You're getting warmer, but still not quite over target. I can only speak for myself, but from what I have heard actual content creators say, is that the OGL 1.0a needs to stay in effect, allowing creators to continue to publish under that, in perpetuity as envisioned by the guys that wrote it. If you want to publish an additional OGL for D&D 6th edition and beyond, nobody I have seen is really against it.
I think though, that the damage has been done, and is irreversible. You've given life to something new, and potentially bigger than D&D could ever be. As I said in a meme I created (one of many similar apparently), The age of the Wizard is over. The age of the ORC is at hand.
The repeated lie about the previous attempt being a "draft" does nothing but tell the community that outright lying is a go-to tactic for this entire endeavor.
The only thing that a new OGL should include is clarifying language for new concepts like NFT/Crypto, as well as updating the previous language to guarantee that the OGL cannot be revoked.
That won't happen, of course. If there's anything a C-level executive loves more than making a destructively greedy decision, it's doubling down on it repeatedly until they get fired with a fat golden parachute.
They will never admit to the leaked contracts being anything other than "leaked drafts". That's why I made no mention of it. Regardless, as I said in another thread, my subscription is cancelled, and I will never again give them another penny.
A lot of people are calling the characterization of the leaked 1.1 as a draft a lie. But think about this logically, if there were no plans to revise or change the document based on feedback why did it have to be leaked?
Maybe draft is the wrong term if reports that D&D was ready to sign are to be believed, but initial offer perhaps. In either case the document was sent out with the understanding that it might be changed and should not be made public. Those who were sent the document and had concerns should probably have raised the concerns with WOTC instead of leaking the document with the intent to cause panic among the player base.
None of this reaction has been good for content creators. I've heard multiple content creators talk about how they feel pressure to switch away from Dungeons and Dragons. But where are they going to go? To Pathfinder? They are not prepared to make content for Pathfinder, it's a wildly different system and has a much steeper learning curve.
It's important to remember, as well, that while WOTC is a big company and Hasbro is a giant Dungeons and Dragons is a small team that was on the verge of being shut down just a handful of years ago. 5th edition is a great game because it is made by a team that really cares about it and listens to the fans. DnDbeyond is an unparalleled digital tool set, because it was made by a small team of people enthusiastic about this game.
So Hasbro gets a little greedy (and anyone who plays magic knows that this is low levels of greed for Hasbro), and now we want to put all of the people who made this awesome game, and this incredible site out of a job? And probably tank the majority of third party content creators, that we are outraged on behalf of, while we are at it?
-Didn't address the irrevocability of the OGL 1.0a. We need to press them on this point until they agree to release an authorized OGL 1.0b incorporating irrevocable and other cleaned up language in the license. Or turn over the 1.0a to a non-profit and agree to authorize the changes they make one so the d20 SRD and 5e SRD are covered by the change. And one of those changes they surrender the power to authorize licenses to the non-profit.
-They put Kyle Brink on the firing line which is a shitty move on their part. We should press them on this until Cynthia Williams and the senior management team address us personally.
friendly reminder that unless they make it crystal clear that no matter what else changes going forward, 1.0a will be made irrevocable in the state it has been in, you must still not give in, resubscribe or purchase their material.
The reactions are just that, highly reactionary and very naive. Demands that fans come before profits are being chrono-transmitted from a utopian Star Trek future where money no longer exists, content is mass produced and shipped for free with a transporter/replicator and creative content developers don't rely on their skills to put food on the table and roofs over their heads.
D&D 5 is a good system. One D&D might be a good system if we continue to drive its direction with personal involvement. Other games and Indy games are ALSO good and well designed and a boon to the diversity of the TTRPG community. The zealots want you to believe otherwise and are raking in the clicks on their pages and YouTubes as fans froth into a frenzy, failing wisdom checks like a barrel full of barbarians.
Let's get it straight. Hasbro/WotC are in it for the money like ALL businesses who remain in business. They are LB, Lawful Business.
We fans do not live in the post-scarcity economic utopia of Star Trek yet. We are FN, Fun Neutral.
Now can we please just roll initiative and move on?
People are mentioning the "draft", because it's not really common practice for a company to send a draft, open for comment, to various parties - each of which would be able to make alterations or stipulations - whilst also accompanying it with a contract that needs signing.
What would happen if two out of say five sign immediately, and then the other three make various changes? It'll be a repeated legal runaround. The fact that they NDA'd people and forces extremely short deadlines doesn't help either.
As for other creators, yes, this naturally affects everyone, some to greater and lesser degrees. That said, many of the YouTube creators have stated and asked their viewer for alternatives so they're not as reliant on DnD. It's not fun, but neither would having your entire business collapsing because of one company.
Luckily enough, TTRPGs aren't just DnD and Pathfinder. There are hundreds of different ones, some better and some worse. And 3PP are also just looking into agnostic systems, versus solely DnD ones. So they can work with many things versus one.
Even Critical Role which is massive in the DnD sphere, said they had reasons for going the own publisher route on their second manual, compared to WotC with their first.
Anyone who thinks that WotC isn't ultimately about profits is naive.
That doesn't change the fact that the current path was already making them a shit-ton of money without risking driving the brand into the ground and fracturing their market base the way the OGL "updates" were (and will most likely continue) trying to do.
I have yet to see any proof about said contracts, nor the proof that anything was NOT a draft. I also do not think things are as black and white as all this. "Companies don't do X and contract lawyers don't to Y." I share drafts with clients all the time, especially their sales contact to get their take on the fine details before it hits the desk of a major stakeholder. I do contract work as a living. I'm not saying they were doing what I do but I am saying NO ONE does it like EVERYONE else all the time. Such talk is over generalizing and basically is just more drumbeating. I know it is unpopular to say so. But I don't have a YouTube channel getting 100 times the hits for saying the sky is falling. What do I know? What does anyone really KNOW? Until the thing is completed and ready for signing, nobody knows a thing.
I think some folks are "profiting" from the "indignation signalling" and are just as greedy as the C-suite at Hasbro. There's nothing wrong with that on either side. But I put no weight in all the teeth gnashing and sackcloth wearing until something substantive occurs.
WOTC's ability to alter the new OGL isn't talked about. If they can alter it, it's a sham.
Let's dissect some of this.
Our language and requirements in the draft <-This word is a LIE, start your honesty there and we might be able to move forwardOGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs. Then we compounded things by being silent for too long. We hurt fans and creators, when more frequent and clear communications could have prevented so much of this.
Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.- If you are De-authorizing OGL 1.0a than you are failing the community. You didn't talk about future content, so yeah you're still planning to kill 1.0a. If you want a separate OGL for 6e/OneDnd than go make a separate license. Of yeah, you are making it compatible with 5E, so you screwed yourself.
Your ownership of your content. You will continue to own your content with no license-back requirements. - This isn't the problem, WOTC's clause to be able to publish that work and make money from it is a larger part of the issue. How about instead, WOTC tries to make better content? Your current offerings are weak in comparison to what 3rd parties bring to the table. 5E has completely ignored LORE, write something that includes it.
I have yet to see any proof about said contracts, nor the proof that anything was NOT a draft. I also do not think things are as black and white as all this. "Companies don't do X and contract lawyers don't to Y." I share drafts with clients all the time, especially their sales contact to get their take on the fine details before it hits the desk of a major stakeholder. I do contract work as a living. I'm not saying they were doing what I do but I am saying NO ONE does it like EVERYONE else all the time. Such talk is over generalizing and basically is just more drumbeating. I know it is unpopular to say so. But I don't have a YouTube channel getting 100 times the hits for saying the sky is falling. What do I know? What does anyone really KNOW? Until the thing is completed and ready for signing, nobody knows a thing.
I think some folks are "profiting" from the "indignation signalling" and are just as greedy as the C-suite at Hasbro. There's nothing wrong with that on either side. But I put no weight in all the teeth gnashing and sackcloth wearing until something substantive occurs.
The fact that they had a publishing date ready a week after the leaks and then pulled that instead of publishing the "real" version tells everyone capable of critical thinking and not high on copium that this was anything but a draft.
Zero trust, zero goodwill. Wotc has forfeited any benefit of the doubt it may have had.
Prove your intentions with your next iteration of the OGL. You have been told repeatedly what was unacceptable with your "draft", the only thing a UA style survey would do is gage the fallout from pressing forward. A face and exhibiting *basic human decency* while communicating is not a replacement for proper actions.
You have ONE chance wotc, and even that is being generous. There are still A LOT of people who are outraged by your actions but are staying subscribed for practical or personal reasons. We are watching. Don't make it worse.
Hasbro: Alright we need one of you to get out in front of this... Wotc: Send Kyle! Kyle: What? Me? No thanks! Wotc: Write a statement or your fired Hasbro: Speak their language but keep up the "draft" or you're fired! Kyle: I don't have an account here I use pen and paper Hasbro/WotC: MAKE ONE!!! Hasbro: WotC, Kyle this needs fixed before the release of that film: FIX IT! WotC: We didn't have these problems when you weren't here Kyle: *laughs* Hasbro: We also didn't have a billion dollar brand till we bought you. Now Lick these boots. Kyle: Well shoot. WotC: Yes, Daddy
A lot of people are calling the characterization of the leaked 1.1 as a draft a lie. But think about this logically, if there were no plans to revise or change the document based on feedback why did it have to be leaked?
Maybe draft is the wrong term if reports that D&D was ready to sign are to be believed, but initial offer perhaps. In either case the document was sent out with the understanding that it might be changed and should not be made public. Those who were sent the document and had concerns should probably have raised the concerns with WOTC instead of leaking the document with the intent to cause panic among the player base.
None of this reaction has been good for content creators. I've heard multiple content creators talk about how they feel pressure to switch away from Dungeons and Dragons. But where are they going to go? To Pathfinder? They are not prepared to make content for Pathfinder, it's a wildly different system and has a much steeper learning curve.
It's important to remember, as well, that while WOTC is a big company and Hasbro is a giant Dungeons and Dragons is a small team that was on the verge of being shut down just a handful of years ago. 5th edition is a great game because it is made by a team that really cares about it and listens to the fans. DnDbeyond is an unparalleled digital tool set, because it was made by a small team of people enthusiastic about this game.
So Hasbro gets a little greedy (and anyone who plays magic knows that this is low levels of greed for Hasbro), and now we want to put all of the people who made this awesome game, and this incredible site out of a job? And probably tank the majority of third party content creators, that we are outraged on behalf of, while we are at it?
Who paid you how much to say this?
It's ALL Hasbro, now, desperately shoving poor Kyle Brink into the line of fire in an attempt to staunch the bleeding of subscription dollars from it's expensive acquisition, D&D Beyond.
This tapdance was not shared on WotC's main D&D brand page - except via a link to the D&DB Twitter account.
Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson made this awesome game. Language in this most recent communique referring to "stewardship" indicates that at least some at WotC are aware that Dungeons & Dragons is a legacy of, by, and for dedicated hobbyists.
Does not pair well with corporate monetization schemes. Like, really badly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license
You're getting warmer, but still not quite over target. I can only speak for myself, but from what I have heard actual content creators say, is that the OGL 1.0a needs to stay in effect, allowing creators to continue to publish under that, in perpetuity as envisioned by the guys that wrote it. If you want to publish an additional OGL for D&D 6th edition and beyond, nobody I have seen is really against it.
I think though, that the damage has been done, and is irreversible. You've given life to something new, and potentially bigger than D&D could ever be. As I said in a meme I created (one of many similar apparently), The age of the Wizard is over. The age of the ORC is at hand.
I notice they're still calling the leaked OGL a "draft," which still seems hard to believe.
The repeated lie about the previous attempt being a "draft" does nothing but tell the community that outright lying is a go-to tactic for this entire endeavor.
The only thing that a new OGL should include is clarifying language for new concepts like NFT/Crypto, as well as updating the previous language to guarantee that the OGL cannot be revoked.
That won't happen, of course. If there's anything a C-level executive loves more than making a destructively greedy decision, it's doubling down on it repeatedly until they get fired with a fat golden parachute.
They will never admit to the leaked contracts being anything other than "leaked drafts". That's why I made no mention of it. Regardless, as I said in another thread, my subscription is cancelled, and I will never again give them another penny.
Shame on the C-suite for making Kyle apologize for their behavior.
And also for forcing him to perpetuate the lie that the original was a draft.
Zero goodwill left. I'll look at and comment on what comes out Friday but this statement changes nothing.
"Come on everyone! Let's be open and transparent from here on out!"
Continues to call an official document, accompanied by a contract and signing deadline and early adopt deal, a "draft".
Seriously...
A lot of people are calling the characterization of the leaked 1.1 as a draft a lie. But think about this logically, if there were no plans to revise or change the document based on feedback why did it have to be leaked?
Maybe draft is the wrong term if reports that D&D was ready to sign are to be believed, but initial offer perhaps. In either case the document was sent out with the understanding that it might be changed and should not be made public. Those who were sent the document and had concerns should probably have raised the concerns with WOTC instead of leaking the document with the intent to cause panic among the player base.
None of this reaction has been good for content creators. I've heard multiple content creators talk about how they feel pressure to switch away from Dungeons and Dragons. But where are they going to go? To Pathfinder? They are not prepared to make content for Pathfinder, it's a wildly different system and has a much steeper learning curve.
It's important to remember, as well, that while WOTC is a big company and Hasbro is a giant Dungeons and Dragons is a small team that was on the verge of being shut down just a handful of years ago. 5th edition is a great game because it is made by a team that really cares about it and listens to the fans. DnDbeyond is an unparalleled digital tool set, because it was made by a small team of people enthusiastic about this game.
So Hasbro gets a little greedy (and anyone who plays magic knows that this is low levels of greed for Hasbro), and now we want to put all of the people who made this awesome game, and this incredible site out of a job? And probably tank the majority of third party content creators, that we are outraged on behalf of, while we are at it?
friendly reminder that unless they make it crystal clear that no matter what else changes going forward, 1.0a will be made irrevocable in the state it has been in, you must still not give in, resubscribe or purchase their material.
The reactions are just that, highly reactionary and very naive. Demands that fans come before profits are being chrono-transmitted from a utopian Star Trek future where money no longer exists, content is mass produced and shipped for free with a transporter/replicator and creative content developers don't rely on their skills to put food on the table and roofs over their heads.
D&D 5 is a good system. One D&D might be a good system if we continue to drive its direction with personal involvement. Other games and Indy games are ALSO good and well designed and a boon to the diversity of the TTRPG community. The zealots want you to believe otherwise and are raking in the clicks on their pages and YouTubes as fans froth into a frenzy, failing wisdom checks like a barrel full of barbarians.
Let's get it straight. Hasbro/WotC are in it for the money like ALL businesses who remain in business. They are LB, Lawful Business.
We fans do not live in the post-scarcity economic utopia of Star Trek yet. We are FN, Fun Neutral.
Now can we please just roll initiative and move on?
Kyle, is that you?
People are mentioning the "draft", because it's not really common practice for a company to send a draft, open for comment, to various parties - each of which would be able to make alterations or stipulations - whilst also accompanying it with a contract that needs signing.
What would happen if two out of say five sign immediately, and then the other three make various changes? It'll be a repeated legal runaround. The fact that they NDA'd people and forces extremely short deadlines doesn't help either.
As for other creators, yes, this naturally affects everyone, some to greater and lesser degrees. That said, many of the YouTube creators have stated and asked their viewer for alternatives so they're not as reliant on DnD. It's not fun, but neither would having your entire business collapsing because of one company.
Luckily enough, TTRPGs aren't just DnD and Pathfinder. There are hundreds of different ones, some better and some worse. And 3PP are also just looking into agnostic systems, versus solely DnD ones. So they can work with many things versus one.
Even Critical Role which is massive in the DnD sphere, said they had reasons for going the own publisher route on their second manual, compared to WotC with their first.
People adapt.
Anyone who thinks that WotC isn't ultimately about profits is naive.
That doesn't change the fact that the current path was already making them a shit-ton of money without risking driving the brand into the ground and fracturing their market base the way the OGL "updates" were (and will most likely continue) trying to do.
I have yet to see any proof about said contracts, nor the proof that anything was NOT a draft. I also do not think things are as black and white as all this. "Companies don't do X and contract lawyers don't to Y." I share drafts with clients all the time, especially their sales contact to get their take on the fine details before it hits the desk of a major stakeholder. I do contract work as a living. I'm not saying they were doing what I do but I am saying NO ONE does it like EVERYONE else all the time. Such talk is over generalizing and basically is just more drumbeating. I know it is unpopular to say so. But I don't have a YouTube channel getting 100 times the hits for saying the sky is falling. What do I know? What does anyone really KNOW? Until the thing is completed and ready for signing, nobody knows a thing.
I think some folks are "profiting" from the "indignation signalling" and are just as greedy as the C-suite at Hasbro. There's nothing wrong with that on either side. But I put no weight in all the teeth gnashing and sackcloth wearing until something substantive occurs.
They're still dodging issues in the OGL 1.1
WOTC's ability to alter the new OGL isn't talked about. If they can alter it, it's a sham.
Let's dissect some of this.
The fact that they had a publishing date ready a week after the leaks and then pulled that instead of publishing the "real" version tells everyone capable of critical thinking and not high on copium that this was anything but a draft.
Zero trust, zero goodwill. Wotc has forfeited any benefit of the doubt it may have had.
Prove your intentions with your next iteration of the OGL. You have been told repeatedly what was unacceptable with your "draft", the only thing a UA style survey would do is gage the fallout from pressing forward. A face and exhibiting *basic human decency* while communicating is not a replacement for proper actions.
You have ONE chance wotc, and even that is being generous. There are still A LOT of people who are outraged by your actions but are staying subscribed for practical or personal reasons. We are watching. Don't make it worse.
My subscription remains cancelled. Not encouraging
--- and will be deauthorized in 30 days ... or 5 weeks or if all the storm is gone
Hasbro: Alright we need one of you to get out in front of this...
Wotc: Send Kyle!
Kyle: What? Me? No thanks!
Wotc: Write a statement or your fired
Hasbro: Speak their language but keep up the "draft" or you're fired!
Kyle: I don't have an account here I use pen and paper
Hasbro/WotC: MAKE ONE!!!
Hasbro: WotC, Kyle this needs fixed before the release of that film: FIX IT!
WotC: We didn't have these problems when you weren't here
Kyle: *laughs*
Hasbro: We also didn't have a billion dollar brand till we bought you. Now Lick these boots.
Kyle: Well shoot.
WotC: Yes, Daddy
Who paid you how much to say this?
It's ALL Hasbro, now, desperately shoving poor Kyle Brink into the line of fire in an attempt to staunch the bleeding of subscription dollars from it's expensive acquisition, D&D Beyond.
This tapdance was not shared on WotC's main D&D brand page - except via a link to the D&DB Twitter account.
Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson made this awesome game. Language in this most recent communique referring to "stewardship" indicates that at least some at WotC are aware that Dungeons & Dragons is a legacy of, by, and for dedicated hobbyists.
Does not pair well with corporate monetization schemes. Like, really badly.