the legality in terms of contract law and in terms of jurisdiction.


Yeah. I think that deauthing the 1.0a has arguments on both sides. But I also believe that doing it would be a pyrrhic victory--that sort of "hey, that long-relied-on license you had that we said wasn't going away? Yeah, it's gone" tactic is a great way for _everyone_ to jump ship and blanket refuse to do business with WotC in any capacity. Because it's a really strong sign that you're going to play silly games with all your contracts if you think you can get away with it.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Yeah. I think that deauthing the 1.0a has arguments on both sides. But I also believe that doing it would be a pyrrhic victory--that sort of "hey, that long-relied-on license you had that we said wasn't going away? Yeah, it's gone" tactic is a great way for _everyone_ to jump ship and blanket refuse to do business with WotC in any capacity. Because it's a really strong sign that you're going to play silly games with all your contracts if you think you can get away with it.


True, but a point Brookshw made about GW (which I don't understand ro well), made me question even that. After all, TSR wasn't precisely run by great business men, which is how WOTC got the copyright in the firstplace.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> True, but a point Brookshw made about GW (which I don't understand ro well), made me question even that. After all, TSR wasn't precisely run by great business men, which is how WOTC got the copyright in the firstplace.


GW _never_ had an open policy. The creators were always living kinda "on the edge" at GW's sufferance. And always had a reputation as a controlling company (after all, look at the changes they made so they could trademark all their factions). Going from "yeah, we love 3rd parties, here's this very open, permissive license that we promise we won't revoke and even if we change it, you can still use the old versions" to "hah hah you have 7 days to comply or else and everything's locked down and super heavy and we lied about being able to use the old version" is a much bigger thing.

And D&D is just generally _bigger_ (in the public consciousness) than WH ever has been. So the PR war is much more in the public view. Especially with a movie coming out RSN.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> GW _never_ had an open policy. The creators were always living kinda "on the edge" at GW's sufferance. And always had a reputation as a controlling company (after all, look at the changes they made so they could trademark all their factions). Going from "yeah, we love 3rd parties, here's this very open, permissive license that we promise we won't revoke and even if we change it, you can still use the old versions" to "hah hah you have 7 days to comply or else and everything's locked down and super heavy and we lied about being able to use the old version" is a much bigger thing.
> 
> And D&D is just generally _bigger_ (in the public consciousness) than WH ever has been. So the PR war is much more in the public view. Especially with a movie coming out RSN.


Yeah never did Warhammer, so I don't know any of the details, I played some mechwarrior in the day, but different things entirely. DND though does occupy a role, due to the OGL, that no other company occupies, even some of the bigger names a decade ago appear to be either on lifesupport or very niche. That is why I think there is an antitrust angle to changing a document that impacts the industry as much as the OGL does, frankly.

----------


## Skorj

I follow a dozen or so D&D related YouTube channels, and the YT Algorithm has introduced me to dozens more in the past few days, as everyone is talking about this.  The reaction from that community has been surprisingly uniform.  (Of course, this is not a valid statistical sample, the YT Algorithm is selection bias incarnate).

We don't know how this is going to play out legally.It doesn't matter, Hasbro has burned us by showing they're _willing_ to change the deal, and so could keep on changing it even if this change is livable.Content creators who have released original (non-D&D) stuff under the OGL in the past are scrambling to find a replacement license, seeing the OGL as toxic now.
I've heard "we're pivoting away from D&D for future content" _a lot_ the past couple days.  I agree with this general sentiment: when someone says "I'm altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further", it makes it crystal clear who you're dealing with.

From the perspective of the larger (computer) gaming industry, a pivot by a game to aggressive monetization has usually marked the beginning of the "death spiral" for that game, partly because it drives players and modders away, but also because it signals that the investors don't see a future for the game, and are moving to extract as much profit as possible before it's done.  I hope that's not what's happening here, but it looks grim to me.

Maybe we're reading too much into this, but I give corporations 0 benefit of the doubt when it comes to short-term profit seeking, and I'm particularly worried about the _non-commercial_ stuff in the new OGL.  Seems you're supposed to sign an agreement with WoTC to distribute _free_ stuff online.  That could put a real dent in the vast wealth of free online D&D content and homebrew.  I guess we'll see how it all plays out, but I really hope this doesn't harm the greater non-system specific RPG ecosystem due to FUD.

----------


## Brookshw

> @Brookshw: any thoughts on *this ENWorld thread on the OGL?* They seem to believe the 1.0a is not as safe from revocation/de-authorization as people might think.


Good read, thanks for linking; I chuckled as soon as they referenced broiler vs. young chickens.

Overall, I agree with Davy, and respect the legwork he did in providing the sources, and, as he (and I previously) acknowledged, it's not that anyone can say definitively how it will play out if it goes to trial, but WoTC does have a good argument to make. A lot of the points, and some of the counterpoints, we've already discussed in this and the other thread. One commentator mentioned the case could be $2-3 million to resolve, that might be a tad high (American Intellectual Property Law Association's Economic Survey as of 2017 put the high end of copyright litigation at about $1.6 million (average I think was about $350kish). Those numbers alone will raise a lot of practical concerns. Also, those numbers were pre-CASE Act, if something goes there it's much lower recovery, and, presumably, cost to litigate, but it also gives WoTC an easy runway to go after people.

One thing Davy alluded to but refused to go into (and I agree with his decision and hadn't broached the topic until now as it's extremely fact specific, thorny, and jurisdiction dependant(well, mostly the 2nd and 11th circuit tests)) is the Substantial Similarity and Look and Feel tests. I won't touch those here with a 10' pole, but they're very much worth knowing about if you're publishing an RPG.

----------


## Frogreaver

> @Brookshw: any thoughts on *this ENWorld thread on the OGL?* They seem to believe the 1.0a is not as safe from revocation/de-authorization as people might think.


If you read the whole thread you'll note every other lawyer posting there agrees that on legal merits alone WOTC would be unlikely to win in court.  Then they went and basically laughed at the OP trying to cite at best tangentially related legal cases that likely wouldn't apply in this situation as if they proved his point.  The pointed criticism was that he was a newer attorney that just didn't understand all the complexities.  A criticism he never once pushed back against.

----------


## Atranen

> I've heard "we're pivoting away from D&D for future content" _a lot_ the past couple days.  I agree with this general sentiment: when someone says "I'm altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further", it makes it crystal clear who you're dealing with.


I've heard this as well. The legalities are beyond me, but it's clear a lot of the creators I respect are taking a strong step away from WoTC. We'll have to see if there is enough critical mass. Alternatives won't be able to compete with the brand recognition, which most casual players come in for. But, if the experienced players bringing new folks in push them in another direction, it could have real consequences. I'm hoping it will encourage the development of competitors in the industry and I'm happy to give them my financial support.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I've heard this as well. The legalities are beyond me, but it's clear a lot of the creators I respect are taking a strong step away from WoTC. We'll have to see if there is enough critical mass. Alternatives won't be able to compete with the brand recognition, which most casual players come in for. But, if the experienced players bringing new folks in push them in another direction, it could have real consequences. I'm hoping it will encourage the development of competitors in the industry and I'm happy to give them my financial support.


My guess, that bridge is already burned. Even if OGL 1.1 is released in a mode moderate way, many creators will switch to other systems, and would only use the OGL while working on alternatives. I know I wouldn't want to deal with WOTC after this.

My question again, as this part had been hashed to death, are there any works on how to produce a game engine that will have a fairly safe harbor from frivolous suits?

Also what systems are available and unlikely to make the same moves?

----------


## Psyren

> If you read the whole thread you'll note every other lawyer posting there agrees that on legal merits alone WOTC would be unlikely to win in court.  Then they went and basically laughed at the OP trying to cite at best tangentially related legal cases that likely wouldn't apply in this situation as if they proved his point.  The pointed criticism was that he was a newer attorney that just didn't understand all the complexities.  A criticism he never once pushed back against.


I did read the whole thread, and the OP was the only one to actually cite sources (a fact he was quite comfortable pointing out.) Forgive me if I weigh that a bit higher than the wishful thinking displayed by some of the others.




> There's two lawyers in the thread (a legislature lawyer and a contract lawyer, neither works day to day with IP or TTRPG). They disagree on the revocability, notably on the grounds of _intent_, in context of the FAQ and how the OGL's been interpreted for the past 20 years. Especially taking into account case law or doctrines under different legislations, and so on.
> 
> Which actually leads to the thread's best take:
> 
> 
> I.e: full circle back to "a judge would have to decide", because in my own humble dilettante opinion, this really is a novel problem that hasn't been solved before.


There's actually way more than two in that thread (I think it's like 4 or 5.) But the fact that it might not be as cut and dry as _"perpetual means perpetual!"_ is the important takeaway for me personally.




> Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre
> 
> 
> Yeah. I think that deauthing the 1.0a has arguments on both sides. But I also believe that doing it would be a pyrrhic victory--that sort of "hey, that long-relied-on license you had that we said wasn't going away? Yeah, it's gone" tactic is a great way for _everyone_ to jump ship and blanket refuse to do business with WotC in any capacity. Because it's a really strong sign that you're going to play silly games with all your contracts if you think you can get away with it.
> 
> 
> True, but a point Brookshw made about GW (which I don't understand too well), made me question even that. After all, TSR wasn't precisely run by great business men, which is how WOTC got the copyright in the firstplace.


Exactly - as long as they back off the worst provisions this could be beneficial to both sides.




> My guess, that bridge is already burned. Even if OGL 1.1 is released in a mode moderate way, many creators will switch to other systems, and would only use the OGL while working on alternatives. I know I wouldn't want to deal with WOTC after this.
> 
> My question again, as this part had been hashed to death, are there any works on how to produce a game engine that will have a fairly safe harbor from frivolous suits?
> 
> Also what systems are available and unlikely to make the same moves?


The best bet for folks looking to avoid this entirely would be an open source competitor - something irrevocable that people can switch to after using the OGL for a while to make a name for themselves. Even then though, I anticipate that the WotC license will still be more lucrative in th short to mid-term. Again, I'm in favor of an alternative (as that will also keep WotC themselves honest in terms of not adding truly burdensome provisions to theirs) but I'm with Brookshw's take that the abandon ship oaths are unlikely to bear fruit in practice.

----------


## Atranen

> The best bet for folks looking to avoid this entirely would be an open source competitor - something irrevocable that people can switch to after using the OGL for a while to make a name for themselves. Even then though, I anticipate that the WotC license will still be more lucrative in th short to mid-term. Again, I'm in favor of an alternative (as that will also keep WotC themselves honest in terms of not adding truly burdensome provisions to theirs) but I'm with Brookshw's take that the abandon ship oaths are unlikely to bear fruit in practice.


I'm thinking it will be less "abandon ship I will never buy from WoTC again" and more "We've had fun with D&D; here's another system we can try". At least that's my reaction.

----------


## Psyren

> I'm thinking it will be less "abandon ship I will never buy from WoTC again" and more "We've had fun with D&D; here's another system we can try". At least that's my reaction.


I mean, folks are free to do this even now (and I certainly did prior to 5e as well.)

----------


## Brookshw

> If you read the whole thread you'll note every other lawyer posting there agrees that on legal merits alone WOTC would be unlikely to win in court.  Then they went and basically laughed at the OP trying to cite at best tangentially related legal cases that likely wouldn't apply in this situation as if they proved his point.  The pointed criticism was that he was a newer attorney that just didn't understand all the complexities.  A criticism he never once pushed back against.


Wow, that's just a terrible attempt at character assassination. Not only did other attorneys agree with him on multiple points (and disagree on others), one pulled up additional case law in the area that supported him, but the guy who accused him of being a "new lawyer" did not make a single legal points or demonstrate and competency, who in the heck would care about that guys opinion or bother responding?

There's definitely room for disagreement, but just saying "no one agreed" and repeating "clearly he's the new guy" as a way to shut it down is just silly.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> The best bet for folks looking to avoid this entirely would be an open source competitor - something irrevocable that people can switch to after using the OGL for a while to make a name for themselves. Even then though, I anticipate that the WotC license will still be more lucrative in th short to mid-term. Again, I'm in favor of an alternative (as that will also keep WotC themselves honest in terms of not adding truly burdensome provisions to theirs) but I'm with Brookshw's take that the abandon ship oaths are unlikely to bear fruit in practice.


Yeah, I think there is ambiguity that would require checking things for intent (as I noted on the grammar of the past participle of authorized, since it has two semantic possibilities that apply to this context, and WOTC must assume he one which seems less likely to me), but I wouldn't presume it's easy either way. But a company would have to take a risk to adjudicate the matter.

I can think of a few, some mentioned and older harbors have an advantage, and mentioned a favorite, but in laims of simialarity and a standard of reasonable, (reasonable for a gamer or the nongamers that WOTC will doubtless try to pack a jury with),  similarities come in, some harbors now appearing safe may not be. Attack damage, heal mechanics etc can only be done so many ways, and They Sue Regularly will become the fashion again.

Short term, yeah, a pared back OGL, with some of what several people have mentioned would be good for the industry, if you are doing crunch, I'd say if you are doing a setting, no. Your lore may survive a system change, but converting character is more aet than science, better to use someone else from the beginning. 

By the way, I posted a few points on D6 in Homebrew, no feedback, anyone has anything, I would be obliged.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I'm thinking it will be less "abandon ship I will never buy from WoTC again" and more "We've had fun with D&D; here's another system we can try". At least that's my reaction.


Well yeah, playing in the realms could be fun, but if you are publishing something or homebrewing a setting, that is a bit different, particularly if you are protective of the themes involved in world creation, etc.

Seeing what episode 8 did to Luke Skywalker, or 7-9 did with the force, well, I think that is a consideration, other people will not respect your work.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Wow, that's just a terrible attempt at character assassination. Not only did other attorneys agree with him on multiple points (and disagree on others), one pulled up additional case law in the area that supported him, but the guy who accused him of being a "new lawyer" did not make a single legal points or demonstrate and competency, who in the heck would care about that guys opinion or bother responding?
> 
> There's definitely room for disagreement, but just saying "no one agreed" and repeating "clearly he's the new guy" as a way to shut it down is just silly.


Again, I enjoyed the back and forth, particularly since it tended to be civil when I read it.

----------


## Brookshw

> Again, I enjoyed the back and forth, particularly since it tended to be civil when I read it.


Overall, very civil, I agree and enjoyed it. I do think that guy going "new lawyer" is utterly absurd; new lawyers in their 20s have argued cases up to the SJC and won.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

Get your bags of popcorn ready for the microwave guys and gals, apparantly a lawyer on behalf of two studios has sent a letter giving WOTC 10 days for clarification or they intend to file suit, possible with other parties (aka class action I guess).  Looks like the show will be beginning soon.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> Get your bags of popcorn ready for the microwave guys and gals, apparantly a lawyer on behalf of two studios has sent a letter giving WOTC 10 days for clarification or they intend to file suit, possible with other parties (aka class action I guess).  Looks like the show will be beginning soon.


Can you link a source to that? Want to watch the hell out of that!

----------


## Raven777

Because of a leak? That seems a bit amateur-ish / unreasonable.

----------


## Psyren

> Get your bags of popcorn ready for the microwave guys and gals, apparantly a lawyer on behalf of two studios has sent a letter giving WOTC 10 days for clarification or they intend to file suit, possible with other parties (aka class action I guess).  Looks like the show will be beginning soon.





> Can you link a source to that? Want to watch the hell out of that!


I'd like the source as well.




> Because of a leak? That seems a bit amateur-ish / unreasonable.


They can probably claim their concern is based on a Gizmodo report, which is a bit more credible than a random redditor or youtuber etc.

I'm okay with it honestly, pressure is our best tool to get the more over-the-top provisions removed (even if they were going to do that anyway.)

----------


## ToranIronfinder

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2...er_to_wizards/

----------


## Psyren

> https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2...er_to_wizards/


Thanks! Searched up the folks named in the letter and found an article: https://sea.ign.com/dungeons-and-dra...-its-not-right

I find the "anticipatory breach" part of the letter interesting. Sounds like creators can go on the offensive even before WotC declares 1.0a "unauthorized?" Am I reading that right?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Thanks! Searched up the folks named in the letter and found an article: https://sea.ign.com/dungeons-and-dra...-its-not-right
> 
> I find the "anticipatory breach" part of the letter interesting. Sounds like creators can go on the offensive even before WotC declares 1.0a "unauthorized?" Am I reading that right?


That appears to be the claim, no idea in terms of law, I'm a philosopher and a corporate widget at the moment, the biggest thing I'm being reminded of is never tell a lawyer your true name. I work in interp, but I had forgotten how lawyers exemplify the reasons for my passionate hatred for certain continental interpretive gurus. 

But it makes sense, if the new OGL gave only 7 days, well if you have projects in the works, thst is incredibly harmful.

----------


## animorte

I know this is a difference-making of absolutely zero, but there is an end quote near the beginning of page 1 and I _can't find the first one._  :Small Sigh: 

Might I introduce all of you to my favorite word:
Floccinaucinihilipilification - the act of considering things of little or no value (or something like that).

Sorry, moving along now... The letter seemed to be cordially in favor of WotC's _good_ intentions. "Hey there, I _assume_ you meant this much kinder thing. Confirm or else, please."

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I know this is a difference-making of absolutely zero, but there is an end quote near the beginning of page 1 and I _can't find the first one._ 
> 
> Might I introduce all of you to my favorite word:
> Floccinaucinihilipilification - the act of considering things of little or no value (or something like that).
> 
> Sorry, moving along now... The letter seemed to be cordially in favor of WotC's _good_ intentions. "Hey there, I _assume_ you meant this much kinder thing. Confirm or else, please."


Letting someone save face can help things along, no need to get more adversarial than necessary.

----------


## OldTrees1

> https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2...er_to_wizards/


Thank you for the source and I appreciate Tyler A Thompson for sharing the letter. I found it valuable to read through the letter and it provides peace of mind that this particular point will be clarified.




> Anyway, here is an alternative. Doubt they will try to claim your IP anytime soon.
> 
> http://opend6.wikidot.com/srd


Furthermore, thank you for providing a source for another open baseline. Depending on how the former issue is clarified, increasing visibility of an alternative is appreciated.

----------


## animorte

> Letting someone save face can help things along, no need to get more adversarial than necessary.





> Furthermore, thank you for providing a source for another open baseline. Depending on how the former issue is clarified, increasing visibility of an alternative is appreciated.


Agreed to both of these. I've been learning lately there's a lot of stuff out there.

----------


## Psyren

> I know this is a difference-making of absolutely zero, but there is an end quote near the beginning of page 1 and I _can't find the first one._


From context I think the open quote would go right before the word "perpetual."




> Anyway, here is an alternative. Doubt they will try to claim your IP anytime soon.
> 
> http://opend6.wikidot.com/srd


Is there an RPG system made with this SRD/license out there? It's a bit dense to get through the basic one, especially with stats like "Coordination," "Acumen," and "Technical."

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> From context I think the open quote would go right before the word "perpetual."
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an RPG system made with this SRD/license out there? It's a bit dense to get through the basic one, especially with stats like "Coordination," "Acumen," and "Technical."


The recent Zorro game, or older West end game products, the Ghostbusters game and the original Starwars RPG used the system (that being how I got into gaming rather than through DnD), and interestingly their supplements influenced the early, predisney EU for Star Wars. 

Westend games went bankrupt, it was bought out and made open in 2008 by Erick Gibson, but not much was done because of the OGL. Nocturnal media bought out the property after that point, and the owner died of a heart attack. It's currently sublet to another group, purgatory gaming who is or was doing a D6 system doc 2.0, which may or may not be open, but one hears very little. 

The system document was divided into three toolbox games, D6Fantasy, D6Adventure and D6Space, each one gives different names to the same attributes. 

Acumen is sort of like wisdom with skilled trades, technical is usually in space and SWD6 and refers to mechanical and electronic repair skills where as knowledge skills are things like streetwise, planetary systems, law, etc.

Also an easier step in might be mini6, a derivative. I've never played it, but it is simplified version by antipaladin games adds some interesting wrinkles, and there is a free version.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/144558

----------


## Palanan

> Originally Posted by *Brookshw* 
> _You've granted WoTC an irrevocable non-exclusive right to the use the work which incorporates their asset._





> Originally Posted by *Pat Mooney in the IGN Article*
> _if I publish under the OGL 1.1, by the letter of the agreement, WotC could republish all my writing at their discretion._


Ive been following all this as someone working on a 3.5-adjacent campaign setting with an eye towards publishing at some point.  Strictly a labor of love, and I doubt itll ever sell a dozen copies, but Im still very concerned with the language about WotC being able to reprint and distribute anything using the new OGL.  

Despite going through various threads and podcasts, Im still left wondering if this really extends to setting-specific material independent of any mechanics.  I dont have the talent or experience to design a new system from the ground up, so the setting is effectively tied to OGL 1.0 unless I strip out all mechanics and try to produce a system-neutral setting, which would probably sell zero copies.

So despite all the back-and-forth of the past few days, Im still not really sure what this means for my own situation.  Reading Noah Downs summary on Medium isnt encouraging, and Pat Mooneys take from the IGN article even less so.




> Originally Posted by *Zanos*
> _Hasbro is orders of magnitude larger than any other competitor in this space and can certainly afford to bankrupt them with legal costs._


Im also concerned about something which hasnt been mentioned yet, namely the follow-on effects to independent contractors who rely on 3PP for part of their income.  Im thinking mainly of illustrators and fantasy cartographers who work on commission for game products.  The ones operating at a high enough level, like Francesca Baerald, have already diversified enough that this might not affect them too deeply; but all this might make it much more difficult for the next Wayne Reynolds to get a foot in the door.

I also wonder how this affects publishers like Devir, who provide translated game products to various international markets.  Since their products by definition include OGL material, seems like the terms of OGL 1.1 would apply to them as well.




> Originally Posted by *Dr.Samurai*
> _Going back to something that was said pages ago... how could this impact homebrew? Is the idea that the contents of the homebrew subforum would belong to WotC under the new OGL?_


Several people have raised the issue of what might happen to the homebrew here on the Playground; but Im also wondering about the broader impact on site traffic here, and whether that might eventually affect Richs ability to keep the Playground up at all.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

FYIvthe design is such that you can name attributes what ever you want, it's a true toolbox system.  If you wanted to go with Strength, Agility, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma you could do so, though with the OGL situation I wouldn't advise it for publication. You could also go Mind and Body for Attributes. But the same basic ones used in the three toolbox games are renamed and recast from WEG Star Wars, as it was their most popular work woth dozens of sourcebooks.

----------


## Witty Username

> I agree with all of this. Personally, my trust in Hasbro, given, well, their past history and the statements they've made and the people they've hired, as well as my trust in WotC (whose MtG arm is notorious for customer-hostile, money-grubbing, ultra-litigation-happy behavior), is at an all-time ebb. So I'm naturally predisposed to take things like this seriously.


Fascinatingly, this OGL 1.0 stuff gives me an odd sense of hope. This is exactly the kind of thing Wotc would do as a market test to revoke the Reserved List, which has proven all sorts of weird attempting to circumvent and remove.

Deauthorizing the OGL would have similar legal concerns (most likely moreso as it is much more likely to be enforceable as a legal document).

----------


## Brookshw

> I find the "anticipatory breach" part of the letter interesting. Sounds like creators can go on the offensive even before WotC declares 1.0a "unauthorized?" Am I reading that right?


Ah, that, someone linked the Twitter post of it in the other thread. Yes, an anticipatory breach is a thing; generally its to prevent having to perform your obligations under a contract if the other party seems likely to breach, and you would delay your performance unless they can reasonably demonstrate that, yes, they will perform. I'm not sure it makes much sense here, I mean, you're what, not going to use their content? It's a weird situation, they haven't actually done anything yet so the issue isn't really ripe; you could pursue a preliminary injunction, but that requires posting bonds usually which you'll lose if you lose the case. I'm curious to see what, if any, action they actually pursue. 

*Spoiler: ToranIronfinder 1*
Show





> I had a longer post in this that I deleted. I agree properties have a right to protect their image. I also think they have a number of moral duties, including a moral duty to avoid undeservedly defaming someone. This includes care in areas where different metaethical traditions disagree. This is a bit different from legal duties perhaps, and other ethicists might state the point differently but something like this seems to be inferable in moat ethical traditions. Recent history, including some issues with WOTC, imply that this duty to undeservedly defame someone is not being performed, though to be fair this is something that is common in modern western culture these days.
> 
> This is tough in an open license situation, as performing this duty requires thought and in some cases rigor. What is adjudicated behind closed doors in private agreements is adjudicated in the public sphere, you can't say something like, we have decided to go seperate ways for reasons we will not discuss, meaning balancing the duty not defame with the proper desire to protect your IP is fraught. 
> 
> Some checks I think are needed as a result, atnleast in the current _zeitgeist_ (barring our culture returning to rationality which seems unlikely at this moment in time), particularly since defining this kind of thing falls outside of corporate expertise and their proper sphere of influence (the latter perhaps being more debatable). I'm not against all types of moral clauses but it seems to me it must therefore be more tightly defined and requires some type of mutually agreeable moderation clause.
> 
> To be clear I am not saying they have no right to protect an IP, I am saying this right must be balanced with the rights of others to their reputations. It's "not either or," it's "both and." This might seperate my own thoughts from other commentators, as it appears to me the discussion as a whole seems to assume it is either a person has a right to their good name or WOTC has a right to protect their IP.





*Spoiler: Reply, spoiled for length.*
Show

Just spoiling for length. And where'd the post about different philosophical schools go, did I miss it, or is that the one you removed? I was all set to talk about social calculus coming to mind in light of the antitrust issues we were discuss  :Small Big Grin: 

I get where you're coming from I think. Sure, morally, there's an imperative not to unduly interfere with another person, which can be extended to defaming that individual which would be the end result of questionably triggering a morality clause, sort of, to the extent you might actually say something about why they're "out"; people will naturally draw inferences in the absence of any statement. 

The way that we've seen WoTC react to public sentiment in terms of content is not one which I entirely agree with, but I also respect their (IP) property rights, and realize that they're having to walk a bit of a minefield. Its an unfortunate situation. But even outside of today's current atmosphere, publishers have always had a certain drive to watch out for how their stuff is used. Lots of big publishers have departments dedicated to licensing out there stuff, and some require you to submit a page proof of what you're going to do with their content to even consider the license. 

Sure, it does pose a risk to the licensee that the clause can be triggered, but I don't see how the possibility of any risk is avoidable in the current climate. So can we blame WoTC from wanting to insulate themselves from a risk incurred by another party? They have a moral duty to protect themselves (not to mention, a legal, fiduciary duty to their shareholders), I don't see why we should expect them to waive that for another party's benefit. 

Further, that type of self preservation approach is hardly unique to commercial activities. Take for example the Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement, a standardized agreement used primarily across universities and non-profit research institutes (and some commercial organizations). That agreement specifically contains a clause that makes the recipient of materials responsible for the use, storage and disposal of the material, i.e., whatever you do with it, is on your head. That kind of blame shifting and self preservation is so typical everywhere you look I don't see how this can be seen as unusual. 

Just for a final comment on the matter. The only other realistic option WoTC has is to ask the licensee to indemnify them, however, they have no idea if a licensee has deep enough pockets to know if they'd be able to reasonably cover any losses WoTC might suffer. 

At a certain point, the number of realistic and pragmatic options just start to dwindle. 

Also, just for clarity, I don't think that everything we know about the new license is on the "up and up", there are issues I personally dislike. However, I'm a contract and IP nerd, I do this all day, every day. It's a ton of fun for me to have it intersect with my longest running hobby, my comments are mostly to address the legal situation, not to say that I necessarily think WoTC is doing a "good" thing across the board.


*Spoiler: ToranIronfinder 2*
Show




> no idea of what GW is. Been away a bit, came vack in with thoughts on a setting for my kid. Most of the groups I know of, Catalyst (and shadowrun isn't for children either in terms of setting or crunch), mech warrior isn't for the nonrich nonprofessional gamer), Green Ronin's mutants and Masterminds, etc., seem to be on lifesupport with the exception of Paizo, Whitewolf (which I'm not touching and not only due to their politics, but the themes, etc. Certainly not for kids) and small indie OSR publishers, which seems like a significant chunk of the non-WOTC market one person on another forum noted WOTC and OGL make up more than 80% these days, that seems like a lot. Hence my antitrust concerns. If there are open systems I'm unaware of, or if, as I noted, WOTC weren't essentially reneging on claims that much of the industry appears to now rely upon, I would lilely be on your side of this. So I guess Savage world's and D6 (admittedly my preferred system) interest me for homebrew. WOTC no longer does for these reasons. Even if they pull back, I couldn't trust them in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> True, I didn't say this was isolated or legal abalysis. Ethics is more within my bailiwick. I stated that the bar on standard of proof is set to low in terms of rationally coming to a conclusion and the move to put the burden of proof on someone defending their reputation rather than those attacking it, again an issue of rationality. Merely noting that others behave in the same irrational and unethical manner doesn't really make a better case.
> 
> For gaming, between objectively bad exegesis of works by writers like Tolkien on the one hand, and "edge lords" makes it precarious. People confuse influence based on actual ancient myths, universalish archetypes or ancient history with a statement on some modern issue about which they care more than they think. I frankly wouldn't trust WOTC to be fair in their analysis, Google and YouTube certainly aren't, which is a problem in one's cultural gatekeepers, which WOTC is, at least for the hobby is, as a whole.
> 
> So at least for me, it's clarifying that it will be D6 or Savage worlds (which I've never played or run) it is, since I don't really like fate (too light a mechanic).





*Spoiler: Spoils for the Spoil throne*
Show

Seemed like you recognized GW in your other reply to Phoenix. The short version is that about halfway through 2021 GW decided to revisit and revise their IP policy. Before that, it was more liberal, and GW was willing to engage with its consumer base in a pretty lax manner, occasionally reprinting stuff people posted online in White Dwarf (their magazine), and so on. When they announced they were going to update their IP policy, people freaked out. A bunch of people were worried that their painting tutorials had to come down, they couldn't do battle reports anymore, they couldn't use patreons or otherwise commercialize stuff they had previously commercialized, and so on; one well known modding group for GW games went so far to claim they received a C&D (which later turned out to be fabricated). This was also when GW was preparing to launch a new online subscription content model which includes shows, 'masterclass painting tutorials' (I hear they're good, no idea), and a bunch of other content, comparable to WoTC's move into the VTT space (and GW is probably MORE litigious that WoTC, though they don't have a great track record). Fast forward, a lot of the fears people had ended up being unfounded. GW didn't start going after the little guy, they didn't crush people's patreons (though some people stopped slapping "here's my patreon" on their Youtube videos and stuff). The whole thing ended up being a bit like chicken little, the sky didn't fall, people were able to keep on doing what they had done before, you could have fan art, videos are still available, patreon's are still out there. It strikes me that we're seeing a lot of the same type of fearmongering here, and I expect it will turn out pretty much the same. In addition, I did see a lot of speculation that people would flock away from GW after the shift, that the community was betrayed, GW was just being greedy corporate hooligans or whatever; none of that mattered, no new competitor rose up to challenge them, there was no mass migration away from them, everything stayed business as usual. Anyway, I hope this clarifies why I brought them up.

To the rest of that paragraph, just to call it out (though I'm sure it was obvious), there doesn't need to be another OGL option from an antitrust perspective, people can still enter the market without an OGL. I don't see that factoring into the equation.

Back to gaming and your culture comments, again, I don't personally agree with some of WoTC's decisions, but I respect both that they're in a hard spot and their property rights. I also don't know that they need to be fair in their analysis; you go on a date with someone, they make you uncomfortable, should you really be obligated to keep going on dates with them? Weird example, sure, but a lot of people seem to be inexperienced with business and legal practices in this area so maybe the example is a bit more relatable  :Small Confused: 

And, contrary to my earlier expectation that there won't be any dynamic shift, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing new games and systems getting released as a result of this change. 





> Ive been following all this as someone working on a 3.5-adjacent campaign setting with an eye towards publishing at some point.  Strictly a labor of love, and I doubt itll ever sell a dozen copies, but Im still very concerned with the language about WotC being able to reprint and distribute anything using the new OGL.  
> 
> Despite going through various threads and podcasts, Im still left wondering if this really extends to setting-specific material independent of any mechanics.  I dont have the talent or experience to design a new system from the ground up, so the setting is effectively tied to OGL 1.0 unless I strip out all mechanics and try to produce a system-neutral setting, which would probably sell zero copies.
> 
> So despite all the back-and-forth of the past few days, Im still not really sure what this means for my own situation.  Reading Noah Downs summary on Medium isnt encouraging, and Pat Mooneys take from the IGN article even less so.


I'm sure a lot of people are confused, and sorry for any anxiety the uncertainty is causing. I have a buddy who's been working on his own setting for years and is in the same boat as you, he kept me up late texting when this news dropped, trying to figure out what was going on. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk about your setting situation more.

----------


## animorte

> And, contrary to my earlier expectation that there won't be any dynamic shift, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing new games and systems getting released as a result of this change.


It's probably less about them getting released and more about them being actually seen. There's a lot of stuff out there already, and as somebody else said, D&D is the gateway drug to the rest of them.

----------


## Palanan

> Originally Posted by *Brookshw*
> _Feel free to PM me if you want to talk about your setting situation more._


Really appreciate it, thanks.  It's late for me now, but I'll drop you a note tomorrow.

----------


## Psyren

> They have a moral duty to protect themselves (not to mention, a legal, fiduciary duty to their shareholders), I don't see why we should expect them to waive that for another party's benefit.
> ...
> Also, just for clarity, I don't think that everything we know about the new license is on the "up and up", there are issues I personally dislike. However, I'm a contract and IP nerd, I do this all day, every day. It's a ton of fun for me to have it intersect with my longest running hobby, my comments are mostly to address the legal situation, not to say that I necessarily think WoTC is doing a "good" thing across the board.


I want to highlight these parts because I think they're important. Accounting and finance are my fields rather than law, but I'm similarly academically fascinated about this topic and its intersection with one of my favorite hobbies. And I don't have to think WotC is doing a clearly "good thing" to support it (or more accurately, some of the ideas behind it) from a fiduciary perspective.




> So despite all the back-and-forth of the past few days, Im still not really sure what this means for my own situation.


No one will, until we actually have the language for 1.1 (not a proposal filtered through an unsourced leak) - and even once we do, for your or any other specific situation you'll want to connect with an IP lawyer.




> Im also concerned about something which hasnt been mentioned yet, namely the follow-on effects to independent contractors who rely on 3PP for part of their income.  Im thinking mainly of illustrators and fantasy cartographers who work on commission for game products.  The ones operating at a high enough level, like Francesca Baerald, have already diversified enough that this might not affect them too deeply; but all this might make it much more difficult for the next Wayne Reynolds to get a foot in the door.


Related contractor income will likely depend on the effect the new OGL (and its success at repealing the old) will have on 3PP desire to work on new products. More 3PP products, more illustrators/cartographers/etc getting work; fewer, fewer.

I agree with Brookshw that the Games Workshop development could end up being a useful analogue; it all depends on the language.




> I also wonder how this affects publishers like Devir, who provide translated game products to various international markets.  Since their products by definition include OGL material, seems like the terms of OGL 1.1 would apply to them as well.


Speculating on that specific use case (translation of open content), like all other specific use cases, is likely to be outside the scope of this forum. Whoever wants to keep doing such an activity in the aftermath of the old OGL being revoked (if it is), would do well to consult a lawyer.




> Several people have raised the issue of what might happen to the homebrew here on the Playground; but Im also wondering about the broader impact on site traffic here, and whether that might eventually affect Richs ability to keep the Playground up at all.


Without commenting on whether the homebrew section or any other specific parts of this board will remain okay, as a reminder the Fan Content Policy will explicitly still exist under OGL 1.1 per WotC's own press release on this subject.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Ah, that, someone linked the Twitter post of it in the other thread. Yes, an anticipatory breach is a thing; generally its to prevent having to perform your obligations under a contract if the other party seems likely to breach, and you would delay your performance unless they can reasonably demonstrate that, yes, they will perform. I'm not sure it makes much sense here, I mean, you're what, not going to use their content? It's a weird situation, they haven't actually done anything yet so the issue isn't really ripe; you could pursue a preliminary injunction, but that requires posting bonds usually which you'll lose if you lose the case. I'm curious to see what, if any, action they actually pursue. 
> 
> *Spoiler: ToranIronfinder 1*
> Show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow the metaethical question was something I noted a day or two ago, no idea which post. The gist is many of our ethical debates comes down to people arguing from distinctly different ethical traditions, but arguing as if foundational questions were settled matters when they aren't.   This will influence things like "what do we mean by racism," or "what do we do about it." Some cases are.clear cut, but many less so
 Corporate types and much of western society, increasingly, lack the proper background or temperment for dealing with the real point where opinions differ--should we be utilitarians, aristotelians, Kantians, divine command theorists, etc. It really can't even be discussed on this board because it includes elements of religious epistemology and metaphysics. 

But I gave what I thought was a reasonable solution. Namely a more detailed description of what was allowable and a system for an agreed upon 3rd party arbiter to deal with OGL license suspensions. To put it a lawyerly way, due process with an objective mediator.

As I noted, the debate appears to be does the corporation have a right to defend their IP, or a duty to avoid harming another's reputation, I think rather it is both, and the ball must not be dropped on either front.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

As to GW I get it. As I noted there is an integrity issue to fairness here. It's more like you go on a date with someone who pays the check, and then sends you a bill later because it didn't go so well, or divorcing a partner after 23 years and suggesting that you can take the house, car and everything else. My point is, I understand the seller's remorse, but when you issue an OGL and represent it publicly as irrevocable, (and it clearly was the intent of the document as per that 20 year history) at least unless one is a consequentialist (which can defend anything), a social darwinist or a nietschian, one has abandoned the right to revoke it this way. I'm speaking ethics not law. When claiming it is irrevocable leads to it becoming a bedrock for much of the industry, thst I think has antitrust implications, again morally I'm still not a lawyer,  there are a number of areas where US codes need an update IMO in this regard.

 Certainly though some of these issues appear to be attempts to turn market dominance into monopolistic practices. As to litigiousness woth WOTC, I think that starts after OGL 1.1, not before, and possibly not limited to systems directly drawing on DnD.

----------


## Brookshw

> Wow the metaethical question was something I noted a day or two ago, no idea which post. The gist is many of our ethical debates comes down to people arguing from distinctly different ethical traditions, but arguing as if foundational questions were settled matters when they aren't.   This will influence things like "what do we mean by racism," or "what do we do about it." Some cases are.clear cut, but many less so
>  Corporate types and much of western society, increasingly, lack the proper background or temperment for dealing with the real point where opinions differ--should we be utilitarians, aristotelians, Kantians, divine command theorists, etc. It really can't even be discussed on this board because it includes elements of religious epistemology and metaphysics.


 I completely agree, underneath my lawyer hat is a philosophy undergrad hat; what I walked out of that with was a firmly committed belief that philosophy is basically a bunch of BS because people are going to stick with their own belief structures mostly and there's no "truth".




> But I gave what I thought was a reasonable solution. Namely a more detailed description of what was allowable and a system for an agreed upon 3rd party arbiter to deal with OGL license suspensions. To put it a lawyerly way, due process with an objective mediator.
> 
> As I noted, the debate appears to be does the corporation have a right to defend their IP, or a duty to avoid harming another's reputation, I think rather it is both, and the ball must not be dropped on either front.


Morally, I agree there's a certain "reasonableness" standard of some undermined type, but to your point above, what's that standard when everyone has their own definitions/ethical structures? To my earlier comment, Psyren's enumerated categories are actually much better defined than is the norm.

Incidentally, an objective mediator isn't a free service, but I don't see it being a negative if GW were to agree to mediation at your expense, provided that the licensees activities halt during the mediation process. That said, I do want to mention that mediation is non-binding, I'm not sure if that would color your opinion.




> When claiming it is irrevocable leads to it becoming a bedrock for much of the industry, thst I think has antitrust implications, again morally, there are a number of areas where US codes need an update IMO in this regard and I'm a philosopher, not a lawyer.


 There are a lot of areas of the law that could do with a polish, I wouldn't mind seeing more opportunities for the recovery of attorney costs as a statutory provision closer to the UK model, especially where the scales of the parties are so grossly mismatched; I don't see any reason people shouldn't be able to seek a remedy in court for WoTC's actions, everyone gets their day. I mentioned early in the other thread that suing for reliance damages or specific performance are options (I also happen to think WoTC has a better case than people give them credit for, but we don't need to tread that path again).

----------


## Psyren

> Morally, I agree there's a certain "reasonableness" standard of some undermined type, but to your point above, what's that standard when everyone has their own definitions/ethical structures? To my earlier comment, Psyren's enumerated categories are actually much better defined than is the norm.


And those weren't even mine! I quoted two sources specifically - the examples from the io9 article itself, and the rules of this very forum. Both of which I view as totally reasonable.




> This will influence things like "what do we mean by racism," or "what do we do about it." Some cases are.clear cut, but many less so


Bluntly, I don't particularly care how it's defined. The IP holder having more discretion to do so than the licensees makes sense to me, because they have the greater potential to be harmed through juxtaposition. As with this forum, avoiding those topics entirely when in doubt is the safest course of action, and if a given author doesn't think they can do that, they can go it alone instead of borrowing someone else's IP.




> As to GW I get it. As I noted there is an integrity issue to fairness here. It's more like you go on a date with someone who pays the check, and then sends you a bill later because it didn't go so well, or divorcing a partner after 23 years and suggesting that you can take the house, car and everything else.


Without careening off topic into the vagaries of divorce law, these are two very different situations you just described here.




> My point is, I understand the seller's remorse, but when you issue an OGL and represent it publicly as irrevocable, (and it clearly was the intent of the document as per that 20 year history) at least unless one is a social darwinist or a nietschian, one has abandoned the right to revoke it this way. No idea of the law. When claiming it is irrevocable leads to it becoming a bedrock for much of the industry, thst I think has antitrust implications, again morally, there are a number of areas where US codes need an update IMO in this regard and I'm a philosopher, not a lawyer.


Whether they truly claimed/presented/etc it as irrevocable, remains to be seen. No pages off my character sheet either way.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I completely agree, underneath my lawyer hat is a philosophy undergrad hat; what I walked out of that with was a firmly committed belief that philosophy is basically a bunch of BS because people are going to stick with their own belief structures mostly and there's no "truth".


 well outside of the board's policy, but I will both strongly agree and note that I understand the conclusion. Most moderns appear to hold strong ethical beliefs, but those beliefs are incoherent to their metaphysics. I would gently suggest unless we are skeptical of our ability to do science, history, math etc, as say Nietsche suggests or seeks to follow from Michael Ruse's contentions on biology and ethics, and because skepticism, relativism and the like are incompatible with logic, then these types of systems must be false. That being true if one reaches a conclusion that they are true, either a premise is false (we can say this via modus tollens) or we have made a logical error along the way. That is the most I'm comfortable saying here. 




> Morally, I agree there's a certain "reasonableness" standard of some undermined type, but to your point above, what's that standard when everyone has their own definitions/ethical structures? To my earlier comment, Psyren's enumerated categories are actually much better defined than is the norm.


 Locke and the individual liberalism tradition are rooted in the assumption that different citizens hold different systems of the good, so it builds as neutral a scaffold of rules as is possible. That is what we don't do today and needs correction. This goes again too far out of scope, and I won't cover it further.




> Incidentally, an objective mediator isn't a free service, but I don't see it being a negative if GW were to agree to mediation at your expense, provided that the licensees activities halt during the mediation process. That said, I do want to mention that mediation is non-binding, I'm not sure if that would color your opinion.


 True, I'm a philosopher and won't go into legal particulars. I would suggest the alternative--if it happened to me I might try to sue whoever for defamation. I might not win, but I have a bit of hillbilly in me, and would try to bloody their nose in discovery.




> There are a lot of areas of the law that could do with a polish, I wouldn't mind seeing more opportunities for the recovery of attorney costs as a statutory provision closer to the UK model, especially where the scales of the parties are so grossly mismatched; I don't see any reason people shouldn't be able to seek a remedy in court for WoTC's actions, everyone gets their day. I mentioned early in the other thread that suing for reliance damages or specific performance are options (I also happen to think WoTC has a better case than people give them credit for, but we don't need to tread that path again).


 no idea on the law, due to the distinction between law and ethics. I think the one issue is that the tense for the word authorized is ambiguous in its intent, and that I think leads to problems for WOTC's case, if intent is significant. The problem is, lawyers tend to define what is good law based on what is good for their clients rather than the other way around.

----------


## Raven777

A question that comes to mind re: Sad Fishe Games' letter that was linked above, is that the letter and the reddit thread it is linked in allege that ambiguities in contract language are usually interpreted against the side that drafted the contract. Yet, this thread and the ENWorld thread allege the opposite: that interpretations would favor the IP owner. Which is it? And should the situation be handled under the lenses of IP law, or contract law?

----------


## AmberVael

> Im also concerned about something which hasnt been mentioned yet, namely the follow-on effects to independent contractors who rely on 3PP for part of their income.  Im thinking mainly of illustrators and fantasy cartographers who work on commission for game products.  The ones operating at a high enough level, like Francesca Baerald, have already diversified enough that this might not affect them too deeply; but all this might make it much more difficult for the next Wayne Reynolds to get a foot in the door.


Note, the Venn diagram of people in the 3PP industry and independent contractors in the 3PP industry is a circle.

An exaggeration, obviously, but not as much of one as you might think. Practically all writers in the industry are independent contractors. Editors are very frequently contractors. I've seen layout done as independent contracting too.
Very few people have traditional employment. Those that do are either working as management or broader development at one of the larger companies, or they started their own publishing business and are the sole employee.

----------


## catagent101

> A question that comes to mind re: Sad Fishe Games' letter that was linked above, is that the letter and the reddit thread it is linked in allege that ambiguities in contract language are usually interpreted against the side that drafted the contract. Yet, this thread and the ENWorld thread allege the opposite: that interpretations would favor the IP owner. Which is it? And should the situation be handled under the lenses of IP law, or contract law?


IANAL, but my general understanding is that the situation is ambiguous and it depends on how you read it. Like there's also an IP lawyer arguing that it is a worthless piece of text that does nothing. It's a weird legal situation with a lack of precedent.

So in that sense the OGL is less important in what it actually contains and more important in that it was a promise from WotC to not send lawyers marching across the plains like TSR did.

----------


## Frogreaver

> IANAL, but my general understanding is that the situation is ambiguous and it depends on how you read it. Like there's also an IP lawyer arguing that it is a worthless piece of text that does nothing. It's a weird legal situation with a lack of precedent.
> 
> So in that sense the OGL is less important in what it actually contains and more important in that it was a promise from WotC to not send lawyers marching across the plains like TSR did.


IANAL but generally speaking, there is no case law on when something ceases to be a 'game mechanic' and when it becomes protectable by IP laws.  We know from case law there are things called game mechanics that cannot be protected.  But what are the boundaries of game mechanics vs protected IP has never been.  What this means in practical terms is that not using the OGL puts you at risk of a C&D letter followed by a potential copyright infringement lawsuit against a plaintiff with much deeper pockets than you.

In regard to the cited article - one thing the OGL + SRD 5.1 allows is for most 5e terms to be included.  So with the SRD 5.1 you can reference most if not all rules by the same terminology that 5e uses (they aren't explicitly called out as product identity and the SRD says everything but the explicit product identity is Open Game Content).  Without the SRD 5.1 under the OGL you probably couldn't do that.  So I don't agree with the article premise that the SRD 5.1 or OGL offer you no IP in the OGC.

----------


## Psyren

> Considering people get fired, go bankrupt, lose college admissions or scholarships, get assualted etc., sometimes on what later prove to be spureous and false claims, often claims that continue to be asserted after being disproven, no its not the licensor who has the most to lose here.


If you're really that worried about all that, _don't use someone else's license._ Or at the very least, don't make _your_ fantasy world dependent on things anywhere near the line like racism and slavery. There are easy solutions here.




> True. But my point is that his analogy was wrong, not that these things are alike. 23 years isn't a first date.


Just because a relationship lasted 23 years doesn't mean it can't end.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> The IP holder having more discretion to do so than the licensees makes sense to me, because they have the greater potential to be harmed through juxtaposition. As with this forum, avoiding those topics entirely when in doubt is the safest course of action.


 considering that these claims lead to people getting fired, lose scholarships or college admissions, get harassed and in some cases assaulted, in some cases.on what turns out to be objectively false claims, I think the above note that the IP holder has the most to lose here is an objectively false claim. Taking actions on a license throws fuel on the flames of a Twitter mob. One of these days, it's going to get someone killed, if it hasn't already. I agree avoiding many topics is the wisest course of action, (and frankly as an ethicist doing work on some of the darker aspects of human nature, gaming is an escape and a catharsis from politics not a way to do politics, though I intend to use some settings as a way to teach my kid something about virtue ethics and maybe communicate some love for great English and Western literature). But sadly avoiding the minefields isn't enough today. The countryvand the west goes through an irrational moral panic, Mcarthyism in the fifties, another panic impacting DnD in the 70s and 80s, and we are back at that stage of the cycle. Nor are our times unique, aimilar conditions led to the Armenian genocide in the period of the first world war, witchtrials in America and Europe, and fears of followers of Bachuus in some reports from Athens. It isn't what I  might say in a gaming context that worries me, it is what someone applying a pseudofreudian eisegetical kafkatrap will claim says something that was never intended or actually present in the work. I tend to think, when watching Twitter mobs, claims of high idealism can really be a cloak for bloodlust and sadism.

Yet, if it's OK with you and Brookshw, I am out of this aspect of the discussion. It's getting to be too much like the reading for the book I'm writing, and I came here as an escape from just that.  And frankly while I live my intellectual life in a fairly dispassionate way (though perhaps a hair cynical), watching twitter mobs and political extremes of our day gets me a bit worried, and it gets reminiscent of the high school bullies who tended to try to blame me for their sadistic actions. I'm no edge lord, but I am a bit paranoid. Nothing against either of you, but I'm out at this point.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> If you're really that worried about all that, _don't use someone else's license._ Or at the very least, don't make _your_ fantasy world dependent on things anywhere near the line like racism and slavery.


You hit the deleted version As noted below, I actually wouldn't make a fantasy world dependent on either. But, that only works if we assume the readers are rational enough not to try to read racism into something where it never was in the first place, and modern history demonstrates that assumption to be false. 

But out for reasons stated above.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I'm okay with it honestly, pressure is our best tool to get the more over-the-top provisions removed (even if they were going to do that anyway.)


I'd like to point out that a lot (or at least some) of that pressure comes from people voicing their displeasure on forums such as this. It's okay to be the voice of reason -- necessary, I'd say. But the grassroots-level grumbling is not without validity.

----------


## Brookshw

> A question that comes to mind re: Sad Fishe Games' letter that was linked above, is that the letter and the reddit thread it is linked in allege that ambiguities in contract language are usually interpreted against the side that drafted the contract. Yet, this thread and the ENWorld thread allege the opposite: that interpretations would favor the IP owner. Which is it? And should the situation be handled under the lenses of IP law, or contract law?


The general principal of contract law is that language is interpreted against the drafter, they're the one who has the opportunity to say exactly what they intend so its viewed as far that they should have the higher standard (the parties can also contract away from that, though that isn't the case here). This isn't to say that someone can just go "well, I thought the contract meant X" and win, the court will still look at the language of the agreement to determine how to construe it, and courts will try to read the language in a contract harmoniously before they assume there's an ambiguity, if it can be read as consistent with itself, that's what they'll go with (I'm sort of mixing two matters here for simplicity). It's also helpful to be able to point out that a word might have different meanings to determine that its ambiguous [1], whether a thing is ambiguous needs to be established. There's another principal that a contract is only read within its four corners, and that things outside of the contract cannot be imported to change the language of the contract (i.e., whatever I said in negotiations, about the contract, etc., can't be imported to change the actual language of the contract); however, there's a rule called the parole evidence rule that let's you look at things outside of the contract to determine the meaning of an ambiguity within the contract (if you can establish that there is one, "I didn't know it meant X" alone isn't enough). So, you could look outside the agreement to determine what the words within the agreement mean, just not add words (which is part of the tension regarding adding "irrevocable" to it, yes, there are statements outside of the agreement[2] which could be relevant to it interpretation, but those statements would also add language to the contract that isn't included in it). Also, once you look outside of the agreement, you start looking at things like industry practice (i.e., that "irrevocable" should be there if its supposed to be so). There are some other principals floating around out there about mutual mistake, unilateral mistake and reliance, etc

[1] There's a famous case used in just about every contract class re: the definition of "chicken" that is used to demonstrate ambiguity, that's why the attorneys in that thread started chuckling over broiler chickens vs. young chickens.

[2] There are also other statements out there that are conveniently overlooked about how the purpose of the OGL was to create a D&D centric ecosystem so incentivize D&D over creating a competing product (going back to the antitrust discussion before). 

Will this be handled under IP or contract law? Yes. Honestly, no one knows because it'll depend on the timing and whether the contract is upheld as revocable or irrevocable. Unlike the case EggKooKoo linked earlier, where there was an active license they tried to retroactively terminate and then sue for infringement, here, WoTC is proactively asserting they will terminate the previous OGL. If they do have the right to terminate it, then you start looking at copyright as the cause of action, and a defense is probably going to raise the contract issue which you'd have to go through first (watch those litigation fees rise!).

Does this help clarify? Or did I just confuse matters?

A few random musings on mechanics. There's some classic case law that a system can't be copyrighted, this came up in the context of an accountant trying to assert copyright over the accounting tables he used in his book, the court basically said that, "no, that's stupid, you can't copyright how to do 1+1, that's not creative" (or a "work" iirc). However, there's more recent case law that establishes the creativity requirement necessary for something to be protected by copyright is low, like, very low, laughably low. So while there's an argument to be made that mechanics aren't protected, there's another that suggests, to me, that the divisions of race/species, feats, classes, enhancement bonuses, inherent bonuses, and so one, all of that could be interpreted as passing the minimal creativity threshold and are therefore protect-able. There's a case before the SJC currently regarding a photo of Prince and a painting of it by Warhol, it'll be interesting to see if we get any new rule for creativity or transformation out of it that will be relevant.

Out of time now!

----------


## ToranIronfinder

No idea what the lawyers would say, but lawyerly games can be met with lawyerly games. A somewhat dirty trick from the TSR days might help someone publishing a setting.

Back in the old days, TSR sold boxed sets and set the prices of the different booklets differently, in a few cases these were changed out to prevent people from collecting royalties or in areas of dispute about who got royalties over things like dice.

So you could publish a setting or adventures with two files each.  Booklet A covers the setting and has a reference code instead of rules data for your characters. Booklet B contains any feats, skills, and stats. Only Booklet B is published under the OGL. You then put both Booklets up for sale. Booklet A for $20 or so, Booklet be for $10 or so (since likely Booklet A is longer). Now you sell them as a combo for say $25 dollars (reducing booklet A to 17 and booklet B to 8).  If WOTC wants to claim rights to monster 2B7$ go ahead and let them, but they have no rights to Booklet A, and if they refer to Booklet A they are in violation of your copyright.

Also you booklet B can have a DND version, a GURPSlite version, a D6fantasy version etc. Instead of a setting neutral setting you now have a setting with multiple systems being supported, which may raise your revenue stream, particularly for systems with very little in the form of published materials.

The lawyers would need to weigh in rules here, this is there turf not mine. When it comes to reporting you only need to present to WOTC the percentage of revenue that comes from booklet B, particularly if you have say a GURPS version on the marketplace. 

Thr bigger issue, I think, for lawyers would be crowdsourcing. Tier 1 is your setting book. Tier 2 is you D6 versIon. Tier 3 is your Savage worlds version (SW is something I really don't know much about, butcI think you can publish for them with permission). Tier 4 is DnD.  Logically it would seem to me you would only owe royalties to WOTC and would need to report for revenue generated above the Tier 4 threshold (and you have paid off your artists, etc before getting to this point if your accounting is right). The point of this maneuver shouldn't be taken as advocacy of cheating WOTC out of royalties, I am not against a fair licensing fee (if they issued a flat rate per page on 1.1) I'm against the lack of integrity involved in claiming to be able to reneg on published material despite clear claims to the contrary, exorbitant fees, helping themselves to other's IP, forming a monopoly, etc. Even on a morals clause I have the courts on a defamation suit and news stations that would drag them through the mud and tell my side of the dispute as an final recourse--not getting into that issue again due to the irrationality of our times but I want my point to be plain here--in what I am and am not objecting too. The point of this maneuver is to be able to print something without WOTC sending a project into money losing territory.

----------


## Segev

I know I keep asking similar questions, but I keep finding better way to frame what I am getting at.

Could the original writers of Linux revoke or "update" the license for Linus such that nobody would be allowed to install Linux on another computer again, nor make a new version of Linux again, without signing over all the data on the computer and all the work put into the new version to the original writers of Linux, and paying those writers the same kinds of fees Microsoft charges for Windows?

Or is Linux safely a free operating system to work with and install forever, no matter what anybody might try to claim about "updates" to the license and "deauthorizing" earlier versions thereof?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

Now a question for Brookshw/Phoenix/lawyers.

A lot of non-WOTC publishers who are not using DND use the OGL 1.0a or 1.0 in their books. In some cases it was to make those systems open (OpenD6 included in this category). In others I think it is as lawsuit protection from WOTC filing suit over what is ultimately industry jargon (here a lawyer might note areas where WOTC has already borrowed from competitors, D6's skill system is older than WOTC's' and the Star Wars D20 version drew on elements of D6's prior version, which was not in their open license, such as the sense, control and alteration mechanisms for the Force).

How will the revocation of OGL 1.0a impact other open systems using the OGL for products that are not DnD or derived from WOTC's IP?

Here is something Anti-paladin games noted:

http://www.antipaladingames.com/2023...pend6.html?m=1

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Now a question for Brookshw/Phoenix/lawyers.
> 
> A lot of non-WOTC publishers who are not using DND use the OGL 1.0a or 1.0 in their books. In some cases it was to make those systems open (OpenD6 included in this category). In others I think it is as lawsuit protection from WOTC filing suit over what is ultimately industry jargon (here a lawyer might note areas where WOTC has already borrowed from competitors, D6's skill system is older than WOTC's' and the Star Wars D20 version drew on elements of D6's prior version, which was not in their open license, such as the sense, control and alteration mechanisms for the Force).
> 
> How will the revocation of OGL 1.0a impact other open systems using the OGL for products that are not DnD or derived from WOTC's IP?
> 
> Here is something Anti-paladin games noted:
> 
> http://www.antipaladingames.com/2023...pend6.html?m=1


My understanding is that I have no idea what the collateral damage will be.

----------


## Segev

> Now a question for Brookshw/Phoenix/lawyers.
> 
> A lot of non-WOTC publishers who are not using DND use the OGL 1.0a or 1.0 in their books. In some cases it was to make those systems open (OpenD6 included in this category). In others I think it is as lawsuit protection from WOTC filing suit over what is ultimately industry jargon (here a lawyer might note areas where WOTC has already borrowed from competitors, D6's skill system is older than WOTC's' and the Star Wars D20 version drew on elements of D6's prior version, which was not in their open license, such as the sense, control and alteration mechanisms for the Force).
> 
> How will the revocation of OGL 1.0a impact other open systems using the OGL for products that are not DnD or derived from WOTC's IP?
> 
> Here is something Anti-paladin games noted:
> 
> http://www.antipaladingames.com/2023...pend6.html?m=1


I am no lawyer, but this is a big reason why I think this is a doomed effort on WotC's part.

WotC effectively started a club when they made the OGL. They contributed supplies and stuff to the club's shared property, and invited others to join the club and contribute additional stuff, building on what WotC contributed. Some others came in with wholly new things and contributed them, which may or may not rely on what WotC contributed. The license agreement tat is the OGL governs the club, not WotC, and while WotC granted themselves the power to update the license, the way they made that power kosher is by allowing that any previous version of the license would be allowed to work for anybody using or contributing to the club's property. In other words, WotC unilaterally altering the license could only expand on what club members could do, never take away. 

Now, WotC is trying to claim they have a right to unilaterally restrict how other club participants may use the stuff contributed by anybody to the club's property by changing the rules under which the property was donated. They claim a unilateral right to change the rules in their favor even wrt properties that don't use any of what they've contributed, asserting rights to control the licensing under which others have contributed their goods and services without input from those contributors.

Worse, if those contributors use any of their own contributions in future work, because they were contributed to the OGL, WotC claims nonexclusive but universal and irrevocable rights, specifically for themselves, over everything those others publish using their own contributed works, even though WotC had nothing to do with them other than having invited them to contribute to a club that WotC was not supposed to be the sole owner of.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> The general principal of contract law is that language is interpreted against the drafter, they're the one who has the opportunity to say exactly what they intend so its viewed as far that they should have the higher standard (the parties can also contract away from that, though that isn't the case here). This isn't to say that someone can just go "well, I thought the contract meant X" and win, the court will still look at the language of the agreement to determine how to construe it, and courts will try to read the language in a contract harmoniously before they assume there's an ambiguity, if it can be read as consistent with itself, that's what they'll go with (I'm sort of mixing two matters here for simplicity). It's also helpful to be able to point out that a word might have different meanings to determine that its ambiguous [1], whether a thing is ambiguous needs to be established. There's another principal that a contract is only read within its four corners, and that things outside of the contract cannot be imported to change the language of the contract (i.e., whatever I said in negotiations, about the contract, etc., can't be imported to change the actual language of the contract); however, there's a rule called the parole evidence rule that let's you look at things outside of the contract to determine the meaning of an ambiguity within the contract (if you can establish that there is one, "I didn't know it meant X" alone isn't enough). So, you could look outside the agreement to determine what the words within the agreement mean, just not add words (which is part of the tension regarding adding "irrevocable" to it, yes, there are statements outside of the agreement[2] which could be relevant to it interpretation, but those statements would also add language to the contract that isn't included in it). Also, once you look outside of the agreement, you start looking at things like industry practice (i.e., that "irrevocable" should be there if its supposed to be so). There are some other principals floating around out there about mutual mistake, unilateral mistake and reliance, etc
> 
> [1] There's a famous case used in just about every contract class re: the definition of "chicken" that is used to demonstrate ambiguity, that's why the attorneys in that thread started chuckling over broiler chickens vs. young chickens.
> 
> [2] There are also other statements out there that are conveniently overlooked about how the purpose of the OGL was to create a D&D centric ecosystem so incentivize D&D over creating a competing product (going back to the antitrust discussion before). 
> 
> Will this be handled under IP or contract law? Yes. Honestly, no one knows because it'll depend on the timing and whether the contract is upheld as revocable or irrevocable. Unlike the case EggKooKoo linked earlier, where there was an active license they tried to retroactively terminate and then sue for infringement, here, WoTC is proactively asserting they will terminate the previous OGL. If they do have the right to terminate it, then you start looking at copyright as the cause of action, and a defense is probably going to raise the contract issue which you'd have to go through first (watch those litigation fees rise!).
> 
> Does this help clarify? Or did I just confuse matters?
> ...


So I can't speak to legal jargon, but speaking in terms of semantic (analytical philosphy) the phrase is grammatically and possibly lexically ambiguous) depending on if the past participle of to authorize is sufficiently common to treat it as an adjective in its own right). Nothing in the document clarifies the past particple of "to authorize" in the contract. We're someone to say no it I'd, the debate itself over the phrase authorized would mean prima facie, yes it is. Actually O think that grammatically the irrevocable side has a significant advantage for reasons noted above, if we are assuming a fairly normal approach to the English language.  I would work from that angle when it comes to parol document. The case WOTC is going to depend on isn't grammatically something isn't ambiguous but some type of opere operato approach to legal jargon. But at that point we have abandiner any discussion that can honestly be a discussion of intent for something rooted in the death of the author.

----------


## Zuras

> If you're really that worried about all that, _don't use someone else's license._ Or at the very least, don't make _your_ fantasy world dependent on things anywhere near the line like racism and slavery. There are easy solutions here.


There dont seem to be any easy solutions here at all.  Fundamentally, we have a problem because a tabletop RPG is tool for creating stories, but now the provider of the tool is claiming that any time you use that tool to create copyrightable material, its a derivative work they have perpetual non-exclusive license to.

That seems pretty problematic to me.  Granted, I agree storytelling is inherently messy.  Its much easier to write software with clearly defined boundaries between code you wrote and a library or OS than to say where Hasbros IP ends and Critical Roles begins, but what Hasbro is claiming here seems exploitive.

If Microsoft claimed they had the non exclusive license to every piece of code Ive ever written using .Net libraries tomorrow, Id be pretty miffed.

The idea that Hasbro can simply revoke the license to everything published over the last 23 years because the license is perpetual but not irrevocable also seems legally dubious to me.  Even if its technically within the license terms, it seems to run afoul of other considerations, since Wizards and Hasbro have clearly derived benefits from the large OGL ecosystem.

I dont know what the right answer is, since the law is more unsettled here than in other areas regarding creative performances.  When you cover a song, for example, there is a specific legal framework with all sorts of odd bits.  Like, a live performance doesnt need a license, an audio only published recording has a generic license (which I dont think can be denied if you pay the $$), and a music video requires a negotiated license (which can be denied).

This seems very much like Hasbro is attempting to grab as much as they can get away with, not what is legal, reasonable or fair.

With regard to objectionable content, for example, it seems like Hasbro should have wide latitude to protect their trademarks, so if youre creating a Racism and Reprobates supplement, you better not mimic any of their trade dress or include the term D&D anywhere, but otherwise you should be ok legally (court of public opinion is a different matter).

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> There dont seem to be any easy solutions here at all.


One might say...there's no easy way out.

----------


## Atranen

> If you're really that worried about all that, _don't use someone else's license._ Or at the very least, don't make _your_ fantasy world dependent on things anywhere near the line like racism and slavery. There are easy solutions here.


Easy, yes, and I have no doubt many publishers will take this option and walk away from OneD&D. 

Whether or not that easy solution is good for 1) WoTCs bottom line and 2) tabletop rpgs in general is another story.

----------


## Psyren

> I'd like to point out that a lot (or at least some) of that pressure comes from people voicing their displeasure on forums such as this. It's okay to be the voice of reason -- necessary, I'd say. But the grassroots-level grumbling is not without validity.


Sure, I never said it wasn't. I'm arguing for precision, not silence.




> If Microsoft claimed they had the non exclusive license to every piece of code Ive ever written using .Net libraries tomorrow, Id be pretty miffed.


^ Case in point. I explicitly said I was _against_ this provision of the leak, did I not?




> The idea that Hasbro can simply revoke the license to everything published over the last 23 years because the license is perpetual but not irrevocable also seems legally dubious to me.  Even if its technically within the license terms, it seems to run afoul of other considerations, since Wizards and Hasbro have clearly derived benefits from the large OGL ecosystem.


I don't believe that revoking the license will affect anything that currently exists (judging by the "reliance" posts upthread.) So the "last 23 years" should be fine.




> This seems very much like Hasbro is attempting to grab as much as they can get away with, not what is legal, reasonable or fair.


I too want it to _end up_ being fair. I don't consider the leaked proposal reasonable as written, but I expect changes.




> With regard to objectionable content, for example, it seems like Hasbro should have wide latitude to protect their trademarks, so if youre creating a Racism and Reprobates supplement, you better not mimic any of their trade dress or include the term D&D anywhere, but otherwise you should be ok legally (court of public opinion is a different matter).


They should have the right to be able to ask you not to use _their_ license to make that supplement, regardless of whether it's allowed to actually  say D&D or not. You still have every right to make such an RPG book entirely on your own.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Sure, I never said it wasn't. I'm arguing for precision, not silence.


When dealing with limited information like we are, I'm not sure I see a distinction.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> With regard to objectionable content, for example, it seems like Hasbro should have wide latitude to protect their trademarks, so if youre creating a Racism and Reprobates supplement, you better not mimic any of their trade dress or include the term D&D anywhere, but otherwise you should be ok legally (court of public opinion is a different matter).


To clarify but not to reargue, so I am not misunderstood, my point is not in any area where a reasonable, rational person would define something as racist. It is from watching debates over the literary Canon (which along with history is a source for stories and settings), social media mobs, and in some cases news organizations using antirationalist standards. 

My orc horde fleeing the sinking continent of Gend is based on the sea people's invasion of various mediterian civilizations, ancient Minoans might have a complaint, though I have a feeling they would be flattered. Of course that culture is dead, buried and remembered only in ancient myth. My Nova Roma setting's ultimate political end boss is based on Augustus, Solon and Julius Ceasar not any modern politicial figure. Reasonable people would recognize this or ask questions, the mob won't (tye end decision being to side with the imperial faction and oive or side with the Republican faction and almost certainly die). About the only political aspect would be that I want to use it to exemplify Aristotle's Golden mean and other areas of virtue theory, in a setting sufficiently remote from my kid when he js older, so that it makes him think, rather than follow rote chronologically snobbish paths. Other settings do similar things, but not with issues such as racism.

If games are places where expression happens, then misunderstandings based on things like the hermeneutic of suspicion will happen.

----------


## Psyren

> When dealing with limited information like we are, I'm not sure I see a distinction.


I know - hence the argument  :Small Tongue: 




> To clarify but not to reargue, so I am not misunderstood, my point is not in any area where a reasonable, rational person would define something as racist. It is from watching debates over the literary Canon (which along with history is a source for stories and settings), social media mobs, and in some cases news organizations using antirationalist standards. 
> 
> My orc horde fleeing the sinking continent of Gend is based on the sea people's invasion of various mediterian civilizations, ancient Minoans might have a complaint, though I have a feeling they would be flattered. Of course that culture is dead, buried and remembered only in ancient myth. My Nova Roma setting's ultimate political end boss is based on Augustus, Solon and Julius Ceasar not any modern politicial figure. Reasonable people would recognize this or ask questions, the mob won't (tye end decision being to side with the imperial faction and oive or side with the Republican faction and almost certainly die). About the only political aspect would be that I want to use it to exemplify Aristotle's Golden mean and other areas of virtue theory, in a setting sufficiently remote from my kid when he js older, so that it makes him think, rather than follow rote chronologically snobbish paths. Other settings do similar things, but not with issues such as racism.
> 
> If games are places where expression happens, then misunderstandings based on things like the hermeneutic of suspicion will happen.


That clause is there so they have a recourse if whatever a licensee wrote manages to outrage a critical mass of people. Not every little morsel of edge or grayness in a work is going to rise to that level of controversy.

----------


## jjordan

I have no idea how revoking/deauthorizing the OGL 1.0 will play out.  But, moving forward in OneD&D, OGL 1.1 is a terrific idea from the point of view of a large company.

While you can make the argument that a healthy broader ecosystem is, in the long run, good for D&D, it's hard to quantify that for executives and it's easy to quantify the negatives of a community of independent publishers working against your core IP.

Every piece of original IP that is developed against your core IP creates a potential lawsuit.  That lawsuit can come from the independent publisher arguing that a new WotC product is too similar to their product.  This is already happening.  Critical Role has faced a couple of allegations of IP theft and the content policy they put in place in response to these issues created a similar, though smaller, furor.  Every independent publisher out there increases the pool of material that WotC has to review, pre-publication, to avoid lawsuits and reduces the pool of material that WotC can develop against.  Worse than a lawsuit is the potential negative publicity that might arise from an independent publisher product.  Though the odds of another 'Satanic Panic' are small, they are not non-existent and the potential damage could be very large and take a lot of time and money for Hasbro/WotC to address.

To top it off the independent publisher community is exploding in size.  It's possible for anyone to use free tools to produce a semi-professional looking product.  Artwork, the big barrier, has been overcome by AI tools.  And publishing doesn't just mean throwing together a product and putting it up on DriveThruRPG, every time you share a magic item or custom spell on DDB you're publishing.  So the pool of potential problems is rapidly expanding.

If you're an executive faced with these issues what do you do?  Crater the independent publishing market in a way that can't be assailed in anti-trust suits.  OGL 1.1 does all of these things.  It keeps publishers below a certain profit level and thereby ensures they don't have the cash reserves for a legal fight.  It pre-emptively clears the way for them to actively poach any good ideas independent developers create (such as on DDB where all your homebrew are belong to WotC) and gives them a nuclear option in any copyright lawsuits that might be filed against them.  And cratering the independent publishers reduces the possibility of 'inappropriate content' being published because fewer things are being published in general.

It really does make a lot of sense.  Doesn't mean I like it, because I don't, but I understand it and the legitimate concerns it is addressing.  I think what people are finding most jarring in this issue is that, in the view of Hasbro, there isn't a D&D community, there's only a D&D market; you aren't a contributor, you're a customer.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> A few random musings on mechanics. There's some classic case law that a system can't be copyrighted, this came up in the context of an accountant trying to assert copyright over the accounting tables he used in his book, the court basically said that, "no, that's stupid, you can't copyright how to do 1+1, that's not creative" (or a "work" iirc). However, there's more recent case law that establishes the creativity requirement necessary for something to be protected by copyright is low, like, very low, laughably low. So while there's an argument to be made that mechanics aren't protected, there's another that suggests, to me, that the divisions of race/species, feats, classes, enhancement bonuses, inherent bonuses, and so one, all of that could be interpreted as passing the minimal creativity threshold and are therefore protect-able. There's a case before the SJC currently regarding a photo of Prince and a painting of it by Warhol, it'll be interesting to see if we get any new rule for creativity or transformation out of it that will be relevant.
> 
> Out of time now!


Here I think WOTC has a problem. While DnD is the first RPG, many of the modern mechanisms in 5e and in other TSR products start elsewhere, even the first aystem started with wargaming rules that aren't original to DND. I think a good bit of 3.x's skill system started with Fasa and West End Games and likly came into alrernity after being borrowed from FASA's mechwarrior  from what I can tell (roll under, though that pne could be posthoc ergo proctorhoc). The d20 star wars setting borrowed concepts from Westend games earlier version (names of force powers, sense control and alter attributes, and the starship stats were basically xeroxed from star wars) and while someone could argue thst it came with the star wars license, much of that came from WEG's Ghostbuster setting and is used in D6Space. While older DnD editions had saving throws, West end games star wars had a will skill used as an opposed role before dnd had a will save. The switch from race to species moves into terminology more typical of sci-fi games, no idea who pioneered it. 

In summary, if borrow mechanics is an issue, enough of WOTC properties have engaged in it that it would be a problem to make mechanical assertions that were too aggressive, unless no gamers are allowed on the jury.

----------


## Palanan

> Originally Posted by *ToranIronfinder*
> _ancient Minoans might have a complaint._


But only in Linear A.     :Small Tongue:

----------


## EggKookoo

> In summary, if borrow mechanics is an issue, enough of WOTC properties have engaged in it that it would be a problem to make mechanical assertions that were too aggressive, unless no gamers are allowed on the jury.


That's what I've been trying to convey as well. D&D didn't invent half of D&D.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I know - hence the argument 
> 
> 
> 
> That clause is there so they have a recourse if whatever a licensee wrote manages to outrage a critical mass of people. Not every little morsel of edge or grayness in a work is going to rise to that level of controversy.


Likely not, but I never thought I would hear about a student uprising in a class room demanding the teacher excise the Illiad and other books from a course syllabus. I think these days you have to have a game plan for when all sense is out the window.

----------


## Witty Username

> I know - hence the argument 
> 
> 
> 
> That clause is there so they have a recourse if whatever a licensee wrote manages to outrage a critical mass of people. Not every little morsel of edge or grayness in a work is going to rise to that level of controversy.


I think more importantly, I don't think it is possible to have a clause that restricts the obvious without infringement on the greyness. Without it, the IP holder loses any ability to moderate, with it, anything controversial is probably fair. It will probably exclusively depend on the enforcement policy for the contract.

This is all to say, don't panic, yet. It is probably a panic button in case of emergencies.

----------


## Snowbluff

> IArtwork, the big barrier, has been overcome by AI tools.


Oh that's probably something else WotC wouldn't wanna be associated with. "Hey WotC, x number of publications under your license are art thieves" probably isn't something that they would want to deal with either. That's probably up there with NFTs in terms of unsavory/unethical bad association. 

But I do agree with your point about being able to publish articles without checking if someone happened to make a 3PP version already, especially if its non-commercial and they wouldn't necessarily be aware of its existent. I don't agree the 3PP market has to die for this to happen however. If the license is written to cover their butts, so to speak, they would be better off in terms of an incident.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I have no idea how revoking/deauthorizing the OGL 1.0 will play out.  But, moving forward in OneD&D, OGL 1.1 is a terrific idea from the point of view of a large company.
> 
> While you can make the argument that a healthy broader ecosystem is, in the long run, good for D&D, it's hard to quantify that for executives and it's easy to quantify the negatives of a community of independent publishers working against your core IP.
> 
> Every piece of original IP that is developed against your core IP creates a potential lawsuit.  That lawsuit can come from the independent publisher arguing that a new WotC product is too similar to their product.  This is already happening.  Critical Role has faced a couple of allegations of IP theft and the content policy they put in place in response to these issues created a similar, though smaller, furor.  Every independent publisher out there increases the pool of material that WotC has to review, pre-publication, to avoid lawsuits and reduces the pool of material that WotC can develop against.  Worse than a lawsuit is the potential negative publicity that might arise from an independent publisher product.  Though the odds of another 'Satanic Panic' are small, they are not non-existent and the potential damage could be very large and take a lot of time and money for Hasbro/WotC to address.
> 
> To top it off the independent publisher community is exploding in size.  It's possible for anyone to use free tools to produce a semi-professional looking product.  Artwork, the big barrier, has been overcome by AI tools.  And publishing doesn't just mean throwing together a product and putting it up on DriveThruRPG, every time you share a magic item or custom spell on DDB you're publishing.  So the pool of potential problems is rapidly expanding.
> 
> If you're an executive faced with these issues what do you do?  Crater the independent publishing market in a way that can't be assailed in anti-trust suits.  OGL 1.1 does all of these things.  It keeps publishers below a certain profit level and thereby ensures they don't have the cash reserves for a legal fight.  It pre-emptively clears the way for them to actively poach any good ideas independent developers create (such as on DDB where all your homebrew are belong to WotC) and gives them a nuclear option in any copyright lawsuits that might be filed against them.  And cratering the independent publishers reduces the possibility of 'inappropriate content' being published because fewer things are being published in general.
> ...


Anticompetitive processes are always desirable when you are the dinosaur facing nimble, more talented competition. The implications are broad enough that I think this is the goal, in the very long term the only WOTC can stay competitive when fad DnD ends and people want something other than a settings that are ubiquitous parallels and reflections of modern pop culture dressed up in medieval clothing, when they want something that is chewy or different flavors, WOTC becomes smaller.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I think more importantly, I don't think it is possible to have a clause that restricts the obvious without infringement on the greyness. Without it, the IP holder loses any ability to moderate, with it, anything controversial is probably fair. It will probably exclusively depend on the enforcement policy for the contract.
> 
> This is all to say, don't panic, yet. It is probably a panic button in case of emergencies.


Yeah, but checks and balances, damage and harm to one's reputation are equally important as noted before, particularly given our irrational _zeitgeist._ Corps seem to be caving to mobs, it happens in moral panics, and we are in one. Currently there is no due process, and WOTC acts as sole arbiter and executioner. There needs to be some appeal to an impartial 3rd party. Of course, as I noted, my first call would be to a lawyer to file a defamation lawsuit. My second call is to cable news TV shows.

See above for the reasoning.

----------


## Psyren

> Anticompetitive processes are always desirable when you are the dinosaur facing nimble, more talented competition.


Megafauna are an apt comparison. They tend to clear away a lot of tangled growth and obstacles that allow the nimble lifeforms to thrive.




> Likely not, but I never thought I would hear about a student uprising in a class room demanding the teacher excise the Illiad and other books from a course syllabus. I think these days you have to have a game plan for when all sense is out the window.


Unless that teacher is basing their lesson plan on their students' license I fail to see the relevance.




> Oh that's probably something else WotC wouldn't wanna be associated with. "Hey WotC, x number of publications under your license are art thieves" probably isn't something that they would want to deal with either. That's probably up there with NFTs in terms of unsavory/unethical bad association.


An excellent point. If someone gets into the habit of using AI artwork in their products, this provision will give WotC the ability to tell them "you can't use our license to do that until things are clearer" without getting dragged into the inevitable legal quandary that new technology will represent.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Unless that teacher is basing their lesson plan on their students' license I fail to see the relevance.


Statement of the times. You said it was unlikely. I'd agree if we were in more rational times.

----------


## Psyren

> Statement of the times. You said it was unlikely. I'd agree if we were in more rational times.


A few students mad at their lesson plan is not going to catch WotC's notice. These fears continue to be overblown and not worth writing around.

----------


## Witty Username

> Yeah, but checks and balances, damage and harm to one's reputation are equally important as noted before, particularly given our irrational _zeitgeist._ Corps seem to be caving to mobs, it happens in moral panics, and we are in one. Currently there is no due process, and WOTC acts as sole arbiter and executioner. There needs to be some appeal to an impartial 3rd party. Of course, as I noted, my first call would be to a lawyer to file a defamation lawsuit. My second call is to cable news TV shows.
> 
> See above for the reasoning.


Well that is the choice, do you want to keep out the mob and everyone else if need be, or give everyone an additional platform along with the mob without your say on the matter?

Both have significant concerns, most companies prefer the first, as it is the safer in the short term.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> A few students mad at their lesson plan is not going to catch WotC's notice. These fears continue to be overblown and not worth writing around.


I wish that were true, I don't think it is. Some of the discussions of the literary Canon are part of the current dialogue in gaming, and I am seeing Twitter mobs weighing in on these points.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Well that is the choice, do you want to keep out the mob and everyone else if need be, or give everyone an additional platform along with the mob without your say on the matter?
> 
> Both have significant concerns, most companies prefer the first, as it is the safer in the short term.


Actually I think the problem is they have a right to protect their IP, but they have a duty not to defame. Corporations including WOTC cannot do the first at the expense of the other, but they are tending to do just that. Also as I noted, WOTC is governing people dealing with literary sources and ethical concepts but they lack the expertise from what I can tell to do either. It's ethical malpractice, as it were. They want to make judgments in areas where it is Grey and do so publicly but they lack the necessary expertise.

But technically as I said, the one option I have is lawsuit and bad press. Enough people do that . . . well that changes things.

----------


## Psyren

> I wish that were true, I don't think it is. Some of the discussions of the literary Canon are part of the current dialogue in gaming, and I am seeing Twitter mobs weighing in on these points.


As you wish.




> Well that is the choice, do you want to keep out the mob and everyone else if need be, or give everyone an additional platform along with the mob without your say on the matter?
> 
> Both have significant concerns, most companies prefer the first, as it is the safer in the short term.


They're not keeping anyone out. Whatever you publish under 1.1 _might_ cause you to lose your ability to use the license, sure, but that's no different than most other IP licenses.

If you think there's a concern around what you might publish, don't wrap your financial future around it. "Only gamble what you're willing to lose" is a valuable rule for any industry.

----------


## Atranen

> I wish that were true, I don't think it is. Some of the discussions of the literary Canon are part of the current dialogue in gaming, and I am seeing Twitter mobs weighing in on these points.


They seem sufficient to have a chilling effect on the industry, at the very least. Overblown or not, I'm sure some people will be concerned enough to take their talent elsewhere.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> But only in Linear A.


I like that

----------


## Unoriginal

> They're not keeping anyone out. Whatever you publish under 1.1 _might_ cause you to lose your ability to use the license, sure, but that's no different than most other IP licenses.
> 
> If you think there's a concern around what you might publish, don't wrap your financial future around it. "Only gamble what you're willing to lose" is a valuable rule for any industry.


Psyren, they ARE keeping people out, by the very fact that not everyone can be willing to lose the Hasbro's sit-at-the-gambling-table fees.

For the big players, OGL 1.1 is an inconvenience. For the small players, it's a deliberate barrier of entry. 

If someone tries to make content that falls under OGL 1.1, WotC and Hasbro can just shut them down. It's entirely in their hand if they wish to press that button. 

So as you said, only people who are willing to lose that much will be gambling with the license... which means that the  conditions for doing 3rd party content or other fan content went from "anyone can try" to "only those with significant ressources can afford to try".

So all the smaller content creators will move to less lucrative, but safer and easier-to-join options. 

That is *not* a desirable state for *any* hobby. Smaller content creators are what keep the blood flowing.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> As you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> They're not keeping anyone out. Whatever you publish under 1.1 _might_ cause you to lose your ability to use the license, sure, but that's no different than most other IP licenses.
> 
> If you think there's a concern around what you might publish, don't wrap your financial future around it. "Only gamble what you're willing to lose" is a valuable rule for any industry.


Not the real concern, but I would add, don't be a professional game designer. Of course looking to be a college prof. . . . Not much better.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> They seem sufficient to have a chilling effect on the industry, at the very least. Overblown or not, I'm sure some people will be concerned enough to take their talent elsewhere.


Yeah, DnD is the McDonalds of RPGs to be sure, but big macs, mcRibs and chicken sandwiches are currently off the menu. It's ironic, the term amusement comes from the idea of empty and worthless pursuits (something that has no muse). I'm starting to think gaming can be more than amusement, it can be a place where real types of moral dilemmas can be put out in terms that can't be answered by joining the mob, or the chronological snobbery of the age can be questioned. Trolley problems may have diagnostic value, but are of no real didactic worth. But you can pose rich, nuanced, historically astute dilemmas in an RPG form where there are more than two answers and sometimes the right answers costs you something. Its a good spot to teach a kid a love of good literature (a rather crazy setting I will never pursue commercially which uses time travel and literary characters comes to mind) or my Nova Roma setting, or other settings with real nuance can have real cultural value, but it won't happen. You could never get away with making Sturm Brightblade a clear hero today. 

I'm not saying McDonalds is all bad, but sometimes you want Italian. I feel like my Nova Roma or Feldaria ideas might find a niche that is useful today, not sure though in these climates. See how it goes with my kid when he is older, I guess.

----------


## Raven777

> Not the real concern, but I would add, don't be a professional game designer. Of course looking to be a college prof. . . . Not much better.


"Don't interact with anyone, ever"  :Small Tongue:

----------


## ToranIronfinder

More I think about it, unless one dnd is going back to Thac0, AC between 10 and -10, thieves skills on a percentile roll ,(which may have come.from chaosium and all of it might have come from wargames), and abandon the current approach to ability score bonuses for 1e/2e style tables, the problem they would have in claiming mechanics in 3.xe or 5e are theirs, is that too many non-TSR, non-WOTC systems were using similar approaches prior to 3e. A lot of current DND appears to be borrowed from older, in some cases defunct, systems. Outside of spell names and D20 atrack rolls, there isn't a.lot left that is original to TSR/WOTC in current incarnations. A significant part of modern DnD comes.from developments in other games, and finding out precisely who did each mechanic first would be a nightmare. Some of the nomenclature is is WOTC perhaps, but slapping the name "skill check DC" on a mechanism  (ability scote bonus/attribute + skill level) that I was using in WEG's star wars while DnD 2e had a weird roll 20 under mechanism and percentile theives skills, isn't a great stance to claim it is theirs.

----------


## Segev

> That clause is there so they have a recourse if whatever a licensee wrote manages to outrage a critical mass of people. Not every little morsel of edge or grayness in a work is going to rise to that level of controversy.


You say that, but nothing ensures that except WotC's generosity. It could also be, simply, that saying, "Elves in this setting think rock and roll is newfangled noise," and some WotC or Hasbro exec. deciding that this insult to rock and roll must not stand, to shut down the whole operation, requiring the person or company that made the product to destroy all the inventory they've invested in, and leave them out ruinous amounts of money.

Or another exec. finding out that the girl who turned him down for a date in high school is the silent partner in the project and deciding to shut it down just to spite her.

You can say "oh, that would never happen" all you like, but we would've said that about revoking the OGL as it stood, too, up until this leak.

----------


## Psyren

> You can say "oh, that would never happen" all you like, but we would've said that about revoking the OGL as it stood, too, up until this leak.


_I_ wouldn't. I generally expect people to want to change things after 20 years, even if their predecessors promised perpetuity.




> So as you said, only people who are willing to lose that much will be gambling with the license... which means that the  conditions for doing 3rd party content or other fan content went from "anyone can try" to "only those with significant ressources can afford to try".


I disagree; you don't need "significant resources" to homebrew, people do it on this board all the time - oftentimes purely for leisure and with no real expectation of compensation. A revocation clause being part of the new OGL won't have any effect on that. Even compiling your homebrew into a PDF wouldn't.

If you're trying to make a _living_ on your homebrew, that's a different matter - but again, you would need both a license and a need to exercise conscientious care with it to do that anyway.




> I'm starting to think gaming can be more than amusement, it can be a place where real types of moral dilemmas can be put out in terms that can't be answered by joining the mob, or the chronological snobbery of the age can be questioned.


If your plan is to make games that explore thorny moral and ethical dilemmas, using someone else's license may not be the best course of action. If you truly see that as the only way forward for your artistic vision or whatever, ask their permission and get it in writing. There's no requirement for them to enshrine these kinds of assurances that everything you want to do with it will be fine within the general license itself.

----------


## EggKookoo

> You can say "oh, that would never happen" all you like, but we would've said that about revoking the OGL as it stood, too, up until this leak.


Not that it means anything because it's just a language model and has no real concept of stuff. But I was playing around in ChatGPT and I asked it to quote me OGL 1.0, which it did. Then I asked if there was any legal precedent for "perpetual" meaning irrevocable, and it wasn't sure, but it was very sure that the OGL can't be revoked and repeated a few times that it would take something extraordinary for WotC to even consider it.

I know how the bot works so I'm not surprised, since before about a month ago pretty much everyone in the industry thought the same thing. And the bot is just compiling text from existing sources. I just found it amusing how insistent it was that it was kind of inconceivable for it to go away, even unprompted (i.e. I never said anything about it being revoked, only what "perpetual" meant in context).

----------


## Unoriginal

> You say that, but nothing ensures that except WotC's generosity.


Indeed. 

And according to many people in this thread (who are arguing in favor of WotC and Hasbro, even), building your business based on another business's generosity is a mistake no one should do.

----------


## Psyren

> Indeed. 
> 
> And according to many people in this thread (who are arguing in favor of WotC and Hasbro, even), building your business based on another business's generosity is a mistake no one should do.


You shouldn't if losing that business will ruin your future. That's true for any investment, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

----------


## Unoriginal

> You shouldn't if losing that business will ruin your future. That's true for any investment, don't put all your eggs in one basket.


So you DO agree that people and companies who want a future in the RPG market need to either a) have significant enough ressources that being suddenly forbidden to use WotC-related assets won't hurt them to the point of losing said future or b) shouldn't use WotC-related assets at all.

Which means that you agree that small businesses shouldn't use WotC-related assets.

Which means that you agree that WotC is keeping people out.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> So you DO agree that people and companies who want a future in the RPG market need to either a) have significant enough ressources that being suddenly forbidden to use WotC-related assets won't hurt them to the point of losing said future or b) shouldn't use WotC-related assets at all.
> 
> Which means that you agree that small businesses shouldn't use WotC-related assets.
> 
> Which means that you agree that WotC is keeping people out.


And also shouldn't use anything that WotC can even _semi-plausibly_ claim to be WotC-related. Because you can't afford to get sued--the process _is_ the punishment. Which is a much broader set of assets. And thus a much bigger monopolistic barrier to entry.




> Indeed. 
> 
> And according to many people in this thread (who are arguing in favor of WotC and Hasbro, even), building your business based on another business's generosity is a mistake no one should do.


In most other industries, people recognize shared standards as a _massive_ benefit for everyone. So they _willingly and eagerly_ contribute their IP, often licensing it utterly freely with no control or ability to revoke. Or at most license it on FRAND terms (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. Effectively, anyone who asks gets the same deal and it's a low-cost thing.

Fair == terms that aren't anti-competitive. 




> Examples of terms that would breach this commitment are: requiring licensees to buy licenses for products that they do not want in order to get a license for the products they do want or requiring licensees to take licenses to certain unwanted or unneeded patents to obtain licenses to other desired patents (bundling); *requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs)*; and including restrictive conditions on licensees dealings with competitors (mandatory exclusivity).


Reasonable == refers to licensing rates mostly. 


> According to this view, aggregate rates that would significantly increase the cost to the industry and make the industry uncompetitive are unreasonable.


Non-discriminatory: treating competitors, new players, and others similarly.



> As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms cant change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee. However it does mean that the underlying licensing condition included in a licensing agreement must be the same regardless of the licensee. This obligation is included in order to maintain a level playing field with respect to existing competitors and to ensure that potential new entrants are free to enter the market on the same basis.


And this is for IP that is individually _vastly_ more valuable than the entirety of the TTRPG industry as a whole--things like the underlying patents, copyright and branding in the WiFi/USB/Ethernet standards.

----------


## Psyren

> So you DO agree that people and companies who want a future in the RPG market need to either a) have significant enough ressources that being suddenly forbidden to use WotC-related assets won't hurt them to the point of losing said future or b) shouldn't use WotC-related assets at all.
> 
> Which means that you agree that small businesses shouldn't use WotC-related assets.
> 
> Which means that you agree that WotC is keeping people out.


You don't need a _business_ in order to homebrew. You don't even need one to publish a PDF.

----------


## Cyclone231

> The best bet for folks looking to avoid this entirely would be an open source competitor - something irrevocable that people can switch to after using the OGL for a while to make a name for themselves. Even then though, I anticipate that the WotC license will still be more lucrative in th short to mid-term. Again, I'm in favor of an alternative (as that will also keep WotC themselves honest in terms of not adding truly burdensome provisions to theirs) but I'm with Brookshw's take that the abandon ship oaths are unlikely to bear fruit in practice.


Absolutely it will kill any third party industry making products for 6e.

Will normie players leave? Who knows. Long-term they might, because there won't be any good content for D&D 6e. DMs - who are much more plugged in than the average player - might lead their groups in exoduses, using different rules because these changes are _not_ popular, to say the least. They might not, though.

But for the third parties? Starcraft 2 had dog**** custom maps scene because of its **** terms, Warcraft 3 Reforged's change in terms killed WC3 custom maps - and nobody made any money on custom maps. More familiar in the TTRPG industry, 4e had virtually no third party offerings because the GSL offered ridiculously bad terms. Unlike the player base, who just have to worry about their conscience and their play experience, the _businesses_ and _creators_ have the problem that the new OGL will steal their work and make it impossible for them to profit. So obviously they won't agree to it. Duh.




> _I_ wouldn't. I generally expect people to want to change things after 20 years, even if their predecessors promised perpetuity.


If I sell my car I might like it back, twenty years down the line. Unfortunately, selling the thing means it is no longer yours, and you must live with the consequences of such decisions. The fact that WotC found some inane loophole does not change the fact that the OGL v1.0a was designed as a unilateral and permanent surrender of a specific portion of their IP in a particular way, any more than if I found that if you interpreted this one word in my car sale's contract this one particular way, that would change the fact that it is _immoral and perfidious to renege on one's word_.

----------


## Clistenes

This is weird... just when they are trying to milk the "D&D as a Lifestyle Brand" thing, they are going to make a move that will make their company unpopular, and reduce the amount of D&D content that is published...?

I mean, if their goal is to make money selling stuff other than books by slapping the D&D brand on it... why are they devaluing the brand? 

It's not as if they have ownership on all fantasy... if they mark themselves as greedy vultures who hate creative freedom, people will be less likely to buy stuff with elves and dwarves and mages with the D&D label than similar stuff without the D&D label...

----------


## Unoriginal

> You don't need a _business_ in order to homebrew.


Not sure why you keep bringing up homebrew when I'm talkinge about business, but...

Like it or not, the large majority of content creation that has an impact on the audience is a business. Be it add revenues on youtube or other websites, patreon and similar pay-the-author sites, crowdfunded projects a la kickstarter, or outright publishing their work the traditional way, a ton of content creators do expect some kind of monetary return for the investments in time and effort that went into providing their work.

You are essentially saying they shouldn't do that with WotC-related assets unless they're rich enough to not care if WotC forbid their work.

Sure, we can still do homebrew without issue... which is the same as saying "you can still do your unpaid hobby", which is nice for all of us unpaid hobbyists but not for every single of the people who have contributed to the hobby doing a labor that earned them money.

By your own arguments, writers who think it's a good idea to spend a few months working on a new  3rd party bestiary for 5e... just shouldn't do that.

Unless they are both willing and able to do it for free.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Not sure why you keep bringing up homebrew when I'm talkinge about business, but...
> 
> Like it or not, the large majority of content creation that has an impact on the audience is a business. Be it add revenues on youtube or other websites, patreon and similar pay-the-author sites, crowdfunded projects a la kickstarter, or outright publishing their work the traditional way, a ton of content creators do expect some kind of monetary return for the investments in time and effort that went into providing their work.
> 
> You are essentially saying they shouldn't do that with WotC-related assets unless they're rich enough to not care if WotC forbid their work.
> 
> Sure, we can still do homebrew without issue... which is the same as saying "you can still do your unpaid hobby", which is nice for all of us unpaid hobbyists but not for every single of the people who have contributed to the hobby doing a labor that earned them money.
> 
> By your own arguments, writers who think it's a good idea to spend a few months working on a new  3rd party bestiary for 5e... just shouldn't do that.
> ...


Well, really, _no you can't homebrew legally_ without accepting either the 1.0 OGL or the 1.1 OGL. It's *not* covered by the fan policy. And it's only _arguably_ fair use, which is an affirmative defense anyway. Will you get caught? No. Not unless you, say, _upload it to D&D Beyond so your players can use it_. And if you homebrew and, say, upload it to a personal wiki? Can't be covered _at all_ under the OGL 1.1. You're in violation.

Which means that yes, they can lock you out of your uploaded homebrew and you're on notice that you're not allowed to homebrew anything else mechanically (legally at least) at their sole discretion. As someone who takes legality seriously even if the risk of getting sued is super low, that's _absolutely_ chilling for me, personally. It's why if the revocation clause goes through, I'm going to pull down all my published homebrew from the various places and do what I can to wrap up existing campaigns and then transition to something else entirely.

And this is *seriously* annoying to me--D&D 5e is pretty darn nearly perfect for my needs (regardless of how much I complain). My complaints are mostly about _content_, and that's tweakable. But if I'm not allowed to homebrew legally and safely, the system is dead to me. Because homebrew is the largest part of what I consider interesting and fun. Running stock campaigns using nothing but WotC-approved assets? Stultifying.

----------


## Unoriginal

> I mean, if their goal is to make money selling stuff other than books by slapping the D&D brand on it... why are they devaluing the brand?


A dangerous cocktail of general incompetency, conflicting ideas on where to steer the ship, typical corporate suits' out-of-touchness with who/what are bringing in the money, and the tenacious mindset that your subordinates CAN squeeze blood from a stone if only they break their hands hard enough.




> And also shouldn't use anything that WotC can even _semi-plausibly_ claim to be WotC-related. Because you can't afford to get sued--the process _is_ the punishment. Which is a much broader set of assets. And thus a much bigger monopolistic barrier to entry.


Indeed.




> Well, really, _no you can't homebrew legally_ without accepting either the 1.0 OGL or the 1.1 OGL. It's *not* covered by the fan policy. And it's only _arguably_ fair use, which is an affirmative defense anyway. Will you get caught? No. Not unless you, say, _upload it to D&D Beyond so your players can use it_. And if you homebrew and, say, upload it to a personal wiki? Can't be covered _at all_ under the OGL 1.1. You're in violation.
> 
> Which means that yes, they can lock you out of your uploaded homebrew and you're on notice that you're not allowed to homebrew anything else mechanically (legally at least) at their sole discretion. As someone who takes legality seriously even if the risk of getting sued is super low, that's _absolutely_ chilling for me, personally. It's why if the revocation clause goes through, I'm going to pull down all my published homebrew from the various places and do what I can to wrap up existing campaigns and then transition to something else entirely.
> 
> And this is *seriously* annoying to me--D&D 5e is pretty darn nearly perfect for my needs (regardless of how much I complain). My complaints are mostly about _content_, and that's tweakable. But if I'm not allowed to homebrew legally and safely, the system is dead to me. Because homebrew is the largest part of what I consider interesting and fun. Running stock campaigns using nothing but WotC-approved assets? Stultifying.


Ah, yes, I see I was once again being too optimistic. I apologize for that. 

So yeah, Psyren, not only businesses can't make content without it being gambling, which you argued yourself means they shouldn't do content, homebrewing would be significantly restricted under the OGL 1.1 presented in this thread (which to my knowledge has not been denied by any HasbrotC-liked person or legal entity).

----------


## Bosh

> This is weird... just when they are trying to milk the "D&D as a Lifestyle Brand" thing, they are going to make a move that will make their company unpopular, and reduce the amount of D&D content that is published...?
> 
> I mean, if their goal is to make money selling stuff other than books by slapping the D&D brand on it... why are they devaluing the brand? 
> 
> It's not as if they have ownership on all fantasy... if they mark themselves as greedy vultures who hate creative freedom, people will be less likely to buy stuff with elves and dwarves and mages with the D&D label than similar stuff without the D&D label...


My read is that the main focus of this is virtual tabletop with the rest being mostly collateral damage. WotC wants any kind of VTT for D&D to result in them getting money because they think that's a good way of getting the sort of steady revenue stream from subscriptions, micro-transactions, and license fees that you don't really get with book publishing. They think if they can secure that money it'll be worth it.




> Absolutely it will kill any third party industry making products for 6e.
> 
> Will normie players leave? Who knows. Long-term they might, because there won't be any good content for D&D 6e. DMs - who are much more plugged in than the average player - might lead their groups in exoduses, using different rules because these changes are _not_ popular, to say the least. They might not, though.


I don't think this will make normie players leave 5e, but it will hurt 6e significantly. 5e can survive just fine on inertia but you can't get people to pony up money for a whole new edition on inertia, you need good word of mouth and significant buy-in. When normies go online to check out what people are thinking about 6e and get hit by a blazing edition war, that's going to turn off a lot of people.

Also the way YouTube etc. algorithms work rage bait gets prioritized. That causes all kinds of horrible effects in general, but here specifically it'll make people who watch D&D YouTube videos have their recommendations flooded by people shouting about the OGL. 

Also even if a minority of people are pissed about WotC and don't want to buy more WotC stuff that might keep people from switching over to 6e since 5e would be an easier consensus.

----------


## Snowbluff

> And also shouldn't use anything that WotC can even _semi-plausibly_ claim to be WotC-related. Because you can't afford to get sued--the process _is_ the punishment. Which is a much broader set of assets. And thus a much bigger monopolistic barrier to entry.


If it makes you feel better, this is the current state of things. This is always and always will the be case. You can be sued for what is viewed as breach of IP in any industry (whether they have a case or not, really). Not everything WotC has created is OGL. It's not just WotC that could sue you, but any number of non-WotC companies who own non-OGL 1.0a products. Heck, you can be sued for using a standard in any industry, because not all standards are free and indeed, have licensing terms and fees. 

I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying the chance is always there.




> I don't think this will make normie players leave 5e, but it will hurt 6e significantly. 5e can survive just fine on inertia but you can't get people to pony up money for a whole new edition on inertia, you need good word of mouth and significant buy-in. When normies go online to check out what people are thinking about 6e and get hit by a blazing edition war, that's going to turn off a lot of people.
> 
> Also the way YouTube etc. algorithms work rage bait gets prioritized. That causes all kinds of horrible effects in general, but here specifically it'll make people who watch D&D YouTube videos have their recommendations flooded by people shouting about the OGL. 
> 
> Also even if a minority of people are pissed about WotC and don't want to buy more WotC stuff that might keep people from switching over to 6e since 5e would be an easier consensus.


This is an interesting take. I'm probably still gonna play some 5e. Switching to 6e, buying new books, accepting rules changes is a big ask, plus the royalty fees being super bloated means I probably wouldn't want to bother. I probably wouldn't have bought 5e at all if it was 3.999 or would shut down other TTRPGs for merely existing.

However, I don't find people generally receptive to online outrage. Most people aren't perpetual online power users who buy 3PP in bundles to hone their game to perfection. The sad thing is, most of the market won't even notice if these other games are simply (god forbid) gone. WotC probably isn't going anywhere, but I kinda wish it would. I like some of their products, and I don't disagree with the whole of an OGL update (an unrevokable, unchangeable, free licensing agreement is a terrible one on the part of a licensor, for-profit or not), but if they prove to be a litigious thorn in the side of the industry, it is probably in need of new management.

----------


## Psyren

> Unlike the player base, who just have to worry about their conscience and their play experience, the _businesses_ and _creators_ have the problem that the new OGL will steal their work and make it impossible for them to profit. So obviously they won't agree to it. Duh.


I've repeatedly said I'm against _that_ provision. And I've just said it again.




> If I sell my car I might like it back, twenty years down the line. Unfortunately, selling the thing means it is no longer yours, and you must live with the consequences of such decisions.


It was never yours if you were licensing it; that's what a license means.




> This is weird... just when they are trying to milk the "D&D as a Lifestyle Brand" thing, they are going to make a move that will make their company unpopular, and reduce the amount of D&D content that is published...?


This was the ideal time to start the conversation around the OGL in earnest. Waiting until OneD&D was out would kill all discussion around it, and waiting until after OneD&D debuted would just grandfather in a lot of 3PP content that they might otherwise have wanted 1.1 to apply to.

The terms need a LOT of work however.




> By your own arguments, writers who think it's a good idea to spend a few months working on a new  3rd party bestiary for 5e... just shouldn't do that.
> 
> Unless they are both willing and able to do it for free.


If writing a bestiary is make or break for your business, then you might be in the wrong business.

----------


## jjordan

> You don't need a _business_ in order to homebrew. You don't even need one to publish a PDF.


I think you're correct on the first point.  I don't know if you are correct on the second.  If you share an electronic file that contains information WotC claims copyright over (in OGL 1.0 that included terms like "Red Wizards of Thay" and a magic spell called "Fireball") then you could be sued by WotC.  Their case grows stronger if you use a filesharing site and/or if you charge money for your PDF file.  Will they sue?  I don't know.  Can they?  It sure seems like they can.

There's nothing wrong with WotC acting to restrict access to their IP.  It's their IP.  I don't like them doing it but it's not my IP.  And by not publishing under the OGL 1.1 or on DDB I ensure my IP remains my IP.  And, honestly, I've never liked the stock lore.  I have always preferred to play homebrew (mine or someone else's) and I can think of at least three ways to continue to publish my homebrew for D&D without having to use the OGL.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> If writing a bestiary is make or break for your business, then you might be in the wrong business.


For most (ie all but Paizo and the 3-5 other big names), _every_ release is make or break. Margins in this industry are vanishingly small and most ventures fail or only make hobby money (aka make a loss).

----------


## Unoriginal

> If writing a bestiary is make or break for your business, then you might be in the wrong business.


Have you ever heard of the site "The Monsters Know What They Are Doing", by any chance?

----------


## EggKookoo

> Sure, we can still do homebrew without issue... which is the same as saying "you can still do your unpaid hobby", which is nice for all of us unpaid hobbyists but not for every single of the people who have contributed to the hobby doing a labor that earned them money.


And where do we unpaid hobbyists get our hobby content from?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> _I_ I disagree; you don't need "significant resources" to homebrew, people do it on this board all the time - oftentimes purely for leisure and with no real expectation of compensation. A revocation clause being part of the new OGL won't have any effect on that. Even compiling your homebrew into a PDF wouldn't.


 I don't know, homebrewing a mechanism is one thing, doing an entire system from scratch without having something someone will say is imitative. . . . Frankly I wouldn't know where to begin.




> If your plan is to make games that explore thorny moral and ethical dilemmas, using someone else's license may not be the best course of action. If you truly see that as the only way forward for your artistic vision or whatever, ask their permission and get it in writing. There's no requirement for them to enshrine these kinds of assurances that everything you want to do with it will be fine within the general license itself.


It would I assume depend on the types of dilemmas we are talking about. My point isn't thorny or edgy, but these days true, perhaps less so in saner times. The moral dilemmas already come up incRPGs, I'm just thinking of adding a few wrinkles or variables. One thing that is striking is, doing the right thing nearly always has material rewards in DnD, what if, in some cases, it costs you something, do you pay the cost? What about if that magic Longsword you discovered turns out to belong to a rival family and returning it may get you accused of theft and it might cost you some reputation? It obviously wouldn't be fun if done in constantly, but a sprinkling of things . . . . Anyway I'm a virtue theorist, so it's not the thornielness I find interesting it's the multivariant nature where it's not a prrof asking you which option you choose from a list, but when a dilemma comes up without a list of choices given to you. A chance to develop one's ethicsl thinking in a safe environment.

I'm thinking of it as something a family can do together then later talk about the thing. Nothing edgy, but again you are right these days. But even under the OGL and D6 I would likely ask Nocturnal Media for something. WOTC, well my tradition might look in askance at DnD. Feldaria would have religious themes so I would really want some permissions there.

----------


## Psyren

> For most (ie all but Paizo and the 3-5 other big names), _every_ release is make or break. Margins in this industry are vanishingly small and most ventures fail or only make hobby money (aka make a loss).





> I don't know, homebrewing a mechanism is one thing, doing an entire system from scratch without having something someone will say is imitative. . . . Frankly I wouldn't know where to begin.


Sounds like there's considerable value in using their license then, even if doing so entails some risk.




> Have you ever heard of the site "The Monsters Know What They Are Doing", by any chance?


Nope, sorry.




> I think you're correct on the first point.  I don't know if you are correct on the second.  If you share an electronic file that contains information WotC claims copyright over (in OGL 1.0 that included terms like "Red Wizards of Thay" and a magic spell called "Fireball") then you could be sued by WotC.  Their case grows stronger if you use a filesharing site and/or if you charge money for your PDF file.  Will they sue?  I don't know.  Can they?  It sure seems like they can.


If you're violating either license then you shouldn't be distributing your material _at all_, much less charging for it.




> There's nothing wrong with WotC acting to restrict access to their IP.  It's their IP.  I don't like them doing it but it's not my IP.  And by not publishing under the OGL 1.1 or on DDB I ensure my IP remains my IP.  And, honestly, I've never liked the stock lore.  I have always preferred to play homebrew (mine or someone else's) and I can think of at least three ways to continue to publish my homebrew for D&D without having to use the OGL.


Sounds great to me.

----------


## Cyclone231

> It was never yours if you were licensing it; that's what a license means.


Under OGL v1.0a, I can do as I like with a (very) specific slice of WotC's intellectual property, so long as I follow some (very) basic guidelines. That was the agreement. They presented this agreement as indefinite and irrevocable. If they are now taking it back - _even if it is legal_ (big if) - then they are _liars and cheats_. It is _wrong to lie to people and try to cheat them_.

I don't see why you're trying to focus so hard on whether it's not exactly like selling a car in every single particular. Replace it with literally any other business deal. Disney didn't like that Fox had the rights to all the X-Men stuff, but that didn't mean they got to do take backsies on Marvel's deal with them, either. Instead, they just bought the company, which should give you an idea of how serious such licenses are when you're dealing with people who have the money to buy lawyers.

----------


## Unoriginal

> And where do we unpaid hobbyists get our hobby content from?


If HasbrOTC had its way, from HasbrOTC exclusively.




> Nope, sorry.


Well, for examplifying purpose, their site is here.

This person has spent years writing their contribution for other D&D 5e players to enjoy. 

They have released several books on their favored topics, too.

What do you think would happen if HasbrOTC decides that they can't use any of their assets anymore for X reason?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Sounds like there's considerable value in using their license then, even doing so entails some risk.


There's _inherent_ risk in doing _anything_ in the TTRPG realm. This license moves it out of the "risk" category into the _absolutely a losing proposition_ category. *Nothing* we know about the license is better for the consumer or the 3rd parties than the existing one. It's all on the increased cost, increased risk side, with a side order of just extortionate.

You may not care that it drastically shrinks the 3rd party market and talent pool (which also affects the 1st party talent pool, because most of those people were 3rd party folks first). But it's absolutely anti-competitive and consumer-hostile in every single way. The only one who even theoretically stands to benefit is WotC. And forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for big businesses trying to milk every penny out of everyone by hook or crook.

Furthermore, if they wanted to control their IP, they shouldn't have promulgated an open license 20 years ago. That was their chance. No one forced them to. But by doing so, they willingly and knowingly gave up control. Trying to retroactively take it back after they've reaped the enormous benefits (in goodwill if nothing else, but goodwill is a cognizable financial benefit) is extremely scummy behavior. Very few would care if they said that going forward you have to agree to this new license to use their new IP. And then start putting out _new_ IP that doesn't fall under the old license. But retroactively re-licensing is a nasty smell, even if it proves to be legal[1]. And no amount of virtuous "well, we don't want to get blamed when someone does something bad" BS will cover it--the time to think about that was 20 years ago. They made a different choice then and now should live with the consequences. And if it hasn't happened in 20 years...is the risk really that large that they're willing to antagonize a large chunk of their ecosystem?

[1] whether that's by affirmative verdict or just exhausting the competition due to deeper pockets.

Edit: and let me turn it around on you. If you, as the largest TTRPG company (by revenue, sales, and profit) by something like an order of magnitude over the rest of the industry _combined_, as the owner and manager of the most valuable TTRPG (and substantially valuable _outside_ that market) IP, can't compete fairly with the minnows of the industry _on the merits of your product_, maybe you should hang up your keys and let someone else drive? This kind of anti-competitive action is a classic sign of a company that believes it can't compete on its own strength and needs to neuter the competition to try. And those companies? *Those* are the ones that deserve to die. That have no place doing business. If you compete fairly given those advantages, just go out of business already and turn the reins over to someone else who can.

----------


## Unoriginal

> There's _inherent_ risk in doing _anything_ in the TTRPG realm. This license moves it out of the "risk" category into the _absolutely a losing proposition_ category. *Nothing* we know about the license is better for the consumer or the 3rd parties than the existing one. It's all on the increased cost, increased risk side, with a side order of just extortionate.
> 
> You may not care that it drastically shrinks the 3rd party market and talent pool (which also affects the 1st party talent pool, because most of those people were 3rd party folks first). But it's absolutely anti-competitive and consumer-hostile in every single way. The only one who even theoretically stands to benefit is WotC. And forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for big businesses trying to milk every penny out of everyone by hook or crook.
> 
> Furthermore, if they wanted to control their IP, they shouldn't have promulgated an open license 20 years ago. That was their chance. No one forced them to. But by doing so, they willingly and knowingly gave up control. Trying to retroactively take it back after they've reaped the enormous benefits (in goodwill if nothing else, but goodwill is a cognizable financial benefit) is extremely scummy behavior. Very few would care if they said that going forward you have to agree to this new license to use their new IP. And then start putting out _new_ IP that doesn't fall under the old license. But retroactively re-licensing is a nasty smell, even if it proves to be legal[1]. And no amount of virtuous "well, we don't want to get blamed when someone does something bad" BS will cover it--the time to think about that was 20 years ago. They made a different choice then and now should live with the consequences. And if it hasn't happened in 20 years...is the risk really that large that they're willing to antagonize a large chunk of their ecosystem?
> 
> [1] whether that's by affirmative verdict or just exhausting the competition due to deeper pockets.



That they decided it 20 years ago or 1 month ago doesn't really matter to me. I don't think anyone would object to an OGL 1.1 that just said "if you write something we don't like you don't get the '5e approved' stamp on your cover" or other measure that would let them separate themselves from the people doing the thing they disapprove of.

The scummy part is that they've profited from the decision they've made enormously, and now that they think they're big enough everyone else will drown before them when the ship sink, they're torpedoing that ship.

----------


## Segev

> _I_ wouldn't. I generally expect people to want to change things after 20 years, even if their predecessors promised perpetuity.


So, then, you'd support somebody making Linux a for-profit, proprietary bit of software, and forcing everyone developing it to pay them for the privilege, and denying anybody the right or privilege to install it on new systems without a paid-for, "updated" license? Linux is 32 years old this year.

----------


## Atranen

> Sounds like there's considerable value in using their license then, even if doing so entails some risk.


I think you're evading the main complaint, which is that regardless of whether or not it's legal/WoTC has a right to do it, and regardless of whether or not it makes business sense for WoTC, it is going to negatively affect third party publishers in a way that is bad for the industry. 

Of course using their license entails risk; publishing without their license does at well. The issue is that publishing under their license now carries significantly more risk than it used to in a way that will hurt and discourage third party folks from participating. 

And that's a sad thing.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> That they decided it 20 years ago or 1 month ago doesn't really matter to me. I don't think anyone would object to an OGL 1.1 that just said "if you write something we don't like you don't get the '5e approved' stamp on your cover" or other measure that would let them separate themselves from the people doing the thing they disapprove of.
> 
> The scummy part is that they've profited from the decision they've made enormously, and now that they think they're big enough everyone else will drown before them when the ship sink, they're torpedoing that ship.


If they promulgated a new edition of the license that said "hey, you can submit your content (under these fair terms) and if we approve, we'll let you officially claim compatibility", ie _adding_ to the spectrum of possibilities, allowing "vetted" content to officially claim compatibility and thus establishing the "approved" category and pushing that (such as saying that only approved 3rd party stuff can be uploaded to the new VTT/D&D Beyond and encouraging people to "look for the approved seal"), I'd _applaud_ the new license.

The 20 years ago thing was just a reference to when the OGL 1.0 came out. But the longer it was in force with no fundamental changes, the more people have reasonable reliance on it _continuing_ to be in force.

I'd even be fine if they said "ok, if you want to publish a VTT system, apply using this form and we'll consider it on FRAND terms". But it's clear that they're trying to cut off all non-1st party VTTs to force people into their walled garden. Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds may get grandfathered in...but those licenses expire and will have to be renegotiated eventually. And I expect the terms to be onerous at best when they do (unless the 1st-party VTT has abjectly failed by that point).

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Under OGL v1.0a, I can do as I like with a (very) specific slice of WotC's intellectual property, so long as I follow some (very) basic guidelines. That was the agreement. They presented this agreement as indefinite and irrevocable. If they are now taking it back - _even if it is legal_ (big if) - then they are _liars and cheats_. It is _wrong to lie to people and try to cheat them_.


 In a nutshell, yes. 



> If HasbrOTC had its way, from HasbrOTC exclusively.


 Does one pronounce that as Haz-brat-zee (Almost like bratwurst for that syllable) or as Haz Broat See? 

Some of the folks at WoTC might care about the D&D community, such as it is, but the suits at Hasbro do not.  All they want to know is "What's in your wallet?"  (And by "what's" they mean "how much do you have?"). 
They see how M:tG handles whales, and they think that they are in New Bedford or Nantucket in the 19th century.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> And also shouldn't use anything that WotC can even _semi-plausibly_ claim to be WotC-related. Because you can't afford to get sued--the process _is_ the punishment. Which is a much broader set of assets. And thus a much bigger monopolistic barrier to entry.


That I think is the key. TSR seemed to come to the conclusion, that if a story was told by players who were protagonists and dice were rolled, it was an infringement on their property. One of my two setting ideas that I think would do well for families would work with DnD with some modifications, though in both cases D6 would work better, as a toolkit it's more flexible (and from a business perspective very little development so no competing settings). I have a hunch they will try to go after most other established games that didn't come from DnD and are open licensed on spurious grounds.

The question again is what I noted above, so many of 3e and 5es current mechanisms are borrowed or imitate many from other systems, despite DnD being first, it 1e and 2e mechanics have largely been abandoned and replaced by ideas from other systems. WIll that weaken their ability to claims based on similarities?

----------


## Unoriginal

> The 20 years ago thing was just a reference to when the OGL 1.0 came out. But the longer it was in force with no fundamental changes, the more people have reasonable reliance on it _continuing_ to be in force.


Very true.




> Does one pronounce that as Haz-brat-zee (Almost like bratwurst for that syllable) or as Haz Broat See?


I pronounce it Hasbro Tee See.

----------


## Psyren

> So, then, you'd support somebody making Linux a for-profit, proprietary bit of software, and forcing everyone developing it to pay them for the privilege, and denying anybody the right or privilege to install it on new systems without a paid-for, "updated" license? Linux is 32 years old this year.


I would expect (a) whatever licenses it operates under to be updated periodically for new technologies, uses, and monetization methods, and (b) anyone who uses Linux commercially and has over a certain amount in revenue to use a paid distribution. That's where distributions like RHEL come into play.




> I think you're evading the main complaint, which is that regardless of whether or not it's legal/WoTC has a right to do it, and regardless of whether or not it makes business sense for WoTC, it is going to negatively affect third party publishers in a way that is bad for the industry.


No, I get that - especially if they leave the current leaked terms unchanged or unaddressed. Where I think we disagree is that I think there's a happy medium that updates the license while still being a reasonable deal for both sides.




> Of course using their license entails risk; publishing without their license does at well. The issue is that publishing under their license now carries significantly more risk than it used to in a way that will hurt and discourage third party folks from participating.
> 
> And that's a sad thing.


To be clear, it might. We don't have the new version yet.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Where I think we disagree is that I think there's a happy medium that updates the license while still being a reasonable deal for both sides.


That happy medium may arise after a class action suit is filed.  It may end up in arbitration. 

A lot of this will be a bit more understandable once the actual OGL is released for public consumption.

----------


## Atranen

> No, I get that - especially if they leave the current leaked terms unchanged or unaddressed. Where I think we disagree is that I think there's a happy medium that updates the license while still being a reasonable deal for both sides.


I haven't been as active in this discussion so I might have missed something...

But I for one would have no problem with an updated license providing it's a reasonable deal. I think we're so far from that that condemnation of the leaked version rather than "let's hear them out, it's time for an update" seems the appropriate response. 




> To be clear, it might. We don't have the new version yet.


I'm assuming the leak is  accurate.

----------


## Psyren

Here's a TikTok I saw today  :Small Big Grin: 




> I haven't been as active in this discussion so I might have missed something...
> 
> But I for one would have no problem with an updated license providing it's a reasonable deal. I think we're so far from that that condemnation of the leaked version rather than "let's hear them out, it's time for an update" seems the appropriate response.
> 
> I'm assuming the leak is accurate.


I am condemning the leaked version. Just because it has a few aspects I agree with doesn't mean I don't think big changes are needed.




> A lot of this will be a bit more understandable once the actual OGL is released for public consumption.


Indeed, that's a big part of what I'm saying too.

----------


## Brookshw

> Now a question for Brookshw/Phoenix/lawyers.
> 
> A lot of non-WOTC publishers who are not using DND use the OGL 1.0a or 1.0 in their books. In some cases it was to make those systems open (OpenD6 included in this category). In others I think it is as lawsuit protection from WOTC filing suit over what is ultimately industry jargon (here a lawyer might note areas where WOTC has already borrowed from competitors, D6's skill system is older than WOTC's' and the Star Wars D20 version drew on elements of D6's prior version, which was not in their open license, such as the sense, control and alteration mechanisms for the Force).
> 
> How will the revocation of OGL 1.0a impact other open systems using the OGL for products that are not DnD or derived from WOTC's IP?
> 
> Here is something Anti-paladin games noted:
> 
> http://www.antipaladingames.com/2023...pend6.html?m=1


I think it depends a lot upon the system, glancing back at the OGL 1.0a, if they aren't using any of the Open Game Content, then it seems largely irrelevant as they could drop the license at any time (queue the debate we're already in) and just reissue their content under a different license if they wanted (the license only moves with the Open Game Content, not anything outside of it). Alternatively, if they decided to offer their content as a Contributor of Open Game Content then either (1) the OGL is revoked and they can do what they want with their content, or (2) the OGL stays in place and its business as usual. Fact specific analysis required basically.




> That happy medium may arise after a class action suit is filed.  It may end up in arbitration.


Arbitration has an unfortunate tendency to be big business friendly  :Small Yuk:

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Absolutely it will kill any third party industry making products for 6e.
> 
> Will normie players leave? Who knows. Long-term they might, because there won't be any good content for D&D 6e. DMs - who are much more plugged in than the average player - might lead their groups in exoduses, using different rules because these changes are _not_ popular, to say the least. They might not, though.
> 
> But for the third parties? Starcraft 2 had dog**** custom maps scene because of its **** terms, Warcraft 3 Reforged's change in terms killed WC3 custom maps - and nobody made any money on custom maps. More familiar in the TTRPG industry, 4e had virtually no third party offerings because the GSL offered ridiculously bad terms. Unlike the player base, who just have to worry about their conscience and their play experience, the _businesses_ and _creators_ have the problem that the new OGL will steal their work and make it impossible for them to profit. So obviously they won't agree to it. Duh.


In the 80s, DnD was popular, but then it was invtrouble. Some people blamed the moral panic, but that probably helped rather than hurt sales on college campuses and with high school students, the forbidden always has an appeal. Others think it was the multiplication of settings, with Grey Hawk the Realms and Dragon Lance . . . Maybe, but they tended to come in different eras, though they were kind of a lot alike, and Ravenloft, Darksun, Planescape, wtc. were attempts to create diverse types of adventures. 

I think three things happened, first fad players just got bored with it. Second, the infighting at TSR led to a drop in quality products. Third geeks found that competing RPGs were just better. Mechwarrior was just cool in the day. Chaosium and Rifts and other niche products, WEG did a number of games on 80 and 90s movie licenses (Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Species). My first DnD experience was rather negative, teenage boys acting out unhealthy dark fantasies, I may have lasted 20 minutes after character creation Star Wars was my big introduction, DnD wasn't even always a gateway setting by that point for the hobby. 

History doesn't repeat itself necessarily, but it tends to rhythm. Fad gamers aren't going to stick around forever. Critical Role is getting stale IMO. And I think 3rd party settings and derived products have a very good chance of stealing marketshare, something WOTC wants to prevent.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Does one pronounce that as Haz-brat-zee (Almost like bratwurst for that syllable) or as Haz Broat See?


Sounds like annew end game elder evil, with the legendary action of reality revision. One of the following occurs:

1. Haz Broat See retroactively causes a bunch of Kender to have walked off with all magic items last week, the party is now armed with forks, spoons, pitchforks, and colored glass. The wizard spell book was replaced with a pillow.
2. All bonuses are now penalties, and are subtracted from die roles. 
3. All healing spells and items now do damage, all damage rolls now heal. Except for Haz Broat See its magicnis perfectly fine.
4. Haz Broat See takes 25 percent of your gold and magical slots.
5. All D20 rolls happen on a D10.
6. All party members died at 23 years ago.

----------


## Segev

> I would expect (a) whatever licenses it operates under to be updated periodically for new technologies, uses, and monetization methods, and (b) anyone who uses Linux commercially and has over a certain amount in revenue to use a paid distribution. That's where distributions like RHEL come into play.


And if that's what this was, it wouldn't need the "deauthorization" clause that is the one thing that ultimately makes this questionably effective, nor would it need the "we get to claim unlimited license to use anything you make" clause, which is problematic because it makes the inaccurate assumption that anything in the OGL is WotC-originated and therefore justifiably theirs to use as if it were made for their use.

Without the deauthorization clause, the older licenses remain in effect. (Even with it, I would argue, they remain in effect, because you can choose, per those licenses, to use them, and at most you count as accepting the deauthorization if you go with v. 1.1, yourself. And I don't think even that holds much water.) This would permit the newer version to handle anything that doesn't get covered properly as technology and other things advance, while not infringing on the ongoing rights of developers to use the OGL as it was laid out for use for 20 years or more. 



> Where I think we disagree is that I think there's a happy medium that updates the license while still being a reasonable deal for both sides.


Sure, of course there is. The two main problems are the "deauthorization" clause and the "we get license to anything anybody else makes to use with the OGL items" clause. One is probably unenforceable and without legal force due to - if effective at all - breaking the very thing that made it okay for WotC to retain the power to unilaterally "update" an OGL that accepts contributions from others who aren't WotC, and the other is going to make it so that nobody uses the version that has it in it if they have any choice in the matter (and, with the deauthorization clause ineffective, they'll just keep using 1.0(a) when they make products using OGL elements).

I don't think anybody is arguing that WotC is wrong for the very notion of updating the OGL license with a new version, but those two elements they're allegedly (according to the leak) trying to put into it are the problem.

----------


## Psyren

> The two main problems are the "deauthorization" clause and the "we get license to anything anybody else makes to use with the OGL items" clause.
> ...
> I don't think anybody is arguing that WotC is wrong for the very notion of updating the OGL license with a new version, but those two elements they're allegedly (according to the leak) trying to put into it are the problem.


I only see one of those as a problem (the latter.) And of course, the "unilateral modification with 30 days notice" provision is bad too.

----------


## Segev

> I only see one of those as a problem (the latter.) And of course, the "unilateral modification with 30 days notice" provision is bad too.


I disagree, obviously, and the reason I do is because the former part - the "deauthorization" part - is an attempt to claim ownership of what others have contributed to the OGL, and dictate how it may be used in the future. 

It's akin to trying to unilaterally rewrite a club charter to give yourself ownership of everything contributed to the club on the grounds that you contributed the most stuff to it and authored the original charter, so you can deauthorize what every other club member agreed to and assert that, if they want to keep using the club's stuff, they have to let you act as if it's your personal property and ask you nicely for permission, which you can revoke at any time. 

WotC isn't the only source of contributions to the OGL. The only reason them keeping unilateral power to update the OGL with new versions is the clause that lets people choose from any version to use contributed material; this proofs it against exactly what WotC is apparently trying to do right now (assuming the leak is real). Without that, the ability to unilaterally change the rules after others have, in good faith, contributed to the OGL is unconscionable (in the legal sense).

Further, since the courts tend to view contracts according to the understandings of all parties at the time they were written, and we have a VP of WotC saying that, at the time he was there when the OGL v. 1.0(a) was written, it was never intended that there be a means to "deauthorize" previously-authorized versions, it seems likely that this will not hold up in court if there's even a modicum of competence on the part of those contesting it.

"So, you're saying that the defendant, WotC bin Hasbro, agreed to a perpetual license and to let anybody who wanted to use it choose any version of the license that has ever  been authorized, and is now trying to renege on that?" "Yes, your honor." "There are no unilateral take-backs, WotC bin Hasbro, once others have agreed to your terms and acted in good faith on them. Plaintiffs win: they may use v. 1.0(a) or any other version they like to access anything contributed under the OGL, in any version."

----------


## Arkhios

...yeah, I'm not buying this until I see the Official statement changed to conform with this accusation.

The only official news about OGL change I've seen is from late December. And that was far from being as harsh as this.

----------


## Psyren

> I disagree, obviously, and the reason I do is because the former part - the "deauthorization" part - is an attempt to claim ownership of what others have contributed to the OGL, and dictate how it may be used in the future.


Deauthorization on its own does not transfer ownership. It just means that the license can no longer be used to make anything new. 




> WotC isn't the only source of contributions to the OGL. The only reason them keeping unilateral power to update the OGL with new versions is the clause that lets people choose from any version to use contributed material; this proofs it against exactly what WotC is apparently trying to do right now (assuming the leak is real). Without that, the ability to unilaterally change the rules after others have, in good faith, contributed to the OGL is unconscionable (in the legal sense).


Most licenses let the IP owner do that, and prior creations are safe. My only real concern is the 30 day notice, I think that should be longer.




> Further, since the courts tend to view contracts according to the understandings of all parties at the time they were written, and we have a VP of WotC saying that, at the time he was there when the OGL v. 1.0(a) was written, it was never intended that there be a means to "deauthorize" previously-authorized versions, it seems likely that this will not hold up in court if there's even a modicum of competence on the part of those contesting it.


If the original fails to be upheld because its framers neglected to specify that 1.0a was "irrevocable" then I'd say that would be the competence you should be questioning/cursing.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Most licenses let the IP owner do that, and prior creations are safe. My only real concern is the 30 day notice, I think that should be longer.


I think his concern is mine--what does this do to other open systems, not drawn from DnD that are also open under the OGL1.0a. One of the uses of the OGL was terminology and other issues didn't become grounds for litigation on similarity.

I think the problem for WOTC in pushing into other properties here is a good chunk of 3.x and 5e is borrowed in a similar way from other systems, difficutly class in 3.x for exampe bears significant similarity to difficulty number in my old west end games Star Wars second edition expanded and enhanced edition (printed in the 90s) and checking the file copy of the 2.5 PHB from the disk TSR sold in the late 90s with the handbook, difficulty isn't used to describe any type of target, so unless they go back to THAC0 and other 3.0 mechanisms similarity isn't necessarily going to make their case easier. if someone looks at the industry in the long term, as I've said, DnD may be first, but a good bit of DnDs earlier system was abandoned for components found in other systems, and it would be a nightmare trying to prove who began a number of important mechanisms in gaming. I saw elements of Alternity and D20 in FASA and WEG products, but I wouldn't suggest they originated them. 

But even if WOTC gets through this, somehow, does this automatically cancel the ability to use the OGL 1.0a for non DnD non D20  products, that ate open and what does  do for companies using it to prevent frivolous litigation.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

So a thought I'm noting on licensing that developers who WOTC sues, harasses, etc.

As much of the DnD 3.x system abandoned the mechanics of earlier incarnations of DnD, and appears to have emulated or borrowed mechanics used in other systems, did you pay the owners of those systems for borrowing from their IP or seek their permission to use their IP? 

Did TSR or does WOTC pay royalties to companies or their successors which produces the wargame mechanics which DnD originally was produced from? 

Do those companies WOTC has borrowed game mechanics from get royalties from WOTC, or did you seek a license from them?

Why does your copyright not acknowledge the IPs you borrowed from? 

What items that you claim to be WOTC IP actually originated with WOTC employees and contractors while working for WOTC without borrowing it from another company?  

Were the terms difficulty class (DC) slightly modified from Westend Games terms "difficulty number," and if so were they paid for its usage? 

Did the use by West End Games of the "Will skill" used to oppose mind altering abilities, influence DnDs Will saving throw? 

Are you prepared to limit your IP claims in the OGL solely to mechanics which did not exist or had no counterpart before being published in a DnD  handbook or sourcebook?

----------


## Brookshw

> ...yeah, I'm not buying this until I see the Official statement changed to conform with this accusation.
> 
> The only official news about OGL change I've seen is from late December. And that was far from being as harsh as this.


That's an extremely reasonable position, what they've said so far is minimal, fearmongering is taking over the conversation.

Incidentally, on the license back leak. Having thought about it for a while I very much want to see what they end up saying, and can't say I'm surprised they're aligning language with what's already on DBB, usually you want consistent policies. Also, I'm starting to wonder if this might be driven by an issue which comes up in negotiations fairly frequently, specifically that the other party doesn't want to be blocked in their own independent creation processes, e.g., they come up with a flying rabbit people race who follow some acorn god, they don't want someone later coming out of the woodwork and claiming it's theirs. Speculative on my part, but I've certainly seen that concern put forth many times and wonder if it could be a driving concern in the supposed revision. I will look forward to seeing the final version.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Incidentally, on the license back leak. Having thought about it for a while I very much want to see what they end up saying, and can't say I'm surprised they're aligning language with what's already on DBB, usually you want consistent policies. Also, I'm starting to wonder if this might be driven by an issue which comes up in negotiations fairly frequently, specifically that the other party doesn't want to be blocked in their own independent creation processes, e.g., they come up with a flying rabbit people race who follow some acorn god, they don't want someone later coming out of the woodwork and claiming it's theirs. Speculative on my part, but I've certainly seen that concern put forth many times and wonder if it could be a driving concern in the supposed revision. I will look forward to seeing the final version.


Yeah, I think this has been brought up before. I might've mentioned it. I think someone had said that WotC has gotten into legal action about it before, but I haven't heard anything. If anyone has an example of someone taking legal action against WotC for something that appears similar to a 3PP, I'd like to hear about it. If this is WotC's concern, there is probably a better way to phrase that clause to make that intent clear, however.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Are you prepared to limit your IP claims in the OGL solely to mechanics which did not exist or had no counterpart before being published in a DnD  handbook or sourcebook?


Quasi-related, there are D&D video games out there. Does this mean anyone who makes a CRPG that has vaguely related mechanics is in trouble? I mean, WoW uses terms like "flame tongue" and "frost brand" for its weapons. The PC class/race setup is so similar to D&D that I sold a friend on playing it by describing it (back around 2005/6) as "the new form of D&D."

The RTS game that came before WoW has just as much overlap. Which is funny if what I understand is true and the RTS originated as a Warhammer game.

I don't know if WotC wants to open the can of worms that would be involved in trying to sue Blizzard.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Arbitration has an unfortunate tendency to be big business friendly


 Fair point. Maybe I should have posited an "out of court settlement" before it goes to trial?  (The civil version of a plea bargain...)

----------


## stoutstien

Now I'm waiting for the South Park crew to use the full power of parody protection laws to make a TTRPGs ripping into Hasbro.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Quasi-related, there are D&D video games out there. Does this mean anyone who makes a CRPG that has vaguely related mechanics is in trouble? I mean, WoW uses terms like "flame tongue" and "frost brand" for its weapons. The PC class/race setup is so similar to D&D that I sold a friend on playing it by describing it (back around 2005/6) as "the new form of D&D."
> 
> The RTS game that came before WoW has just as much overlap. Which is funny if what I understand is true and the RTS originated as a Warhammer game.
> 
> I don't know if WotC wants to open the can of worms that would be involved in trying to sue Blizzard.


Speaking of Blizzard, note that they do not own DOTA 2, nor any of the characters that are directly drawn from their own IP, Warcraft 3. I know there was a legal dispute over the name, but I seem to recall rumblings about a skeleton knight (or maybe the skeleton king?) or something. I don't remember the details, but that could be examined if you want further insight into how this might play out.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Speaking of Blizzard, note that they do not own DOTA 2, nor any of the characters that are directly drawn from their own IP, Warcraft 3. I know there was a legal dispute over the name, but I seem to recall rumblings about a skeleton knight (or maybe the skeleton king?) or something. I don't remember the details, but that could be examined if you want further insight into how this might play out.


Sounds like you're talking about the Lich King, a significant villain in the Warcraft mythology. I don't know about the DOTA thing (I'll look more into it), but clearly his name was meant to make you think of the Witch-king from LotR. Blizzard likes to pull that trick a lot.

----------


## Segev

> Deauthorization on its own does not transfer ownership. It just means that the license can no longer be used to make anything new.


 To clarify: there are things contributed to the OGL that WotC does not own and had no part in creating. Claiming the power to deauthorize the license under which they are released asserts the right to dictate that those items may no longer be used under that license, which is something not even the owners have since the license under which it was released grants no such power to the owners.




> Most licenses let the IP owner do that, and prior creations are safe. My only real concern is the 30 day notice, I think that should be longer.


"Pathfinder 1e products can no longer be made by anybody without getting permission from WotC and maybe paying them royalties" is a pretty far-reaching effect. And I have little doubt that any successful PF1 third party products would be in Hasbro's sights, given that the point of this is to reduce the amount of new material WotC has to produce to pull in revenue.

The problem is that the license that WotC created doesn't let the IP owner "do that." WotC is trying to unilaterally change the license precisely because it doesn't let them do what they want to, and is trying to chase it for other IP owners in solely WotC's benefit.

If, for example, TriStat dX had released an SRD under the OGL, WotC's proposed changes let WotC  but not the owner of the TriStat dX IP  charge royalties for using that SRD material. (I know some other Its have released under the OGL; I just don't recall which ones.)




> If the original fails to be upheld because its framers neglected to specify that 1.0a was "irrevocable" then I'd say that would be the competence you should be questioning/cursing.


The word "perpetual" is in there. If the lack of "irrevocable" is the failure point, then including it would not matter either, because they aren't "revoking" it: they're "deauthorizing" the version that allowed the use of the material contributed to the OGL. So that "irrevocable" word would also be "deauthorized" out of the license. 

If they had thought to say "and this cannot be deauthorized," then the terminology would instead be to "update 1.0(a)" with "errata" that removed that protection.

There is no way to word something that covers every way you could argue it can be unilaterally altered. The wording and the public statements from the people who ran things when the wording was implemented make it clear what the good faith intention of the license was, and that this is an attempt by people who want to keep ownership of an IP via running WotC but don't want to honor the agreements WotC made regarding that IP to undermine the agreement in solely their favor.

You, Psyren, have expressed sympathy for the notion that people profiting from WotC's SRD maybe should have the license changed to make them share that money with WotC, on the grounds that WotC made the basis for their profits. However, the people trying to change the deal in their own favor are not the people who made the product and IP in question. The ones who did are the ones who made the deal as it currently stands, and at least one of them who was in a position to know and decide it at the time has told us the intention was that the license not allow for exactly the kind of "take-backs" the current effort by different people is attempting.

If [generic] you want to benefit from the continuity of ownership of a property that taking over a corporation represents,  then you also have to accept that you are bound by the agreements that corporation has made. And you are expected to honor them in good faith.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> If [generic] you want to benefit from the continuity of ownership of a property that taking over a corporation represents,  then you also have to accept that you are bound by the agreements that corporation has made. And you are expected to honor them in good faith.


 While I empathize with this line of thinking, I suspect that a Hasbro suit would respond to that with "see you in court" or words to that effect.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Segev

> While I empathize with this line of thinking, I suspect that a Hasbro suit would respond to that with "see you in court" or words to that effect.


I am sure. They would also say that if Hasbro literally stole a game I was developing on my laptop by ransacking by house and stealing said piece of hardware, and published it as their own.

The fact that they have money and lawyers makes fighting them in court hard. It doesn't make it right if they win by virtue of forcing others into bankruptcy before a case is decided.

----------


## Dragonus45

So leaks continue to pour out and the Gizmodo article's version is looking more and more accurate by the minute. A part of me still didn't believe the execs at Hasbro were actually this stupid but it looks like they actually to want to rob everyone else in the d20 ecosystem blind of their money and IP and then chase them out for good but it looks like they actually are exactly this dumb.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I am sure. They would also say that if Hasbro literally stole a game I was developing on my laptop by ransacking by house and stealing said piece of hardware, and published it as their own.
> 
> The fact that they have money and lawyers makes fighting them in court hard. It doesn't make it right if they win by virtue of forcing others into bankruptcy before a case is decided.


Agree. Legal is not identical to right. And this is a scum move, legal or not.

----------


## Psyren

> To clarify: there are things contributed to the OGL that WotC does not own and had no part in creating. Claiming the power to deauthorize the license under which they are released asserts the right to dictate that those items may no longer be used under that license, which is something not even the owners have since the license under which it was released grants no such power to the owners.
> 
> "Pathfinder 1e products can no longer be made by anybody without getting permission from WotC and maybe paying them royalties" is a pretty far-reaching effect. And I have little doubt that any successful PF1 third party products would be in Hasbro's sights, given that the point of this is to reduce the amount of new material WotC has to produce to pull in revenue.
> 
> The problem is that the license that WotC created doesn't let the IP owner "do that." WotC is trying to unilaterally change the license precisely because it doesn't let them do what they want to, and is trying to chase it for other IP owners in solely WotC's benefit.
> 
> If, for example, TriStat dX had released an SRD under the OGL, WotC's proposed changes let WotC  but not the owner of the TriStat dX IP  charge royalties for using that SRD material. (I know some other Its have released under the OGL; I just don't recall which ones.)


I disagree that deauthorizing would mean you can't use existing things, and I even disagree that you wouldn't be able to keep distributing/selling things that already exist. But we won't know for sure (especially for the second one) until there's case law around it.

I do agree with your assessment that people wouldn't be able to distribute brand new supplements for PF1e under 1.0a. But frankly, I see this as no big loss, PF1 has been around for a decade and a half at this point. If you're that hard up for new material for such an old game, just convert or homebrew it by yourself for your own players with no plans of distributing it..




> The word "perpetual" is in there. If the lack of "irrevocable" is the failure point, then including it would not matter either, because they aren't "revoking" it: they're "deauthorizing" the version that allowed the use of the material contributed to the OGL. So that "irrevocable" word would also be "deauthorized" out of the license.


Yes, I understand the interpretation you're hoping for. We'll see. 




> You, Psyren, have expressed sympathy for the notion that people profiting from WotC's SRD maybe should have the license changed to make them share that money with WotC, on the grounds that WotC made the basis for their profits. However, the people trying to change the deal in their own favor are not the people who made the product and IP in question.


Irrelevant, they own it. And they only do because the original owners sold it, and all the rights that came with it. 




> If [generic] you want to benefit from the continuity of ownership of a property that taking over a corporation represents,  then you also have to accept that you are bound by the agreements that corporation has made. And you are expected to honor them in good faith.


Whether they _have_ to accept that is the case at hand, one which forum posts from unrelated parties won't have any bearing on.

----------


## Segev

> I do agree with your assessment that people wouldn't be able to distribute brand new supplements for PF1e under 1.0a. But frankly, I see this as no big loss, PF1 has been around for a decade and a half at this point. If you're that hard up for new material for such an old game, just convert or homebrew it by yourself for your own players with no plans of distributing it..


I am more speaking of those who hope to make and sell such things. Maybe nobody does, in which case this is a non-issue. But the agreement WotC made with the OGL was that, if, 100 years from now, somebody wanted to make new 3.5 products and sell them under the OGL, they could, without having to pay WotC royalties.




> Irrelevant, they own it. And they only do because the original owners sold it, and all the rights that came with it.


And no rights that didn't come with it. If the owners of a time-share sell their time-share to a new person, that new person doesn't get to move in and live in the property full-time, nor start charging the other time-share owners rent for the time they spend there.

The "new owners" in this case own the rights to the IP...and also are beholden to the license agreements made regarding that IP. 

What this is trying to do is take more than what they "bought." (Or inherited, or however you characterize the change in management of a corporation and the transition of the corporate assets from one person's control to another's.) In short: they own the IP. They don't get to change what the IP is licensed to do any more than the original owners did. And the original owners outright state that the license they released doesn't permit this, wasn't designed to permit this, and should not be able to be altered in this way.

Whether Hasbro can bully its way around that is relevant to reality, of course, but then we're not discussing whether it's right or wrong or even legal; we're only discussing whether superman could be brought ot justice if he started murdering everybody he didn't like and taking things without paying for them because "who's gonna stop me?"

But from a laws and ownership standpoint, the OGL license is what it is. WotC bin Hasbro is trying to take something that doesn't belong to it. They could just as easily write that they license Paladium to Kevin Seimbida, and that he owes them 25% royalties on all Paladium products he sells, and then rely on their ability to bankrupt him before a court case can be won to put him out of business, if they wanted to. It would be just as legal, and just as right.

----------


## Brookshw

> So leaks continue to pour out and the Gizmodo article's version is looking more and more accurate by the minute. A part of me still didn't believe the execs at Hasbro were actually this stupid but it looks like they actually to want to rob everyone else in the d20 ecosystem blind of their money and IP and then chase them out for good but it looks like they actually are exactly this dumb.


Is there something new you can link to?

@Segev, it sound a lot like you're tilting at windmills, let's wait and see what they and the license actually say. Or not

----------


## Psyren

> I am more speaking of those who hope to make and sell such things. Maybe nobody does, in which case this is a non-issue. But the agreement WotC made with the OGL was that, if, 100 years from now, somebody wanted to make new 3.5 products and sell them under the OGL, they could, without having to pay WotC royalties.


For as long as that OGL exists, yes. That's what I expect them to argue anyway.




> And no rights that didn't come with it. If the owners of a time-share sell their time-share to a new person, that new person doesn't get to move in and live in the property full-time, nor start charging the other time-share owners rent for the time they spend there.


Whether those living there believed it to be a timeshare, and even whether the original titleholders positioned it as one, may not ultimately mean it truly is one.




> Whether Hasbro can bully its way around that is relevant to reality, of course, but then we're not discussing whether it's right or wrong or even legal; we're only discussing whether superman could be brought ot justice if he started murdering everybody he didn't like and taking things without paying for them because "who's gonna stop me?"


Equating what WotC is doing to murder is extreme, I would even say melodramatic. Again, you don't need their license to enter the market.




> But from a laws and ownership standpoint, the OGL license is what it is. WotC bin Hasbro is trying to take something that doesn't belong to it. They could just as easily write that they license Paladium to Kevin Seimbida, and that he owes them 25% royalties on all Paladium products he sells, and then rely on their ability to bankrupt him before a court case can be won to put him out of business, if they wanted to. It would be just as legal, and just as right.


That would likely depend on whether he is trying to sell existing Palladium products or make new ones.

----------


## Segev

> For as long as that OGL exists, yes. That's what I expect them to argue anyway.


The word "perpetual" probably has some weight, here.




> Whether those living there believed it to be a timeshare, and even whether the original titleholders positioned it as one, may not ultimately mean it truly is one.


So if I buy into a time share, and I hire lawyers to bankrupt the other time share owners, it ultimately never truly was a time share, but was my property all along?  :Small Confused: 




> Equating what WotC is doing to murder is extreme, I would even say melodramatic. Again, you don't need their license to enter the market.


 :Small Sigh:  You're dodging the point, here. I'm not equating what they're doing to murder. I'm pointing out that you're saying, "who's going to stop them?" is equivalent to "it's legal and maybe even ethical, since nobody will." At least, that's what your arguments seem to be amounting to. Please point out the distinction without dismissively declaring me "melodramatic" for reading this into your position, if that is not what you're saying.




> That would likely depend on whether he is trying to sell existing Palladium products or make new ones.


You are aware that Palladium doesn't use the existing OGL at all, right? I chose it for a reason for this example. WotC, by the logic you're using, could just write a license claiming that Palladium is their IP and that they are licensing it to Kevin, and that all future sales and products of Palladium must pay WotC 25% royalties on the gross revenue. And then sue him into bankruptcy if he doesn't agree to it, regardless of whether they have legal right to write that license.

Do you believe they CAN do this? Do you believe they SHOULD BE able to do this? Would you argue that, unless Kevin's company wins the suit and survives to continue doing business, WotC has the legal authority and right to do this?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

A new wrinkle from the EN thread, someone, not clear their sources or credentials, noted that perpetually meant irrevocable in this type of contract in 2000, and a couple of the lawyers seemed to discuss the impact in a way suggesting it is true. 

I asked over there on issues related to WOTC's use of mechanics they borrowed from someone else's work, etc. They went the mechanics or their potential use of what other companies put into the OGC that WOTC might have used in 5e (not asserting they did, just the possibility given the ubiquity of borrowing in the industry).

So my conclusion as well, using OGC from non-D20 published under 1.0a appear to still be safe harbors as one is a sublicensee of a party which, even if the OGL is deauthorized, WOTC has no standing to go after anything you would be using, since it isn't their IP.

----------


## Psyren

> The word "perpetual" probably has some weight, here.


Based on what I've read so far (and WotC's own press release) I'd conclude "probably not as much as you think." But time will tell.




> So if I buy into a time share, and I hire lawyers to bankrupt the other time share owners, it ultimately never truly was a time share, but was my property all along?


My point is that I disagree with your premise here - "timeshare" is a construct that needs to meet specific requirements in order to count as one. Merely calling a piece of property a timeshare (or believing it to be one) does not make it so, if those requirements are not met. Similarly, calling something a "trust fund" or "S Corporation" or "Roth IRA" etc, does not matter if the steps needed to make it those things were not followed properly, even if somebody else told you they were. 




> You're dodging the point, here. I'm not equating what they're doing to murder. I'm pointing out that you're saying, "who's going to stop them?" is equivalent to "it's legal and maybe even ethical, since nobody will." At least, that's what your arguments seem to be amounting to. Please point out the distinction without dismissively declaring me "melodramatic" for reading this into your position, if that is not what you're saying.


1) I was talking about the analogy you chose, not you personally.
2) I'm not saying "who's going to stop them?" I'm saying "you are making a big assumption that may not end up being supported by the facts" (just like your earlier "timeshare" analogy.) In other words, here again I'm not evading your point, I'm disagreeing with the premise you're using to _support_ said point. I can't very well accept a premise I see as bad.




> You are aware that Palladium doesn't use the existing OGL at all, right? I chose it for a reason for this example. WotC, by the logic you're using, could just write a license claiming that Palladium is their IP and that they are licensing it to Kevin, and that all future sales and products of Palladium must pay WotC 25% royalties on the gross revenue. And then sue him into bankruptcy if he doesn't agree to it, regardless of whether they have legal right to write that license.
> 
> Do you believe they CAN do this? Do you believe they SHOULD BE able to do this? Would you argue that, unless Kevin's company wins the suit and survives to continue doing business, WotC has the legal authority and right to do this?


This is _another_ case where I disagree with your premise, and where I'll likely be accused of evasion for pointing that out, but I'm going to go ahead anyway. 

No, I don't know anything about Palladium, but if it doesn't use the OGL as you say then I agree WotC has no right to declare ownership of its unrelated IP or ask for a royalty for is use. (If however it is somehow using WotC IP _without_ using the OGL or some other license to do so, that amounts to theft, and they can go after them on those grounds.)

----------


## Segev

> Based on what I've read so far (and WotC's own press release) I'd conclude "probably not as much as you think." But time will tell.


I'd be pretty shocked if WotC said, "we know we SAID it was 'perpetual,' but we don't like that so we're changing it," rather than trying to weasel word their way around it not really MEANING "perpetual" and thus totally being fine to ignore.

In other words, yes, I fully expect WotC's justifications to avoid out and out saying, "We know we led people to believe one thing, and are now pulling the rug out from under them, but it's totally find because we always meant to trick them this way." Instead, they'll try to frame it as, "Oh, how could ANYBODY have EVER thought that's what those words meant? Clearly, they always and totally meant this other thing that lets us do what we want to. Which is why we're changing them; it's just CLARIFYING that we TOTALLY could always do this." Without the level of snark I put into it; they'll try to make it sound believable. I could try, but don't really want to.

Their argument so far seems to hinge on the notion that they have the power to make the OGL say anything they want it to, and claim ownership of anything related to OGL material. The current 1.1 leak all but says this, explicitly, when you include the elements that both Psyren and I agree are problems.

Their tactic, however, is likely to be less, "We need an ironclad legal argument," and more, "We need to be able to pretend we buy what we're saying long enough to create plausible deniability while we use our legal team to bankrupt anybody who tries to call us out for our shenanigans."

And I do acknowledge that, pragmatically, they may be objectively correct that using that tactic will work. I don't know that they are, but it's not so obviously a failing strategy that I would, from a cold game theory standpoint, say they're making the objectively wrong move. At least not in terms of "makign the license say what we want."

I have other game theory objections to the terms they want to inject into the license; I think they're making a huge mistake about how taking a larger slice of the pie will leave the pie the same size and thus get them more money, rather than cause the pie to be consumed and no new pies made since nobody wants to work with them. i.e., they're making a lot of the financial mistakes that went into making 4e less of a money-maker than they hoped it would be. Less market dominant.




> My point is that I disagree with your premise here - "timeshare" is a construct that needs to meet specific requirements in order to count as one. Merely calling a piece of property a timeshare (or believing it to be one) does not make it so, if those requirements are not met. Similarly, calling something a "trust fund" or "S Corporation" or "Roth IRA" etc, does not matter if the steps needed to make it those things were not followed properly, even if somebody else told you they were.


The OGL says what it says. A timeshare is what it is. An agreement that builds up a timeshare cannot be unilaterally altered by one timeshare owner into him owning the property and allowing the others to rent it from him, even if he bought it from the guy who wrote up the original timeshare agreement.

WotC wrote up the OGL to describe a perpetual license to anybody who abides by the OGL's rules. New management is now attempting to alter the OGL's rules so that nobody can use the perpetual license anymore. 

I should note that "perpetual license" does not mean, "You can make products under this license until we rescind, revoke, or de-authorize it." That's true of any license, most of which are not "perpetual." A "perpetual" license is only a meaningful term if it is irrevocable. 

But, of course, I can point out all the reasons why what WotC's v. 1.1 is trying to do doesn't legally work, shouldn't legally work, etc., but in the end, superman can ignore the hot dog vendor he just took the hot dogs from without paying if he wants to. What's the hot dog vendor going to do about it?




> 1) I was talking about the analogy you chose, not you personally.
> 2) I'm not saying "who's going to stop them?" I'm saying "you are making a big assumption that may not end up being supported by the facts" (just like your earlier "timeshare" analogy.) In other words, here again I'm not evading your point, I'm disagreeing with the premise you're using to _support_ said point. I can't very well accept a premise I see as bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is _another_ case where I disagree with your premise, and where I'll likely be accused of evasion for pointing that out, but I'm going to go ahead anyway. 
> 
> No, I don't know anything about Palladium, but if it doesn't use the OGL as you say then I agree WotC has no right to declare ownership of its unrelated IP or ask for a royalty for is use. (If however it is somehow using WotC IP _without_ using the OGL or some other license to do so, that amounts to theft, and they can go after them on those grounds.)


I am not sure what premise you're operating from, then.

Is the OGL and everything contributed to it WotC's exclusive property? Do the terms of the license matter, or can WotC unilaterally change them whenever and however they want, regardless of what the license says?

----------


## OldTrees1

> Is there something new you can link to?
> 
> @Segev, it sound a lot like you're tilting at windmills, let's wait and see what they and the license actually say. Or not


The leaks keep coming and I don't know what you have / have not seen on your own. Here is a live reading of the OGL 1.1
Stream https://youtu.be/Sj5dsiDXeUw
Document http://ogl.battlezoo.com/
PS: I don't know how to timestamp while a stream is live. However it should be clear when the document is on screen vs not
PS2: While the video claims it is verified, this is a game of telephone so I can't verify the source. Part of the general evidence for credibility is the consistency between each of these leaks.


Also everyone is waiting to see, but waiting silently will likely negatively correlate with how credible you find the leaks. It would be irrational for Segev to wait silently. So efforts to calm down *and quiet* Segev are likely moot. Of course I could be wrong, you are more verbose and I am quieter than my negative correlation estimate would predict.

----------


## Segev

> The leaks keep coming and I don't know what you have / have not seen on your own. Here is a live reading of the OGL 1.1
> https://youtu.be/Sj5dsiDXeUw
> PS: I don't know how to timestamp while a stream is live. However it should be clear when the document is on screen vs not
> PS2: While the video claims it is verified, this is a game of telephone so I can't verify the source. Part of the general evidence for credibility is the consistency between each of these leaks.
> 
> 
> Also everyone is waiting to see, but waiting silently will likely negatively correlate with how credible you find the leaks. It would be irrational for Segev to wait silently. So efforts to calm down *and quiet* Segev are likely moot. Of course I could be wrong, you are more verbose and I am quieter than my negative correlation estimate would predict3.


Honestly, I am only about 50/50 on whether the leaked versions have the problematic clauses in the final draft that is officially released. I am treating these as theoretically credible for the sake of discussion, because as a mental exercise, analyzing whether this even works is an optimization puzzle.

I don't think it works if we operate from a four-corners doctrine nor from a purely legal standards standpoint. Four-corners, you can just refuse to use v. 1.1, and v. 1.0(a) remains authorized, etc. etc. Legal standards, the fact that we have a major figure in the establishment of the OGL telling us what the intent was, and seeing that that intent aligns with both at least one straightforward reading of the OGL text AND with how everybody has been acting like they understand it to operate for 20 years, it would be expected that the courts would agree that the interpretation does not favor the attempted alterations v. 1.1 is trying to impose in any way that makes that an enforceable version. 

It is only when we step out of the white room and into a greyer, browner room full of money and men in suits who will try to abuse the legal SYSTEM (not the laws ,but rather the manner in which they are adjudicated) to bully, bankrupt, and silence opposition rather than win the case on the merits that we start to see a likelihood that, should WotC go forward with the leaked language or anything similar, they may yet prevail.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I'd be pretty shocked if WotC said, "we know we SAID it was 'perpetual,' but we don't like that so we're changing it," rather than trying to weasel word their way around it not really MEANING "perpetual" and thus totally being fine to ignore.


I agree. A lot of this is going to depend on the particular arguments made in court, if it gets that far. Contrary to what many seem to think, the law is not a simple logical proceeding. If it was, we wouldn't need to make cases. Instead, if it goes to a case, the debates will largely be about what these words mean and meant in context of the time, and what they mean now, and what the intent of changing them is.

Movie versions of court cases are often, well, fiction.

----------


## Segev

> I agree. A lot of this is going to depend on the particular arguments made in court, if it gets that far. Contrary to what many seem to think, the law is not a simple logical proceeding. If it was, we wouldn't need to make cases. Instead, if it goes to a case, the debates will largely be about *what these words mean and meant in context of the time*, and what they mean now, and what the intent of changing them is.
> 
> Movie versions of court cases are often, well, fiction.


Emphasis added. The statements by the former VP will weigh heavily here, I think, should it get that far. I would expect a competent lawyer for a plaintiff v. WotC bin Hasbro to know of these statements and call him as a witness to testify as to exactly what those words meant to the drafters and then-owners of the license/IP/etc.

----------


## verbatim

some thoughts on possibilities for why they would have written a contract they can't successfully defend in court.

1. A singular person wrote it and then WOTC/Hasbro/etc's legal department as a company organ buried it deep underground because it would get obliterated in court.  Someone else found it and sent it to Gizmodo either unaware of or maliciously obfuscating the context.

2. This is a bait and switch.  They knew that there was gonna be a **** storm and believe that weathering it will be profitable long term.  The only reason they have a clause they cannot defend in court is so that the community can feel like they bullied WOTC into bending to the will of the fans when 1.1b takes out the clause they couldn't defend and keeps most of the language about the new OGL applying to 5.5e.

3. This is a Sword of Damocles situation.  The biggest content creator groups have individualized contracts with WOTC that supersede the OGL from 5e.  I'm sure they are negotiating different ones for 5.5e as well, ones that Hasbro could actually fight in court if breached.  They are betting that the specter of court will intimidate smaller content creators into compliance and will pretend not to notice anyone that calls their bluff.

Anecdotally, there is currently a similar situation to 3 playing out right now where the rights to the  poem that plays when you beat the Ender Dragon in Minecraft remained with the creator even after the Microsoft acquisition.  They 100% do not have a case or else they would have brought Microsoft levels of legal muscle in litigation against literally a single individual of moderate income, so instead they gaslight media outlets into not covering the situation.

----------


## Dragonus45

> Is there something new you can link to?
> 
> @Segev, it sound a lot like you're tilting at windmills, let's wait and see what they and the license actually say. Or not



There are a lot of people claiming to have access to the document of with I think varying degrees of legitimacy but this  just popped up in a bunch of different places and is what I am seeing a lot of people now say is an accurate copy. I make no claims to the validity of it but it looks to line up with what a lot of other people are saying.

----------


## Psyren

> I'd be pretty shocked if WotC said, "we know we SAID it was 'perpetual,' but we don't like that so we're changing it," rather than trying to weasel word their way around it not really MEANING "perpetual" and thus totally being fine to ignore.


A key question here is whether "perpetual" and "irrevocable" will be seen as the same thing. Articles I've found so far suggest they aren't, but this is where a legal case will need to come into play - that's all I'm saying.

As an analogy - it's like figuring out whether someone being "immortal" means they simply won't die of natural causes (their life is perpetual), or whether it means they can't be killed by an external event at all (their life is irrevocable). If the OGL is the former, it can indeed last forever until killed, and still meet that definition.




> Their tactic, however, is likely to be less, "We need an ironclad legal argument," and more, "We need to be able to pretend we buy what we're saying long enough to create plausible deniability while we use our legal team to bankrupt anybody who tries to call us out for our shenanigans."
> 
> And I do acknowledge that, pragmatically, they may be objectively correct that using that tactic will work. I don't know that they are, but it's not so obviously a failing strategy that I would, from a cold game theory standpoint, say they're making the objectively wrong move. At least not in terms of "makign the license say what we want."


I'm doubtful their entire plan is to rely on something they know will fail and just bankrupt anyone who tries to oppose them. This community is known for being passionate users of crowdfunding tools, especially given the publicity this is getting, which will allow a tenacious plaintiff to stay in the game essentially as long as Hasbro can - and said tools were barely extant when the GSL was being worked on. So I genuinely believe that _they_ believe this tactic could work. (Hell, even some of the crowdfunding tools themselves may get in on the action, like Rockethub or Indiegogo, since their main competitor KS appears to have admitted on Twitter to getting favorable terms from WotC.)




> The OGL says what it says.


Sure, but the problem is what it _doesn't_ say - including, among other things, "irrevocable."




> But, of course, I can point out all the reasons why what WotC's v. 1.1 is trying to do doesn't legally work, shouldn't legally work, etc., but in the end, superman can ignore the hot dog vendor he just took the hot dogs from without paying if he wants to. What's the hot dog vendor going to do about it?


I'd view it more as Bruce Wayne (or Superman if you prefer) having supplied the hot dog vendor for 20 years, now saying he's no longer going to do that. A bit sudden, yes, but not as morally repugnant from my perspective.




> I am not sure what premise you're operating from, then.
> 
> Is the OGL and everything contributed to it WotC's exclusive property? Do the terms of the license matter, or can WotC unilaterally change them whenever and however they want, regardless of what the license says?


For the first, certainly not. I don't mind them getting a license of _some_ kind to work contributed to/through the OGL, but not the one we saw in the leak. (And yes, I know the proposed license language is very similar to what DnDBeyond's TOS contains, but I view publishing your work on a _specific platform_ and thus giving up the rights to it, to be very different than _any publication anywhere_ meaning giving up your rights to it.) 

For the second, of course the terms matter, that's the heart of this entire discussion. As for changing those terms, as I mentioned previously I think the leaked provisions for doing so are weighted too heavily in WotC's favor.




> Document http://ogl.battlezoo.com/


Thanks for the link! One thing I find very interesting is the reference to two potential versions: "OGL:Commercial" and "OGL:Noncommercial." Assuming this is true, presumably the latter would apply to sites like this one that aren't in the business of selling supplements, but instead focused on largely free homebrew/3PP.

----------


## verbatim

```
 Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a),
which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason
whatsoever, provided We give thirty days notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on
Our website and by making public announcements of the changes through Our social media channels.
```

This is the smoking gun Gizmodo was mentioning.  Admittedly it is unclear if they mean that 1.0a can't be used for new 5.5e content or also 3.5 content.  Either way taken as a whole it is VERY BAD relative the previous OGL.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Thanks for the link! One thing I find very interesting is the reference to two potential versions: "OGL:Commercial" and "OGL:Noncommercial." Assuming this is true, presumably the latter would apply to sites like this one that aren't in the business of selling supplements, but instead focused on largely free homebrew/3PP.


Both licenses contain all the objectionable clauses, both the deauthorization and the "we own your stuff and you can't sue us" clauses as well as the format clauses. Note that _participating in a suit against them means you instantly lose your license and agree to pay all their legal costs_ under this license. That's *bad*.

So no, splitting this doesn't help anyone at all other than the noncommercial doesn't have to pay royalties.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Thanks for the link! One thing I find very interesting is the reference to two potential versions: "OGL:Commercial" and "OGL:Noncommercial." Assuming this is true, presumably the latter would apply to sites like this one that aren't in the business of selling supplements, but instead focused on largely free homebrew/3PP.


Reading it, it sounds like we were on the money on some of these clauses. XII B is still strongly worded (the license to use products to avoid being sued over selling something similar) and I disagree with the percentages of the royalties still. However, the context is noted to align with what we speculated. A lot of this is avoiding liability and association. 

Also " Were more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision." specifically refers to the morality clause and other terminations (VIII H). 

(Assuming all true, of course).

----------


## Psyren

> Both licenses contain all the objectionable clauses, both the deauthorization and the "we own your stuff and you can't sue us" clauses as well as the format clauses. Note that _participating in a suit against them means you instantly lose your license and agree to pay all their legal costs_ under this license. That's *bad*.
> 
> So no, splitting this doesn't help anyone at all other than the noncommercial doesn't have to pay royalties.


Under the current leaked language I agree those things are bad, but I was speaking more generally that having two different versions of the OGL with different purposes could be a good thing. One of the earlier concerns upthread was how sites like this one that are (from an OGL perspective) largely repositories of homebrew and places to ask rules questions might be affected - noncommercial activities in other words.

----------


## Dragonus45

> Also " Were more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision." specifically refers to the morality clause termination (VIII H).


What a joke, it's like youtube. There are no clear standards and no clear mechanisms to get a decision changed outside of hoping that after they screwed up once they won't just keep being wrong. "Trust us" they say, with a truncheon in one hand and literally no incentive other then an even bigger stick in the other.




> Under the current leaked language I agree those things are bad, but I was speaking more generally that having two different versions of the OGL with different purposes could be a good thing. One of the earlier concerns upthread was how sites like this one that are (from an OGL perspective) largely repositories of homebrew and places to ask rules questions might be affected - noncommercial activities in other words.


Until they change the rules with 30 days notice to say that sites who partake in ad revenue now count. Or make some claim about how having ever made money using fan content now qualifies everything owned under the same business so patreons who sometimes kickstart physical book copies now count. Or just start going after the patreons whole sale. Because of course they are trustworthy, why would anyone say otherwise after the great and careful way they have handled this round of thefts and robberies.

----------


## Segev

> A key question here is whether "perpetual" and "irrevocable" will be seen as the same thing. Articles I've found so far suggest they aren't, but this is where a legal case will need to come into play - that's all I'm saying.
> 
> As an analogy - it's like figuring out whether someone being "immortal" means they simply won't die of natural causes (their life is perpetual), or whether it means they can't be killed by an external event at all (their life is irrevocable). If the OGL is the former, it can indeed last forever until killed, and still meet that definition.


If the author of a story were asked whether his immortal main character simply wouldn't die of natural causes, or was actually unkillable, and the author said, "actually unkillable," would you assume that that means it's still ambiguous? Or would you assume that the author knows what his intent was? 

Now, with fiction, you can feel free - especially in fanfic - to change canon and canon intents all you like. In law...less so.

Back to this point: If I tell you I will let you live in this house forever if you promise to keep it clean and tidy and in good repair, and I agree that, yes, I meant that the contract that said you could live there "forever" meant, as far as both of us were concerned, that I couldn't revoke that right unless you failed to live up to your end of the bargain, would you expect a court to agree that you should be kicked out when I later hemmed and hawed about how "forever" really just meant "until I changed my mind?"




> I'm doubtful their entire plan is to rely on something they know will fail and just bankrupt anyone who tries to oppose them. This community is known for being passionate users of crowdfunding tools, especially given the publicity this is getting, which will allow a tenacious plaintiff to stay in the game essentially as long as Hasbro can - and said tools were barely extant when the GSL was being worked on. So I genuinely believe that _they_ believe this tactic could work. (Hell, even some of the crowdfunding tools themselves may get in on the action, like Rockethub or Indiegogo, since their main competitor KS appears to have admitted on Twitter to getting favorable terms from WotC.)


They don't know that it will fail; they know it SHOULD on the merits, but they probably expect to beat anybody who tries to challenge them by using their superior pocket books. No, I think they laugh at the notion of crowd-funded law suits against them. The biggest crowdfunded third party game products have not come close to what Hasbro spends on its legal department, I'm sure. It might cover the salary of ONE of their second-tier lawyers, individually, for one year. Maybe.




> Sure, but the problem is what it _doesn't_ say - including, among other things, "irrevocable."


And if it did, you'd find yourself arguing that that only means "as long as this license is authorized," or something similar, because no matter what the wording is, WotC would be trying to change and remove the wording that's in their way.




> I'd view it more as Bruce Wayne (or Superman if you prefer) having supplied the hot dog vendor for 20 years, now saying he's no longer going to do that. A bit sudden, yes, but not as morally repugnant from my perspective.


More that Bruce Wayne donated a park to the city, with the caveat that one section of it be reserved for hot dog stands. And now Bruce Wayne is trying to demand that the hot dog stands have to pay him royalties to be in the city park.




> For the first, certainly not. I don't mind them getting a license of _some_ kind to work contributed to/through the OGL, but not the one we saw in the leak. (And yes, I know the proposed license language is very similar to what DnDBeyond's TOS contains, but I view publishing your work on a _specific platform_ and thus giving up the rights to it, to be very different than _any publication anywhere_ meaning giving up your rights to it.)


They can make license for their contributions all they want, but they can't change the OGL to take back what they've contributed to it, nor can they alter the OGL to "deauthorize" earlier versions because theirs isn't the only property that has been contributed.




> For the second, of course the terms matter, that's the heart of this entire discussion. As for changing those terms, as I mentioned previously I think the leaked provisions for doing so are weighted too heavily in WotC's favor.


And, per some other discussion I've seen, since WotC wrote the original license unilaterally, vagueries and ambiguities are explicitly, per legal standards, considered in the way least favorable to them. They could've written it however they liked, so when somebody buys into what they DID write, on the terms WotC set, WotC doesn't get to (per legal standards) redefine what they wrote ambiguously in their favor and to the detriment of those buying in.

I do think they're stuck, if it ever goes to court and they can't force the plaintiffs (or defendants, if WotC is suing) to go bankrupt on the legal fees.



I think WotC bin Hasbro, if they do include the "deauthorize" clause, are banking on their legal team and budget being able to crush anybody who would challenge them in court, financially, before a court ever renders a verdict. They need the fig leaves they're holding up as plausible deniability. "We totally believe this is legal, and in our rights, honest." Without that, they wouldn't be able to drag on the case long enough to bankrupt some of their potential opponents in court. But they don't need to actually believe it behind closed doors as long as they can keep their dishonesty officially hidden.

Their biggest obstacle is that VP who apparently is willing to publicly state that, no, the understanding of WotC at the time of the OGL 1.0(a) release was that it could not be "taken back."

----------


## Snowbluff

> What a joke, it's like youtube. There are no clear standards and no clear mechanisms to get a decision changed outside of hoping that after they screwed up once they won't just keep being wrong. "Trust us" they say, with a truncheon in one hand and literally no incentive other then an even bigger stick in the other.


I don't disagree. I just get the impression it was quoted slightly out of context by the Gizmodo article, which doesn't say this is a comment to the termination section. However, I also don't think it would behoove them to negotiate with certain groups, given the legal action that have had to take in recent years.

----------


## Dragonus45

Wow once you get into the details this is spiraling into maximum over toxicity levels of straight up evil. 




> Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of
> money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II:
> Electric Boogaloo. He includes miniature replica blades as a stretch goal and has a backer-tier that grants access to all
> stretch goals. The replica blades are not Licensed Works (because they arent text-printed or printable) but all revenue
> from that backer-tier still counts as Qualifying Revenue





> I don't disagree. I just get the impression it was quoted slightly out of context by the Gizmodo article, which doesn't say this is a comment to the termination section. However, I also don't think it would behoove them to negotiate with certain groups, given the legal action that have had to take in recent years.


You would think, but this entire debacle makes it hard for me to give them any credit towards reasonability until this entire batch of executives has moved in one way or another.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Under the current leaked language I agree those things are bad, but I was speaking more generally that having two different versions of the OGL with different purposes could be a good thing. One of the earlier concerns upthread was how sites like this one that are (from an OGL perspective) largely repositories of homebrew and places to ask rules questions might be affected - noncommercial activities in other words.





> What a joke, it's like youtube. There are no clear standards and no clear mechanisms to get a decision changed outside of hoping that after they screwed up once they won't just keep being wrong. "Trust us" they say, with a truncheon in one hand and literally no incentive other then an even bigger stick in the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Until they change the rules with 30 days notice to say that sites who partake in ad revenue now count. Or make some claim about how having ever made money using fan content now qualifies everything owned under the same business so patreons who sometimes kickstart physical book copies now count. Or just start going after the patreons whole sale. Because of course they are trustworthy, why would anyone say otherwise after the great and careful way they have handled this round of thefts and robberies.


I agree with Dragonius45 here. No, this protects no one. It's _strictly_ worse than the existing license in every single possible way for everyone except WotC and the only real underlying justification is "we deserve more money". And now that they can change it at any time for any reason _explicitly_, it's very much a Darth Vader "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further" scenario.

If this draft is what gets officially released, this is worst case and no one with any shred of morals or ethics should have any further business dealings with WotC on any matter. They should become a pariah company and no one should buy their products or accept this license. This is well into unconscionable territory.

----------


## Dragonus45

> I agree with Dragonius45 here. No, this protects no one. It's _strictly_ worse than the existing license in every single possible way for everyone except WotC and the only real underlying justification is "we deserve more money". And now that they can change it at any time for any reason _explicitly_, it's very much a Darth Vader "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further" scenario.


Like, they are literally standing here looking to force people into these contracts unwillingly, and then asking us to trust them not to do it again once everyone is inside box and have even less recourse to get out. 



> If this draft is what gets officially released, this is worst case and no one with any shred of morals or ethics should have any further business dealings with WotC on any matter. They should become a pariah company and no one should buy their products or accept this license. This is well into unconscionable territory.


Considering they would have to renegotiate with Kickstarter for percentages it's unlikely they even could change this all that much before the official release. Plus a comment from The Griffon's Saddlebag made it sound like they sent this out to people with the contract they would have to sign as well so this really could be the final form.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Like, they are literally standing here looking to force people into these contracts unwillingly, and then asking us to trust them not to do it again once everyone is inside box and have even less recourse to get out. 
> 
> Considering they would have to renegotiate with Kickstarter for percentages it's unlikely they even could change this all that much before the official release. Plus a comment from The Griffon's Saddlebag made it sound like they sent this out to people with the contract they would have to sign as well so this really could be the final form.


If so, then I'll execute my contingencies. Guess I need to spin up a more serious search for a non-OGL system in earnest, even if that means making one myself (ugh).

----------


## verbatim

> And, per some other discussion I've seen, since WotC wrote the original license unilaterally, vagueries and ambiguities are explicitly, per legal standards, considered in the way least favorable to them. They could've written it however they liked, so when somebody buys into what they DID write, on the terms WotC set, WotC doesn't get to (per legal standards) redefine what they wrote ambiguously in their favor and to the detriment of those buying in.
> 
> I do think they're stuck, if it ever goes to court and they can't force the plaintiffs (or defendants, if WotC is suing) to go bankrupt on the legal fees.
> 
> Their biggest obstacle is that VP who apparently is willing to publicly state that, no, the understanding of WotC at the time of the OGL 1.0(a) release was that it could not be "taken back."


Yeah, the ambiguities being resolved in favor of the entity who signed the contract, rather than the one who wrote it, and the man who ordered the creation of the OGL 1.0(a) being willing to state that his intention was for it to be irrevocable, are the two biggest issues WOTC faces here but there's another one that is flying under the radar rn that imo is much funnier.


Section *Q:*
https://web.archive.org/web/20060106...lfaq/20040123f

----------


## Psyren

> If the author of a story were asked whether his immortal main character simply wouldn't die of natural causes, or was actually unkillable, and the author said, "actually unkillable," would you assume that that means it's still ambiguous? Or would you assume that the author knows what his intent was?
> 
> Now, with fiction, you can feel free - especially in fanfic - to change canon and canon intents all you like. In law...less so.


I have no doubts about what _Ryan Dancey's_ intent was. But as we often say around here, RAI is of dubious usefulness in a pure RAW discussion, which is what this is going to end up being - the mother of all RAW discussions some might say!  :Small Tongue: 




> No, I think they laugh at the notion of crowd-funded law suits against them.


That might very well be true (I have no way of knowing how they'd view something like that), but  it'll still be the clearest expression of displeasure we'll likely have as a community. If nothing else, a fat crowdsourced war chest would make for an impressive headline, which would generate far more buzz than any number of scattered forum posts.




> More that Bruce Wayne donated a park to the city, with the caveat that one section of it be reserved for hot dog stands. And now Bruce Wayne is trying to demand that the hot dog stands have to pay him royalties to be in the city park.


If that donation was done via license, he never actually gave up his ownership of the park.




> They can make license for their contributions all they want, but they can't change the OGL to take back what they've contributed to it, nor can they alter the OGL to "deauthorize" earlier versions because theirs isn't the only property that has been contributed.


"Take back" is ambiguous too. Does that mean preventing new sourcebooks for existing games? Blocking sales of existing sourcebooks? Certainly it would prevent new editions/games, but I think that's all we can say for sure right now.




> And, per some other discussion I've seen, since WotC wrote the original license unilaterally, vagueries and ambiguities are explicitly, per legal standards, considered in the way least favorable to them. They could've written it however they liked, so when somebody buys into what they DID write, on the terms WotC set, WotC doesn't get to (per legal standards) redefine what they wrote ambiguously in their favor and to the detriment of those buying in.


Yeah I've seen this hope pretty frequently.

----------


## Unoriginal

I just saw that at least one third-party content creator has already declared they're going to remove their 5e/HasbrOTC-linked works from drivethrurpg.com by the end of the month.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> "Take back" is ambiguous too. Does that mean preventing new sourcebooks for existing games? Blocking sales of existing sourcebooks? Certainly it would prevent new editions/games, but I think that's all we can say for sure right now.


The only safe interpretation of the wording is

1. Existing _printed books and pdfs_ that have been purchased by consumers are safe.
2. Anything else, including republication of existing sourcebooks or publishing new sourcebooks must fall under the OGL 1.1. Yes, that means you have to rewrite all your existing things and do completely new editions to _safely_ publish anything. Existing unsold stock needs to be destroyed and cannot be sold as is, since the license it was produced under has been revoked. Things like ArchivesOfNerys.com (PF's "srd") must immediately stop and cannot be remade, since they no longer are authorized under the OGL (not being "printed works or static electronic documents"). All the various SRD sites must immediately come down as unauthorized derivative works.
3. Any subsidiaries (ie 3rd party extensions to 3rd party works) are screwed, full stop.

----------


## verbatim

One reason I feel like this is all a bluff is that if they actually bring a case they will fail, and then with precedent established the community will treat this like an Open Source software trying to go closed source where the community forks the last Open Version (5e) and makes their own open sourced competitor.

They want plausible deniability that they can come for 5e content creators.  If they actually bring a lawsuit they will lose the case and the threat.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I just saw that at least one third-party content creator has already declared they're going to remove their 5e/HasbrOTC-linked works from drivethrurpg.com by the end of the month.


Segev came up with a _WotC bin Hasbro_ nickname that made me giggle.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Dragonus45

> If so, then I'll execute my contingencies. Guess I need to spin up a more serious search for a non-OGL system in earnest, even if that means making one myself (ugh).


It isn't an open license but Savage Worlds is a great system with a lot of built in base and can handle any kind of setting.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> One reason I feel like this is all a bluff is that if they actually bring a case they will fail, and then with precedent established the community will treat this like an Open Source software trying to go closed source where the community forks the last Open Version (5e) and makes their own open sourced competitor.
> 
> They want plausible deniability that they can come for 5e content creators.  If they actually bring a lawsuit they will lose the case and the threat.


Process is the punishment. They can drag it out for multiple years and bankrupt anyone who tries, leading to default judgements in their favor _regardless_ of the proper legal outcome.

@Dragonius45 -- I've read SavageWorlds and it does not fit my style at all for a lot of reasons. Lots of crunch where I want smooth execution and lack of crunch where I want it. My current one to investigate is Final Fantasy d6, assuming it's not OGL.

----------


## Segev

> Process is the punishment. They can drag it out for multiple years and bankrupt anyone who tries, leading to default judgements in their favor _regardless_ of the proper legal outcome.


I am positive that that is their strategy, because it is highly unlikely that they didn't have a conversation centered around exactly how hard it would be to revoke the OGL. Where revocation is their clear intent, here, if the leaks are to be believed.

If I license a short story and its associated setting to WotC, I don't get to, five years later, when WotC has made a successful line of modules and setting books around it, unilaterally change the license to demand more money from each sale. Of course, I also don't have the budget to swamp WotC out of court, either.

----------


## verbatim

> Process is the punishment. They can drag it out for multiple years and bankrupt anyone who tries, leading to default judgements in their favor _regardless_ of the proper legal outcome.



the Prudent Publishing Company (31 million $ revenue in 2021) feels confident employing BigLaw firm Corporation Trust Company to at least threaten (could be a weird bluff to get their own custom license negotiated in private) that they will fight the long fight if WOTC doesn't back down on the unenforceable part.

----------


## Dragonus45

Oh boy, I continue to read through and I have found the "no one gets to sue us" bit and it's actually right there in the comments portion of the document and funnier then it looked to begin with. I bet $5 someone involved in this language is still mad about getting sued by Weiss and Hickman. 




> We know this may come off strong, but this is important: If You attempt to use the OGL as a basis to release blatantly
> racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory content, or do anything We think triggers
> these provisions, Your content is no longer licensed. To be clear, We want to, and will always, support creators who are
> using the OGL to help them explore sensitive subjects in a positive manner, but We will not tolerate materials We
> consider to be in any way counter to the spirit of D&D. Additionally, You waive any right to sue over Our decision on
> these issues. Were aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these
> clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and Were more than open to being convinced that
> We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us.

----------


## Psyren

> *snip*


While I appreciate the reply, my questions were definitely rhetorical - I'm avoiding commenting on what actions are or aren't "safe" to do under either license.




> One reason I feel like this is all a bluff is that if they actually bring a case they will fail, and then with precedent established the community will treat this like an Open Source software trying to go closed source where the community forks the last Open Version (5e) and makes their own open sourced competitor.
> 
> They want plausible deniability that they can come for 5e content creators.  If they actually bring a lawsuit they will lose the case and the threat.


If they're unable to successfully deauthorize/defend their deauthorization of 1.0a, I could see someone forking it (or 5e SRD-based system as a whole) as inevitable.




> Process is the punishment. They can drag it out for multiple years and bankrupt anyone who tries, leading to default judgements in their favor _regardless_ of the proper legal outcome.


Whether or not they can bankrupt _anyone,_ I truly don't believe they can bankrupt _everyone._

----------


## Dragonus45

> Whether or not they can bankrupt _anyone,_ I truly don't believe they can bankrupt _everyone._


Class action lawsuits are spooky, and I believe you could absolutely for a class for one from my admittedly brief look over the document.

----------


## verbatim

> Whether or not they can bankrupt _anyone,_ I truly don't believe they can bankrupt _everyone._


Twitter is currently staring down the barrel of having to employ enough lawyers to simultaneously litigate thousands of individual ex-employee severance cases all at once because the employee contract forbids class action suites.  May very well have been cheaper just to pay them what they were owed.




> If they're unable to successfully deauthorize/defend their deauthorization of 1.0a, I could see someone forking it (or 5e SRD-based system as a whole) as inevitable.



I think a lot depends on whether or not WOTC is willing to admit that Critical Role's ability to do this gives them a very strong spot to negotiate their custom Dnd One contract from.  If WOTC tries to bully the 5e torchbearer they could easily become the next Paizo.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Both licenses contain all the objectionable clauses, both the deauthorization and the "we own your stuff and you can't sue us" clauses as well as the format clauses. Note that _participating in a suit against them means you instantly lose your license and agree to pay all their legal costs_ under this license. That's *bad*.
> 
> So no, splitting this doesn't help anyone at all other than the noncommercial doesn't have to pay royalties.


I have always assumed the leaked draft wasn't a final draft. Whether Haz brot see is watching to see the reaction or someone leaked it to warn the public, well I won't speculate there.

Considering a good deal even of the non-OGL IP are items that WOTC borrowed from literary sources (displacer beasts, mind flyers, apparently some monsters in the fined folio started with another game company), often not crediting creators atnall (as is the case of at least one D20 modern setting) and it's never been an issue, the theory that the license granting clause is just legal protection is frankly a bit thin.

----------


## Dragonus45

> I have always assumed the leaked draft wasn't a final draft. Whether Haz brot see is watching to see the reaction or someone leaked it to warn the public, well I won't speculate there.


Kickstarter confirming they had already negotiated down the percentages for the revenue theft scheme sort of makes that unlikely though. Either they got Kickstarter to go along with this leak plan or they would have to go back to them to renegotiate about whatever the actual final numbers turn out to be.

----------


## Psyren

> Class action lawsuits are spooky, and I believe you could absolutely for a class for one from my admittedly brief look over the document.


And even if a true class action is not possible, one plaintiff with above-average pockets and a strong case who is subsidized by the community _could_ have similar effectiveness - assuming they don't end up settling.




> Twitter is currently staring down the barrel of having to employ enough lawyers to simultaneously litigate thousands of individual ex-employee severance cases all at once because the employee contract forbids class action suites.  May very well have been cheaper just to pay them what they were owed.


I'm not touching _that guy_ with a 100ft pole  :Small Big Grin:  :Small Big Grin: 




> I think a lot depends on whether or not WOTC is willing to admit that Critical Role's ability to do this gives them a very strong spot to negotiate their custom Dnd One contract from.  If WOTC tries to bully the 5e torchbearer they could easily become the next Paizo.


CR negotiating with them would definitely help WotC. Zero chance their custom contract wouldn't include a gag order/NDA of some kind.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Oh boy, I continue to read through and I have found the "no one gets to sue us" bit and it's actually right there in the comments portion of the document and funnier then it looked to begin with. I bet $5 someone involved in this language is still mad about getting sued by Weiss and Hickman.


I do not believe this would be an enforceable element of the contract in most locals. A lawyer once told me you can't negotiate a right to sue a priori to a given incident. It may be useful scare language if that is the case. And you may not be able to sue then for return of license, but that wouldn't affect any publicly defamatory comments they made in noting your license was revoked.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Kickstarter confirming they had already negotiated down the percentages for the revenue theft scheme sort of makes that unlikely though. Either they got Kickstarter to go along with this leak plan or they would have to go back to them to renegotiate about whatever the actual final numbers turn out to be.


That component may be fixed in their mind, thst doesn't mean all components are.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> The only safe interpretation of the wording is
> 
> 1. Existing _printed books and pdfs_ that have been purchased by consumers are safe.
> 2. Anything else, including republication of existing sourcebooks or publishing new sourcebooks must fall under the OGL 1.1. Yes, that means you have to rewrite all your existing things and do completely new editions to _safely_ publish anything. Existing unsold stock needs to be destroyed and cannot be sold as is, since the license it was produced under has been revoked. Things like ArchivesOfNerys.com (PF's "srd") must immediately stop and cannot be remade, since they no longer are authorized under the OGL (not being "printed works or static electronic documents"). All the various SRD sites must immediately come down as unauthorized derivative works.
> 3. Any subsidiaries (ie 3rd party extensions to 3rd party works) are screwed, full stop.


But for OGC that isn't D20 and isn't originating from IP WOTC claims would 1.1 give them standing to go after someone? Even if we shelve the point I'm making, much of what WOTC would claim as similar to their IP, those components include much that WOTC borrowed from other sources prior to that point--goingnafter systems that originated before 3.0 might still be a safe harbor under the OGL 1.0a, correct?

----------


## Dragonus45

> And even if a true class action is not possible, one plaintiff with above-average pockets and a strong case who is subsidized by the community _could_ have similar effectiveness - assuming they don't end up settling.


Yea situations like that where one person could settle and screw everyone is exactly why it's better to get the class formed. 




> I do not believe this would be an enforceable element of the contract in most locals. A lawyer once told me you can't negotiate a right to sue a priori to a given incident. It may be useful scare language if that is the case. And you may not be able to sue then for return of license, but that wouldn't affect any publicly defamatory comments they made in noting your license was revoked.


Oh yea it's a _kind of_ a nothingburger, but it's also very funny. 




> That component may be fixed in their mind, thst doesn't mean all components are.


I mean, that single component alone with drive most third party publishers out of business, or at the very least entirely out of crowdfunding for fear of succeeding to much and getting slammed WotC.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

So to summarize something, see if this makes sense.

The OGL governs OGC which is a bucket of open content. The OGL has 5 types of IP users, and I'm not sure deauthorizing 1.0a affects them all the same way. 

1. WOTC

2. D20 Publishers who put some of the IP they generated and developed based on WOTC's IP.

3 D20 publishers who significantly altered the D20 chasis, modifications which arguably may be so different WOTC has no real claim here. (Mutant and Masterminds 3e, possibly Pathfinder 2)

4. Non-D20 systems, including those built before WOTC's current mechanic which started with D20/DnD 3.x, who used the OGL to make their system open. They have contributed to the OGC but DnD has no rights intrinsically to their work. (OpenD6) 

5. Non-D20 systems which print the OGL without using OGC deliberately, but to prevent lawsuits down the line. (Savage Worlds).

A. What are the distinct ramifications in terms of groups? 

B If WOTC borrows from OGC originating in 2-4, as they have bit signed onto 1.1, in developing 5e so have not given WOTC a license. what does the deauhorization mean to WOTC'S own products? 
C. What does this do for sublicensees of 3-4?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I mean, that single component alone with drive most third party publishers out of business, or at the very least entirely out of crowdfunding for fear of succeeding to much and getting slammed WotC.


I don't disagree, but I've already made my point on that, and once a conversation becomes to circular it is boring, so not dealing with that point at this time.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Oh boy, I continue to read through and I have found the "no one gets to sue us" bit and it's actually right there in the comments portion of the document and funnier then it looked to begin with. I bet $5 someone involved in this language is still mad about getting sued by Weiss and Hickman.


Oh, that's hilarious. I have trouble accepting that this is anything close to an official statement, though.

----------


## Unoriginal

> I think a lot depends on whether or not WOTC is willing to admit that Critical Role's ability to do this gives them a very strong spot to negotiate their custom Dnd One contract from..


That would require the Critical Role people to have one of those three things:

- Ethics

- Courage

- The willingness to say people are allowed to make money out of fan content even if the bigger corporation who own the thing would disallow it

So it's not going to happen.

----------


## verbatim

> That would require the Critical Role people to have one of those three things:
> 
> - Ethics
> 
> - Courage
> 
> - The willingness to say people are allowed to make money out of fan content even if the bigger corporation who own the thing would disallow it
> 
> So it's not going to happen.


The emphasis of my statement being that if WOTC offers them a contract that is very exploitive and won't budge Critical Role will have a big incentive to leave and do their own thing.  If a deal is found that is acceptable to both sides then yeah I wouldn't count on them.

----------


## Unoriginal

> The emphasis of my statement being that if WOTC offers them a contract that is very exploitive and won't budge Critical Role will have a big incentive to leave and do their own thing.


And lose the rights to the campaign & characters who are the reason why they're getting any money?

I can't see it happening. 

If Wizards of the Bro offer them a contract that is very exploitive, the CR people will get told by their own business folks to sign it, and they will.

----------


## Snowbluff

> And lose the rights to the campaign & characters who are the reason why they're getting any money?
> 
> I can't see it happening. 
> 
> If Wizards of the Bro offer them a contract that is very exploitive, the CR people will get told by their own business folks to sign it, and they will.


Are we sure that they even operate entirely under OGL, or rather, do we have the details of their license agreement? I got the impression they were under their own license for most of what they do, especially given that they even have an animated show and most of their stuff isn't static text to begin with. 

Furthermore, they might even elect to simply not publish anything OGL based going forward, and just take the royalties hit on the years old content that already had the producing costs put down.

----------


## BRC

> The emphasis of my statement being that if WOTC offers them a contract that is very exploitive and won't budge Critical Role will have a big incentive to leave and do their own thing.  If a deal is found that is acceptable to both sides then yeah I wouldn't count on them.


Question is, and assuming this is a situation where WoTC can't de-authorize OGL 1.0, how much is Critical Role going to be motivated to split on their own.

Critical Role doesn't represent a direct competition to WoTC, quite the opposite, it's free advertising to a large audience. They've had numerous partnerships in the past. I don't think WOTC/Hasbro has a lot of motivation to bully CR, and CR has a lot of motivation to stay as WOTC's favored partners. I find it pretty unlikely that CR would be offered a deal they would refuse to accept on it's own merits.


That said, CR has a lot invested in brand management and cares a lot about the relationship with their fanbase. That fanbase, and their reputation within it, is the core of their success, all published content is mostly a side-gig. If a viable alternative game system arises, and WOTC becomes toxic enough that CR risks seeing their fans turn against them for selling out to the big bad of the TTRPG hobby, they might end up splitting and spearheading an alternative.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Are we sure that they even operate entirely under OGL, or rather, do we have the details of their license agreement? I got the impression they were under their own license for most of what they do, especially given that they even have an animated show and most of their stuff isn't static text to begin with. 
> 
> Furthermore, they might even elect to simply not publish anything OGL based going forward, and just take the royalties hit on the years old content that already had the producing costs put down.


It's not a question of operating under OGL or not, it's that the Coastal Hasbrotherhood of Wizards "owns" enough portions of their campaign world & past characters that they cannot do anything in said world going forward if they lose the right to use it.

Maybe they specifically negotiated something just in case, but I very much doubt it.




> I don't think WOTC/Hasbro has a lot of motivation to bully CR,


They didn't have any motivation to bully the other OGL users either, tbf.




> and CR has a lot of motivation to stay as WOTC's favored partners.


Very true.




> That said, CR has a lot invested in brand management and cares a lot about the relationship with their fanbase. That fanbase, and their reputation within it, is the core of their success, all published content is mostly a side-gig. If a viable alternative game system arises, and WOTC becomes toxic enough that CR risks seeing their fans turn against them for selling out to the big bad of the TTRPG hobby, they might end up splitting and spearheading an alternative.


Caring about their fanbase is only (barely holding) lip-service. They've repeatedly demonstrated they will fold to toxic agents and throw whichever parts of their fanbase is deemed necessary under the bus so long as they can keep going.

And those toxic agents didn't have the power to drag them to court to forbid their use of either a large portion of their campaign world, or the entire thing. 

Critical Role losing the WotC money would hurt them, but it's true they could theoretically recover and try something else. Critical Role losing access to all their content that WotC has a claim on, though? That they can't afford.

----------


## BRC

> They didn't have any motivation to bully the other OGL users either, tbf.


Eh, they do, from a certain point of view. Every 3rd party supplement somebody buys is, theoretically, money that could be spent on Hasbrotc products. It's not LIKELY that somebody would buy an extra 5e sourcebook instead of some 3rd party pirates-focused campaign book, but in corporate eyes that's Lost Revenue that should be grabbed. Even if, by shutting down these competitors, only 5% of the money that would have gone to 3rd parties ends up going to WOTC, that's still a win from the point of view of the bottom line.

CR mostly publishes Exandria campaign setting books, which WOTC couldn't publish themselves since they don't own exandria, that makes them less of a competitor than somebody who publishes a 3rd party monster manual or book of traps or what have you. And they're a big source of free advertising. Wotc actually stands to lose something if they piss off CR. They couldn't care less what Paizo or Kobold Press think of them.





> Caring about their fanbase is only (barely holding) lip-service. They've repeatedly demonstrated they will fold to toxic agents and throw whichever parts of their fanbase is deemed necessary under the bus so long as they can keep going.
> 
> And those toxic agents didn't have the power to drag them to court to forbid their use of either a large portion of their campaign world, or the entire thing. 
> 
> Critical Role losing the WotC money would hurt them, but it's true they could theoretically recover and try something else. Critical Role losing access to all their content that WotC has a claim on, though? That they can't afford.


I don't think there's a world where Critical role loses access to their content, There's simply no path by which WOTC can say "Oh, we own your setting now, you are not allowed to use it". WOTC Might claim that under OGL 1.1 THEY have full rights to use things in published CR content (Most of which they published anyway), but there's no way for them to claim CR CAN'T use their own setting.

The most CR stands to lose is the right to publish rules supplements that use the D&D Ruleset (And also sponsorship money).

----------


## Brookshw

*Spoiler: @Toran, Eggkookoo, more musings on game mechanics*
Show


I had some time today to look into the game mechanics question further via some case law, law review articles and other sources (and thanks to whomever in that EN thread linked the Texas case about game mechanics an copyright, a useful starting point). I don't think I've changed my opinion, but figured I'd espouse a bit further on it, and how I think it might fit into the current legal environment. Mind you, in the process I dredged up dozens of further sources, and that I definitely do not have time to do an extensive review.

So, unsurprising, certain basic concepts are very likely uncopyrightable, e.g., HP, attack rolls, etc., no shocker there, and we already know that the expression of the rules for them is. Individually, they weren't found to satisfy the expression requirements for something to be a copyrightable work and would likely be viewed as exempt Systems (note, I'm capitalizing it to distinguish "system" in the sense of copyright law and when I'm referring to a game "system" below). There's a decent corpus of writings that support that position, including some that are likely to be weighted fairly heavily such as Nimmer and the Copyright Office (though courts do disagree with both of those examples at times). Just to toss it out there, the Texas case is good to have because its reasonably on point, on the downside, it's Texas, not that I mean that as a dig at Texas, rather that it isn't binding precedent outside of its circuit, and roughly 80% of copyright cases come out of the 2nd and 11th circuits (realistically, we're talking NY and CA) which it isn't a part of and which many other circuits look to when considering their own copyright cases. Whatever, we need to apply that to D&D. 

Where I start to see issue is that D&D race/species, class, background, feat systems, collectively, start to transcend that and become expressive works in themselves in the aggregate; meaning, that a system that uses those same features could be putting itself in greater jeopardy; one law review article I looked through even specifically called out AD&D's rule system as something that transcends "rules" in the non-copyrightable sense. This also goes back to the extremely low bar for creativity required for something to be protect-able I referenced previously.  

What's worse in a way, and I find it a bit comical, is that the more defined a system becomes, the more expressive it is. In the context of D&D, I understand that to mean content along the lines of well defined skill DC charts and special attacks (two things which people have clamored for in this forum many times) - and we do have some of that stuff already - I find it funny that if D&D gives the people that want such defined content, that the weight of it being protect-able further swings toward WoTC.

Re: licensing, there's currently a combination self-fulfilling prophecy/death spiral that's going on with licensing. What I mean by that is that the more people are licensing types of content, the more courts are weighing that practice as evidence that the content needs to be licensed. Just by way of analogy (these numbers are meaningless), people start thinking something at 100 needs to be licensed, courts look at that practice and say "okay, the bar for licensing is at 100"; then, people are skittish[1], so they start saying "well, we were licensing at 100, but to be on the safe side, lets start licensing at 80", "courts go, okay, the bar where you need a license is now 80", which prompts the industry to go "okay, we license at 60", and the bar shifts again, and so on. Where this comes back to D&D, for twenty years people have, by accepting the OGL, agreed that this content needs to be licensed. That is evidence courts will weigh[2][3]. By accepting the need for the OGL, as an unintended effect, the community has been pushing the likelihood of needing a license to a higher level, and suggesting that the rules by WoTC may need a license. That's not to say its definitive, but its definitely part of the puzzle.

[1]The chilling effect is definitely a real thing; there was a statistics from chillingeffect.org I saw about 3 or 4 years ago, they did an analysis of C&D letters to review for whether it was basically BS, meritous, or something in between, roughly 50% of C&Ds were thought to be BS.
[2] But its not conclusive by any means, the opportunity, general practice, and even seeking a license, doesn't necessarily mean that a use actually requires that license, see my previous point to Phoenix about the 2livecrew/pretty woman case. 
[3] Courts also aren't stupid, I recall a case involving a Woody Allen movie that argued by taking 9 words from it, that another creation had infringed its copyright. The judge in that case eviscerated the plaintiff for arguing that 9 words was infringement, you think forum snark is bad, wait till you see a pissed off judge. De minimis usage is alive and well (to your point about "flame tongue" EggKooKoo, and, also, prior art). 







> The leaks keep coming and I don't know what you have / have not seen on your own. Here is a live reading of the OGL 1.1
> Stream https://youtu.be/Sj5dsiDXeUw
> Document http://ogl.battlezoo.com/


 Thanks for sharing. I skimmed the license (will do a better read through later) and...I don't know what that is other than a very stupid and poorly drafted document. Literally, it contradicts itself (e.g, you can't sublicense, oh and the license you issue have to have this if they use our content, which is sublicensing..., that's the type of ambiguity that goes against the drafter) and incorrectly references its other sections (you're saying termination is in Section IX? But its Section X...); that's before you get into the bizarre drafting that's occurring (and there were a number of clauses in there that I'm dubious are even enforceable), I get there's a move towards "human readable" legal documents, but the way its structured and some of the language is really out there. I'm not sure who put it together, but, well, I've spoken with WoTC lawyers before, they aren't dumb, heck, one of them was an alumni from my law school which had a very highly rated legal writing program, whatever that document is, I'll be shocked if I learn it was drafted by a lawyer, and will continue to wait for the official release.




> So efforts to calm down *and quiet* Segev are likely moot.


 I know, that's why I aded "or not", he can post whatever he wants. However, I don't see emotional distractions like name calling "WoTC bin Hasbro" as adding a beneficial aspect to the discussion, and comments such as 


> They could just as easily write that they license Paladium to Kevin Seimbida, and that he owes them 25% royalties on all Paladium products he sells, and then rely on their ability to bankrupt him before a court case can be won to put him out of business, if they wanted to. It would be just as legal, and just as right.


 are gross misrepresentations and create distracting side shows. I don't see the value in that and think its better to wait and see what actually is released.

----------


## Psyren

> What's worse in a way, and I find it a bit comical, is that the more defined a system becomes, the more expressive it is. In the context of D&D, I understand that to mean content along the lines of well defined skill DC charts and special attacks (two things which people have clamored for in this forum many times) - and we do have some of that stuff already - I find it funny that if D&D gives the people that want such defined content, that the weight of it being protect-able further swings toward WoTC.


When I tell you I laughed out *LOUD*  :Small Big Grin:  :Small Big Grin:  :Small Big Grin: 




> Where this comes back to D&D, for twenty years people have, by accepting the OGL, agreed that this content needs to be licensed. That is evidence courts will weigh. By accepting the need for the OGL, an an unintended effect, the community has been pushing the likelihood of needing a license to a higher level, and suggesting that the rules by WoTC may need a license. That's not to say its definitive, but its definitely part of the puzzle.


Oof. Fascinating, and thanks for sharing.




> I know, that's why I aded "or not", he can post whatever he wants. However, I don't see emotional distractions like name calling "WoTC bin Hasbro" as adding a beneficial aspect to the discussion, and comments such as  are gross misrepresentations and create distracting side shows. I don't see the value in that and think its better to wait and see what actually is released.


Exactly this. Though I can also understand somewhat the desire to vent.




> Eh, they do, from a certain point of view. Every 3rd party supplement somebody buys is, theoretically, money that could be spent on Hasbrotc products. It's not LIKELY that somebody would buy an extra 5e sourcebook instead of some 3rd party pirates-focused campaign book, but in corporate eyes that's Lost Revenue that should be grabbed. 
> 
> CR mostly publishes Exandria campaign setting books, which WOTC couldn't publish themselves since they don't own exandria, that makes them less of a competitor than somebody who publishes a 3rd party monster manual or book of traps or what have you. And they're a big source of free advertising. Wotc actually stands to lose something if they piss off CR. They couldn't care less what Paizo or Kobold Press think of them.


I mean, I don't even view it at the individual sourcebook level - if somebody is making millions off WotC's license that they wouldn't have otherwise, adjusting to that market is reasonable (though again, I think the amount they're asking for here is excessive.)

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> *Spoiler: @Toran, Eggkookoo, more musings on game mechanics*
> Show
> 
> 
> I had some time today to look into the game mechanics question further via some case law, law review articles and other sources (and thanks to whomever in that EN thread linked the Texas case about game mechanics an copyright, a useful starting point). I don't think I've changed my opinion, but figured I'd espouse a bit further on it, and how I think it might fit into the current legal environment. Mind you, in the process I dredged up dozens of further sources, and that I definitely do not have time to do an extensive review.
> 
> So, unsurprising, certain basic concepts are very likely uncopyrightable, e.g., HP, attack rolls, etc., no shocker there, and we already know that the expression of the rules for them is. Individually, they weren't found to satisfy the expression requirements for something to be a copyrightable work and would likely be viewed as exempt Systems (note, I'm capitalizing it to distinguish "system" in the sense of copyright law and when I'm referring to a game "system" below). There's a decent corpus of writings that support that position, including some that are likely to be weighted fairly heavily such as Nimmer and the Copyright Office (though courts do disagree with both of those examples at times). Just to toss it out there, the Texas case is good to have because its reasonably on point, on the downside, it's Texas, not that I mean that as a dig at Texas, rather that it isn't binding precedent outside of its circuit, and roughly 80% of copyright cases come out of the 2nd and 11th circuits (realistically, we're talking NY and CA) which it isn't a part of and which many other circuits look to when considering their own copyright cases. Whatever, we need to apply that to D&D. 
> 
> Where I start to see issue is that D&D race/species, class, background, feat systems, collectively, start to transcend that and become expressive works in themselves in the aggregate; meaning, that a system that uses those same features could be putting itself in greater jeopardy; one law review article I looked through even specifically called out AD&D's rule system as something that transcends "rules" in the non-copyrightable sense. This also goes back to the extremely low bar for creativity required for something to be protect-able I referenced previously.  
> ...


Thank you, but the question of material in current DND that has origins outside of TSR games? Maybe I missed it above, but Ad&D (presumably you mean 1e and 2e) mechanics were largely abandoned during the transition to 3.x and mechanics which appear to me to have been based on spme lf WOTC's competitors were substituted in their places. Yes DnD started classes, but skills as we use, at least from what I can tell, camr from Traveller's first edition,v(predating any skills in a TSR product I am aware of). Traveler didn't make anything OGC until well after 3.x. That is, in a sense, the Ad&D rules you cite above aren't the rules at issue, and many of the rules in the current edition originated from or emulate the IP of companies/individuals other than TSR/WOTC.

As one of my favored games is one of those predecessors which 3.x appears to have borrowed from (as I noted, DnD's version appears to mimic the chart in a system book from a few years before 3.x). It's of interest in figuring if it is truly a safe harbor. It seems to me, WOTC wouldn't be able to challang someone using a system on the grounds of similarity if that system's use of said mechanic preceded WOTC's use of it. 

Also, FYI, the owner of that property is unknown, a recent email with someone who claims to have corresponded with the owner, makes me doubt they will react to this situation.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Where this comes back to D&D, for twenty years people have, by accepting the OGL, agreed that this content needs to be licensed. That is evidence courts will weigh[2][3]. By accepting the need for the OGL, an an unintended effect, the community has been pushing the likelihood of needing a license to a higher level, and suggesting that the rules by WoTC may need a license. That's not to say its definitive, but its definitely part of the puzzle.


This is not the same thing, but it feels to me to be a same sort of sentiment:

Many moons ago when I worked in Maintenance, the super asked me if I could take a stab at repairing appliances. So I did, and before long I was replacing pumps, belts, control panels, etc. After that he asked if I could perform the regular maintenance on our HVAC equipment. I was certified, so we negotiated an end of year bonus since we were saving the building money by taking on what would normally be contractual work.

So we were repairing the appliances, maintaining the HVAC equipment, and performing a lot of plumbing work (cleaning out and/or replacing holby valves, replacing F&T steam traps, etc.). It was a lot of work and kept me and the other guys busy, but when you're incentivized you find a way.

The problem was the bonus never came. He asked us to start replacing floorboards when they buckled from leaks. I told him not until I received my bonus. He told me now the end of this next year, and threatened to write me up if I didn't agree. I told him I wasn't doing the extra work anymore and went to the union and filed a grievance. The union asked me how long I had been performing the extra work. I told them a little over a year now. The union said after three months, the extra work is now assumed to be a normal part of your job and I could not longer file a grievance.

I felt like an absolute moron. But it does make sense to me that there would be a sort of limit on complaining about it. And while this isn't apples to apples, I do take issue either way. In my case, I'd argue that I did the work under the agreement that I would be compensated for it, so it was less a case of me agreeing to do work and then just changing my mind later on for no reason, but more that the other end of the bargain wasn't fulfilled. However, my young naive self thought a verbal agreement was okay.

Similarly, in some way, I don't quite agree with the idea that by accepting the OGL, people are agreeing that the license is "necessary". But I can definitely see how that argument can be made.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> *Spoiler: @Toran, Eggkookoo, more musings on game mechanics*
> Show
> 
> 
> I had some time today to look into the game mechanics question further via some case law, law review articles and other sources (and thanks to whomever in that EN thread linked the Texas case about game mechanics an copyright, a useful starting point). I don't think I've changed my opinion, but figured I'd espouse a bit further on it, and how I think it might fit into the current legal environment. Mind you, in the process I dredged up dozens of further sources, and that I definitely do not have time to do an extensive review.
> 
> So, unsurprising, certain basic concepts are very likely uncopyrightable, e.g., HP, attack rolls, etc., no shocker there, and we already know that the expression of the rules for them is. Individually, they weren't found to satisfy the expression requirements for something to be a copyrightable work and would likely be viewed as exempt Systems (note, I'm capitalizing it to distinguish "system" in the sense of copyright law and when I'm referring to a game "system" below). There's a decent corpus of writings that support that position, including some that are likely to be weighted fairly heavily such as Nimmer and the Copyright Office (though courts do disagree with both of those examples at times). Just to toss it out there, the Texas case is good to have because its reasonably on point, on the downside, it's Texas, not that I mean that as a dig at Texas, rather that it isn't binding precedent outside of its circuit, and roughly 80% of copyright cases come out of the 2nd and 11th circuits (realistically, we're talking NY and CA) which it isn't a part of and which many other circuits look to when considering their own copyright cases. Whatever, we need to apply that to D&D. 
> 
> Where I start to see issue is that D&D race/species, class, background, feat systems, collectively, start to transcend that and become expressive works in themselves in the aggregate; meaning, that a system that uses those same features could be putting itself in greater jeopardy; one law review article I looked through even specifically called out AD&D's rule system as something that transcends "rules" in the non-copyrightable sense. This also goes back to the extremely low bar for creativity required for something to be protect-able I referenced previously.  
> ...


Also, not to nitpick, perhaps, but using species and race as synonyms in this context probably isn't great analysis. I am not commenting on current controversies. But aesthetically, and I am only speaking of the gaming conventions rather than weighing on that debate-they really haven't been used in synonymously. Race has long been the term used medieval fantasy games and species has long been the term used in sci- fi fantasy games like Star Wars or Traveller. Some of way the concepts are used is similar, but sometimes it isn't. That may water down similarity claims, I would think, at least.

----------


## Brookshw

> Exactly this. Though I can also understand somewhat the desire to vent.


Yeah, I get venting, don't blame people for that. 




> Thank you, but the question of material in current DND that has origins outside of TSR games? Maybe I missed it above, but Ad&D (presumably you mean 1e and 2e) mechanics were largely abandoned during the transition to 3.x and mechanics which appear to me to have been based on spme lf WOTC's competitors were substituted in their places. Yes DnD started classes, but skills as we use, at least from what I can tell, camr from Traveller's first edition,v(predating any skills in a TSR product I am aware of). Traveler didn't make anything OGC until well after 3.x.
> 
> As one of my favored games is one of those predecessors which 3.x appears to have borrowed from (as I noted, DnD's version appears to mimic the chart in a system book from a few years before 3.x). It's of interest in figuring if it is truly a safe harbor. 
> 
> Also, FYI, the owner of that property is unknown, a recent email with someone who claims to have corresponded with the owner, so I doubt in practice they would be changing their license lingering docs. Gallant Knight studios uses the system, but slowly and minimally, but it will require work. (I posted a thought on avfew issues on the homebrew board).


The article I referenced didn't specify 1e or 2e, but I'm assuming it meant one of them, I don't think it matters though, the same collective expression issue would apply to more recent editions. 

Going back to your imported mechanics question, I still think it'll be fact specific. Sure, lots of games have a profession system attached to them, and you could argue such systems are analogous to backgrounds, and every system I know of has an attack function, and so on. Each independent element probably exists somewhere, the question I think will turn on the collection of the elements as they exist in D&D, its that collective aspect that lends it, potentially, to protect-ability. 

Also, I'm just going to be blunt about this, I'm dodging the question a bit because I'm concerned it gets too close to giving advice. Sorry.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Yeah, I get venting, don't blame people for that. 
> 
> 
> 
> The article I referenced didn't specify 1e or 2e, but I'm assuming it meant one of them, I don't think it matters though, the same collective expression issue would apply to more recent editions. 
> 
> Going back to your imported mechanics question, I still think it'll be fact specific. Sure, lots of games have a profession system attached to them, and you could argue such systems are analogous to backgrounds, and every system I know of has an attack function, and so on. Each independent element probably exists somewhere, the question I think will turn on the collection of the elements as they exist in D&D, its that collective aspect that lends it, potentially, to protect-ability. 
> 
> Also, I'm just going to be blunt about this, I'm dodging the question a bit because I'm concerned it gets too close to giving advice. Sorry.


Gotcha, sorry, I guess that would be the point. 

 Just curious about the retroactive aspect here, especially since it's not a specific system but that the skill system in its entirety emulates prior WOTC sci-fi systems. Actually the more I think about it, WOTC's entire 3.x environment appears to owe more to WEG, Traveller, and FASA Corp than it actually does to its own originality. There is anhistorical myopia in our society. Too few current DnD players may never have played the games 3.x or 5e to realize how unoriginal those versions are.

If any other lawyers are interested that will be involved . . .

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Similarly, in some way, I don't quite agree with the idea that by accepting the OGL, people are agreeing that the license is "necessary". But I can definitely see how that argument can be made.


Quoting myself here but wanted to add as this thought just occurred to me that, to my mind, this thinking goes both ways.

Hasbro has, presumably, been okay with this OGL up until this very moment, which happens to coincide with an increase in popularity and a desire to make more money on an asset they believe is under-monetized.

So guessing at intentions should occur all around. If we're going to say that by virtue of using the OGL, users were agreeing to its necessity, we need to do the same for Hasbro and what they were "agreeing to" by virtue of creating the OGL in the first place, making it perpetual, and allowing it to exist this long as is before trying to make changes to it now.

----------


## BRC

> I mean, I don't even view it at the individual sourcebook level - if somebody is making millions off WotC's license that they wouldn't have otherwise, adjusting to that market is reasonable (though again, I think the amount they're asking for here is excessive.)


Eh, I disagree with that take somewhat. 

The function of the OGL was to get developers making content that used the D20 system so that the D20 system would become standardized and WOTC could enjoy their place as the biggest fish in the pond. While it's true that the various developers that publish OGL Content owe their success at least somewhat to the pre-existing audience created by WOTC, part of that success is that by doing so they're boosting the hobby in general, and the D20 system in particular, which increases the value/audience of DnD. That was the understanding under which the OGL was published, rather than having everybody run off and make their own systems, just publish OGL content that you need the D&D core books to make use of. It's not fair to say "Oh, this publisher only made this money at all because of the license, therefore, they owe some of that to WOTC", because they only spent the time and effort publishing what they did in the first place because of the license, because it was convenient.

----------


## Segev

> I don't see emotional distractions like name calling "WoTC bin Hasbro" as adding a beneficial aspect to the discussion,


I actually don't mean it to be name calling. I was initially going to use "WotC nee Hasbro," but that's inaccurate, because they didn't change their name from "Hasbro" to "WotC" upon a marriage. I then thought of ways to indicate "son of" or other descent terms, and remembered that's what the "bin" particle in Arabic naming schemes indicates. Hence the choice.




> and comments such as  are gross misrepresentations and create distracting side shows. I don't see the value in that and think its better to wait and see what actually is released.


It's only a gross misrepresentation if you start from the assumption that WotC has the right to tell others using the OGL that their property is WotC's to dictate what is done with it, but that things not in the OGL don't belong to WotC.

If, instead, you assume that WotC has no more rights to things contributed to the OGL than anybody else, save those things WotC themselves contributed, it's a pretty accurate assessment of what v. 1.1 of the OGL is doing to all the stuff WotC didn't contribute to it.

Note that WotC doesn't make any effort to identify their contributions to the OGL as the only things people have to pay them royalties for.

----------


## Brookshw

> Similarly, in some way, I don't quite agree with the idea that by accepting the OGL, people are agreeing that the license is "necessary". But I can definitely see how that argument can be made.


Your analogy made good sense to me. 

For context, the trend I'm speaking to is occurring at a truly massive scale. For example, I used to oversee  licensing for a major publisher (for a small portion of it ), I have no idea of an exact number of pieces of content they licensed (they did about $9 billion annually, it was just to big to know the exact count), but at an educated guess I'd say they probably licensed in the neighborhood of 21 million pieces of content a year, the licensing death spiral I spoke about taking place across each of those pieces of content. And that's ONE publisher, start talking about all the other publishers, licensed computer code, movie clips, audio (though that's also standardized by ASCAP/BMI), and so on, I could not begin to guess the total amount of licensing that occurs annually in the US, all of it (well, the vast majority of it if we're being technical) following that cycle, and the courts are nodding along the whole time saying "okay, I guess that's license-able" (to a limit as I mentioned). 

So along comes the OGL and people accepting the content as license-able, that falls into this giant group think death spiral that's occurring. I agree that its not definitive, but this tiny piece of the  puzzle  will be considered against the greater context.




> I actually don't mean it to be name calling. I was initially going to use "WotC nee Hasbro," but that's inaccurate, because they didn't change their name from "Hasbro" to "WotC" upon a marriage. I then thought of ways to indicate "son of" or other descent terms, and remembered that's what the "bin" particle in Arabic naming schemes indicates. Hence the choice.


 Thanks for the explanation. If that's your intention, I think the choice carries unintended parallels. 





> It's only a gross misrepresentation if you start from the assumption that WotC has the right to tell others using the OGL that their property is WotC's to dictate what is done with it, but that things not in the OGL don't belong to WotC.
> 
> If, instead, you assume that WotC has no more rights to things contributed to the OGL than anybody else, save those things WotC themselves contributed, it's a pretty accurate assessment of what v. 1.1 of the OGL is doing to all the stuff WotC didn't contribute to it.
> 
> Note that WotC doesn't make any effort to identify their contributions to the OGL as the only things people have to pay them royalties for.


Nothing by Palladium as far as I'm aware carries any WoTC content in it, and nothing that is bereft of WoTC content is using the OGL or subject to it, that's why I call it a gross misrepresentation.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Nothing by Palladium as far as I'm aware carries any WoTC content in it, and nothing that is bereft of WoTC content is using the OGL or subject to it, that's why I call it a gross misrepresentation.


OpenD6 is using the OGL. It has no WOTC content. Mini6 (the equivelent of the basic edition DnD) sublicensed from openD6. He is pulling his product because he doesn't know where this leaves him, this per a web post I noted earlier and per a short email exchange.

----------


## Brookshw

> OpenD6 is using the OGL. It has no WOTC content. Mini6 (the equivelent of the basic edition DnD) sublicensed from openD6. He is pulling his product because he doesn't know where this leaves him, this per a web post I noted earlier and per a short email exchange.


Okay, fair, let me revise my statement. "Nothing that is bereft of WoTC content _or opts into their license_ is subject to it".

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Okay, fair, let me revise my statement. "Nothing that is bereft of WoTC content _or opts into their license_ is subject to it".


But doesn't that absolutely belie the idea that this is about control of WotC IP? Now they're claiming to force from the market (or give WotC irrevocable free licenses to) anyone who even deigned to use their license in the past, even if they didn't use any WotC IP. That's a total jerk move of the highest order and puts a lie to the idea that this is all about protecting themselves. No, it's about being anti-competitive and trashing competitors because they don't think they can compete on the merits. Or just don't want to compete on the merits.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Okay, fair, let me revise my statement. "Nothing that is bereft of WoTC content _or opts into their license_ is subject to it".


Thanks, I may send him your way, he appears to be freaking out a bit.

----------


## Psyren

> Hasbro has, presumably, been okay with this OGL up until this very moment, which happens to coincide with an increase in popularity and a desire to make more money on an asset they believe is under-monetized.


I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that just because they haven't moved against 1.0a until now, means they've been _okay_ with it until now.  I would wager heavily that they've been planning this for at least as long as they've been planning the next version of D&D itself, i.e. at least since Tasha's 2 years ago, if not even before.




> So guessing at intentions should occur all around. If we're going to say that by virtue of using the OGL, users were agreeing to its necessity, we need to do the same for Hasbro and what they were "agreeing to" by virtue of creating the OGL in the first place, making it perpetual, and allowing it to exist this long as is before trying to make changes to it now.


I can see a marked difference between implying "a license is needed" and "THAT license is needed."




> It's not fair to say "Oh, this publisher only made this money at all because of the license, therefore, they owe some of that to WOTC", because they only spent the time and effort publishing what they did in the first place because of the license, because it was convenient.


I'm guessing there isn't any amount of money they could make that would change your mind on that - which is fine, we can agree to disagree.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> But doesn't that absolutely belie the idea that this is about control of WotC IP? Now they're claiming to force from the market (or give WotC irrevocable free licenses to) anyone who even deigned to use their license in the past, even if they didn't use any WotC IP. That's a total jerk move of the highest order and puts a lie to the idea that this is all about protecting themselves. No, it's about being anti-competitive and trashing competitors because they don't think they can compete on the merits. Or just don't want to compete on the merits.


I think as I noted, the Open Gaming Federation may have misunderstood the nature of the license. If I understand it, they saw the OGL as a maintaining and managing OGC in a common pot. As WOTC granted the initial license, and their case assumes all of the OGC under the OGL consists of their deposits of license into the OGC pot. In effect publishers were treating the OGC as creative commons. In other words, the draft version of 1.1--and I believe this is a draft that presents issues related to deals thst legal departments have not yet vetted--aimply doesn't address downstream concerns.

What that means legally well, still not a lawyer, I'm not saying this is certainly what happened, but reading a bit online this is the conclusion I am coming too.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> I think as I noted, the Open Gaming Federation may have misunderstood the nature of the license. If I understand it, they saw the OGL as a maintaining and managing OGC in a common pot. As WOTC granted the initial license, and their case assumes all of the OGC under the OGL consists of their deposits of license into the OGC pot. In effect publishers were treating the OGC as creative commons. In other words, the draft version of 1.1--and I believe this is a draft that presents issues related to deals thst legal departments have not yet vetted--aimply doesn't address downstream concerns.
> 
> What that means legally well, still not a lawyer, I'm not saying this is certainly what happened, but reading a bit online this is the conclusion I am coming too.


The Open Gaming Foundation was started by the then-Vice President of Wizards of the Coast, who wrote the Open Gaming License himself. And who included statements of the license being effectively intended to be irrevocable in Q&A material.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I think as I noted, the Open Gaming Federation may have misunderstood the nature of the license. If I understand it, they saw the OGL as a maintaining and managing OGC in a common pot. As WOTC granted the initial license, and their case assumes all of the OGC under the OGL consists of their deposits of license into the OGC pot. In effect publishers were treating the OGC as creative commons. In other words, the draft version of 1.1--and I believe this is a draft that presents issues related to deals thst legal departments have not yet vetted--aimply doesn't address downstream concerns.
> 
> What that means legally well, still not a lawyer, I'm not saying this is certainly what happened, but reading a bit online this is the conclusion I am coming too.





> The Open Gaming Foundation was started by the then-Vice President of Wizards of the Coast, who wrote the Open Gaming License himself. And who included statements of the license being effectively intended to be irrevocable in Q&A material.


I agree with Scots Dragon here. The two options are malice (they know better and are trying to kneecap everything on purpose) and incompetent ignorance (they don't know better because they're too dumb to have done basic research). Neither one gives much faith in their interpretations.

----------


## verbatim

> Question is, and assuming this is a situation where WoTC can't de-authorize OGL 1.0, how much is Critical Role going to be motivated to split on their own.
> 
> If a viable alternative game system arises, and WOTC becomes toxic enough that CR risks seeing their fans turn against them for selling out to the big bad of the TTRPG hobby, they might end up splitting and spearheading an alternative.


IANAL, but from the ones that I have spoken beating WOTC in court on the retroactive portion would be very easy.  Prudential Publishing (annual revenue of 31 million dollars in 2021) feels comfortable  directly calling WOTC's bluff.

I suspect WOTC will try to do some secret contract or whatever to get them to shut up before people realize how legally tenuous their argument is.

----------


## Scots Dragon

Quoth Wizards of the Coast, circa 2004:




> *Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?*
> A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.


https://web.archive.org/web/20060106...lfaq/20040123f

----------


## EggKookoo

Brookshw, thank you for the detailed post.

On a side note, I always mentally pronounced your handle as brook-_shaw_ but it took typing it out for me to think maybe you mean it to be something more like brook-show? Brook-shoe? Anyway...




> Where I start to see issue is that D&D race/species, class, background, feat systems, collectively, start to transcend that and become expressive works in themselves in the aggregate; meaning, that a system that uses those same features could be putting itself in greater jeopardy; one law review article I looked through even specifically called out AD&D's rule system as something that transcends "rules" in the non-copyrightable sense. This also goes back to the extremely low bar for creativity required for something to be protect-able I referenced previously.


I get this. Multiple D&D-isms might add up to their brand, while using individual elements might get a pass. I think that might be because it becomes difficult to use multiple elements without inadvertently reconstituting the whole, since "how they fit together" is at least partly in the realm of expression.

What will be interesting is if a developer, in response to WotC's actions, can manage to devise a game that it not caught up in that kind of trap but at the same time is designed such so that disgruntled D&D players can convert their stuff over (PCs, and settings for DMs). I believe such a thing is possible but it certainly is a needle to thread.




> Where this comes back to D&D, for twenty years people have, by accepting the OGL, agreed that this content needs to be licensed. That is evidence courts will weigh[2][3]. By accepting the need for the OGL, as an unintended effect, the community has been pushing the likelihood of needing a license to a higher level, and suggesting that the rules by WoTC may need a license. That's not to say its definitive, but its definitely part of the puzzle.


I hope what is also taken into consideration is TSR's penchant for suing companies regardless of concern over how much actual infringement was going on, and how the OGL essentially amounted to a peace offering. It's not really outrageous to say small developers were to some degree coerced into adopting it, based on recent (at the time) history. I mean, it's not like these 3rd party developers brought the idea to WotC. WotC was trying to 1) repair TSR's (and therefore D&D's) reputation, and 2) make tabletop roleplaying largely synonymous with The d20 System, and by extension D&D. If smaller developers had rejected the OGL, it's quite possible WotC would have continued TSR's behavior.

----------


## Brookshw

> But doesn't that absolutely belie the idea that this is about control of WotC IP? Now they're claiming to force from the market (or give WotC irrevocable free licenses to) anyone who even deigned to use their license in the past, even if they didn't use any WotC IP. That's a total jerk move of the highest order and puts a lie to the idea that this is all about protecting themselves. No, it's about being anti-competitive and trashing competitors because they don't think they can compete on the merits. Or just don't want to compete on the merits.


I don't think so. I mentioned this yesterday, if they can, and do, tear up 1.0/1.0(a), then you still own your work (your portion of it). If you have no WoTC content in your work, you have nothing that would subject you to the new license unless you removed it. You've basically shed all the baggage and can offer your work under any license you want (presumably, not the 1.1) or none at all. 

Basically, it's a privity of contract matter. They want to destroy the contract, great, then they have no privity and can't hold anything against you as a contract matter. There could be a copyright infringement question, but if you aren't using their content then the issue is moot. Nothing here seems like it would push you out of the market anymore than it pushes Rifts out of the market. 

Am I explaining this well? It's been a long day and I'm pretty burnt.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I don't think so. I mentioned this yesterday, if they can, and do, tear up 1.0/1.0(a), then you still own your work (your portion of it). If you have no WoTC content in your work, you have nothing that would subject you to the new license unless you removed it. You've basically shed all the baggage and can offer your work under any license you want (presumably, not the 1.1) or none at all. 
> 
> Basically, it's a privity of contract matter. They want to destroy the contract, great, then they have no privity and can't hold anything against you as a contract matter. There could be a copyright infringement question, but if you aren't using their content then the issue is moot. Nothing here seems like it would push you out of the market anymore than it pushes Rifts out of the market. 
> 
> Am I explaining this well? It's been a long day and I'm pretty burnt.


Except that now anyone who sublicensed from you... No longer has a defined license.

If they just tore up the license, that'd be one thing. But they're purporting to unilaterally replace it with another, worse license. One that demands affirmative action.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> The Open Gaming Foundation was started by the then-Vice President of Wizards of the Coast, who wrote the Open Gaming License himself. And who included statements of the license being effectively intended to be irrevocable in Q&A material.


No disagreement.

There are 4 topics I am currently out of, so unless something new comes up, just assume my mind hasn't changed on the following, as everything being said is now a rehash of a rehash.

1. My points about ethical issues of the morals clause becoming something of a defamatory Kafkatrap.
2. My note that the license fees and claims a license of other licensed materials, special deals for preferred VTTs, along with the impact the OGL has had on the gaming ecosystem implies antitrust issues, though our antitrust laws do require some updates, so not speaking as a lawyer. 
3. My semantic argument (not lawyerese but English seamntics) about why section 9 is ambiguous given the 4 corners doctrine and therefore WOTCs argument hinges on intent as established outside of the four corners. 
4. I have no concerns about a new OGL for 6e material (and a new OGC bucket to go with it), for reasonable royalties, etc. Many of my issues hinge on specific points. Dnd is not my favored system, I just got the players handbook on sale for 5e 2 weeks ago.l, though O have read the SRD for 5e.

I'm not including them further because I don't want to be redundant, and I am getting bored, frankly.

Also getting bored on 5., so bowing out of it:

5. Much of DnD 3.x appears to largely copy the skill system en toto from sci-fi games already in use by non-tsr subsidiaries, and perhaps the system, they slapped DnD labels from 2e on an emulation of mechanisms used by TSRs competitors. WOTC's DND in effect maybe thought of as a 3pp for WEG, FASA or others of that era.

The ramifications of 5 and the corporate nature of the PGC managed by the OGL and how that is affected is theoretically interesting for the moment. Treat this like Psyren's posts wayback when he noted what he was and wasn't saying. I'm interested in how various groups used the document.

----------


## Raven777

> Please do, I'll be interested for that input.


So I said I'd come back after checking the Alchemy Discord for their stance as a VTT and a content creator (Lore of Aetherra). OpenDND would be that stance, they're one of the creator signatories, along with Sly Flourish and Foundry for other names I recognize. The people at Metis Media (from Historica Arcanum) are also polling their Discord for their fans' opinions.

https://www.opendnd.games/




> Hey Everyone!
> 
> We're still holding our official statement RE: the OGL 1.1 until Wizards of the Coast has made an official announcement confirming the leaked copy of the contract (not an open license) we've read, and can assure you, is every bit as grim as it's sounding. 
> 
> That said, we've been working closely with our legal council and the third-party creators behind #OpenDND to ensure that we are planning for, and working toward solutions in the worst case scenario, and that the greater TTRPG community is aware of what's happening. 
> 
> Today the team launched https://opendnd.games/. I would encourage you all to check it out, read the open letter, and if you feel moved to do so, sign it.

----------


## Unoriginal

> I agree with Scots Dragon here. The two options are malice (they know better and are trying to kneecap everything on purpose) and incompetent ignorance (they don't know better because they're too dumb to have done basic research). Neither one gives much faith in their interpretations.


The third option being malicious incompetence (they don't know better due to not having done the research AND are trying to kneecap everything on purpose under the belief they'll benefit from it).

----------


## animorte

And the MVP award goes out to:



> So I said I'd come back

----------


## Raven777

> The third option being malicious incompetence (they don't know better due to not having done the research AND are trying to kneecap everything on purpose under the belief they'll benefit from it).


Maybe it's this fourth option?  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Psyren

> What will be interesting is if a developer, in response to WotC's actions, can manage to devise a game that it not caught up in that kind of trap but at the same time is designed such so that disgruntled D&D players can convert their stuff over (PCs, and settings for DMs). I believe such a thing is possible but it certainly is a needle to thread.


My hope is that they tone down 1.1 such that most 3PP devs don't feel the need to try.




> I hope what is also taken into consideration is TSR's penchant for suing companies regardless of concern over how much actual infringement was going on, and how the OGL essentially amounted to a peace offering. It's not really outrageous to say small developers were to some degree coerced into adopting it, based on recent (at the time) history. I mean, it's not like these 3rd party developers brought the idea to WotC. WotC was trying to 1) repair TSR's (and therefore D&D's) reputation, and 2) make tabletop roleplaying largely synonymous with The d20 System, and by extension D&D. If smaller developers had rejected the OGL, it's quite possible WotC would have continued TSR's behavior.


Sure, this kind of peace is admirable, but I can understand them not being enthused about continuing to subsidize a bunch of direct competition either.




> I have no concerns about a new OGL for 6e material (and a new OGC bucket to go with it), for reasonable royalties, etc. Many of my issues hinge on specific points.


Concur.

----------


## Brookshw

> Except that now anyone who sublicensed from you... No longer has a defined license.


 I suspect courts would infer the existence of a contract/license to the sublicensee, I don't see there being a statute of frauds issue so the lack of a written agreement doesn't mean there isn't a contract, it would be up to the court to figure out what the terms of it are. 




> If they just tore up the license, that'd be one thing. But they're purporting to unilaterally replace it with another, worse license. One that demands affirmative action.


I have no problem with the industry switching to a new open source license, new mechanics and other stuff that could come out of it seem like a big plus. I realize this is massively disruptive to people relying on WoTC content.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> The third option being malicious incompetence (they don't know better due to not having done the research AND are trying to kneecap everything on purpose under the belief they'll benefit from it).


Fifth option, they have short positions on Hasbro through a broker working at a Carribean Bank.

----------


## Xihirli

You know, I was pretty happy to just call the new edition 5.5, since it was pretty clearly an update of 5e, and like _baator_ was I going to start calling the... eighth? edition of D&D "one," but now I'm liking D&Done.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> You know, I was pretty happy to just call the new edition 5.5, since it was pretty clearly an update of 5e, and like _baator_ was I going to start calling the... eighth? edition of D&D "one," but now I'm liking D&Done.


It's the fourteenth.

OD&DHolmes BasicB/XBECMIRules CyclopediaAD&D 1eAD&D 2eAD&D 2e RevisedD&D 3eD&D 3.5eD&D 4eD&D EssentialsD&D 5eThe Treasonous Knife in the Back to the Community that is One D&D

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> 4. I have no concerns about a new OGL for 6e material (and a new OGC bucket to go with it), for reasonable royalties, etc. Many of my issues hinge on specific points. Dnd is not my favored system, I just got the players handbook on sale for 5e 2 weeks ago.l, though O have read the SRD for 5e.


Personally, even though my favored system _is_ D&D[1], I'd have been 100% ok with this. If it only applied to stuff going forward, I'd consider them well within their moral/ethical rights (leaving legalities aside) to make whatever licenses they want. Want to demand a first-born child? I may say that I don't like that and won't use that, but meh, that's their business. Personally, if they had applied the new license to the new material only, I'd have just shrugged. I don't care for the license, but I don't care enough about the content to want to deal with it anyway. I'd just keep playing 5e because that already meets all my needs.

Heck, if they'd have said "ok, here's a new license. You can switch to it, if you do,
a) you have to pay royalties
b) but you can get official seals of approval/other benefits
c) we'll let you have deeper access to D&D Beyond's tooling to actually integrate your material into our VTT
d) but you agree not to publish anymore 1.0(a) material beyond what you already have out there
"

I'd have been like "ok, might even be a good deal." There are _many_ things they could have done with a new license that would have provided value to customers and 3pp alike while still meeting their ostensible goals. This license? Doesn't even really meet their stated goals very well and maliciously kneecaps everyone else. Almost like that was the entire point all along--to crush competition using licensing instead of actually having to compete on value added. While being entirely 100% a net negative to everyone outside of the company itself (and probably a net negative to the company as well!). "Pay more to get less and have less assurances" is *not* a good look.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Brookshw, thank you for the detailed post.
> 
> On a side note, I always mentally pronounced your handle as brook-_shaw_ but it took typing it out for me to think maybe you mean it to be something more like brook-show? Brook-shoe? Anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> I get this. Multiple D&D-isms might add up to their brand, while using individual elements might get a pass. I think that might be because it becomes difficult to use multiple elements without inadvertently reconstituting the whole, since "how they fit together" is at least partly in the realm of expression.
> 
> What will be interesting is if a developer, in response to WotC's actions, can manage to devise a game that it not caught up in that kind of trap but at the same time is designed such so that disgruntled D&D players can convert their stuff over (PCs, and settings for DMs). I believe such a thing is possible but it certainly is a needle to thread.
> ...


There was a document for translating D6 star wars to D20 star wars, RCR. Shouldn't be too hard to convert characters between them. Ironically I was thinking of a Mashup which would allow easy conversion for most classes, but the problem is each spell would need to be converted individually, and the leveling mechanics on the magic system are different.

----------


## Lemmy

Save for a few notorious exceptions, D&D as a whole lost a lot of popularity last year... And WotC profits went down with it. Which was to be expected, with the end of the pandemic and whatnot... This will just ensure and accelerate the trajectory down.

Will D&D die? Almost certainly not... But it will become a lot less healthy. The community will suffer and, of course, WotC will achieve the exact opposite of what they want and make even less money.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Okay, fair, let me revise my statement. "Nothing that is bereft of WoTC content _or opts into their license_ is subject to it".


Shouldn't this be "and opts into their license"? That I think is the nut of the problem, I still find interesting.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> It's the fourteenth.
> 
> OD&DHolmes BasicB/XBECMIRules CyclopediaAD&D 1eAD&D 2eAD&D 2e RevisedD&D 3eD&D 3.5eD&D 4eD&D EssentialsD&D 5eThe Treasonous Knife in the Back to the Community that is One D&D


Everyone comes to some edition that makes them a grognard and wistful for the good old days of gaming. Usually its some kind of edition angst, though some of the issues here are abnormally bad.

Welcome to the club

----------


## Brookshw

> Shouldn't this be "and opts into their license"? That I think is the nut of the problem, I still find interesting.


I don't think so, but it's probably missing a comma. I've been up since 3:00 am and spent most of the day sitting around the hospital while my kid was in surgery (nothing serious), pretty burnt at the moment and not really editing closely.




> The Treasonous Knife in the Back to the Community that is One D&D


I feel like there's a Hamlet quote or reference waiting to be made here.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that just because they haven't moved against 1.0a until now, means they've been _okay_ with it until now.


The point being that it might also be a bit of a leap to assume that because people used the license, they felt it was "necessary". That's the point. Especially given that Wizards themselves published the license, presumably not under duress.

So yeah... more of a leap to think users feel it's necessary, than to think WotC, the people that created it, haven't been okay with it for the last 20+ years.

My point is if you're going to start tacking on intentions or beliefs based on actions, it goes both ways.



> I would wager heavily that they've been planning this for at least as long as they've been planning the next version of D&D itself, i.e. at least since Tasha's 2 years ago, if not even before.


Again, if we take "uses license" to mean "believes license is necessary", what can we assume/imply/project on to "created license" and "kept license as is for 23 years" to mean? 

And yes, you can say "Hasbro thinking is hyper-rational, users/creators screwed themselves" but then I think we've left objectivity.



> I can see a marked difference between implying "a license is needed" and "THAT license is needed."


I don't see how. If we're arguing that 1.0 is needed and users agree because they use it, how does that speak at all to 1.1 which is clearly and obviously markedly different to the point that it's all any of us has been talking about since it's been leaked?

"Yes your honor, clearly by using the OGL 1.0, the content creators are acknowledging that such a license is necessary."

"Yes, I seem to agree."

"Great, here's 1.1. I think we can agree that they think such a license is necessary."

"Eh... this license revokes 1.0 and has completely different terms, even... antagonistic terms."

"Yeah but they were onboard for the first one so...."

----------


## EggKookoo

> The point being that it might also be a bit of a leap to assume that because people used the license, they felt it was "necessary". That's the point. Especially given that Wizards themselves published the license, presumably not under duress.


TSR made a hobby out of beating up small publishers. Then WotC throws them a lifeline. It's always been an abusive relationship.

----------


## Psyren

> The point being that it might also be a bit of a leap to assume that because people used the license, they felt it was "necessary". That's the point. Especially given that Wizards themselves published the license, presumably not under duress.
> 
> So yeah... more of a leap to think users feel it's necessary, than to think WotC, the people that created it, haven't been okay with it for the last 20+ years.
> 
> My point is if you're going to start tacking on intentions or beliefs based on actions, it goes both ways.


I'm not the one who said the license was necessary for those users (in fact, I've been repeatedly stating the opposite, that entering the market DOESN'T need the license.) It was Brookshw who was providing some insight/precedent on how the widespread adoption of the license could be viewed in WotC's favor.

As far as needing a license to access their IP however, see below.




> Again, if we take "uses license" to mean "believes license is necessary", what can we assume/imply/project on to "created license" and "kept license as is for 23 years" to mean?


That's a question for him. From my POV however, keeping it as is for 23 years probably doesn't mean much, given that their press release is mentioning things like minting NFTs that have only recently (last year or two) entered the popular zeitgeist.




> I don't see how. If we're arguing that 1.0 is needed and users agree because they use it, how does that speak at all to 1.1 which is clearly and obviously markedly different to the point that it's all any of us has been talking about since it's been leaked?


_You're_ arguing that 1.0a is needed. _I'm_ arguing that, while _a_ license is needed from WotC's perspective (to access their IP, not to enter the market at all), that I think WotC has a potentially reasonable corollary argument to say that the 2000 license is no longer sufficient to address today's market conditions (see above) and thus needs replacing for that specific use case.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I'm not the one who said the license was necessary for those users (in fact, I've been repeatedly stating the opposite, that entering the market DOESN'T need the license.) It was Brookshw who was providing some insight/precedent on how the widespread adoption of the license could be viewed in WotC's favor.


I don't know why you replied to me then, because I'm engaging with what Brookshw said.

It's not lost on me that in one direction, assuming compliance is a fascinating insight, but in the other direction it's a leap  :Small Wink: .



> That's a question for him.


Indeed.



> From my POV however, keeping it as is for 23 years probably doesn't mean much, given that their press release is mentioning things like minting NFTs that have only recently (last year or two) entered the popular zeitgeist.


I'm sure there's a way to introduce a 1.1 that handles NFTs without doing what this one is allegedly doing.



> _You're_ arguing that 1.0a is needed.


No I'm not. I was replying to someone that offered a perspective on using the license being interpreted as agreeing it was necessary. You responded even though you're apparently not even engaging with the point...  :Small Confused: 



> I'm arguing that, while a license is needed from WotC's perspective (to access their IP, not to enter the market at all), that I think WotC has a potentially reasonable corollary argument to say that the 2000 license is no longer sufficient to address today's market conditions (see above) and thus needs replacing for that specific use case.


An argument that can be made without invoking the point that Brookshw made, that I replied to.  :Small Confused:

----------


## Raven777

> I feel like there's a Hamlet quote or reference waiting to be made here.


Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I don't think so, but it's probably missing a comma. I've been up since 3:00 am and spent most of the day sitting around the hospital while my kid was in surgery (nothing serious), pretty burnt at the moment and not really editing closely.


 hope all is well. I think we may have had two different licenses in mind.

----------


## Psyren

> I don't know why you replied to me then, because I'm engaging with what Brookshw said.


Uh... Because you quoted me?  :Small Confused:

----------


## Snowbluff

> I'm sure there's a way to introduce a 1.1 that handles NFTs without doing what this one is allegedly doing.


I agree that a lot of this new license is majorly unnecessary, but I'm not sure how they could do that without revoking the old license. What's to keep OGL 1.0a NFTTTRGOMGBBQ from being made? Or did I miss something in the meantime, because this is a big thread. Feel free to point me in the right direction.  :Small Red Face:

----------


## EggKookoo

> I agree that a lot of this new license is majorly unnecessary, but I'm not sure how they could do that without revoking the old license. What's to keep OGL 1.0a NFTTTRGOMGBBQ from being made? Or did I miss something in the meantime, because this is a big thread. Feel free to point me in the right direction.


I still don't understand how I'm not allowed to use OGL 1.0 because OGL 1.1 deauthorizes it, if I never agree to OGL 1.1. And if WotC can deauthorize 1.0 like that, why do they need to use 1.1 to do it? Why not just declare it?

----------


## OldTrees1

> Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai
> 
> 
> I don't know why you replied to me then, because I'm engaging with what Brookshw said.
> 
> 
> Uh... Because you quoted me?


Psyren, you quoted Dr Samurai. Not vice versa.



> Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai
> ...


Edit: Nested quote complete. Whew!
Edit 2: Dr Samurai, you did not make that easy. You quoted yourself and the original quote of Brookshw's did not link to the post.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> The point being that it might also be a bit of a leap to assume that because people used the license, they felt it was "necessary". That's the point. Especially given that Wizards themselves published the license, presumably not under duress.
> 
> So yeah... more of a leap to think users feel it's necessary, than to think WotC, the people that created it, haven't been okay with it for the last 20+ years.
> 
> My point is if you're going to start tacking on intentions or beliefs based on actions, it goes both ways.
> 
> Again, if we take "uses license" to mean "believes license is necessary", what can we assume/imply/project on to "created license" and "kept license as is for 23 years" to mean? 
> 
> And yes, you can say "Hasbro thinking is hyper-rational, users/creators screwed themselves" but then I think we've left objectivity.
> ...


I think the "necessity" of the license is something that does require a sense of history. TSR assumed anything that had a players as protagonists where dice were rolled was an infringement of their IP. Anything that heals a character is obvious ripped off from a healing potions, so no medpacs. That laser gun is just a rip off of our lightning spell. Etc. A lot of companies may have slapped the OGL 1.0a onto the back because it prevent frivolous lawsuits, not because it was strictly necessary.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

Read the released version. 

Conspiracy theory maybe, but it once said, our lawyers said we had to include this. I wonder if some of the legal team refused to draft it the way some executive wanted it done for professional reasons. The you can't sue me clauses I thought of as being some kind of executive explanation of what they wanted . . . But yeah, I can't see someone making this up as a hoax on the one hand, but talking about leveling up in the tiers (and the explanation) or including someone doing the dishes for you, just highly unprofessional.

----------


## OldTrees1

> I still don't understand how I'm not allowed to use OGL 1.0 because OGL 1.1 deauthorizes it, if I never agree to OGL 1.1. And if WotC can deauthorize 1.0 like that, why do they need to use 1.1 to do it? Why not just declare it?


I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice:

If WotC can deauthorize 1.0a, then OGL 1.0a stops permitting the use of OGL 1.0a (it specifies we can use any authorized version).

If WotC can deauthorize 1.0a, then I don't think they don't need to use 1.1 to do it. If they can do it, they probably only need to post notice. However they chose to post notice of the deauthorization in the 1.1 OGL.

Why not just declare it? Might as well post a new license (1.1) at the same time as posting the notice deauthorizing the 1.0a. That way fools individuals have the option of using the new license instead of only having the option to walk away.


I don't know* if WotC can deauthorize 1.0a, but trying it at the same time as posting 1.1 makes sense**.
*I fear they can and I hope they can't.
**Or at least as much sense as MTG 30th did.

----------


## Psyren

> Psyren, you quoted Dr Samurai. Not vice versa.


Yeah I intentionally responded to him originally, and then 3 replies later it was "I don't know why you replied to me." Because he posted something I wanted to reply to, obviously, that's generally how this "message board" thing works...




> I still don't understand how I'm not allowed to use OGL 1.0 because OGL 1.1 deauthorizes it, if I never agree to OGL 1.1. And if WotC can deauthorize 1.0 like that, why do they need to use 1.1 to do it? Why not just declare it?


Just repealing it would leave _nothing_ in place. Anything anyone published in that interval, even homebrew to a site like this, would technically be unauthorized, and might even need investigation and defense.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Yeah I intentionally responded to him originally, and then 3 replies later it was "I don't know why you replied to me." Because he posted something I wanted to reply to, obviously, that's generally how this "message board" thing works...


Generally on a message board if you butt into a conversation, the person you quoted might reply under the presumption you were engaging in the existing conversation. If you later reveal you were not engaging in the existing conversation, they might question why you replied to them in the first place. It does not matter if the miscommunication is revealed 3 posts later or 20 posts later.

Dr Samurai was talking about what Brookshw said. You replied to that conversation but later revealed you were not talking about that conversation. Dr Samurai's confusion is quite understandable.

If this explanation is not sufficiently clear, then forget it and move on.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Just repealing it would leave _nothing_ in place. Anything anyone published in that interval, even homebrew to a site like this, would technically be unauthorized, and might even need investigation and defense.


I guess this is a question for the lawyers, but by putting the deauthorization clause in 1.1, doesn't that mean one needs to accept 1.1 to become unable to use 1.0? Why not keep these things separate so they can manage them independently?

This is what leads me to think this language is meant to say you can keep using 1.0, or you can use 1.1, but you can't do both.

----------


## Brookshw

> Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!


Lol, well played.





> hope all is well. I think we may have had two different licenses in mind.


It is, thanks. And we may be slightly out of synch with the licensing we're talking about, not sure. Internets and all that.





> I agree that a lot of this new license is majorly unnecessary, but I'm not sure how they could do that without revoking the old license. What's to keep OGL 1.0a NFTTTRGOMGBBQ from being made? Or did I miss something in the meantime, because this is a big thread. Feel free to point me in the right direction.


Probably as good a place to jump back in as any.  To my earlier points about the need for a license and current trends, the issue is that a license is needed, one commensurate with the use, which isn't to say a particular license is needed. Licensing for future technology is a bit tricky, the best practice I've seen is to mirror statutory language so that you're always in lockstep with what the statute protects, "now known or hereafter devised" is a very common term to future proof a license. I don't see that language in 1.0a and assume it's not in 1.0 (didn't go back and check). So, there's an argument  to be made that future technology isn't covered (emphasis on "to be made"), and that technology that wasn't envisioned at the time isn't covered. 

To bring that to the topic of VTTs and NFTs....

We had MUDs at the time the OGL was released, and VTTs are basically a maturing of that technology, so I do think there's an argument to be made they're included in the previous license (as soon as the DBB VTT was announced I immediately predicted they'd change the terms of the OGL to exclude them). You could make the argument VTT technology is distinct from what existed at the time (queue expensive expert witness testimony), I'm not tech savvy enough to have an opinion if that might be a good argument.

Re: NFTs. Sure, Blockchain technology didn't exist at the time[1], so there might be a better argument that it's excluded, but this goes back to what NFTs purport to be[2]. An NFT claims to be a a singular instance of ownership of a thing, and to grant the owner exclusivity, and the OGL only grants a non-exclusive licenses, so an NFT made out of OGL content is already problematic in that it's claiming an ownership right it doesn't have, and you can't transfer what you don't have, not to mention the integration of the OGL license into the NFT if it could be done in some theoretical-impossible manner, meaning anyone can copy the NFT, defeating the purpose of an NFT. But there are a lot of problems with enforcement around NFTs and infringement (and a bunch of crap spewed by NFT bros, I'll skip the rant). WoTC is basically in the same corner with NFTs regardless of a license update, it's extremely likely to be an infringement and the license change solves nothing.

So, I don't know that the examples being held up really justify a license change to address new technology, but I do see some room to make the argument.

[1] I was at a conference about 3 years ago and ended up hearing a music professor talk about using Blockchain technology to build licenses into content and guarantee an artist royalties, the audience (mostly lawyers) groaned. Professor also mentioned Lessig (guy who started Creative Commons) was an a** who sues everyone. I found that funny.
[2] They're BS imo, I'll skip the rant.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

So anyone price puts on Hasbro stock for the week following next earnings?

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I agree that a lot of this new license is majorly unnecessary, but I'm not sure how they could do that without revoking the old license. What's to keep OGL 1.0a NFTTTRGOMGBBQ from being made? Or did I miss something in the meantime, because this is a big thread. Feel free to point me in the right direction.


You didn't miss anything, except I'm not overly familiar with a lot of this stuff, so my questions and comments might not stick. My thinking was that an OGL 1.1 could cleave very closely to 1.0 but make exceptions for the technological concerns that they apparently have.

I'd be more inclined to think this was about technology if it followed a summit where they explained new technologies and etc etc and discussed a revision to the OGL to address these.

Instead, they hired a bunch of people that specialize in monetization, said the game was under-monetized, and then put forth an OGL that is basically going after everyone else.

Hence my point about assigning intentions to people. (That said, my point is mostly a "some guy's opinion on a forum" point. I don't know that in court saying "but what about Hasbro?" would be meaningful.)



> Psyren, you quoted Dr Samurai. Not vice versa.
> 
> 
> Edit: Nested quote complete. Whew!
> Edit 2: Dr Samurai, you did not make that easy. You quoted yourself and the original quote of Brookshw's did not link to the post.


Well, in fairness to me, you could tell what was going on, even if creating the nesting quote was a bit tricky  :Small Tongue: .



> I think the "necessity" of the license is something that does require a sense of history. TSR assumed anything that had a players as protagonists where dice were rolled was an infringement of their IP. Anything that heals a character is obvious ripped off from a healing potions, so no medpacs. That laser gun is just a rip off of our lightning spell. Etc. A lot of companies may have slapped the OGL 1.0a onto the back because it prevent frivolous lawsuits, not because it was strictly necessary.


Thank you, this is useful context.


Okay, wondering aloud... and there's no precise answer here (at least I can't see how there could be) but... would D&D be where it is today without the OGL 1.0?

And, would I be able to play D&D every Friday night with my friends over Roll20 without the OGL 1.0?

In other words, what do you folks think our space would look like if the OGL had never been a thing?

----------


## Psyren

> Generally on a message board *if you butt into a conversation*, the person you quoted might reply under the presumption you were engaging in the existing conversation. If you later reveal you were not engaging in the existing conversation, they might question why you replied to them in the first place. It does not matter if the miscommunication is revealed 3 posts later or 20 posts later.
> 
> Dr Samurai was talking about what Brookshw said. You replied to that conversation but later revealed you were not talking about that conversation. Dr Samurai's confusion is quite understandable.
> 
> If this explanation is not sufficiently clear, then forget it and move on.


I was engaging in the existing conversation, I wouldn't have quoted him if I wasn't. 




> I guess this is a question for the lawyers, but by putting the deauthorization clause in 1.1, doesn't that mean one needs to accept 1.1 to become unable to use 1.0? Why not keep these things separate so they can manage them independently?
> 
> This is what leads me to think this language is meant to say you can keep using 1.0, or you can use 1.1, but you can't do both.


Well, 1.0a says "you can use any authorized version." If 1.1 says "all previous versions are unauthorized" that would be an interesting tactic.

----------


## OldTrees1

> Well, in fairness to me, you could tell what was going on, even if creating the nesting quote was a bit tricky .


That is quite fair  :Small Big Grin: .





> Okay, wondering aloud... and there's no precise answer here (at least I can't see how there could be) but... would D&D be where it is today without the OGL 1.0?
> 
> And, would I be able to play D&D every Friday night with my friends over Roll20 without the OGL 1.0?
> 
> In other words, what do you folks think our space would look like if the OGL had never been a thing?


I am not good at counterfactuals, but I think there is a good chance the alternate history would be similar. I antcipate the market would be smaller and thus  some innovations would be delayed but would happen. I likewise assume D&D would have survived and some RPG (maybe D&D) would still be a dominant market player.

So if I had to guess, without the OGL 2023 might be comparable to our 2018 but with the dominant game randomized between the top RPGs that exist now.

----------


## Zuras

I really dont understand the idea that the OGL  1.0a is revocable at all.  It lays out specific criteria for termination (failure to comply with the terms), and no other mechanisms for terminating or revoking the license, or stating a limited term.

Interpreting phrase you may use any authorized version of this license in the OGL to mean Wizards has always had the ability to make an authorized license no longer authorized, rather than guaranteeing forwards-compatibility seems absurd.  

The GNU GPL 2.0 doesnt have the word irrevocable anywhere in it, but nobody seriously thinks it could be revoked.

I would dislike, but not be offended by, Hasbro moving to a more restrictive licensing scheme requiring any 3rd parties participating in the 6e ecosystem to agree to significantly less favorable terms (such as those in the leaked document).  Attempting to change the rules for already existing content like this is beyond the pale, though.  Whether or not its legal, it deeply offends my sense of fairness.  

Hasbro is acting like the Chaotic Neutral rogue player weve all encountered at the table, and right now Im waiting to see if the DMs gonna rein that in or I should find a new table.

----------


## Psyren

> I really dont understand the idea that the OGL  1.0a is revocable at all.  It lays out specific criteria for termination (failure to comply with the terms), and no other mechanisms for terminating or revoking the license, or stating a limited term.


Whether it has a limited term or not might not actually be relevant - it's actually possible for a license to be both perpetual and revocable. Will _this_ one be seen that way? That would be the million dollar question.




> Interpreting phrase you may use any authorized version of this license in the OGL to mean Wizards has always had the ability to make an authorized license no longer authorized, rather than guaranteeing forwards-compatibility seems absurd.


This would be the other million dollar question.  




> The GNU GPL 2.0 doesnt have the word irrevocable anywhere in it, but nobody seriously thinks it could be revoked.


GNU GPL 3.0 does (section 2), so 2.0 not having that is probably moot (I haven't read it myself).

----------


## Mechalich

> Okay, wondering aloud... and there's no precise answer here (at least I can't see how there could be) but... would D&D be where it is today without the OGL 1.0?
> 
> And, would I be able to play D&D every Friday night with my friends over Roll20 without the OGL 1.0?
> 
> In other words, what do you folks think our space would look like if the OGL had never been a thing?


The big difference would be that, without the OGL 1.0, there would have been no Pathfinder. Which means that, when WotC switched over to 4e, 3.5e would have, like what happens to prior editions in basically every other game, become completely unsupported. As such when 4e tanked - which would have still happened - while some portion of the people who switched to PF or continued to play 3.5e with 3rd party material added would have continued to play that edition just as some people continued to play 2e AD&D after 3e came out, it would have been a drastically lesser number. Instead, the gaming population would have migrated to some other game. The comparative case is the late 1990s, when TSR went bankrupt, D&D spent a few years as a zombie system, and White-Wolf became the world's largest gaming company. The difference is that in 1998 WW was very clearly the second-biggest company in TTRPGs, in 2008 when 4e came out WW was a moldering corpse and there were no clear rivals to D&D. It's unclear if any other company/system would be able to acquire the large pool of disaffected players created by 4e in the way Paizo did, or if they would just leave the hobby entirely.

Notably, even with the existence of PF, the TTRPG market suffered _substantial_ contraction from 2008-~2016. 5e did not rocket to popularity initially upon release and was greatly aided in becoming the current leader it is due to external factors (ex. Stranger Things, Covid) starting in the second half of the 2010s. If there had been no OGL it is likely this contraction would have been significantly worse. WotC might not even have bothered to produce 5e at all - this isn't much of a stretch considering how extremely limited the initial investment into that edition was. 

They probably would have retained the IP though, since D&D is much more valuable as an IP than it is as an actual game - tabletop is inherently difficult to monetize and attempting to do so is using the IP in backwards fashion - and a new edition would surely have happened if the various factors that caused a resurgence in popularity across the TTRPG market occurred anyway.

----------


## jjordan

Having finally found the time to read the OGL 1.1 the only things I really object to are the non-exclusive license WotC claims for all published material, even non-commercial material, and the deauthorization of the OGL 1.0.  But I think they'll get away with both of these and people will continue to play D&D.  Some third-party systems might see some growth (I certainly hope they do) but D&D will be fine because the community won't abandon it.  Some of the community will be tickled pink when WotC 'steals' their material.  Publishers will come up with ways to work around the new restrictions:  setting up an open source D&D clone, using stat systems that are easily converted, and so on.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> The big difference would be that, without the OGL 1.0, there would have been no Pathfinder. Which means that, when WotC switched over to 4e, 3.5e would have, like what happens to prior editions in basically every other game, become completely unsupported. As such when 4e tanked - which would have still happened - while some portion of the people who switched to PF or continued to play 3.5e with 3rd party material added would have continued to play that edition just as some people continued to play 2e AD&D after 3e came out, it would have been a drastically lesser number. Instead, the gaming population would have migrated to some other game. The comparative case is the late 1990s, when TSR went bankrupt, D&D spent a few years as a zombie system, and White-Wolf became the world's largest gaming company. The difference is that in 1998 WW was very clearly the second-biggest company in TTRPGs, in 2008 when 4e came out WW was a moldering corpse and there were no clear rivals to D&D. It's unclear if any other company/system would be able to acquire the large pool of disaffected players created by 4e in the way Paizo did, or if they would just leave the hobby entirely.
> 
> Notably, even with the existence of PF, the TTRPG market suffered _substantial_ contraction from 2008-~2016. 5e did not rocket to popularity initially upon release and was greatly aided in becoming the current leader it is due to external factors (ex. Stranger Things, Covid) starting in the second half of the 2010s. If there had been no OGL it is likely this contraction would have been significantly worse. WotC might not even have bothered to produce 5e at all - this isn't much of a stretch considering how extremely limited the initial investment into that edition was. 
> 
> They probably would have retained the IP though, since D&D is much more valuable as an IP than it is as an actual game - tabletop is inherently difficult to monetize and attempting to do so is using the IP in backwards fashion - and a new edition would surely have happened if the various factors that caused a resurgence in popularity across the TTRPG market occurred anyway.


Yeah, I kind of get the sense that they are going after the things that have allowed them to attain the level of popularity they see now. Seems short-sighted/greedy, but I have to assume they have the sense that it will be better for them in the long run. But it's not like smart/successful/people/corporations haven't done stupid stuff before so...



> Having finally found the time to read the OGL 1.1 the only things I really object to are the non-exclusive license WotC claims for all published material, even non-commercial material, and the deauthorization of the OGL 1.0.  But I think they'll get away with both of these and people will continue to play D&D.  Some third-party systems might see some growth (I certainly hope they do) but D&D will be fine because the community won't abandon it.  Some of the community will be tickled pink when WotC 'steals' their material.  Publishers will come up with ways to work around the new restrictions:  setting up an open source D&D clone, using stat systems that are easily converted, and so on.


I think this is where I'm at as well. Obviously it depends on what exactly the landscape looks like on the other end of this but... it's hard to underestimate how little people care, ESPECIALLY if they aren't impacted. As an example, I don't produce any D&D content, I don't homebrew, I don't stream, etc etc etc. And although I've purchased 3rd party books, they don't see a tremendous amount of use in the games I play in. I think what I mostly have to look forward to is wondering how they're going to hit me with subscription fees going forward. I suspect most players/DMs are in my shoes. And although this all rubs me the wrong way, it's much easier to simply just keep playing D&D.

So I tend to agree that they will probably get away with this. Especially if they manage to follow through on something and create a shiny new VTT (and especially if they disallow other VTTs from D&D).

For me, it depends on what my group does/wants to do. And what the quality looks like (seems to me the 3rd party publishers are waaaaaaaaaay more interested in doing interesting stuff with D&D, while WotC is like... we heard you didn't like 3rd edition so... here's a few books to hold you over for a decade). And what happens in the aftermath of all this. I happen to like that our technologies are opening up opportunities for everyday people to not only engage with their passions, but to make money doing so or even have a career doing so. This seems to be going in line with the general trend of cracking down on creators, and that's enough to get my hackles up. But it remains to be seen how this all shakes out. 

But if all my favorite content creators stop making D&D content, and I can't play D&D on Roll20 anymore, and all I have to look forward to is "hey, now you can play on our VTT for xx/month!!", yeah, I can find another game lol.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Everyone comes to some edition that makes them a grognard and wistful for the good old days of gaming. Usually its some kind of edition angst, though some of the issues here are abnormally bad.
> 
> Welcome to the club


I came in way earlier than this and dont even like D&D 5e at all.

----------


## Hael

> I came in way earlier than this and dont even like D&D 5e at all.


Neither do I, and I am not invested in them like I was with TSR back in the day.  But unfortunately this mess is going to have repercussions across the entire industry.  Its going to be legal battle after legal battle for the next five years to sort it all out, assuming they go ahead as planned.

I just think its a strategy mistake.  All they had to do was make a semi passable VTT, a nice website to schedule groups and a repo where people can buy their goods/services, and make a not terrible clone of 5.0 (ODnD) and they would rule the marketplace for the next decade. 

Instead, they are looking at an existential risk to their company.  I just dont think its smart business.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Well, 1.0a says "you can use any authorized version." If 1.1 says "all previous versions are unauthorized" that would be an interesting tactic.


Right, but if I don't agree to, accept, and have intention to use 1.1, why do I care what it says?

Put another way, 1.0 is only authorized if you agree to, accept, and use it. Which might sound obvious or silly, but it is a condition of the license. Wouldn't the same be true for 1.1?

If WotC wants people to stop using 1.0, they need to say so in plain language that doesn't depend on people signing up for their shiny new version. Otherwise people who don't want to stop using 1.0 will just refrain from signing up for the shiny new version. If they mean to deauthorize 1.0 regardless if you agree to 1.1, they can't put the deauthorization clause behind a "agree to 1.1" filter.

Again, this leads me to think they mean 1.0 is only deauthorized for you if you use 1.1. It's the same concept as what supposedly was in the GSL contract regarding the OGL. And it's probably the only legal way they can shut down (or at least severely degrade) 1.0 -- they're not taking 1.0 away if you voluntarily renounce it.

I heard (maybe on this thread?) that Matt Colville said he wasn't worried about the new OGL. Maybe he's using the same interpretation?

----------


## animorte

> The Treasonous Knife in the Back to the Community that is One D&D


I believe the knife you are referring to is the OGL 1.1, not the edition itself, especially considering what 4e did to the community. This still gave me a good laugh though.

----------


## sambojin

All I can say is "You know it's pretty easy to make a 2d10 system, with only d6s for modifiers (and +1/+2/+3's) and never regret a thing? Or reference any sort of licence?"

Meh, it's a plan.

(What can't you represent with enough d10s (two of) and a handful of d6 modifiers or +/- 1/2/3's and rerolls? Upcasting? Lol.)

----------


## Scots Dragon

> I believe the knife you are referring to is the OGL 1.1, not the edition itself, especially considering what 4e did to the community. This still gave me a good laugh though.


The plans for the OGL 1.1 and for One D&D are pretty heavily intermeshed.

But I'll grant you that D&D 4e was pretty much the _former_ Worst Thing Wizards Ever Did. Pretty sure attempting to dismantle the OGL outright might eclipse it.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> but now I'm liking D&Done.


 Thank you for joining that fraternity, the D&Done one.  :Small Smile: 



> TSR made a hobby out of beating up small publishers. Then WotC throws them a lifeline. It's always been an abusive relationship.


 Fair. 



> Notably, even with the existence of PF, the TTRPG market suffered _substantial_ contraction from 2008-~2016. 5e did not rocket to popularity initially upon release and was greatly aided in becoming the current leader it is due to external factors (ex. Stranger Things, Covid) starting in the second half of the 2010s.  
> If there had been no OGL it is likely this contraction would have been significantly worse.  
> WotC might not even have bothered to produce 5e at all - this isn't much of a stretch considering how extremely limited the initial investment into that edition was.


"If we can't have it,  nobody can have it!" Hmm, sounds like what they are doing now.  :Small Tongue: 



> They probably would have retained the IP though, since D&D is much more valuable as an IP than it is as an actual game - tabletop is inherently difficult to monetize and attempting to do so is using the IP in backwards fashion - and a new edition would surely have happened if the various factors that caused a resurgence in popularity across the TTRPG market occurred anyway.


 A rising tide raises all boats, and Kickstarter provided a means of tapping into 'venture capital' in small magnitudes. 



> I came in way earlier than this and dont even like D&D 5e at all.


 I came in near the beginning and 5e brought me back to the hobby. But I can see how an old school D&D fan would find it not to their taste; took me a while to get used to it. 



> I just think its a strategy mistake.  All they had to do was make a semi passable VTT, a nice website to schedule groups and a repo where people can buy their goods/services, and make a not terrible clone of 5.0 (ODnD) and they would rule the marketplace for the next decade. 
> 
> Instead, they are looking at an existential risk to their company.  I just dont think its smart business.


 I agree.  It's almost as though the suits at Hasbro, whom WoTC answer to, are tone deaf.  



> I heard (maybe on this thread?) that Matt Colville said he wasn't worried about the new OGL. Maybe he's using the same interpretation?


 Matt was very clear about "I consulted with legal counsel" in one of his tweets.

----------


## Palanan

> Originally Posted by *EggKookoo*
> _Again, this leads me to think they mean 1.0 is only deauthorized for you if you use 1.1._


Tempting to believe this, but it feels too close to wishful thinking.




> Originally Posted by *EggKookoo*
> _I heard (maybe on this thread?) that Matt Colville said he wasn't worried about the new OGL. Maybe he's using the same interpretation?_


Or maybe hes already cut a separate deal, the way I suspect Paizo has.

----------


## Brookshw

> The plans for the OGL 1.1 and for One D&D are pretty heavily intermeshed.
> 
> But I'll grant you that D&D 4e was pretty much the _former_ Worst Thing Wizards Ever Did. Pretty sure attempting to dismantle the OGL outright might eclipse it.


Are you trying to say,..._a Wizard did it_  :Small Tongue:

----------


## False God

I'm just curious as this thread moves awful fast, do we have an official statement on this yet?  Any sort of official draft release?  Or are we still running off leaks?

----------


## Palanan

Two other potential hits beyond the 3PP dev community themselves:

First, someone has already mentioned Keith Ammanns blog, The Monsters Know What Theyre Doing.  Hes spun this off into a series of hardcover books (four at last count) which seem to be blog entries in book form.  In the most draconian interpretation of the 1.1, would these need to be pulped if he doesnt submit?

And second, used bookstores, which is where I came across Ammanns books.  My favorite used bookstore has a whole shelf of Paizo products, mainly 1E hardcovers, and several more shelves of many other smaller 3PP publications.  Since this is a national chain, theyre probably making enough revenue to at least be noticed by the Hasbro penny-scrapers.  Would they also need to submit to 1.1, or clear their shelves of these products?

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I'm just curious as this thread moves awful fast, do we have an official statement on this yet?  Any sort of official draft release?  Or are we still running off leaks?


Great question, and I don't know lol.

I did watch a video that said WotC intended to release the new OGL on Jan 4 and give creators less than a week to sign on. That seems to be treating it as legit, but I don't know where that info came from.

----------


## Segev

If I had to defend WotC and their OGL v. 1.1, especially if I were trying to sound like I was making "reasonable concessions" or pointing out that anybody who claims v. 1.1 was somehow doing something egregiously wrong, I would probably take this tac:

Of course previously-printed, used books aren't subject to v. 1.1. In fact, that's what the "use any authorized version" clause is actually allowing: if you've already published it, you can keep selling under the license that you published it under. All de-authorizing v. 1.0(a) does is say that no NEW creations can be published under it. Why, if these "fine gentlemen" hadn't been so foolish as to stand up to us challenged us on this, we wouldn't even have cared if they'd gone ahead and quietly finished publishing and selling whatever kickstarter or other little projects they had in the pipeline and just ushered them under the door as "already published." So, you see, your honor, this is just a perfectly reasonable license update for all publications going forward, and has no detrimental effect on anybody going backwards.

The trouble being that, even if they do take this "generous" position, they're still telling people who want to make content for 3.0, 3.5, PF1, and 5e (ignoring 5.1 entirely) that they're not allowed to except under v. 1.1, and I don't think they have the power to even do this. Not in a legal sense. They may turn out to be able to bully this past courts, but that no more makes it legal than a bank robber getting acquitted of the robbery by an ignorant or corrupted jury makes the robbery he committed legal.

But I would be unsurprised if we're told something akin to my different-font position by WotC PR teams and/or lawyers in court in an attempt to make it seem like, because they don't intend to do everything that the v 1.1 would allow them to do if it had legal force, it's totally okay and should have legal force, please just ignore that even though we're not shooting all the hostages while robbing the bank, we ARE still robbing the bank.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Or maybe hes already cut a separate deal, the way I suspect Paizo has.


I'm not sure. I feel like he'd phrase it more like "I'm okay, but a lot of other smaller publishers need to be concerned" if he was going that route.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Two other potential hits beyond the 3PP dev community themselves:
> 
> First, someone has already mentioned Keith Ammanns blog, The Monsters Know What Theyre Doing.  Hes spun this off into a series of hardcover books (four at last count) which seem to be blog entries in book form.  In the most draconian interpretation of the 1.1, would these need to be pulped if he doesnt submit?


I think that falls under 3PP work.

His blog also runs adds, so in itself it probably falls under OGL 1.1.




> And second, used bookstores, which is where I came across Ammanns books.  My favorite used bookstore has a whole shelf of Paizo products, mainly 1E hardcovers, and several more shelves of many other smaller 3PP publications.  Since this is a national chain, theyre probably making enough revenue to at least be noticed by the Hasbro penny-scrapers.  Would they also need to submit to 1.1, or clear their shelves of these products?


Used bookstores are a different thing, IIRC. They don't have any link with the original publishers.

----------


## Psyren

> Neither do I, and I am not invested in them like I was with TSR back in the day.  But unfortunately this mess is going to have repercussions across the entire industry.  Its going to be legal battle after legal battle for the next five years to sort it all out, assuming they go ahead as planned.
> 
> I just think its a strategy mistake.  All they had to do was make a semi passable VTT, a nice website to schedule groups and a repo where people can buy their goods/services, and make a not terrible clone of 5.0 (ODnD) and they would rule the marketplace for the next decade. 
> 
> Instead, they are looking at an existential risk to their company.  I just dont think its smart business.


They were looking at existential risk either way honestly. If enough people opposed 1DnD (regardless of reason*) and OGL 1.0a was left untouched, a retroclone of 5.0 would be inevitable. Similarly, because of OGL 1.0a's vague provisions around video games, VTTs and the like, they would then be losing market share for their VTT, for official licensed games like Baldurs Gate 3, etc. Having sunk all the design resources into making 5e a solid foundation and figuring out how to translate it to those two other media, they would have given any competitor with access to 1.0a (i.e. all of them) a massive head start with how to deliver on that experience without needing to touch Wizards' closed IP. And all that is without touching the stuff we've never even seen yet like DnD NFTs and the like. So I can see why trying to head that off at the pass, even if it causes damage to their brand in the short term, could be seen as the right move all the same.

*And judging by threads here and elsewhere, those reasons don't have to be related to quality at all.




> Right, but if I don't agree to, accept, and have intention to use 1.1, why do I care what it says?


I get what you're saying and I honestly don't know. Clearly they think they _can_ deauthorize 1.0a for everyoe in some way, whether they do that inside 1.1 itself or separately. Succeeding at defending that choice or not, it's going to be a landmark case for the industry either way.




> The trouble being that, even if they do take this "generous" position, they're still telling people who want to make content for 3.0, 3.5, PF1, and 5e (ignoring 5.1 entirely) that they're not allowed to except under v. 1.1, and I don't think they have the power to even do this. Not in a legal sense. They may turn out to be able to bully this past courts, but that no more makes it legal than a bank robber getting acquitted of the robbery by an ignorant or corrupted jury makes the robbery he committed legal.


It would mean that what he did wasn't actually robbery.

Also, the belief that the only way anyone could possibly agree with their interpretation is to be ignorant or corrupted is a bit dismissive.




> I'm not sure. I feel like he'd phrase it more like "I'm okay, but a lot of other smaller publishers need to be concerned" if he was going that route.


Announcing you're okay might make it hard to claim damages later if you need to. Much like telling everyone you're fine at a car accident before getting checked out.

----------


## OldTrees1

> I'm just curious as this thread moves awful fast, do we have an official statement on this yet?  Any sort of official draft release?  Or are we still running off leaks?


Summary
There is no official statement yetA lawyer set a letter to WotC asking for a clarification within 10 daysThe leak of the OGL 1.1 has expanded to the full document.




> The leaks keep coming and I don't know what you have / have not seen on your own. Here is a live reading of the OGL 1.1
> Stream https://youtu.be/Sj5dsiDXeUw
> Document http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

----------


## Dr.Samurai

I think what continues to irk me about all of this is what a slow moving, bungling, seemingly disinterested company WotC has been.

It's like... they want to be a lazy, uninspired, company, that creates an OGL so that everyone else can create products to fill the giant void WotC was content on leaving empty, and then at the same time, decide to wake up two decades later and crack down on everyone else so they can get in on the action now that it appears to be popular enough for them.

It strikes me as disgusting. And I know that might seem over the top, but it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's like... you created this ecosystem. It has flourished. Now all the people that have made that ecosystem what it is has to pay for your lack of initiative the last 20 years?

It's gross.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Here's another scenario that irks me.

I run a weekly VTT game on Foundry VTT (hosted in AWS). I've got it set up just how I like it, and have buckets (literally) of storage.

If this license went into effect, say, at the first of February, I'd have a few options because my games would then be officially on notice as being unlicensed copyright infringement.

1. Shut down that game and the server. Transition to a paid plan on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds and have to rebuild my entire library and learn an entirely new VTT from scratch. And last I looked, _neither_ of those actually met my strong desires. Altogether a much lower quality, much more expensive option.
2. Shut down that game and the server entirely. Ending the campaign and the friendship built up over 2+ years, since we all live in very different places (spread out across an entire continent).
3. Hoist the Jolly Roger and keep playing.
4. Switch the game to some other system.

What's _not_ an option is anything that actually gives WotC any money here. *Because they don't have a product out yet*. And likely won't for more than a year afterward. And when they do, it'll be definitely lacking in features and functionality and almost certainly _way_ more expensive than any of the existing options. And using it will mean all the problems with #1 _plus a lot more_, since I'll have to transition to a new system anyway (OneD&D), plus most of my assets (built up over years now) won't work because they're 2d maps. And D&D Beyond's tooling *sucks*. And doesn't even allow a lot of the things I want to do--no custom base classes for example. And nothing that "breaks the mold", such as changes to the core mechanics. And even for the things it does, it does poorly and jankily.

So as I see it, the new OGL has
1. only costs for consumers and 3rd parties. None of them gain _any_ benefit from it at all and all of them incur significant costs. Even if they're non-commercial homebrewers.
2. Only _speculative, conditional_ benefits for WotC, and _certain_ costs (in goodwill if nothing else). The only way WotC benefits is if
a) competition goes away or starts paying substantial royalties.
b) total playerbase does not and in fact increases.

Yet they're killing competition _without even an MVP (minimum viable product) to replace it._ Which will inevitably increase piracy and _cannot_ lead to more money for them.

So it's a lose-lose negative-sum action.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> They were looking at existential risk either way honestly. If enough people opposed 1DnD (regardless of reason*) and OGL 1.0a was left untouched, a retroclone of 5.0 would be inevitable. Similarly, because of OGL 1.0a's vague provisions around video games, VTTs and the like, they would then be losing market share for their VTT, for official licensed games like Baldurs Gate 3, etc. Having sunk all the design resources into making 5e a solid foundation and figuring out how to translate it to those two other media, they would have given any competitor with access to 1.0a (i.e. all of them) a massive head start with how to deliver on that experience without needing to touch Wizards' closed IP. And all that is without touching the stuff we've never even seen yet like DnD NFTs and the like. So I can see why trying to head that off at the pass, even if it causes damage to their brand in the short term, could be seen as the right move all the same.
> 
> *And judging by threads here and elsewhere, those reasons don't have to be related to quality at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I get what you're saying and I honestly don't know. Clearly they think they _can_ deauthorize 1.0a for everyoe in some way, whether they do that inside 1.1 itself or separately. Succeeding at defending that choice or not, it's going to be a landmark case for the industry either way.
> 
> 
> ...


I doubt a 5e retroclone would sell right now, so I don't think there is an existential crisis. 5e not moving on discussionz reminds me of grognards. The thing that made OSR systems come about was that to many of people's 30 years old copies of older PHBs and DMGs are falling apart from use. There are a few younger OSR players, but not a lot. 10 years, maybe. And fad players appear to be losing interest, CR is getting a bit stale andnDnD can get . . . Repetitive.The one good thing would be competing systems rather than the insane belief D20 or a level based system works as a universal RPG. A skill system might be modified that way (since they are far easier to houserule, comparing star wars D20 to Star Wars D6), but not a level based one. D20 modern is cludgy. The OGL chased a lot of competing systems out of the market place, and established a monopoly, thst going away hurts WOTC, but it is good for gamers.

The existential threat to DND is that WOTC may be assuming fad gamers are forever.  Yes it has its diehard fans, but a lot of the competition in the late 80s and early 90s was from games in genres that the DnD mechanic didn't handle well. Even if WOTC manages to win this one, Paizo did a Savage worlds port already, that could be PF3, so they survive, smaller but they survive, and might take a few D20 players into wider spaces.

Video games, that is a dodge, non-DnD games have been using DnDesque mechanics for so long, unless it is using a DnD setting, the OGL isn't necessary. Programmers have a lot of options to make a wizard, swordsman, etc.

----------


## Unoriginal

> I think what continues to irk me about all of this is what a slow moving, bungling, seemingly disinterested company WotC has been.
> 
> It's like... they want to be a lazy, uninspired, company, that creates an OGL so that everyone else can create products to fill the giant void WotC was content on leaving empty, and then at the same time, decide to wake up two decades later and crack down on everyone else so they can get in on the action now that it appears to be popular enough for them.
> 
> It strikes me as disgusting. And I know that might seem over the top, but it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's like... you created this ecosystem. It has flourished. Now all the people that have made that ecosystem what it is has to pay for your lack of initiative the last 20 years?
> 
> It's gross.


The issue lies in the fact that it isn't the same captain at the wheel of the ship. 

For all the faults of WotC's corporate suits, they at least knew which sea they were sailing in, and how much cargo they could actually haul. 

Now Hasbro's suits are steering the ship and declared they're not earning enough money and that since other people are taking the itineraries WotC charted and are hauling cargo, it obviously means that they should pay for the privilege or stop using those itineraries (rather than accepting that their ship cannot haul more cargo and that it's a good thing if more people use the routes).




> So as I see it, the new OGL has
> 1. only costs for consumers and 3rd parties. None of them gain _any_ benefit from it at all and all of them incur significant costs. Even if they're non-commercial homebrewers.
> 2. Only _speculative, conditional_ benefits for WotC, and _certain_ costs (in goodwill if nothing else). The only way WotC benefits is if
> a) competition goes away or starts paying substantial royalties.
> b) total playerbase does not and in fact increases.
> 
> Yet they're killing competition _without even an MVP (minimum viable product) to replace it._ Which will inevitably increase piracy and _cannot_ lead to more money for them.
> 
> So it's a lose-lose negative-sum action.


Indeed.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I think what continues to irk me about all of this is what a slow moving, bungling, seemingly disinterested company WotC has been.
> 
> It's like... they want to be a lazy, uninspired, company, that creates an OGL so that everyone else can create products to fill the giant void WotC was content on leaving empty, and then at the same time, decide to wake up two decades later and crack down on everyone else so they can get in on the action now that it appears to be popular enough for them.
> 
> It strikes me as disgusting. And I know that might seem over the top, but it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's like... you created this ecosystem. It has flourished. Now all the people that have made that ecosystem what it is has to pay for your lack of initiative the last 20 years?
> 
> It's gross.


Yeah, as I said three days ago, moving towards monopolies is what larger corps do when they face a monopoly on a somewhat limited customer base when they are facing younger or more talented competition. From some of what I heard, WOTC uses contractors, but they don't give them great deals in the contracts (remembering a certain WOTC former employee discussing issues related to his health), so hanging out your own shingle has advantages. 

I sort of wonder if One DnD isn't about filling cracks in the system--a GM's options book would do that--bit as a way to sell new Players handbooks now that the market is saturated.

----------


## Snowbluff

> I sort of wonder if One DnD isn't about filling cracks in the system--a GM's options book would do that--bit as a way to sell new Players handbooks now that the market is saturated.


It's a new edition. To me, it's usually 90 of this and other business decisions and 10 of actually play oriented reasons. 

Though I will say this completely controverts the concept of a perpetual edition anyway. The market gets saturated and people have most of the books they want. Interest, one way or another, does die off without new releases and the more popular a system is the more apparent its flaws are. Every system is perfect until someone actually plays it and realizes a few things don't mesh very well, at least to their taste, and they will let everyone know it. As such, an apparent unrest in the community grows which may or not be reflective of general play, creating an impetus for change. New editions are probably inevitable because of these factors..

----------


## Psyren

> Here's another scenario that irks me.
> 
> I run a weekly VTT game on Foundry VTT (hosted in AWS). I've got it set up just how I like it, and have buckets (literally) of storage.
> 
> If this license went into effect, say, at the first of February, I'd have a few options because my games would then be officially on notice as being unlicensed copyright infringement.
> ...
> What's _not_ an option is anything that actually gives WotC any money here. *Because they don't have a product out yet*. And likely won't for more than a year afterward. And when they do, it'll be definitely lacking in features and functionality and almost certainly _way_ more expensive than any of the existing options. And using it will mean all the problems with #1 _plus a lot more_, since I'll have to transition to a new system anyway (OneD&D), plus most of my assets (built up over years now) won't work because they're 2d maps. And D&D Beyond's tooling *sucks*. And doesn't even allow a lot of the things I want to do--no custom base classes for example. And nothing that "breaks the mold", such as changes to the core mechanics. And even for the things it does, it does poorly and jankily.


I honestly wouldn't worry about this situation - there's pretty much zero chance Foundry doesn't make a special deal of some kind with them before whatever deadline ends up being packaged with this thing. They're too big an industry player not to. Moreover, the VTT space is close-knit enough that they will likely be able to figure out the key aspects of the deals the others got.




> I doubt a 5e retroclone would sell right now, so I don't think there is an existential crisis.


Not right _now_, no, but after 1DnD releases? There are already people raging over design decisions like the Ardling or the Multiverse, who might opt into a retroclone as their main avenue for new compatible content purely out of spite. And don't get me wrong, as long as that product is licensed that's their right to do so if they wish, but the new terms at least would mean that WotC would get a piece of that pie whereas for 1.0a they would get a basket of nothing.




> The one good thing would be competing systems rather than the insane belief D20 or a level based system works as a universal RPG. A skill system might be modified that way (since they are far easier to houserule, comparing star wars D20 to Star Wars D6), but not a level based one. D20 modern is cludgy. The OGL chased a lot of competing systems out of the market place, and established a monopoly, that going away hurts WOTC, but it is good for gamers.
> 
> The existential threat to DND is that WOTC may be assuming fad gamers are forever.  Yes it has its diehard fans, but a lot of the competition in the late 80s and early 90s was from games in genres that the DnD mechanic didn't handle well. Even if WOTC manages to win this one, Paizo did a Savage worlds port already, that could be PF3, so they survive, smaller but they survive, and might take a few D20 players into wider spaces.
> 
> Video games, that is a dodge, non-DnD games have been using DnDesque mechanics for so long, unless it is using a DnD setting, the OGL isn't necessary. Programmers have a lot of options to make a wizard, swordsman, etc.


I don't see video games as a dodge at all. Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous both made multiple millions for Paizo and Owlcat, and it's doubtful that WotC saw a dime of either. The OGL providing TTRPG authors an easy way to develop new sourcebooks is one thing, but it's easy to see how directly subsidizing their competition in other media entirely could be viewed as being quite another.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Not right _now_, no, but after 1DnD releases? There are already people raging over design decisions like the Ardling or the Multiverse, who might opt into a retroclone as their main avenue for new compatible content purely out of spite. And don't get me wrong, as long as that product is licensed that's their right to do so if they wish, but the new terms at least would mean that WotC would get a piece of that pie whereas for 1.0a they would get a basket of nothing.


If they want to stay competitive, maybe they should make better products.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I honestly wouldn't worry about this situation - there's pretty much zero chance Foundry doesn't make a special deal of some kind with them before whatever deadline ends up being packaged with this thing. They're too big an industry player not to. Moreover, the VTT space is close-knit enough that they will likely be able to figure out the key aspects of the deals the others got.


Foundry VTT has been trying to get a license since Foundry VTT first came out and WotC has just flat refused to even negotiate, from what I understand. And they've said as much with the new one. Additionally, Foundry's licensing model isn't really built for it--it's a "buy once, get a perpetual license" concept rather than a paid hosting/subscription. So yeah. I strongly doubt that Foundry will get a deal. Especially since the whole "not subsidizing the competition" thing.

In fact, I expect that when Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds come up for renewal of their license or try to negotiate for a OneD&D license, they'll be faced with either punitive terms or just refused. Because that would compete with WotC's in-house one.

That's the core point here--WotC's action can _only_ be justified on anti-competitive grounds. It _requires_ killing the competition to even plausibly have a positive impact (financially) on _anyone_. And only at the cost of larger losses to everyone else. It's _negative sum_.




> If they want to stay competitive, maybe they should make better products.


This. This whole license thing is an admission that they don't think they can (or don't want to try) to compete on the merits of their products and instead can only win by destroying the competition, even if that means harming the ecosystem as a whole. And that's pure scum behavior.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I honestly wouldn't worry about this situation - there's pretty much zero chance Foundry doesn't make a special deal of some kind with them before whatever deadline ends up being packaged with this thing. They're too big an industry player not to. Moreover, the VTT space is close-knit enough that they will likely be able to figure out the key aspects of the deals the others got.
> 
> 
> 
> Not right _now_, no, but after 1DnD releases? There are already people raging over design decisions like the Ardling or the Multiverse, who might opt into a retroclone as their main avenue for new compatible content purely out of spite. And don't get me wrong, as long as that product is licensed that's their right to do so if they wish, but the new terms at least would mean that WotC would get a piece of that pie whereas for 1.0a they would get a basket of nothing.


 paizo was dealing with some serious design issues for decades. You might see a set of documents passing for using 5e material or a setting bereft of DnD lore, but there really wouldn't be a need for players handbooks, etc.

And settings may be a bigger issue than you think, a lot of people have suggested that non-WOTC controlled settings hurts dales of the forgotten realism et all . . . Yes, but that isn't really an issue, a few monster stats or minor rules tweaks doesn't exactly give WOTC a great claim. I'd say WOTC deserves farless on a setting, if anything at all, rules content maybe, but not for details in a world someone creates.






> I don't see video games as a dodge at all. Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous both made multiple millions for Paizo and Owlcat, and it's doubtful that WotC saw a dime of either. The OGL providing TTRPG authors an easy way to develop new sourcebooks is one thing, but it's easy to see how directly subsidizing their competition in other media entirely could be viewed as being quite another.


Did West End Games/FASA or other sci-fi gamers see a dime of royalties when 3.x borrowed much of the current system from their IP (I really was surprised at a fewnsimilarities between WEGs mechanic ajd 3.5's skill system and it might be worth a lawyers time to see if some ofnit wasn't outright plagerism). What about monsters borrowed from authors or other gaming systems, and there are a few of those? What WOTC did seems pretty similar, except there was no OGL to protect them when they did it. 

I don't know how much kingmakers success really owes to DnD, as I think you really overestimate how much of the DnD IP really has benefited some 3pp. That it was PAIZO, maybe, not that it was 3.x. Video game developers likely don't need the OGL either, they can point to the long history of roguelikes, final fantasy, Bards tale, etc and that this has never been an issue until now. That is, there aren't a lot of VIdeogames using mechanics, and too much ofnthe crunch really isn't DnDs.

My expectation is, if anything, they are seeking frivolous lawsuits here, but I think for the most point the justifications being given are really a smokescreen for trying to make a monopolistic move.

----------


## Scots Dragon

Well it looks like they've basically forced a Pathfinder situation _anyway_, one that isn't even gonna use D&D 5e, but...

Kobold Press announced their own RPG, and people flocked to the site in large enough numbers that it's crashed the site entirely. As such, linking isn't currently possible, but they've made the announcement publicly visible on their Twitter.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

The OGL 1.0a really is a "we aren't going to try to sue everyone for things everyone in the industry, including us, does and has been doing." A lot of 3.x and the refinements of it as ansystem are building on the type of borrowing everyone did. What would truly be Wizards IP in mechanics  would be THAC0 tables, etc., which isn't what they are using now. Pretty much everything other than feats mimics things other companies were doing before, but adapting it to a class/level system instead of a skill based system, which TSR didn't pioneer. It's important to understand, 3.x is far less original to WOTC than WOTC and a few newer players seem to think. They tapped into an eco system where everyone had been borrowing from everyone since Traveller in 1977. I've not played all of FASA's products, but it wasnreally interesting how the skill system appears to not to borrow a piece here or there of competing RPGs, rather it borrowed the entire system from competitors. Alternity's system is very similar to earlier editions of mechwarrior. 

What is truly unique to modern DnD was never the mechanics, they had their own twist on it, sure, but that is what a lot of games did, a twist on fairly universal (to everyone but TSR which tended) approaches, a few did roll under, WEG did roll over, but the basic systems were farily common, which made it easy to move from one game to another. The system as a whole isn't very original with WOTC. What is really wizards IP are setting details, which were never in the OGL in the first place. That I think sums up something kind of important important, the OGL basically just days we won't sue you for doing what everyone is already doing.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Well it looks like they've basically forced a Pathfinder situation _anyway_, one that isn't even gonna use D&D 5e, but...
> 
> Kobold Press announced their own RPG, and people flocked to the site in large enough numbers that it's crashed the site entirely. As such, linking isn't currently possible, but they've made the announcement publicly visible on their Twitter.

----------


## Brookshw

> This. This whole license thing is an admission that they don't think they can (or don't want to try) to compete on the merits of their products and instead can only win by destroying the competition, even if that means harming the ecosystem as a whole. And that's pure scum behavior.


I completely get where you're coming from, but another way to look at this is to say they think they can be successful on the merits of the product alone and don't need the ecosystem to support it. They may be right in that, though I completely agree that the ecosystem is beneficial to them; its a risk-reward business decisions for them.




> Kobold Press announced their own RPG, and people flocked to the site in large enough numbers that it's crashed the site entirely. As such, linking isn't currently possible, but they've made the announcement publicly visible on their Twitter.


I will buy that in a heart beat.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I completely get where you're coming from, but another way to look at this is to say they think they can be successful on the merits of the product alone and don't need the ecosystem to support it. They may be right in that, though I completely agree that the ecosystem is beneficial to them; its a risk-reward business decisions for them.


This would be a fair amount of delusion on their part, in my estimation.

I don't see how "corporate" D&D is going to compete with "passion project" D&D if WotC decides to nuke the OGL and force a lot of people's hands.

----------


## Brookshw

> I don't see how "corporate" D&D is going to compete with "passion project" D&D if WotC decides to nuke the OGL and force a lot of people's hands.


Visibility, name recognition, attack lawyers.

----------


## Segev

I think, if I were a WotC executive seeking to better monetize D&D, I would start a campaign to have Saturday Night Gaming at the same stores as Friday Night Magic. I would offer both more organized play, and a way to enter a subscription service to register your ongoing campaign and reserve space at participating gaming stores. I might host a free access match-making board with a subscription service to organize your campaign like World Anvil or some other programs provide, with your game books digitally available for ease of access. 

I would worry about a VTT later, though I would keep it on my radar. I might partner with hero forge and tabletop simulator to see if I could make a host-side server that would allow a liter client-side access with D&D-branded figures for sale. Possibly with a sort of redemption code thing such that if you buy a physical one, you get a digital one to use, too.

I would also offer the most successful products on DM's Guild contracts to have their materials incorporated into anthologies to be printed physically and marketed by WotC. Put out more content, essentially, without having to buy more writing.

I would back away from the politically-tinged stuff as fast and silently as possible, issuing no retractions and apologizing for nothing, just moving forward with an eye towards avoiding calling any of my customers names for using the product, nor telling them that the new products are morally better in any way. Let them judge their own morals and ethics; I am just making a game.

I might, in partnering with game stores for Saturday Night D&D, even offer the stores "rental sets" of figurines and terrain they can subscribe for, with suggestions that they sublet the subscriptions to their customers. Replacements would come every few months, as would new items.

And I would make some deluxe boxed sets corresponding to the bigger modules, like Storm King' Thunder and Tomb of Annihilation, that include terrain, dungeon maps that are playable surfaces with that terrain, and figures for all the kinds of monsters, with possibly different "levels" to be had, so the whales can buy the big and beautiful stuff to have an all-inclusive game set for it. 

Maybe run crowd funding campaigns to produce those, using in-house crowd funding so we aren't sharing our profits, but are making them with minimal investment up front.

----------


## Psyren

> Foundry VTT has been trying to get a license since Foundry VTT first came out and WotC has just flat refused to even negotiate, from what I understand. And they've said as much with the new one. Additionally, Foundry's licensing model isn't really built for it--it's a "buy once, get a perpetual license" concept rather than a paid hosting/subscription. So yeah. I strongly doubt that Foundry will get a deal. Especially since the whole "not subsidizing the competition" thing.
> 
> In fact, I expect that when Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds come up for renewal of their license or try to negotiate for a OneD&D license, they'll be faced with either punitive terms or just refused. Because that would compete with WotC's in-house one.


I guess I'm just a lot less pessimistic on this front. WotC benefits from roll20 existing - both by extending the overall market, and by being a test lab of features for their own VTT - and with a custom license agreement they would benefit even more.

As for Foundry - if their business model is truly incompatible with WotC's licensing, one solution might be to change their business model. Foundry themselves are counseling patience on this front so we'll have to wait and see.




> That's the core point here--WotC's action can _only_ be justified on anti-competitive grounds. It _requires_ killing the competition to even plausibly have a positive impact (financially) on _anyone_. And only at the cost of larger losses to everyone else. It's _negative sum_.


I don't see these sorts of agreements as "killing/destroying the competition." If roll20 saw no value for themselves in a custom license agreement with WotC they wouldn't enter into one.




> paizo was dealing with some serious design issues for decades. You might see a set of documents passing for using 5e material or a setting bereft of DnD lore, but there really wouldn't be a need for players handbooks, etc.
> 
> And settings may be a bigger issue than you think, a lot of people have suggested that non-WOTC controlled settings hurts dales of the forgotten realism et all . . . Yes, but that isn't really an issue, a few monster stats or minor rules tweaks doesn't exactly give WOTC a great claim. I'd say WOTC deserves farless on a setting, if anything at all, rules content maybe, but not for details in a world someone creates.


Maybe I just need more coffee but I'm not clear on what any of this means.




> Did West End Games/FASA or other sci-fi gamers see a dime of royalties when 3.x borrowed much of the current system from their IP (I really was surprised at a fewnsimilarities between WEGs mechanic ajd 3.5's skill system and it might be worth a lawyers time to see if some ofnit wasn't outright plagerism). What about monsters borrowed from authors or other gaming systems, and there are a few of those? What WOTC did seems pretty similar, except there was no OGL to protect them when they did it.


Even assuming all this is true as you've presented it, it definitely highlights the need for a license of some kind. 




> I don't know how much kingmakers success really owes to DnD, as I think you really overestimate how much of the DnD IP really has benefited some 3pp. That it was PAIZO, maybe, not that it was 3.x. Video game developers likely don't need the OGL either, they can point to the long history of roguelikes, final fantasy, Bards tale, etc and that this has never been an issue until now. That is, there aren't a lot of VIdeogames using mechanics, and too much ofnthe crunch really isn't DnDs.
> 
> My expectation is, if anything, they are seeking frivolous lawsuits here, but I think for the most point the justifications being given are really a smokescreen for trying to make a monopolistic move.


I think there's an argument to be made. Would either game have been as successful if they weren't able to leverage large swaths of PF1 mechanics wholesale, maybe, but I doubt it. Owlcat not needing to put time into figuring out their own system for classes, actions etc (the way, say, Larian or Obsidian did) could definitely be viewed as an unintentional subsidy.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I think, if I were a WotC executive seeking to better monetize D&D, I would start a campaign to have Saturday Night Gaming at the same stores as Friday Night Magic. I would offer both more organized play, and a way to enter a subscription service to register your ongoing campaign and reserve space at participating gaming stores. I might host a free access match-making board with a subscription service to organize your campaign like World Anvil or some other programs provide, with your game books digitally available for ease of access. 
> 
> I would worry about a VTT later, though I would keep it on my radar. I might partner with hero forge and tabletop simulator to see if I could make a host-side server that would allow a liter client-side access with D&D-branded figures for sale. Possibly with a sort of redemption code thing such that if you buy a physical one, you get a digital one to use, too.
> 
> I would also offer the most successful products on DM's Guild contracts to have their materials incorporated into anthologies to be printed physically and marketed by WotC. Put out more content, essentially, without having to buy more writing.
> 
> I would back away from the politically-tinged stuff as fast and silently as possible, issuing no retractions and apologizing for nothing, just moving forward with an eye towards avoiding calling any of my customers names for using the product, nor telling them that the new products are morally better in any way. Let them judge their own morals and ethics; I am just making a game.
> 
> I might, in partnering with game stores for Saturday Night D&D, even offer the stores "rental sets" of figurines and terrain they can subscribe for, with suggestions that they sublet the subscriptions to their customers. Replacements would come every few months, as would new items.
> ...


I'd agree with most of this. Switching from working on videogames to a VTT will probably prove to be a mistake. Offer any VTT a set of plugins for a licensing fee per customer base using DND and call it a day there. Videogamers will still be around when fad TTRPG gamers are gone, TTRPGs will never compete with the dopamine hit.

----------


## Oramac

> Kobold Press announced their own RPG, and people flocked to the site in large enough numbers that it's crashed the site entirely. As such, linking isn't currently possible, but they've made the announcement publicly visible on their Twitter.





> I will buy that in a heart beat.


I'm already signed up for the playtest. I guess I'm one of the people who helped crash the website this morning.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Psyren

> I think, if I were a WotC executive seeking to better monetize D&D, I would start a campaign to have Saturday Night Gaming at the same stores as Friday Night Magic. I would offer both more organized play, and a way to enter a subscription service to register your ongoing campaign and reserve space at participating gaming stores. I might host a free access match-making board with a subscription service to organize your campaign like World Anvil or some other programs provide, with your game books digitally available for ease of access. 
> 
> I would worry about a VTT later, though I would keep it on my radar. I might partner with hero forge and tabletop simulator to see if I could make a host-side server that would allow a liter client-side access with D&D-branded figures for sale. Possibly with a sort of redemption code thing such that if you buy a physical one, you get a digital one to use, too.
> 
> I would also offer the most successful products on DM's Guild contracts to have their materials incorporated into anthologies to be printed physically and marketed by WotC. Put out more content, essentially, without having to buy more writing.
> 
> I would back away from the politically-tinged stuff as fast and silently as possible, issuing no retractions and apologizing for nothing, just moving forward with an eye towards avoiding calling any of my customers names for using the product, nor telling them that the new products are morally better in any way. Let them judge their own morals and ethics; I am just making a game.
> 
> I might, in partnering with game stores for Saturday Night D&D, even offer the stores "rental sets" of figurines and terrain they can subscribe for, with suggestions that they sublet the subscriptions to their customers. Replacements would come every few months, as would new items.
> ...


I think the only thing I agree with here is the DMsGuild stuff, and maybe the deluxe box sets with maps thing. And even then for the latter it might be more worthwhile to split some of that stuff into its components (not everyone who runs SKT will want to use official maps or minis for instance.)

Putting off the VTT in particular is a bad idea, they need to be working on that asap. (Didn't DDB essentially have one ready to go right when they got acquired?)

----------


## verbatim

> Visibility, name recognition, attack lawyers.


From what I have heard it seems feasible that Kobold Press can afford to win the case about 5e still being license-able under OGL 1.0a.  I suspect WOTC will either try to buy their silence or pretend to not notice this (KP might be too big for that) so that they can avoid losing a high stakes legal fight.

----------


## Segev

> I think the only thing I agree with here is the DMsGuild stuff, and maybe the deluxe box sets with maps thing. And even then for the latter it might be more worthwhile to split some of that stuff into its components (not everyone who runs SKT will want to use official maps or minis for instance.)
> 
> Putting off the VTT in particular is a bad idea, they need to be working on that asap. (Didn't DDB essentially have one ready to go right when they got acquired?)


Yeah, the VTT is something I would alter my priorities on with more information, which I would have if I were actually an exec. My view on it from the outside is that, given the lack of one after all this time, they probably have had people (not everyone on it, but enough between miscommunication and mismanagement) bungling it and making one of those Duke Nukem Forever type "products," and thus it might be time to shelve it and turn to those who're already doing it well.

I actually think the idea of turning to the existing VTTs and offering them licenses to officially host D&D material, and then maybe having some sort of clause in there that allows me-as-WotC to have a special subscription service that grants a subscription tier to each of those VTTs that allows access to that D&D licensed stuff (but not necessarily other subscription features of those VTTs), so that we can do some cross-promotion, would be a better move. Let the VTTs compete with each other for "best VTT," rather than me trying to do what they do but less well and rely on my IP to force people in. (There is a long rant I could make on the state of streaming services that rely on exclusive releases rather than being good streaming services, here.)

The idea would be to allow cross-promotion while promoting competition to improve my own customers' experience with VTTs. Any devotee of a particular VTT who loves their subscription services can get access to the D&D-exclusive stuff by having the right subscription tier with the VTT (which the VTT is paying me for via the license agreement). Anybody who is just in it for my D&D products can use the WotC subscription to access the basic behaviors of the VTTs I'm partnered with and get the D&D IP exclusives on them. Discounts for the higher-tier subscription features on a particular VTT would be encouraged to try to promote and sell those additional subscriptions linked to the D&D IP.


Making video games, if we (that is, WotC, in my hypothetical) can do it well, is great. In fact, I would love to take the video games and try to make a VTT with them. If they're so good that the interface works well for players, then they should work well with some of the limits taken off and some controls given to jump which model you're piloting.

----------


## jjordan

> I'd agree with most of this. Switching from working on videogames to a VTT will probably prove to be a mistake. Offer any VTT a set of plugins for a licensing fee per customer base using DND and call it a day there. Videogamers will still be around when fad TTRPG gamers are gone, TTRPGs will never compete with the dopamine hit.


Unless, and I'm just brainstorming here, instead of building video games you set up a virtual table top with a 3D gaming engine.  Independent developers are already doing this.  That blurs the line between video games and TTRPGs which has some potential benefits for the publisher.  What if you could use an interface to put your homebrew into that kind of a VTT?  Pretty darn cool.  I'm not saying they're doing that, but they did hire a bunch of programmers and they dropped development of a bunch of video games.  Which suggests they have resources that could be put into something similar to this.  WotC has already embraced video game design philosophies with 5e and those philosophies worked really well for them; 5e is a good product.

The funniest thing about this, from my really dark sense of humor, is that WotC could have sidestepped a bunch of this furor through simple bribery.  Cruise through DMsGuild or DriveThruGames and pick a couple of decent OGL 1.0 properties and incorporate them into D&D Beyond.  No physical publishing, just digital.  Publicize that and then announce the OGL 1.1 as a necessary update moving forward and half the homebrew community would have been falling all over each other trying to adopt 1.1 for the chance to have their material ascend into the pantheon. :)  That and a simple statement that anything published under the OGL 1.0 prior to a certain date is still covered by 1.0 but anything published after must be 1.1.  This whole affair feels kind of tone deaf.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I think, if I were a WotC executive seeking to better monetize D&D, I would start a campaign to have Saturday Night Gaming at the same stores as Friday Night Magic. I would offer both more organized play, and a way to enter a subscription service to register your ongoing campaign and reserve space at participating gaming stores. I might host a free access match-making board with a subscription service to organize your campaign like World Anvil or some other programs provide, with your game books digitally available for ease of access.


I agree with focusing on organized play. The DM for a module we're playing through right now just told me that originally it was competitive, and Gygax designed it with a scoring system in mind. I've no idea if bringing something like that back into the fold would work or not, but supporting organized play I think would be a win.



> I would worry about a VTT later, though I would keep it on my radar. I might partner with hero forge and tabletop simulator to see if I could make a host-side server that would allow a liter client-side access with D&D-branded figures for sale. Possibly with a sort of redemption code thing such that if you buy a physical one, you get a digital one to use, too.


Hmm... I actually think they _should_ be working on a VTT. Especially if they're this hungry for money.



> I would also offer the most successful products on DM's Guild contracts to have their materials incorporated into anthologies to be printed physically and marketed by WotC. Put out more content, essentially, without having to buy more writing.


One thing I don't get is... why can't WotC collaborate with other creators? So if there are real popular books out there, why can't WotC structure their OGL in such a way that they can take the agreement with that creator a step further, tweak the book, slap an OFFICIAL sticker on it, and sell it through WotC, with some amount going to the original creator? Would that make sense, keeping in mind I don't know what I'm talking about lol?



> I would back away from the politically-tinged stuff as fast and silently as possible, issuing no retractions and apologizing for nothing, just moving forward with an eye towards avoiding calling any of my customers names for using the product, nor telling them that the new products are morally better in any way. Let them judge their own morals and ethics; I am just making a game.


Agreed, always a bad look to make baseless accusations, even if through implication, against your user base.



> I might, in partnering with game stores for Saturday Night D&D, even offer the stores "rental sets" of figurines and terrain they can subscribe for, with suggestions that they sublet the subscriptions to their customers. Replacements would come every few months, as would new items.


I agree. Terrain and minis capture the imagination and can make the game more exciting for people.



> And I would make some deluxe boxed sets corresponding to the bigger modules, like Storm King' Thunder and Tomb of Annihilation, that include terrain, dungeon maps that are playable surfaces with that terrain, and figures for all the kinds of monsters, with possibly different "levels" to be had, so the whales can buy the big and beautiful stuff to have an all-inclusive game set for it.


Tiered structures like this could work I think. I mean... people drop thousands on Dwarven Forge.

It's like WotC woke up and said "Wow... people are doing A LOT of stuff with our IP; maps, minis, terrain, local events, splat books, random encounter books, trinket books, VTTs, etc. Should we get in on this to make more money? Nah! But let's torch their stuff to the ground to make more money."

----------


## Atranen

> They were looking at existential risk either way honestly. If enough people opposed 1DnD (regardless of reason*) and OGL 1.0a was left untouched, a retroclone of 5.0 would be inevitable. Similarly, because of OGL 1.0a's vague provisions around video games, VTTs and the like, they would then be losing market share for their VTT, for official licensed games like Baldurs Gate 3, etc. Having sunk all the design resources into making 5e a solid foundation and figuring out how to translate it to those two other media, they would have given any competitor with access to 1.0a (i.e. all of them) a massive head start with how to deliver on that experience without needing to touch Wizards' closed IP. And all that is without touching the stuff we've never even seen yet like DnD NFTs and the like. So I can see why trying to head that off at the pass, even if it causes damage to their brand in the short term, could be seen as the right move all the same.


The easiest way to succeed would be to make a ruleset that people are broadly happy with. The problem is that there aren't _that_ many things widely viewed as problems with 5e such that fixing them is an improvement; they almost did their job too well with 5e. So in order to make a new edition, they need to shuffle the chairs, change some paint here and there, and hope that people will bother with the switch. They understand there isn't enough of an incentive to, hence the OGL move. 




> It's a new edition. To me, it's usually 90 of this and other business decisions and 10 of actually play oriented reasons. 
> 
> Though I will say this completely controverts the concept of a perpetual edition anyway. The market gets saturated and people have most of the books they want. Interest, one way or another, does die off without new releases and the more popular a system is the more apparent its flaws are. Every system is perfect until someone actually plays it and realizes a few things don't mesh very well, at least to their taste, and they will let everyone know it. As such, an apparent unrest in the community grows which may or not be reflective of general play, creating an impetus for change. New editions are probably inevitable because of these factors..


Exactly. There's no game-related reason for a new edition, only business ones. And the business ones are poor enough that switching is a _risky_ proposition, because it can easily get out of hand. So they're stacking on the risky action of pulling the OGL hoping they'll come out ahead. 




> Well it looks like they've basically forced a Pathfinder situation _anyway_, one that isn't even gonna use D&D 5e, but...
> 
> Kobold Press announced their own RPG, and people flocked to the site in large enough numbers that it's crashed the site entirely. As such, linking isn't currently possible, but they've made the announcement publicly visible on their Twitter.


An own goal. Despite my complaints with OneD&D, because of the market power and network effects with playing tabletops, I'd expect to switch eventually, prior to this announcement. Following it, I'll be putting my weight behind a competitor and hoping enough people join to make competition viable. 




> Here's another scenario that irks me.
> 
> I run a weekly VTT game on Foundry VTT (hosted in AWS). I've got it set up just how I like it, and have buckets (literally) of storage.
> 
> If this license went into effect, say, at the first of February, I'd have a few options because my games would then be officially on notice as being unlicensed copyright infringement.


A worst case scenario, but a plausible one. I'd be surprised if they let other VTTs have licenses, at least following release of their own VTT. 




> I think, if I were a WotC executive seeking to better monetize D&D, I would start a campaign to have Saturday Night Gaming at the same stores as Friday Night Magic. I would offer both more organized play, and a way to enter a subscription service to register your ongoing campaign and reserve space at participating gaming stores. I might host a free access match-making board with a subscription service to organize your campaign like World Anvil or some other programs provide, with your game books digitally available for ease of access. 
> 
> --snip--


All great ideas. The AL group I'm a part of does all its organizing ad hoc, on Warhorn or discord or ads posted on the FLGS site or meetup or wherever. If there were a centralized ecosystem that made it easy for new people to find and join, I think we'd see noticeably more players.

----------


## jjordan

> From what I have heard it seems feasible that Kobold Press can afford to win the case about 5e still being license-able under OGL 1.0a.  I suspect WOTC will either try to buy their silence or pretend to not notice this (KP might be too big for that) so that they can avoid losing a high stakes legal fight.


They can't ignore it.  Copyright and trademark have to be actively defended or you lose them.

----------


## Brookshw

> I'm already signed up for the playtest. I guess I'm one of the people who helped crash the website this morning.


So did I  :Small Big Grin: 

_You have my wallet. And my credit care. And my checkbook._

This is EXACTLY what I want to see. The people arguing for anticompetiveness conduct are missing a primary purpose of those laws, they're to push producers to always be seeking to improve, to be more efficient, to innovate (also IP laws in general do that), and to make those products available at competitive prices. By de-coupling the industry from that license, it opens a massive opportunity for consumers to get access to products which might not otherwise have existed. The TTRPG industry is distinct from the software industry in that way, there's no barrier to a consumer to enjoy a new product, I don't need to worry that my computer might not speak the same language, or the APIs are going to be a problem, etc. (or something like that, I'm not tech savvy). Yes, it will result in growing pains which can be sorted out on a case by case basis, and some people may walk away entirely, but that doesn't mean that overall this isn't a good thing, time will tell.




> They can't ignore it.  Copyright and trademark have to be actively defended or you lose them.


 TM, yes, (c), no, with (c) if you don't actively defend it then you only lose the opportunity to prevent a specific use of infringed content, you still own your content and can enforce your rights against any other instance of infringement.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Even assuming all this is true as you've presented it, it definitely highlights the need for a license of some kind.


 not really. As I noted everyone was doing it in some way shape or form back in the day. And as I noted, a good chunk of the monster manual has always been plagerism of stuff from pulp magazines or cheap sci fi fantasy literature with the name changed. The Iconic DND monsters aren't really all that original to TSR/WOTC. Even Vancian spellcasting was taken from some literature, no idea if royalties were paid. 

Other than TSR which often had the cludgiest mechanisms, if the standard is similar mechanicisms everyone was similar in numerous details. What sold games post-hickman wasn't mechanics, it was settings, and of course DnD has never shared that aspect of their IP. 






> I think there's an argument to be made. Would either game have been as successful if they weren't able to leverage large swaths of PF1 mechanics wholesale, maybe, but I doubt it. Owlcat not needing to put time into figuring out their own system for classes, actions etc (the way, say, Larian or Obsidian did) could definitely be viewed as an unintentional subsidy.


I doubt most people playing video games care about the die mechanisms. Classes are the one thing WOTC couldn't claim at this juncture, as I noted before, it was never an issue with Rogue or roguelikes. Wizardry added a few classes, bards tale divided the wizard into a few classes and eliminated the cleric, I forget what Ultima did, but it wasn't that dissimilar, but all a game has to do to use the DND classes is point to the long history of these characters in fantasy tropes, and that it has never been a problem before for the past 40ish years of CRPG development. Provided WOTC computer code isn't being used, I'm not sure they really have a moral or legal claim on something based on classes. 

As I said, it seems to me you think WOTC is far more original than it actually is, the OGL is just a "we won't sue you for doing what everyone in the industry is doing, including us." The one thing WOTC and others would depend on at trial is that most jurors won't know how much of the history of gaming is based on borrowing IP and doing small riffs on it. A historian of games might make a fair living testifying at trials. Might be worth a lawyersntime to hunt down 70s and 80s systems, might even find a client or two in the process.

----------


## verbatim

> They can't ignore it.  Copyright and trademark have to be actively defended or you lose them.


The subject in question would be Kobold Press's claim that the OGL 1.0a still applies to content it was released under.  Using the OGL would mean that they are avoiding things that would run afoul of Copyright or Trademark.

If WOTC actually tries to fight a court case over the retroactive edits part that Gizomodo is speculating that they might be considering (different from the more direct accusations in the story) they will get _annihilated_ and it will be a public message that forking 5e is legal.  I suspect that above all else they will absolutely do whatever they can to avoid actually having this fight in court.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

As a note, _trademark_ has to be defended. Copyright does not in any fashion. Not in the US. It's inherent and you can't claim squatters rights.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Unless, and I'm just brainstorming here, instead of building video games you set up a virtual table top with a 3D gaming engine.  Independent developers are already doing this.  That blurs the line between video games and TTRPGs which has some potential benefits for the publisher.  What if you could use an interface to put your homebrew into that kind of a VTT?  Pretty darn cool.  I'm not saying they're doing that, but they did hire a bunch of programmers and they dropped development of a bunch of video games.  Which suggests they have resources that could be put into something similar to this.  WotC has already embraced video game design philosophies with 5e and those philosophies worked really well for them; 5e is a good product.
> 
> The funniest thing about this, from my really dark sense of humor, is that WotC could have sidestepped a bunch of this furor through simple bribery.  Cruise through DMsGuild or DriveThruGames and pick a couple of decent OGL 1.0 properties and incorporate them into D&D Beyond.  No physical publishing, just digital.  Publicize that and then announce the OGL 1.1 as a necessary update moving forward and half the homebrew community would have been falling all over each other trying to adopt 1.1 for the chance to have their material ascend into the pantheon. :)  That and a simple statement that anything published under the OGL 1.0 prior to a certain date is still covered by 1.0 but anything published after must be 1.1.  This whole affair feels kind of tone deaf.


A few video games did something like this, not sure it worked.

----------


## Brookshw

> As a note, _trademark_ has to be defended. Copyright does not in any fashion. Not in the US. It's inherent and you can't claim squatters rights.


Just a fun little legal tidbit, normally you enjoy copyright protection as soon as you set it in a tangible medium (need to register to sue for statutory damages). California is an exception to that as they've enacted a civil code which lets you claim copyright protection without having to fix in a tangible medium (I speculate its to protect things suggested during pitches). Just a weird quirk I've always found interesting.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Just a fun little legal tidbit, normally you enjoy copyright protection as soon as you set it in a tangible medium (need to register to sue for statutory damages). California is an exception to that as they've enacted a civil code which lets you claim copyright protection without having to fix in a tangible medium (I speculate its to protect things suggested during pitches). Just a weird quirk I've always found interesting.


Yeah, that is weird. And the definitions of "tangible medium" are quite a bit broader and...weirder...than most people know.

I taught a unit on copyright for a web design class at the high school level for several years. And my takeaway was "man, this is complex and really really...squishy. With hidden pitfalls everywhere."

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I agree with focusing on organized play. The DM for a module we're playing through right now just told me that originally it was competitive, and Gygax designed it with a scoring system in mind. I've no idea if bringing something like that back into the fold would work or not, but supporting organized play I think would be a win.
> 
> Hmm... I actually think they _should_ be working on a VTT. Especially if they're this hungry for money.


Working with VTTs is honestly better, if the market goes the way I think it will, considering what happened last time. A VTT needs to be able to do DnD, but it can't survive just doing DnD, and I doubt other companies will want WOTC being the VTT for their products. Let someone else eat the development costs, sell them a subscription for DBB access plug-ins and other frills. 




> One thing I don't get is... why can't WotC collaborate with other creators? So if there are real popular books out there, why can't WotC structure their OGL in such a way that they can take the agreement with that creator a step further, tweak the book, slap an OFFICIAL sticker on it, and sell it through WotC, with some amount going to the original creator? Would that make sense, keeping in mind I don't know what I'm talking about lol?


 as I understand it, they under pay their talent.




> Agreed, always a bad look to make baseless accusations, even if through implication, against your user base.


 I strongly agree here, also it's bad to market your product to just one half of the country. But the problem is, whenever you claim to be non-political on a point, a twitter mob comes knocking down your virtual door saying if you aren't political [and on their side of the discussion] you are hitler/stalin/mao/totalitarianmassmurdererofyourchoice. One side of the aisle is certainly worse about this, but the other side is catching up, rapidly.

But personally I want modern politics out of my games completely. Who wants to listen to that when they are trying to relax? That may be a Gen-X thing though.

----------


## Brookshw

> Yeah, that is weird. And the definitions of "tangible medium" are quite a bit broader and...weirder...than most people know.
> 
> I taught a unit on copyright for a web design class at the high school level for several years. And my takeaway was "man, this is complex and really really...squishy. With hidden pitfalls everywhere."


Ah, I was wondering why you seemed so knowledgeable about it. If we're talking weirdness, once you start looking back at the enactments of multiple reforms (notably the 1967 act) you get into these weird pitfalls where copyright could be lost unintentionally. 

I think Harvard and MIT both do edx's on copyright, never took them myself but I'm sure they're a great crash course. NOLO also does a lot of laymen aimed books on the topic which are great.

----------


## verbatim

> as I understand it, they under pay their talent.


Wouldn't be surprised if they were taking advantage of designers who grew up as fans the same way game studios do.

On the other hand it might also just be a straight systemic issue across many departments.  They have long suffered from being a Seattle based company that refuses to pay wages worth attracting the developer talent required to take their online capabilities to the next level, given how geographically close they are to Microsoft, Bungie, Amazon, etc.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Ah, I was wondering why you seemed so knowledgeable about it. If we're talking weirdness, once you start looking back at the enactments of multiple reforms (notably the 1967 act) you get into these weird pitfalls where copyright could be lost unintentionally. 
> 
> I think Harvard and MIT both do edx's on copyright, never took them myself but I'm sure they're a great crash course. NOLO also does a lot of laymen aimed books on the topic which are great.


My two cents, what is really weird is how long after the death of an author this extends. I know angry who lost money on book on CS Lewis for quoting him-writing a book about Lewis without quoting him is a mistake--because of licensing fees on the content. Lewis died in 1963right now his work won't be public domain for I think another 20 years.

----------


## Brookshw

> My two cents, what is really weird is how long after the death of an author this extends. I know angry who lost money on book on CS Lewis for quoting him-writing a book about Lewis without quoting him is a mistake--because of licensing fees on the content. Lewis died in 1963right now his work won't be public domain for I think another 20 years.


You can blame Samuel Clemens for that. In..1906? 1905? I forget, around then, he was testifying before the senate about the importance of copyright law and what it covered, and was a big proponent that the benefits should extend to the authors children ("let the grandchildren take care of themselves" I think was a quote by him).

Of course, then there was the Mickey Mouse Act....

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> You can blame Samuel Clemens for that. In..1906? 1905? I forget, around then, he was testifying before the senate about the importance of copyright law and what it covered, and was a big proponent that the benefits should extend to the authors children ("let the grandchildren take care of themselves" I think was a quote by him).
> 
> Of course, then there was the Mickey Mouse Act....


And the Berne Treaty...

Yeah, this is all a convoluted ugly mess. And throw in international stuff and it goes really bad--the anime world especially since Japan is...loose...about licensing works and anime/music companies go in and out of existence like soap bubbles.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> You can blame Samuel Clemens for that. In..1906? 1905? I forget, around then, he was testifying before the senate about the importance of copyright law and what it covered, and was a big proponent that the benefits should extend to the authors children ("let the grandchildren take care of themselves" I think was a quote by him).
> 
> Of course, then there was the Mickey Mouse Act....


I know the history there, but the problem is it really hinders academic progress. Post-dissertation it's going to mean that a personal tradition I have of always quoting Lewis in any paper on certain specific areas of my scholarship will have to change when I go to do books. Sadly. He had a gift for communicating I lack. And it doesn't hurt the copyright holder, parallel to WOTC, anything I write that quotes Lewis is going to point students to buy and read as much of his ouvre as possible, as well as that of other inklings.

And I get the need for a legacy for kids, etc., but these days, the publishers want the copyright to print the book, so I'm not sure how royalties to families is always applicable.

----------


## Palanan

> Originally Posted by *Brookshw*
> _I think Harvard and MIT both do edx's on copyright, never took them myself but I'm sure they're a great crash course. NOLO also does a lot of laymen aimed books on the topic which are great._


Could you recommend any of the books, simply to help a non-legal reader get an overview of the topic?

----------


## Brookshw

> Could you recommend any of the books, simply to help a non-legal reader get an overview of the topic?


If you just want an overview then copyright.gov has some good material which you won't need to shell out for, you can find a bunch of useful stuff on their website, e.g., landmark Fair Use cases, etc. (I think my name is buried somewhere on that site for a collaboration I was once a part of with them, damned if I've ever looked for it). 

The NOLO stuff I mentioned is also good and generally geared to laymen, but it can get expansive and you might only care about certain portions. I'm guessing The Copyright Handbook by them is good, or if you picked up Patent, Copyright and Trademark for something that's a a bit more general, looks like its only $35 on Amazon.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

News--the first response from someone at WotC (well...their D&D Beyond Twitter mouthpiece):

https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status...71896759926784




> We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.


The responses are...well...not happy. Mostly along the lines of "We don't have questions. We have concerns. Deep, deep concerns." (that last quoting Griffon's Saddlebag.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> The responses are...well...not happy. Mostly along the lines of "We don't have questions. We have concerns. Deep, deep concerns." (that last quoting Griffon's Saddlebag.


This is already going Really Badly for them, so we'll see if they backpedal or double down.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> If you just want an overview then copyright.gov has some good material which you won't need to shell out for, you can find a bunch of useful stuff on their website, e.g., landmark Fair Use cases, etc. (I think my name is buried somewhere on that site for a collaboration I was once a part of with them, damned if I've ever looked for it). 
> 
> The NOLO stuff I mentioned is also good and generally geared to laymen, but it can get expansive and you might only care about certain portions. I'm guessing The Copyright Handbook by them is good, or if you picked up Patent, Copyright and Trademark for something that's a a bit more general, looks like its only $35 on Amazon.


As someone who has some non-gamimg writing projects on the long term scale, thanks, I appreciate that.

Adding one thing to  my list of things I'm bored with:

 A certaint degree borrowing mechanics and literary materials being common practice by all parties in the industry including WOTC, if nothing new comes up, just assume my point stands and my mind hasn't changed. It might be something a lawyer on this topic would be interested in but otherwise one can only reheat the leftovers so many times.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> This is already going Really Badly for them, so we'll see if they backpedal or double down.


Yeah. And with the imminent release of the D&D movie, having bad publicity and pissing off your fanbase (who are the ones who are most attuned to this issue compared to the casual players) seems like a really really bad move.

----------


## BRC

> This is already going Really Badly for them, so we'll see if they backpedal or double down.



I mean, there has been a lot of shouting on the internet. Who knows if that actually penetrates into boardrooms or turns into actual effective action.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Yeah. And with the imminent release of the D&D movie, having bad publicity and pissing off your fanbase (who are the ones who are most attuned to this issue compared to the casual players) seems like a really really bad move.


As I noted, tongue in cheek, it is almost as if some DnD execs have brokerage through a Bahamian branch of a Swiss bank, and are shorting Hasbro stock.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Probably completely not connected, but when I went to go cancel my D&D Beyond subscription (citing the OGL change as the reason), the _subscriptions_ page (not the rest of the site, just the part that handles that) was broken. Took a fair bit to come back up, with a bunch of broken state (saying I wasn't subscribed at all) in between.

Oh, and you can't file a bug report on D&D Beyond without having a _separate_ WotC account. That's...convenient. Not.  :Small Furious:

----------


## Psyren

> not really. As I noted everyone was doing it in some way shape or form back in the day. And as I noted, a good chunk of the monster manual has always been plagerism of stuff from pulp magazines or cheap sci fi fantasy literature with the name changed. The Iconic DND monsters aren't really all that original to TSR/WOTC. Even Vancian spellcasting was taken from some literature, no idea if royalties were paid.


I don't find "everyone was doing it" to be a particularly compelling argument. Whatever happened back at the beginnings of the hobby, these licenses exist now - and while their scope is a matter of some debate (i.e. what counts as a game mechanic vs. an expression etc), the protection they confer for _both_ sides has value.




> Other than TSR which often had the cludgiest mechanisms, if the standard is similar mechanicisms everyone was similar in numerous details. What sold games post-hickman wasn't mechanics, it was settings, and of course DnD has never shared that aspect of their IP.


Huh? Of course they have, that's what DMsGuild is literally for. I can make a name for myself writing a Ravenloft or Eberron adventure for example, knowing somebody will stumble across it while searching one day, in a way that my Psyrenia module might never be able to.




> I doubt most people playing video games care about the die mechanisms.


The affordances went far beyond what dice you got to roll. Each SRD is a familiar language for literally millions of gamers around the world, including constructs like Move/Swift/Immediate/Standard/Full Round actions, CMB/CMD, saving throws, Readying/Delaying, attacks of opportunity, class progressions, multiclass rules, and many more things that Owlcat was able to lift wholesale into their two games. I don't claim to know whether _all_ of these could be used in the absence of an OGL framework.. but using all of them _simultaneously_ with no learning curve is another matter entirely.




> As I said, it seems to me you think WOTC is far more original than it actually is, the OGL is just a "we won't sue you for doing what everyone in the industry is doing, including us." The one thing WOTC and others would depend on at trial is that most jurors won't know how much of the history of gaming is based on borrowing IP and doing small riffs on it. A historian of games might make a fair living testifying at trials. Might be worth a lawyersntime to hunt down 70s and 80s systems, might even find a client or two in the process.


To reiterate, I am in favor of an OGL existing. But I agree with WotC when they say:

_"The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to doallow the D&D communitys independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all lovewithout allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property."_

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> To reiterate, I am in favor of an OGL existing. But I agree with WotC when they say:
> 
> _"The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to doallow the D&D communitys independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all lovewithout allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property."_


They have to update the OGL to make sure _they're_ the only ones minting D&D NFTs. Note they did not rule _that_ out. They just want a monopoly on the unethical actions/scams.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Another :popcorn: response to the tweet:

https://twitter.com/every5emonster/s...72833964642304




> We don't have questions. We're leaving if you don't change it. 
> 
> However, much like my dad, I don't expect you to change and I'm fully prepared to go on without you.

----------


## Brookshw

> News--the first response from someone at WotC (well...their D&D Beyond Twitter mouthpiece):
> 
> https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status...71896759926784
> 
> 
> 
> The responses are...well...not happy. Mostly along the lines of "We don't have questions. We have concerns. Deep, deep concerns." (that last quoting Griffon's Saddlebag.


"Dear people. We know we did a thing"

Helpful....

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Didn't Brookshw explain that NFTs would likely violate the current OGL anyways?

In other words, seems like a weak sauce excuse...

----------


## Psyren

> News--the first response from someone at WotC (well...their D&D Beyond Twitter mouthpiece):
> 
> https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status...71896759926784
> 
> 
> 
> The responses are...well...not happy. Mostly along the lines of "We don't have questions. We have concerns. Deep, deep concerns." (that last quoting Griffon's Saddlebag.


Thanks for the link!




> They have to update the OGL to make sure _they're_ the only ones minting D&D NFTs. Note they did not rule _that_ out. They just want a monopoly on the unethical actions/scams.


I was more quoting for the second part of that - but sure, if they make their own D&D NFTs I'll happily continue ignoring their existence like I have with every other company that tried that  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Scots Dragon

> To reiterate, I am in favor of an OGL existing. But I agree with WotC when they say:
> 
> _"The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to doallow the D&D communitys independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all lovewithout allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property."_


The terms of the existing OGL would prohibit that from occurring. Wizards of the Coast's intellectual property, which is to say what is termed by them as Product Identity, is already fully protected under the Open Gaming License 1.0a. It's literally the first section.




> 1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.


This was literally a nonexistent issue. The Open Gaming License literally _only_ allows access to various concepts that are already well-founded in fantasy fiction and folklore, and provides a rules-based framework in which to apply those, and since you can't copyright game mechanics that's not _actually_ all that much. But Wizards of the Coast under that Open Gaming License was a cultural and economic juggernaut because people wanted to buy the books that actually said Dungeons & Dragons on the cover.

All they've achieved is making a whole bunch of people panic about the state of their livelihoods, and soured most of the goodwill that the community had for them.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> They have to update the OGL to make sure _they're_ the only ones minting D&D NFTs. Note they did not rule _that_ out. They just want a monopoly on the unethical actions/scams.


Not anytime soon. A lot of this stuff reminds me of reading some discussions on colonial era and post revolutionary era currencies and the fraud that was implicit then and now. 

Psiren we stole it but don't steal it from us doesn't work, IMO. The way I would phrase it is there was already an informal OGC or creative commons elements of systems, a type of unspoken gentlemen's agreement for everyone in scifi gaming outside of They Sue Regularly's Star Frontiers, which had a lot of fans, but not a lot of product. WOTC seems to want to claim that OGC as part of their IP. We do need to formalize that OGC, but that in part requires someone like WOTC to review what actually is and is not original with them. THAC0 is fairly certainly theirs, BaB +attribute borrows heavily from the informal OGC.

Otherwise, if we are going the WOTC route, about the only thing I would say is a lawyer might want to find if WOTC owes royalties/damages to whoever owns the WEG and FASA copyrights, particularly if they lifted any sentences or paragraphs in their entirety, and its close enough that I won't say this did happen, but it would be worth investigating because I think it's possible. 

In otherwords, one way of challenging this would be Mutually Assured Destruction. Catalyst or Whizkids owns the license to Fasa properties, Mongoose is now doing Traveller. Literary creators could do the same with their literary creations, D20 Future and a Dragon magazine setting that almost certainly infringed on a series of novels from the late 80s without attribution.I would suspect the owner of that copyright might be ignorant of the fact. But D20 future also copied Battletech/Robotech's themes and ripped off a 70s TV show, and a few other sci-fi properties. OGL 1.0a as it is prevents MAD.

But as noted, I'm bored on this discussion, so take it for what you will

----------


## Kane0

Tell you what, if theres wording that means the homebrew section here is going to be affected im going to be miffed.

----------


## Arkhios

I stand corrected. Had a chance to lay my eyes upon the leaked OGL pdf. Either it's a very well made fraud, or they have absolutely no idea what they're doing to the world-wide community, and to themselves.

Although, I must say, that in order to be subjected to royalties, your annual revenues must exceed $750,000, and the royalties are paid from the amount in excess of that limit. To be honest, it seems quite fair.

What's not fair, is that they contradict themselves within the same paragraph: First they say You (as a Creator) own your creation. But then they continue to claim every right to do whatever they please with what you have created. In other words, even though You own your creation, they own You, and therefore, they own your creation, through and through.

I'm starting to think of jumping into the Kobold Press bandwagon...

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I stand corrected. Had a chance to lay my eyes upon the leaked OGL pdf. Either it's a very well made fraud, or they have absolutely no idea what they're doing to the world-wide community, and to themselves.
> 
> Although, I must say, that in order to be subjected to royalties, your annual revenues must exceed $750,000, and the royalties are paid from the amount in excess of that limit. To be honest, it seems quite fair.
> 
> What's not fair, is that they contradict themselves within the same paragraph: First they say You (as a Creator) own your creation. But then they continue to claim every right to do whatever they please with what you have created. In other words, even though You own your creation, they own You, and therefore, they own your creation, through and through.
> 
> I'm starting to think of jumping into the Kobold Press bandwagon...


The thing about that revenue issue is that it's gross revenue. On a business where single-digit profit margins are considered pretty darn good. And losing money isn't uncommon.

So if you have $1M in revenue (say a big kickstarter), you owe $5k (at the lower 20% royalty from kickstarter). Which means if your margin was 1% before ($10k profit, 995000 costs), well, you now owe 50% of your profits to WotC, meaning your _actual_ profit margin was 0.5%. I'm sure there are cases where that royalty will push you into the negatives. Or _further_ into the negatives. Which changes the risk calculation quite a bit.

If you make $750k with a 1% profit margin, you now make _more_ money (7500 vs 5000) than if you make $1M with a 1% profit margin. That creates all sorts of distorted incentives.

Edit: if I'm doing my math right, it's actually worse than that. You actually make _less_ money (or lose more) by selling more over 750k unless your margin > 25% (20% for kickstarter). At 1%, 50k of revenue above 750k means 500 more dollars in pre-royalty profit...and $12500 more cost in royalty, for a net loss of $12000 (-$9500) from kickstarter). Meaning you go from +$8k profit to *-$4.5k*

----------


## Psyren

> The terms of the existing OGL would prohibit that from occurring. Wizards of the Coast's intellectual property, which is to say what is termed by them as Product Identity, is already fully protected under the Open Gaming License 1.0a. It's literally the first section.


PI is a subset of IP, not a synonym.




> This was literally a nonexistent issue. The Open Gaming License literally _only_ allows access to various concepts that are already well-founded in fantasy fiction and folklore, and provides a rules-based framework in which to apply those, and since you can't copyright game mechanics that's not _actually_ all that much.


I'm aware of the "you can't copyright game mechanics" mantra, but I suspect it's not as quite as far-reaching as you might believe it to be. Certainly it has yet to be truly tested in a TTRPG context.




> All they've achieved is making a whole bunch of people panic about the state of their livelihoods, and soured most of the goodwill that the community had for them.


They will definitely lose some customers over this even if they drastically revise 1.1, that is true.




> Tell you what, if theres wording that means the homebrew section here is going to be affected im going to be miffed.


Homebrew here will likely be non-commercial and thus avoid the royalty bit. The exclusive license/ownership bit is up in the air still though.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I stand corrected. Had a chance to lay my eyes upon the leaked OGL pdf. Either it's a very well made fraud, or they have absolutely no idea what they're doing to the world-wide community, and to themselves.
> 
> Although, I must say, that in order to be subjected to royalties, your annual revenues must exceed $750,000, and the royalties are paid from the amount in excess of that limit. To be honest, it seems quite fair.


 Actually for a business venture 750,000 isn't a lot of money, particularly with a percentage as draconian as 20 or 25 percent. The problem is this is on the gross and not the net. They will be suing broke people who did their cost calculations poorly at the outset and lost money on a kickstarter. Raise a million dollars in funding but pay 1.01 million to develop the promised product, well you are then in a bit of trouble, you lost $10,000 on the venture.  It happens more than you think, creative types often underestimate their costs, particularly if they are new.

With OGL 1.1 in this same scenario, now your project has lost $60,000 rather than $10,000, and that is if you used kickstarter, if WOTC didn't change the terms in a way that harms you further and if you were able to pay the $50,000 you owe WOTC without owing additional interest for late payment of royalties (if you lost money on the project this is doubtful). It could in fact be worse. You can see how this will literally bankrupt 5e creators, and as a lot of people are noting the point where royalties are owed will likely change.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> PI is a subset of IP, not a synonym.


You're not addressing my point, though.

There's nothing additional in the OGL 1.1 that would prevent Dungeons & Dragons NFTs being made that is not already covered by the OGL 1.0a.

----------


## Psyren

> You're not addressing my point, though.
> 
> There's nothing additional in the OGL 1.1 that would prevent Dungeons & Dragons NFTs being made that is not already covered by the OGL 1.0a.


I'm not disagreeing, but the NFT part of that quote was actually not the reason I shared it. That's the more minor of the two issues.

----------


## jjordan

> Tell you what, if theres wording that means the homebrew section here is going to be affected im going to be miffed.


Not a lawyer but I don't think it affects the homebrew section here for a couple of reasons.

First, they define the OGC as applying to hardcopy and static files.  So unless you're posting PDFs here you don't meet one of the necessary conditions.  

Second, you would have to include material WotC explicitly claims as intellectual property.  So if your homebrew doesn't explicitly reference any of those things, you're still good.

In fact, the homebrew here is probably covered by the Fan Content Policy rather than any of the OGCs.  That comes with it's own pitfalls; the FCP explicitly allows anyone, including WotC to use your material without credit or compensation.  Possibly even commercially.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Not a lawyer but I don't think it affects the homebrew section here for a couple of reasons.
> 
> First, they define the OGC as applying to hardcopy and static files.  So unless you're posting PDFs here you don't meet one of the necessary conditions.  
> 
> Second, you would have to include material WotC explicitly claims as intellectual property.  So if your homebrew doesn't explicitly reference any of those things, you're still good.
> 
> In fact, the homebrew here is probably covered by the Fan Content Policy rather than any of the OGCs.  That comes with it's own pitfalls; the FCP explicitly allows anyone, including WotC to use your material without credit or compensation.  Possibly even commercially.


Homebrew here involves quoting mechanics. Mechanics mean you're outside the FCP. And being outside the necessary conditions means _you don't have a license and are thus infringing._ Not that you can do whatever you want.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> I'm not disagreeing, but the NFT part of that quote was actually not the reason I shared it. That's the more minor of the two issues.


If Wizards of the Coast didn't want large businesses exploiting their intellectual property, they shouldn't have sold to Hasbro.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Not a lawyer but I don't think it affects the homebrew section here for a couple of reasons.
> 
> First, they define the OGC as applying to hardcopy and static files.  So unless you're posting PDFs here you don't meet one of the necessary conditions.  
> 
> Second, you would have to include material WotC explicitly claims as intellectual property.  So if your homebrew doesn't explicitly reference any of those things, you're still good.
> 
> In fact, the homebrew here is probably covered by the Fan Content Policy rather than any of the OGCs.  That comes with it's own pitfalls; the FCP explicitly allows anyone, including WotC to use your material without credit or compensation.  Possibly even commercially.


That is where it is interesting. I thought about posting some of my Nova Roma ideas on the world building board, (trying to make a PG version of the Roman Republic will require some thought). No DnD stats, in fact, I likely won't use DnD (and not just for the OGL issues), and as far as I can tell other systems are at least tacitly supported on thenother systems board, though I may have chosen the wrong forum for all this. Would that mean points of history of a world from this board could be co-opted? I don't mind someone adding it to the mix of their own setting but I'd rather like credit for the ideas if simply printed verbatim. One reason why I haven't as yet.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> If Wizards of the Coast didn't want large businesses exploiting their intellectual property, they shouldn't have sold to Hasbro.


Curious as well... whose intent matters the most?

Is it the intent behind the original OGL (open source), or the intent behind everyone that has created something under the OGL (perpetual) or is it the current heads of WotC (we don't want competition)?

Wizards saying they don't want people to exploit their IP begs the question... when is it exploitative? If they are in line with the OGL... how is it exploitative?

----------


## Psyren

> If Wizards of the Coast didn't want large businesses exploiting their intellectual property, they shouldn't have sold to Hasbro.


I see what you did there  :Small Big Grin:  

I doubt they were referring to their parent company with that line though.




> Homebrew here involves quoting mechanics. Mechanics mean you're outside the FCP. And being outside the necessary conditions means _you don't have a license and are thus infringing._ Not that you can do whatever you want.


I think your reading of the leak is correct, but we should also wait and see the actual license before drawing definitive conclusions.




> Curious as well... whose intent matters the most?
> 
> Is it the intent behind the original OGL (open source), or the intent behind everyone that has created something under the OGL (perpetual) or is it the current heads of WotC (we don't want competition)?
> 
> Wizards saying they don't want people to exploit their IP begs the question... when is it exploitative? If they are in line with the OGL... how is it exploitative?


My guess is that they're going to take the black eye and attempt to revoke 1.0a, i.e. go with the current heads' intent. How big of one they receive will be dependent on the final terms present in 1.1. Tweetstorm aside, I don't see them leaving 1.0a in its current form even with the backlash. (Though of course, I could be wrong.)

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I think your reading of the leak is correct, but we should also wait and see the actual license before drawing definitive conclusions.


At the current time, we have to start making plans. As things stand now, any homebrew published outside of yourself either must conform to the OGL in force at the time of publication OR is unauthorized. And unless they change the "only pdfs" standpoint (which is one of the more unlikely things to change, since they called that one out specifically), the homebrew forums _cannot_ be in compliance with the OGL 1.1 unless the _only_ thing anyone posts are links to a static PDF. As soon as you quote any mechanics, you've violated the license.

----------


## jjordan

> Homebrew here involves quoting mechanics. Mechanics mean you're outside the FCP. And being outside the necessary conditions means _you don't have a license and are thus infringing._ Not that you can do whatever you want.


 That could potentially put us into the scope of the OGC, then.  OGC 1.1 states that if you publish (and sharing on an internet site counts as publishing, so far as I know, still not a lawyer) material that contains IP they explicitly claim then you are agreeing to the terms of the OGC 1.1.  Sort of the equivalent of a browse-through license.  Still not a hardcopy or static digital file, though.  So I don't know how that shakes out.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Curious as well... whose intent matters the most?
> 
> Is it the intent behind the original OGL (open source), or the intent behind everyone that has created something under the OGL (perpetual) or is it the current heads of WotC (we don't want competition)?
> 
> Wizards saying they don't want people to exploit their IP begs the question... when is it exploitative? If they are in line with the OGL... how is it exploitative?


I would say they need to excise all references to settings in the non-commerical license, even if it is discussed on a board, unless you are drawing on DnD lore. A setting surrounding Vecna is one thing, a setting that draws on Nordic or Greek myth is a different thing entirely. 

 If someone creates and posts for evaluation a few monsters or characters in their Nottherealms homencampaign setting even on DBB, which draws nothing on their lore we have the noncommercial license. A year later they start a second campaign, switching to Savage worlds, and end up publishing it due to the realization that thebstory arc was just good. If they publish using that engine, one wonders how DnD's IP is involved in that commercial product, yet the OGL 1.1 still let's them help themselves to that non-DnD published work, due to a previous, unfinished version of the product.

----------


## Psyren

> At the current time, we have to start making plans. As things stand now, any homebrew published outside of yourself either must conform to the OGL in force at the time of publication OR is unauthorized. And unless they change the "only pdfs" standpoint (which is one of the more unlikely things to change, since they called that one out specifically), the homebrew forums _cannot_ be in compliance with the OGL 1.1 unless the _only_ thing anyone posts are links to a static PDF. As soon as you quote any mechanics, you've violated the license.


Again, not disagreeing with your reading - but there's also a high chance they put out two versions of the license (commercial and non-commercial, assuming that part of the leak is correct.) My prediction is that the latter will be a bit more permissive than the former, which will prevent them from needing to police every message board, discord server, and even youtubers that display page text.

With that said, we just don't know.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> That could potentially put us into the scope of the OGC, then.  OGC 1.1 states that if you publish (and sharing on an internet site counts as publishing, so far as I know, still not a lawyer) material that contains IP they explicitly claim then you are agreeing to the terms of the OGC 1.1.  Sort of the equivalent of a browse-through license.  Still not a hardcopy or static digital file, though.  So I don't know how that shakes out.


To publish, you have to agree/comply with OGL 1.1 (assumption).
But publishing something not hardcopy or static digital file means you cannot comply with OGL 1.1 (as leaked) because that's explicitly foreclosed as an option.
Therefore, you cannot publish (legally) anything not hardcopy or static digital file.

----------


## Segev

I fully expect that, in the not-unlikely event they do go with some version of 1.1 that has every problematic element in there, Hasbro will be selling off or closing down WotC within the next 4 years as a "failed venture." Maybe - _maybe_ - they will only shut down the D&D side of it and keep M:tG going, depending on how smart they are in reading where revenues are coming from.

----------


## verbatim

Hasbro didn't dump them over 4e.  I can't imagine One going significantly worse than that.

Having more control over a smaller section that is still a majority of the massive pie can be a downgrade depending on how the numbers shake out but it's not like a newcomer is going to overtake them in half a decade.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I fully expect that, in the not-unlikely event they do go with some version of 1.1 that has every problematic element in there, Hasbro will be selling off or closing down WotC within the next 4 years as a "failed venture." Maybe - _maybe_ - they will only shut down the D&D side of it and keep M:tG going, depending on how smart they are in reading where revenues are coming from.


So you're completely disregarding the possibility that WotC is going to start churning out such high quality products that everyone is going to disregard this major misstep and continue playing (and buying) D&D?

You don't think that their first go at a VTT is going to blow all the other ones out of the water?

Or that their fourteenth reprint of the goblin race is going to keep everyone coming back for more???

----------


## EggKookoo

> Wizards saying they don't want people to exploit their IP begs the question... when is it exploitative? If they are in line with the OGL... how is it exploitative?


My incomplete understanding of the history of the OGL has gotten me wondering if WotC always envisioned the OGL going hand-in-hand with the d20 System branding. The latter had the kinds of restrictions that would have helped funnel revenue to WotC, such as "no character creation rules." I suspect they thought 3rd party developers would see the main value in the direct association with D&D, rather then the more guerilla efforts that came. When d20 fizzled, WotC was left holding the bag, so to speak. They've been trying to drop it ever since.

Edit: Or am I wrong and it was someplace else that had those kinds of restrictions?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I fully expect that, in the not-unlikely event they do go with some version of 1.1 that has every problematic element in there, Hasbro will be selling off or closing down WotC within the next 4 years as a "failed venture." Maybe - _maybe_ - they will only shut down the D&D side of it and keep M:tG going, depending on how smart they are in reading where revenues are coming from.


I think they are mere likely to sell it to a company that has less overhead and more focus. A big company requires a bigger base of customers than a smaller one. If fad gamers are leaving the hobby it may be that an RPG company would be interested in the property even if Hasbro isn't.

Also, as a note, even without Paizo there were a few German role-playing games with a feel like DnD which had low levels of circulation in the US. If Paizo and 3.75 hadn't been there, some other systems might have benefited instead.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> It's like... they want to be a lazy, uninspired, company, that creates an OGL so that everyone else can create products to fill the giant void WotC was content on leaving empty, and then at the same time, decide to wake up two decades later and crack down on everyone else so they can get in on the action now that it appears to be popular enough for them.
> 
> It's like... you created this ecosystem. It has flourished. Now all the people that have made that ecosystem what it is has to pay for your lack of initiative the last 20 years?


 I think that's often referred to as a **** move. 



> Unless, and I'm just brainstorming here, instead of building video games you set up a virtual table top with a 3D gaming engine.  Independent developers are already doing this.  That blurs the line between video games and TTRPGs which has some potential benefits for the publisher.  What if you could use an interface to put your homebrew into that kind of a VTT?  Pretty darn cool.  I'm not saying they're doing that, but they did hire a bunch of programmers and they dropped development of a bunch of video games.


 Them hiring MS people recently folds in with this.  



> I agree with focusing on organized play. The DM for a module we're playing through right now just told me that originally it was competitive, and Gygax designed it with a scoring system in mind.


 All of the modules and con scenarios we got to play back then were intended to, at the con, have scoring systems.  (Tomb of Horrors being one, Slavers of the Undercity being another



> Why can't WotC collaborate with other creators?


Like they did with DMs Guild and Sword Coast Adventurers Guide? 



> But let's torch their stuff to the ground to make more money."


 Well, they did take on an exec from Microsoft recently, why would one be surprised at this?  Gatesian, that is. 



> Yeah. And with the imminent release of the D&D movie, having bad publicity and pissing off your fanbase (who are the ones who are most attuned to this issue compared to the casual players) seems like a really really bad move.


 Hard to argue against that. 



> As I noted, tongue in cheek, it is almost as if some DnD execs have brokerage through a Bahamian branch of a Swiss bank, and are shorting Hasbro stock.


 Not gonna bet against that.  


> If Wizards of the Coast didn't want large businesses exploiting their intellectual property, they shouldn't have sold to Hasbro.


 *chuckle* But that ship sailed a while back ...



> I fully expect that, in the not-unlikely event they do go with some version of 1.1 that has every problematic element in there, Hasbro will be selling off or closing down WotC within the next 4 years as a "failed venture." Maybe - _maybe_ - they will only shut down the D&D side of it and keep M:tG going, depending on how smart they are in reading where revenues are coming from.


 If the move is a hit, they won't.

----------


## Segev

> Hasbro didn't dump them over 4e.  I can't imagine One going significantly worse than that.
> 
> Having more control over a smaller section that is still a majority of the massive pie can be a downgrade depending on how the numbers shake out but it's not like a newcomer is going to overtake them in half a decade.


I'd agree with this assessment if the already-publicized explanations for whatever moves they make in the near future didn't include suggestions that D&D is "under-monetized." If their efforts to "fully monetize" D&D wind up with them making less money, there's no way the executives will engage in critical examination of their approach to things. No, it'll be the fault of the customers just not being into D&D anymore, and the people working at WotC for not doing a good enough job making the product that should be winning those customers over. D&D will be labeled as something that just can't make enough money to be worthwhile.

The fact it's "under-monetized" now in their mind's eye means they have HIGH expectations of lucrative takes. They'll at most "acknowledge they were wrong" about how viable D&D is, and never question whether they kicked the goose laying the golden egg into Mt. Doom.




> So you're completely disregarding the possibility that WotC is going to start churning out such high quality products that everyone is going to disregard this major misstep and continue playing (and buying) D&D?
> 
> You don't think that their first go at a VTT is going to blow all the other ones out of the water?
> 
> Or that their fourteenth reprint of the goblin race is going to keep everyone coming back for more???


Indeed, I am expecting that the combination of the flaws I see in 5.1 (which I know others think are great progress) with the bad will from the attempt to ensure that 5.0 is flat-out killed by leaving nobody any choice in the matter, will be quite enough to be a repeat of 4e's errors, financially. And that's before I factor in any risks from people deciding to actually challenge them on their draconian efforts to claim that they own everything that anybody has ever printed under the OGL, and that you must use the draconian new OGL when the OGL had an explicit promise that such would never be the case baked into its language AND into everything WotC said about it when it came out.

I do believe WotC can make high-quality D&D content. Sadly, I see them going downhill, rather than up, since XGE. And they haven't seemed willing to publish much quantity, either. Even when 3.5 was rough in quality, there was an excitement in the marketing about the next book every month or so, which kept it going and making money for quite some time.

The proliferation of 3rd party material for 5e shows that there's still ample ground to tread. WotC seems not to have the creativity, or, alternatively, the permission from its executives to exercise the creativity, to make good new material these days.

----------


## Unoriginal

> My incomplete understanding of the history of the OGL has gotten me wondering if WotC always envisioned the OGL going hand-in-hand with the d20 System branding. The latter had the kinds of restrictions that would have helped funnel revenue to WotC, such as "no character creation rules." I suspect they thought 3rd party developers would see the main value in the direct association with D&D, rather then the more guerilla efforts that came. When d20 fizzled, WotC was left holding the bag, so to speak. They've been trying to drop it ever since.
> 
> Edit: Or am I wrong and it was someplace else that had those kinds of restrictions?


WotC has never shown any indicator they were displeased with the OGL for nearly two decades. And by all accounts, having third party people and others do "guerilla efforts" was massively beneficial for WotC (probably more beneficial in some notable ways that if they had kept trying to make gold out of the fizzling d20's lead).

This OGL 1.1 situation isn't based on old feelings, and given the way it's worded it's not been worked on for long. 

To me all indicates that Hasbro has decided on a sharp, unexpected turn and WotC is scrambling to justify it.

----------


## Psyren

> Hasbro didn't dump them over 4e.  I can't imagine One going significantly worse than that.


Same here.




> Having more control over a smaller section that is still a majority of the massive pie can be a downgrade depending on how the numbers shake out but it's not like a newcomer is going to overtake them in half a decade.


Their diversified transmedia strategy may also pay off here. Sourcebooks and PnP accessories like maps and minis being the only real revenue stream makes them very susceptible to shocks that occur during edition changes. But if they are able to garner additional revenue from game and move tie-ins, VTT technology, and royalties from other users of their licensed IP, they'll be well-positioned to weather these and more.

----------


## Segev

> To me all indicates that Hasbro has decided on a sharp, unexpected turn and WotC is scrambling to justify it.


That does seem like a reasonable deduction. Somebody really needs to sit down and explain to Hasbro that nobody is stealing audience from 5e. All the competition arises from lack of 5e materials to compete with the 3rd party stuff, and from the marketing being less about selling D&D and more about appealing to board-inappropriate topics. Heck, the fact that we can't discuss what D&D 5e's marketing strategy has focused on due to board rules, when there are no board rules against discussing anything and everything about actual D&D, says a lot about what the problem with that focus in marketing is.

Make more and better products to sell, and the OGL allowing 3rd party competition will not hurt your bottom line. In fact, if you really want to do something to expand your audience, approach those third parties and offer to hire them to produce some content for you. 




> Their diversified transmedia strategy may also pay off here. Sourcebooks and PnP accessories like maps and minis being the only real revenue stream makes them very susceptible to shocks that occur during edition changes. But if they are able to garner additional revenue from game and move tie-ins, VTT technology, and royalties from other users of their licensed IP, they'll be well-positioned to weather these and more.


This, I do agree with. Things like straight-up fiction works and other non-gaming merch to back up the gaming are all places their IP is theirs, no third party competition possible, and WotC can diversify their interests to capture all the entertainment consumption that the fantasy market will bear.

----------


## Zuras

> Their diversified transmedia strategy may also pay off here. Sourcebooks and PnP accessories like maps and minis being the only real revenue stream makes them very susceptible to shocks that occur during edition changes. But if they are able to garner additional revenue from game and move tie-ins, VTT technology, and royalties from other users of their licensed IP, they'll be well-positioned to weather these and more.


Theyre not making a good start at a transmedia empire.  Garnering negative PR before their movie release and going after the fraction of the market they dont have rather than getting everyone to buy a plush beholder seems like a dumb move.

I agree that if they successfully create a behemoth of a VTT, even if they made the same base revenue on VTT skins that they make on minis, the margins would be spectacularly better.

The way to do right seems closer to a walled garden/App Store model, where the terms for creators arent great, but the frictions of self publishing are low or non-existent so it remains an attractive option.

----------


## jjordan

> WotC has never shown any indicator they were displeased with the OGL for nearly two decades. And by all accounts, having third party people and others do "guerilla efforts" was massively beneficial for WotC (probably more beneficial in some notable ways that if they had kept trying to make gold out of the fizzling d20's lead).
> 
> This OGL 1.1 situation isn't based on old feelings, and given the way it's worded it's not been worked on for long. 
> 
> To me all indicates that Hasbro has decided on a sharp, unexpected turn and WotC is scrambling to justify it.


Or the situation changed?  With AI art generation it's now possible to make very high-quality TTRPG books using entirely free tools.  With VTTs proliferating a lot of homebrew is being 'published'.  With crowd-funding it's possible to raise a lot of money and create some significant projects (Critical Role raised millions and scored a two season streaming content deal with Amazon and no one at Hasbro missed that).  Online streamers are already making content based on the IP (not just Crit Role and live play, people are making scripted shorts: Ginny D, One For All, etc...).  What was originally a stream of third party content threatens to become a tsunami.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> I see what you did there  
> 
> I doubt they were referring to their parent company with that line though.


As has been pointed out many times thusfar, there is literally no other company within an order of magnitude of Hasbro's size in the D&D space.

They _are_ the larger company. By a factor of twenty-seven. And already basically own the market to do with as they will.

Literally everything about this move is mean-spirited and unnecessary and Wizards of the Coast should not be making it.

----------


## Segev

> Theyre not making a good start at a transmedia empire.  Garnering negative PR before their movie release and going after the fraction of the market they dont have rather than getting everyone to buy a plush beholder seems like a dumb move.
> 
> I agree that if they successfully create a behemoth of a VTT, even if they made the same base revenue on VTT skins that they make on minis, the margins would be spectacularly better.
> 
> The way to do right seems closer to a walled garden/App Store model, where the terms for creators arent great, but the frictions of self publishing are low or non-existent so it remains an attractive option.


Yeah, they should just drop the 1.1 version of the license as it stands, and if there's something that truly needs updating to handle (aside from, "We hate competitors having D&D-compatible products"), they should focus on that in the actual 1.1 update. And remember to leave out nonsense about "deauthorizing" earlier versions; without that clause, the worst anybody would say about 1.1 is, "Well, I won't be using that one, since I don't use [insert whatever isn't covered by 1.0(a) that is covered by 1.1]."

Focusing on selling beholder plushies and owlbear plushies and making the new movie a phenomenon would be a much better strategy than trying to slash and burn third party and fan contribution to the OGL.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Make more and better products to sell, and the OGL allowing 3rd party competition will not hurt your bottom line. In fact, if you really want to do something to expand your audience, approach those third parties and offer to hire them to produce some content for you.


Margins are higher when you let 3pp pay the cost of production, take the market risk and then collect royalties check.

----------


## Raven777

> Unless, and I'm just brainstorming here, instead of building video games you set up a virtual table top with a 3D gaming engine.  Independent developers are already doing this.  That blurs the line between video games and TTRPGs which has some potential benefits for the publisher.  What if you could use an interface to put your homebrew into that kind of a VTT?  Pretty darn cool.  I'm not saying they're doing that, but they did hire a bunch of programmers and they dropped development of a bunch of video games.  Which suggests they have resources that could be put into something similar to this.  WotC has already embraced video game design philosophies with 5e and those philosophies worked really well for them; 5e is a good product.


Isnt that just Menyr?

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Make more and better products to sell, and the OGL allowing 3rd party competition will not hurt your bottom line. In fact, if you really want to do something to expand your audience, approach those third parties and offer to hire them to produce some content for you.


They actually did that quite a bit early on. A few of the adventures and sourcebooks in the early days were contracted out to other companies. 

The Tyranny of Dragons adventures were Kobold Press, Princes of the Apocalypse was Sasquatch, both of Out of the Abyss and Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide were Green Ronin.

Curse of Strahd was the first one produced in-house, as it were.

----------


## Palanan

> Originally Posted by *Segev*
> _making the new movie a phenomenon._


Speaking of which, a recent promo tweet is also getting an earful about the OGL:

https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/stat...59360367722497

Not sure if there's an organized movement to boycott yet.




> Originally Posted by *PhoenixPhyre*
> _...their D&D Beyond Twitter mouthpiece._


You mean this guy?

*Spoiler*
Show

----------


## Roland St. Jude

*Sheriff*: I'm going to push "pause" on this discussion for now. Perhaps we'll allow another version of this thread when there's an official license. Perhaps. It might just be the kind of issue that can't be effectively discussed here within the Forum Rules. For example, this thread already contains way, way too much legal advice and real world politics (which includes government issues and law) in this thread already. 

For now, consider the thread closed and please mind the rules on restarting a closed thread.

----------

