# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Possible OGL Changes?

## TaiLiu

I guess people have been chatting about this for a while. Very recently a video was released talking about this. I don't care much for videos (and frankly have difficulty parsing them) but I watched part of it and then skimmed the rest of the auto-generated transcript.

The main things I got:

This person apparently has sources and access to novel info. You basically have to trust that they're telling the truthfrustrating in principle, but I guess they have no reason to lie in practice.WOTC is willing to release info about what the future of the OGL, but you gotta sign a non-disclosure agreement. That seems legitimately concerning.The principal concern, unsurprisingly, is that third-party writers will be heavily constrained when it comes to creating 5.5e stuff.For players (including DMs) there's a concern that 5.5e will switch to microtransactions and otherwise make it difficult to share books and info.There's concerns that people will ignore 5.5e and take 5e's OGL and make their own systems. That's not a concern I have, since D&D seems to have an unhealthy dominance in the TTRPG scene. Might as well let new systems multiple.

The most frustrating aspect of this video is that it's difficult to separate what seems to be speculation from factual info that's been leaked. It's all kinda blended together for me.

Does anyone know anything about the OGL stuff happening? Does this video seem right?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

An NDA at this stage is not concerning. I'd almost be more puzzled if they didn't have one. It's just standard practice.

I expect them to do what they think they can get away with to shove things into product identity (ie non OGL material like beholders). Pull a full GW and rename elves and dwarves to allow full trademark? Less likely. They would if they could, but I don't think they'll go that far. Not yet. But expect more shadar kai and fewer "shadow elves". More spells named after people. Etc 

I also expect much stronger restrictions on content sharing (at least digitally). Like at minimum only allowing content sharing between paid D&D Beyond subscribers or requiring paying extra to share with free users. Or requiring everyone to have a sub to use the VTT, plus extra payments for storage, tokens, more characters, etc.

I also expect them to attempt to push for paid license agreements with 3rd party publishers, with the carrot of more material. Such as if the core srd only had 4 races and 4 classes and only a few spells. But you could pay some license fee to use more in your products.

----------


## Witty Username

> I also expect much stronger restrictions on content sharing (at least digitally). Like at minimum only allowing content sharing between paid D&D Beyond subscribers or requiring paying extra to share with free users.


Isn't that already a thing? I thought the subscriptions to share books for example was pretty pricey.

I expect D&D Beyond to have more paid services, and possibly exclusive content. The OGL is unlikely to change much as it is likely a money maker, especially if it creates content for D&D Beyond subscriptions.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> An NDA at this stage is not concerning. I'd almost be more puzzled if they didn't have one. It's just standard practice.


Except that this is about clarifying their non-statement from a while ago. There's basically no reason to have an NDA in place, because if you're just clarifying matters, then don't you _want_ people to talk about it?

This sounds like trying to buy off influencers to get on board. I'm not saying that's what it is, but it sure as hell looks sketchy.

----------


## Witty Username

> Except that this is about clarifying their non-statement from a while ago. There's basically no reason to have an NDA in place, because if you're just clarifying matters, then don't you _want_ people to talk about it?
> 
> This sounds like trying to buy off influencers to get on board. I'm not saying that's what it is, but it sure as hell looks sketchy.


No reason to have an NDA never stopped anyone from using them, also, if the access required access to other things that are even pretty innocuous like user data the standard slap an NDA on everything because that info is valued.

Also, if it is in an in progress stage, any info getting out to us will simply cause confusion. The tech industry does this all the time, if any of this stuff involved the inner workings of D&D Beyond, NDA.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Isn't that already a thing? I thought the subscriptions to share books for example was pretty pricey.
> 
> I expect D&D Beyond to have more paid services, and possibly exclusive content. The OGL is unlikely to change much as it is likely a money maker, especially if it creates content for D&D Beyond subscriptions.


Currently, if the content owner has a paid subscription, they can share content with free accounts within a campaign. There are different tiers with different limits. But the players, generally (since usually the DM is the one with the account, but not necessarily) don't have to pay.

I was saying I'd not be surprised if they required both sides to pay to share.

----------


## Telesphoros

Hasbro/WotC certainly has a lot of dials and levers to pull when it comes to licenses.


They could keep the OGL and offer a new SRD for OneD&D. Best option for the playerbase methinks, but not what they'll eventually go with if they're serious about monetization. Also, if the OGL and a new SRD were going to happen/stay the same there's really no need for them to contact 3rd Party Publishers and content creators to sign an NDA before they'll even discuss it. So I do think some changes are coming. How severe remains to be seen.

They could go from the OGL to having the GSL like in 4th Edition.*

They could do a for profit Game License where content creators pay an upfront fee for licensing for physical 3rd party content and maybe another fee (percentage of sales?) for allowing access to the DnDBeyond VTT. 

They could make something like a Dungeon Masters Guild for all 3rd party material and take 50% of the profits like they do now.**

They could also not offer an OGL/SRD/GSL etc. and pull the existing licensing rights from places like RollD20, Fantasy Grounds, and the Foundry. Keep everything in DnDBeyond so they can profit more from microtransactions.

They could close up shop for the DMsGuild (see below**) and either bring it in house or do away with it entirely. If this is going to be the last version of D&D, they might not want to have competing products (that can be given away for free so they don't see any profit from it). Even though they retain the rights to anything listed on the DMsGuild, why pay for something if there's a similar free or cheaper version out there. This could go a lot of different ways.

They could also sue to revoke the existing 5e OGL and even with the suit most likely failing, it would still jam up 3rd Party Publishers and keep them from releasing stuff in their pipeline while the lawsuit was ongoing. Tough to survive without new product going out and steady income coming in.***  


*Although still free, the GSL was more restrictive to say the least and eventually after 5e was released they updated the OGL and released the SRD in January 2016 I believe. Really I would say that was part of the turning point for 5e and it really started growing exponentially. So timing might be a factor too and they may not release anything for OneD&D until it's been out for awhile and they see the metrics for playerbase, sales, etc. Of course you might remember this is when Paizo took up the 3e OGL and made Pathfinder, a competitor to this day. Depending on how this license stuff all pans out, we might see more companies go their own way and make DnD 5e familiar material and/or new game systems. And yeah, some have already done that or are working on things to that effect now. 

**I say something like a  Dungeon Masters Guild because back in June of this year OneBookShelf (DriveThruRPG, DriveThruComics, DriveThruFiction, DriveThruCards, *Dungeon Masters Guild*, Storytellers Vault, Wargame Vault, Pathfinder Infinite) merged with RollD20. So depending on what Hasbro/WotC does with OneDnD licensing and if RollD20 gets to keep their license or lose it, more dominos could fall and we may see more types of these digital dispersal platforms...  or Hasbro could buy the RollD20/OneBookShelf merged company (no name yet) from the Orr Group, LLC... maybe move all the 5e digital stuff over to RollD20 and use OneD&DBeyond just for OneD&D ;)~

***While I'd like to think Hasbro/WotC wouldn't do this, they are already doing these types of things to certain degrees with Magic the Gathering to cut out LGSs and distributors. They sell all their Secret Lairs directly (no distributors or LGS involvement), do product dumps on Amazon for much cheaper prices than LGS can sell for to make a profit and cut out their distributors from the Amazon sales as well. Also they've started paying licensing fees to produce IP related Magic cards like The Walking Dead, Warhammer, and Lord of the Rings. I'm sure this has got them to thinking other companies are going to need to start paying them for licensing going forward.


So yeah, lots of different options and I'm sure I've only scratched the surface. Just my thoughts, YMMV of course.

----------


## TaiLiu

> An NDA at this stage is not concerning. I'd almost be more puzzled if they didn't have one. It's just standard practice.


Oh, is it? This kind of business stuff is far from my expertise, but from my outsider eyes, having a NDA feels like a weird in-between. Either you outright say what you're gonna do, or you cover yourself legally with vague language. The NDA suggests that they they'll say it outright... but only to certain people who can't mention it to others.




> I expect them to do what they think they can get away with to shove things into product identity (ie non OGL material like beholders). Pull a full GW and rename elves and dwarves to allow full trademark? Less likely. They would if they could, but I don't think they'll go that far. Not yet. But expect more shadar kai and fewer "shadow elves". More spells named after people. Etc 
> 
> I also expect much stronger restrictions on content sharing (at least digitally). Like at minimum only allowing content sharing between paid D&D Beyond subscribers or requiring paying extra to share with free users. Or requiring everyone to have a sub to use the VTT, plus extra payments for storage, tokens, more characters, etc.
> 
> I also expect them to attempt to push for paid license agreements with 3rd party publishers, with the carrot of more material. Such as if the core srd only had 4 races and 4 classes and only a few spells. But you could pay some license fee to use more in your products.


Those seem like reasonable predictions. Though I'm not sure of the spell angle. They can just exclude spells from the OGL without needing spells named after people, so I'm not sure why that'd be necessary.




> They could keep the OGL and offer a new SRD for OneD&D. Best option for the playerbase methinks, but not what they'll eventually go with if they're serious about monetization. Also, if the OGL and a new SRD were going to happen/stay the same there's really no need for them to contact 3rd Party Publishers and content creators to sign an NDA before they'll even discuss it. So I do think some changes are coming. How severe remains to be seen.
> 
> They could go from the OGL to having the GSL like in 4th Edition.*
> 
> They could do a for profit Game License where content creators pay an upfront fee for licensing for physical 3rd party content and maybe another fee (percentage of sales?) for allowing access to the DnDBeyond VTT. 
> 
> They could make something like a Dungeon Masters Guild for all 3rd party material and take 50% of the profits like they do now.**
> 
> They could also not offer an OGL/SRD/GSL etc. and pull the existing licensing rights from places like RollD20, Fantasy Grounds, and the Foundry. Keep everything in DnDBeyond so they can profit more from microtransactions.
> ...


Yeah, I think those predictions are in line with what the video mentioned. I wasn't aware of Hasbro already doing some of this stuff, which doesn't bode well for 5.5e's OGL.

----------


## EggKookoo

Right now my only concern is if they'll clamp down on homebrew usage on DnDBeyond. I can create a custom monster that happens to be similar enough to for-pay content that it'll get flagged, even if I've never seen that content before. That's fine right now -- flagging just means I can't share it publicly, but I can still use it for my own campaigns. That's all I want.

But what worries me is WotC's push for monetization might lead to them using that same "similar to" logic to prevent me from even using it in my own games. At the same time, as DM, I'm also subscribed to their master tier, and if they include "unlimited homebrew for personal use" or something as part of that tier, I'll probably be fine. Assuming the subscription cost for that tier doesn't jump up.

I guess that's a secondary concern -- that they'll include all kinds of goodies with a paid sub, then gradually ratchet up the sub price. It will cause that sunk cost problem where it'll start getting too expensive but if I cancel I'll lose all my stuff.

Maybe I should just make my own system...

----------


## Imbalance

> Maybe I should just make my own system...


"The more you tighten your grip, WotC, the more homebrew systems will slip through your fingers."
~ Leia

----------


## Person_Man

Um, there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of D&D clones, many of them living under the old 3.0 OGL.  And fair use still exists, so I can loan my book to anyone, or make a copy and give it to someone, just like a library can loan books or people can still make tapes or cds from music off the radio or a cover band can sing other peoples songs.  You just cant copy and sell another authors work mostly verbatim for profit without their permission.  So Hasbro locking down their OGL a bit more seems reasonable to me.  

Now, if they only put their new content online behind a paywall with a monthly subscription or microtransaction I wont pay for it regardless of what their OGL says.  But thats because Im old and refuse to pay for such things in general. I like owning my games, not renting them.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> I like owning my games, not renting them.


God, I hate subscription models. I hate them so much.

----------


## Rynjin

> Right now my only concern is if they'll clamp down on homebrew usage on DnDBeyond. I can create a custom monster that happens to be similar enough to for-pay content that it'll get flagged, even if I've never seen that content before. That's fine right now -- flagging just means I can't share it publicly, but I can still use it for my own campaigns. That's all I want.
> 
> But what worries me is WotC's push for monetization might lead to them using that same "similar to" logic to prevent me from even using it in my own games. At the same time, as DM, I'm also subscribed to their master tier, and if they include "unlimited homebrew for personal use" or something as part of that tier, I'll probably be fine. Assuming the subscription cost for that tier doesn't jump up.
> 
> I guess that's a secondary concern -- that they'll include all kinds of goodies with a paid sub, then gradually ratchet up the sub price. It will cause that sunk cost problem where it'll start getting too expensive but if I cancel I'll lose all my stuff.


And this is why services like DnDBeyond being owned by the company who makes the game is an inherent problem for the hobby, and should be discouraged by not buying into the service.

One of the greatest assets the TRPG community has is that unlike video games, the game is wholly software independent. There is absolutely NOTHING the company that makes the game can do to stop you from playing, and playing how you want.

Giving them any semblance of control over this is a mistake.

----------


## Oramac

> Also, if the OGL and a new SRD were going to happen/stay the same there's really no need for them to contact 3rd Party Publishers and content creators to sign an NDA before they'll even discuss it.


Exactly. If they were keeping the OGL the same, why contact publishers? AND why make them sign an NDA? This pretty much guarantees that the OGL/SRD _will_ change. How much remains to be seen, but again, if it was minor changes or tweaks, you don't need the NDA and sketchy emails to select publishers. 




> They could do a for profit Game License where content creators pay an upfront fee for licensing for physical 3rd party content and maybe another fee (percentage of sales?) for allowing access to the DnDBeyond VTT.


Awesome. So people like me are totally screwed. There's no way I can afford a license fee, and the content I write most likely won't bring in the kind of income required to cover the fee. Again, this would kill OneD&D. 




> They could make something like a Dungeon Masters Guild for all 3rd party material and take 50% of the profits like they do now.**


You forgot the most important part. When you publish on DMsGuild, _you no longer own your content_. This is why I stopped publishing there. I've got a couple things still up, since they were there before I saw that clause, but I absolutely will not put anything else there. I can handle the 50% cut of profits. I don't like it, but I can handle it. I _can't_ handle losing ownership all my content. 




> I like owning my games, not renting them.


Agreed.

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

This whole discussion is of great importance to me. One of my life goals is to publish my game world. Not digitally. I want to publish an actual dead-tree book I can hold in my hands. I'm well aware that I'll likely never sell more than a few copies of it. I don't care. It's the goal, and I would love to complete it with the 5e or OneD&D system. But as it stands, it's looking like I'll need to rewrite the whole damn thing into a new system. I've already put thousands of hours into it, and having the OGL/SRD removed or put behind paywalls is a slap in the face.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> This whole discussion is of great importance to me. One of my life goals is to publish my game world. Not digitally. I want to publish an actual dead-tree book I can hold in my hands. I'm well aware that I'll likely never sell more than a few copies of it. I don't care. It's the goal, and I would love to complete it with the 5e or OneD&D system. But as it stands, it's looking like I'll need to rewrite the whole damn thing into a new system. I've already put thousands of hours into it, and having the OGL/SRD removed or put behind paywalls is a slap in the face.


It's highly unlikely they could remove the OGL for _already published material_. OneD&D may not have an SRD and may not use the OGL, but you're on solid ground if you don't use any of that material and stick to 5e OGL-compatible material.

----------


## Oramac

> It's highly unlikely they could remove the OGL for _already published material_. OneD&D may not have an SRD and may not use the OGL, but you're on solid ground if you don't use any of that material and stick to 5e OGL-compatible material.


True, except that my stuff isn't already published. If they change the OGL, it will very likely apply to both 5e and OneD&D, making life very difficult indeed.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> True, except that my stuff isn't already published. If they change the OGL, it will very likely apply to both 5e and OneD&D, making life very difficult indeed.


The thing whose publication status matters is 5e itself, not your work. You can't go back and change the license of something already published without _big_ issues. And 5e is, itself, already published under a particular license. You can relicense _going forward_, but existing material can't really have its license changed without court fights. It's why Pathfinder could even happen--WotC couldn't go back and revoke the OGL for 3e even after they decided to not use it going forward with 4e.

----------


## Oramac

> The thing whose publication status matters is 5e itself, not your work. You can't go back and change the license of something already published without _big_ issues. And 5e is, itself, already published under a particular license. You can relicense _going forward_, but existing material can't really have its license changed without court fights. It's why Pathfinder could even happen--WotC couldn't go back and revoke the OGL for 3e even after they decided to not use it going forward with 4e.


That's fair, yea. Still, if WOTC wants to go forward with all the restrictions (which is, admittedly, not confirmed) I'll likely just switch systems regardless. 

Here's hoping Paizo gets going with Pathfinder 5e.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> That's fair, yea. Still, if WOTC wants to go forward with all the restrictions (which is, admittedly, not confirmed) I'll likely just switch systems regardless. 
> 
> Here's hoping Paizo gets going with Pathfinder 5e.


And that's fair as well. Except I'm not fond of anything Paizo does (way too much crunch for too little benefit), so I'll step away from that last sentence.

----------


## Oramac

> And that's fair as well. Except I'm not fond of anything Paizo does (way too much crunch for too little benefit), so I'll step away from that last sentence.


Agreed. I'm not a fan of 3e or Pathfinder in general, just because of all the crunch. My hope if Paizo does make a Pathfinder5 (or whatever they call it) would be that they use as much of the streamlining as possible to keep the crunch away. 

I suppose only time will tell.

----------


## Sception

most of the speculation I've seen is either stuff they already do (microtransactions for online character builder content, higher tier subscriptions to share content with people who haven't separately purchased it), stuff they can't do (somehow prevent people from sharing physical books, somehow prevent people from using 3rd party vtts, somehow prevent 3rd party vtts from having their own automated character sheets that the players fill out manually), or stuff that would be so blatantly self defeating that I can't imagine them trying it, & if they did I doubt it would stick around long (getting rid of non-subscriber access to the character builder).

Shutting down beyond 20 is something they could maybe do, but it would be difficult, and would likely require them to significantly impair the normal functioning of their character builder.

As for OGL, I mean, I doubt we'll be seeing major changes to it, but if we do then so be it?  They can't stop people from sharing non-monetized homebrew DnD content, and if they withdraw the legal avenue for monetized D&D homebrew we might see more non-D&D ttrpg content on the market, which IMO would be a good thing.  OGL has had a painfully homogenizing effect on the ttrpg landscape since it was first introduced back in 3rd edition.

....

What we'll likely see more of is licensing the brand out to other formats.  Not so much 'mobile game monetization in D&D itself', but rather 'mobile game monetization in D&D branded actual mobile games'.  With actual D&D itself being treated as more of a content generator for ancillary products and merchandise that are expected to be the actual moneymakers.

The way Disney doesn't need to monetize the Marvel comics publishing division to hell and back because its serving as a tool to generate and test character and story concepts for MCU productions & related merchandizing, where the real money is.  Or the way the Pokemon Company doesn't need the mainline pokemon games to be monetized to the fullest extent possible because they're serving as a tool to generate character and creature designs for the anime, ccg, plush dolls, and mobile games - which again are where the real money is.  Actual comics, actual main line pokemon games, actual D&D, the source material for any brand or intellectual property; these things don't need to be particularly high quality or high profit products in and of themselves.  This is often to their detriment when it comes to funding and quality control, but it can also also to their benefit to the extent that it can mean less corporate meddling in or obnoxious monetization of the core product itself.

So yeah, more D&D mobile games, more D&D non-mobile video games, more D&D movies and tv shows, maybe with tie in lines of toys and action figures.

Maybe a LEGO D&D product line, with LEGO D&D characters and monsters and dungeons?  How is a lego D&D line not already a thing?  Is it because Hasbro considers kirkbi to be a rival toy corporation and doesn't want to work with them?  If so, they should get over it, because it's such an obvious combination with so many obviously profitable product ideas.  They could do one of those LEGO video games based on the D&D movie, or a series of them based on classic adventures.  Buy the LEGO Castle Ravenloft for your Nintendo Switch and play through a fun little action game parody of the classic adventure.  Then go out and buy Lego Ravenloft sets 1 - 5, each with a couple heroes or npcs, some monster figures, and parts & instructions to build a room or set of rooms from the Castle Ravenloft adventure map to play with them on.  Then buy the actual D&D Curse of Strahd adventure, and play out encounters in the castle using using your lego sets as a physical 3d battle map & character minis.  Maybe a cross promotion tie in with the new VTT where you can buy 3d virtual characters and monsters that look like the lego figures instead of traditional miniatures.

----------


## schm0

Seems like a bunch of hearsay and speculation. I'll same my judgement for something more concrete.

----------


## animorte

> God, I hate subscription models. I hate them so much.


Im gonna have to give this a big fat *AGREE*.




> "The more you tighten your grip, WotC, the more homebrew systems will slip through your fingers."
> ~ Leia


Thats funny and accurate.




> The NDA suggests that they they'll say it outright... but only to certain people who can't mention it to others.


Im very confident this happens anyway. Content creators across countless platforms are generally under some form of contract that restricts them in some way.




> Seems like a bunch of hearsay and speculation. I'll same my judgement for something more concrete.


This. Im not too worried about it. If they do limit others, Im sure their followers will continue to benefit from their content based on somebody elses foundation. There are plenty of other systems that it might encourage me to try. Im already making the attempt to branch out for the sake of adventure and experience.

----------


## Phhase

> God, I hate subscription models. I hate them so much.


Seconded. My loathing for subscriptions in the modern age is incalculable.

----------


## Oramac

> Seems like a bunch of hearsay and speculation. I'll same my judgement for something more concrete.





> This. Im not too worried about it. If they do limit others, Im sure their followers will continue to benefit from their content based on somebody elses foundation. There are plenty of other systems that it might encourage me to try. Im already making the attempt to branch out for the sake of adventure and experience.


You all have far more confidence in WOTC/Hasbro and their management teams than I do. I truly wish I could share that confidence.

----------


## animorte

> You all have far more confidence in WOTC/Hasbro and their management teams than I do. I truly wish I could share that confidence.


My use of them/they was a bit too open. To specify, if WoTC does restrict more 3rd party, Im sure the 3rd party individuals will use a different source as their foundation. The followers of said 3rd party will likely continue to follow their content.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Agreed. I'm not a fan of 3e or Pathfinder in general, just because of all the crunch. My hope if Paizo does make a Pathfinder5 (or whatever they call it) would be that they use as much of the streamlining as possible to keep the crunch away. 
> 
> I suppose only time will tell.


You know, if you were careful with your wording and made sure you dotted all your Ts and crossed your Is, you could make a pretty tight clone of 5e without ever needing to invoke the OGL. WotC can't own pure game mechanics. You're not breaking any laws if your task-resolution mechanic involved rolling a d20 and adding a number, and comparing the result to a target.

You couldn't sell it as "D&D compatible" or anything like that, but you could just make your own game without needing to rewrite anything core.

----------


## Imbalance

> You know, if you were careful with your wording and made sure you dotted all your Ts and crossed your Is, you could make a pretty tight clone of 5e without ever needing to invoke the OGL. WotC can't own pure game mechanics. You're not breaking any laws if your task-resolution mechanic involved rolling a d20 and adding a number, and comparing the result to a target.
> 
> You couldn't sell it as "D&D compatible" or anything like that, but you could just make your own game without needing to rewrite anything core.


Yep.  And it's not hard to imagine that a large part of 5E's success is that it hasn't been monetized nor restricted in this way that would inspire many others to step completely outside of Wizard's realm of IP control.  Fans are eager to creatively enhance their games and content, but less so if it involves cost and licensing obstacles.  Those who are dedicated can still come up with non-derivative works if they must.

----------


## EggKookoo

It's almost like it's currently on a lot of peoples' minds.

----------


## Oramac

> It's almost like it's currently on a lot of peoples' minds.
> 
> snip


I saw that yesterday. While he's technically right that you don't need the OGL to publish material, he's wrong that we don't need one at all. 

If nothing else, the OGL/SRD explicitly tells us what we _can't_ use. With the current OGL I know I can publish stuff with a Kraken, but I can't publish stuff with an Illithid. 

Without an OGL, we have no idea how WOTC will handle their intellectual property. Can I publish something with the Kraken still? How about a Bandit Captain? Even if it's technically legal for me to do so, I can't afford a lawsuit, but WOTC can. So my only feasible option is to simply not publish material.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I saw that yesterday. While he's technically right that you don't need the OGL to publish material, he's wrong that we don't need one at all. 
> 
> If nothing else, the OGL/SRD explicitly tells us what we _can't_ use. With the current OGL I know I can publish stuff with a Kraken, but I can't publish stuff with an Illithid. 
> 
> Without an OGL, we have no idea how WOTC will handle their intellectual property. Can I publish something with the Kraken still? How about a Bandit Captain? Even if it's technically legal for me to do so, I can't afford a lawsuit, but WOTC can. So my only feasible option is to simply not publish material.


Financial scare tactics will always be a problem, but the onus is on WotC to declare what's theirs. They can't put a preexisting mythological creature into their game and declare it to be their IP simply because of that.

Honestly their claim on Illithid is pretty shaky, aside from the name. Tentacle-faced aliens predate D&D by decades, and there are entire other TTRPGs that use that visual as primary art and even a trademarked logo. I'm pretty convinced they paid HeroForge to take their "octo-folk" option off the site, rather than doing it by citing a legal claim. Even the HF people aren't willing to explain what went on there, which means they're not keen on us knowing they got paid off.

But yes, you will still need to do your research. If you're expecting to draw serious revenue from your game, you also want to have legal representation. If you're doing it as a kind of hobby-plus, WotC isn't going to notice you.

----------


## Oramac

> the onus is on WotC to declare what's theirs. They can't put a preexisting mythological creature into their game and declare it to be their IP simply because of that.


Except that they can. They've already demonstrated a willingness to employ shady business practices with the NDA email. It wouldn't surprise me if they just put the whole monster manual in the "cannot use" part of an updated OGL. We (and they) know it would never hold up in court, but who's got the money to fight that battle? I sure as hell don't. Maybe a bigger publisher like Kobold Press or something, but those publishers are likely to be brought into the fold using the new system and [potential] licensing fees and such (see the NDA email issue). So they won't fight the battle either.

EDIT: for the record, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I just don't see it at this point.

----------


## EggKookoo

> for the record, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I just don't see it at this point.


Yeah, I hear you. But I also think we're in a somewhat different world than the 1980s (when TSR was suing people for making any kind of TTRPG) or the mid-2000s when WotC could throw its weight around more.

But in the end, you're right. We can't know until it happens.

----------


## TaiLiu

An update: the OGL is indeed changing (and they're calling it OGL 1.1). It also suggests that the changes will be relatively minor.

One change is that the "OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs)." Another is that you'll have to pay royalties if you earn an enormous amount of money from your work.




> Im very confident this happens anyway. Content creators across countless platforms are generally under some form of contract that restricts them in some way.


I didn't know that. I know someone who writes third-party 5e stuff and I don't think he's under any special contracts besides the one the DM's Guild enforces.

----------


## animorte

> I didn't know that. I know someone who writes third-party 5e stuff and I don't think he's under any special contracts besides the one the DM's Guild enforces.


Its often called partnering or something of that sort. From what I understand, your overall content is required to maintain a minimum percentage (agreed upon or dictated by the original owner) and you benefit from early access. At a base level, youre not supposed to slander the reputation of the owner.

Of course, Im sure this varies across different sources and platforms.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Its often called partnering or something of that sort. From what I understand, your overall content is required to maintain a minimum percentage (agreed upon or dictated by the original owner) and you benefit from early access. At a base level, youre not supposed to slander the reputation of the owner.
> 
> Of course, Im sure this varies across different sources and platforms.


I see. Cool to know. Wasn't aware of the business side of things.  :Small Smile:

----------


## animorte

> I see. Cool to know. Wasn't aware of the business side of things.


Interesting, right! Anybody else with more experience, feel free to correct me.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Telesphoros

> I didn't know that. I know someone who writes third-party 5e stuff and I don't think he's under any special contracts besides the one the DM's Guild enforces.


In the case of the DMs Guild creators give up 50% of the profits and the rights to their work in that WotC can use their ideas for their own future content.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Interesting, right! Anybody else with more experience, feel free to correct me.


Interesting, yeah!  :Small Smile: 




> In the case of the DMs Guild creators give up 50% of the profits and the rights to their work in that WotC can use their ideas for their own future content.


Yes, I was aware of this (though I thought it was 30%).

----------


## Telesphoros

> Yes, I was aware of this (though I thought it was 30%).


Just checked to make sure, yeah it's 50%: 

https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-u...ting-Questions

WotC's licensing fee is apparently 25% if I've read the donating to charity part correctly.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Just checked to make sure, yeah it's 50%: 
> 
> https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-u...ting-Questions
> 
> WotC's licensing fee is apparently 25% if I've read the donating to charity part correctly.


Oh, I see. I must've misremembered. Yeah, that kind of monopoly doesn't feel very good.

----------

