If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
I am curious why people think WotC should let other (for profit) companies make money on their hugely popular intellectual property without paying a royalty other than "capitalism sucks"? Obviously as a fan and consumer I love that, but from a business standpoint it doesn't make much sense. WotC built the framework of the game, they have grown the DnD brand, and then other companies should be able to come in and make unlimited money off that framework/brand without WotC getting something for it?
It doesn't sound like they are trying to make royalties from little mom and pop creators. They want other serious companies with significant revenue to not keep 100% of the profits they are bringing in from leveraging WotC's IP and enormous DnD brand. That seems reasonable.
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
I could be misunderstanding it, but I don't know many 3PP who make $50,000+ per year.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The issue is that Wizards owns/operates/produces Magic: the Gathering, which is an incredibly predatory property well known for being deeply and unshakably anti-consumer. Wizards does M:tG aficionados dirty, basically on the weekly, and they make an egregious shit-ton of money doing it.
Why would a company that has shown itself to be ten thousand percent enthusiastically down for being Evil so long as Evil is profitable show any more regard for consumers of D&D than it historically has for consumers of M:tG?
The investor call is being overblown, yes. Investors want D&D movies, games, TV shows, T-shirts, breakfast cereal, novelty branded toilet paper – what they have is a world-recognized, household-name brand, which is the sort of thing Money People have wet dreams about. Money People would trade their children to Asmodeus with a song and a smile for the sort of brand recognition D&D has, because then they can put “D&D!” on literally any object and make money selling that object. That is what the investor call meant by “undermonetized” – D&D is not currently being sold as literally-any-object, and its investors want that changed. “Recurrent spending” doesn’t have to mean EA-style MTX nonsense, it can just mean they want people to buy new D&D-branded paper plates every month. See: Harry Potter, and how you can find Harry Potter-branded literally anything .
But to those saying it’s all a nothingburger, I remind you once again that Magic: the Gathering exists, and Wizards has been bleeding M:tG fans drier than Mars for decades and making absolutely no effort to hide their predatory gambling-based monetization scheme for that game. If you don’t think Wizards is capable of being Saturday morning cartoon level Evil in the pursuit of an extra dollar, you’re loony enough to star next to an animated rabbit. Some level of wariness is always in order with this company.
🛎️DINGDINGDINGDING🛎️ And you win the cupie doll. That’s👆what I have been saying this whole time. Thank you.
If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
Wow, they had better also be offering a GIGANTIC carrot to go with that stick. Otherwise, no one will use OGL v1.1. They'll just stick with v1.0. That's why with 4e they created the GSL as a different license rather than updating the OGL. The terms of the OGL can never get worse, only better. Unless there is something to be gained by using the v1.1, there is zero reason to use it. The original OGL works for all content released under any version of it.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
Wow, they had better also be offering a GIGANTIC carrot to go with that stick. Otherwise, no one will use OGL v1.1. They'll just stick with v1.0. That's why with 4e they created the GSL as a different license rather than updating the OGL. The terms of the OGL can never get worse, only better. Unless there is something to be gained by using the v1.1, there is zero reason to use it. The original OGL works for all content released under any version of it.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
WotC (Hasbro) has a competent legal team and might be able to work something out to get around that. I don't know how any of that works though so you are probably right.
If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
Wow, they had better also be offering a GIGANTIC carrot to go with that stick. Otherwise, no one will use OGL v1.1. They'll just stick with v1.0. That's why with 4e they created the GSL as a different license rather than updating the OGL. The terms of the OGL can never get worse, only better. Unless there is something to be gained by using the v1.1, there is zero reason to use it. The original OGL works for all content released under any version of it.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
WotC (Hasbro) has a competent legal team and might be able to work something out to get around that. I don't know how any of that works though so you are probably right.
You could have stopped at wotc/hasbro has a legal team. Period. They can litigate all but the largest like Pazio and Kolbold Press into the ground. If some indy dev is making 20K in revenue on some product and wotc sends a letter saying "You will change all the material in your product to meet our standards, or we will destroy you", what do you think happens?
I honestly don't think something of that nature is likely to happen. However, when the OGL was first made, D&D was not exactly worth much. Things have changed though, so it only make sense to me that they would try to walk it back some how. I don't know if they can, but I don't doubt that they might try. But like I said. I don't know much about it all in all. I am mostly just curious to see how it all plays out.
If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
Wow, they had better also be offering a GIGANTIC carrot to go with that stick. Otherwise, no one will use OGL v1.1. They'll just stick with v1.0. That's why with 4e they created the GSL as a different license rather than updating the OGL. The terms of the OGL can never get worse, only better. Unless there is something to be gained by using the v1.1, there is zero reason to use it. The original OGL works for all content released under any version of it.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
WotC (Hasbro) has a competent legal team and might be able to work something out to get around that. I don't know how any of that works though so you are probably right.
You could have stopped at wotc/hasbro has a legal team. Period. They can litigate all but the largest like Pazio and Kolbold Press into the ground. If some indy dev is making 20K in revenue on some product and wotc sends a letter saying "You will change all the material in your product to meet our standards, or we will destroy you", what do you think happens?
Seem like they have a right to protect their product. Few people will make a distinction between Wizards-created content and 3PP. If someone is out there calling it D&D-compatible, seems like the company that actually makes D&D should have a say in it.
If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
Wow, they had better also be offering a GIGANTIC carrot to go with that stick. Otherwise, no one will use OGL v1.1. They'll just stick with v1.0. That's why with 4e they created the GSL as a different license rather than updating the OGL. The terms of the OGL can never get worse, only better. Unless there is something to be gained by using the v1.1, there is zero reason to use it. The original OGL works for all content released under any version of it.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
WotC (Hasbro) has a competent legal team and might be able to work something out to get around that. I don't know how any of that works though so you are probably right.
They have a very easy way around it - GSL 2.0 (or 1.1 or whatever). It doesn't have to be an OGL v1.1 unless WotC chooses for it to be an OGL. But I think it is very highly likely that they will offer access to DDB and their VTT to only v1.1 products, and that will entice publishers to convert over.
Plus, as for lawyering, they also need to include in their equation that the language of the OGL is specifically based on open-source software licenses, and if they try a legal approach to getting an otherwise irrevocable license revoked, there are businesses far larger than Hasbro that would have a vested interest in not having that precedent set. Plus it would just be a really bad PR idea when the GSL-style route would be far easier than trying to legally challenge the clear wording of their own license that one of their official representatives spoke all over the internet about that being the intent. They have a competent legal team, so they know that's a really bad path to try for when FAR easier ones exist.
If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
Wow, they had better also be offering a GIGANTIC carrot to go with that stick. Otherwise, no one will use OGL v1.1. They'll just stick with v1.0. That's why with 4e they created the GSL as a different license rather than updating the OGL. The terms of the OGL can never get worse, only better. Unless there is something to be gained by using the v1.1, there is zero reason to use it. The original OGL works for all content released under any version of it.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
WotC (Hasbro) has a competent legal team and might be able to work something out to get around that. I don't know how any of that works though so you are probably right.
You could have stopped at wotc/hasbro has a legal team. Period. They can litigate all but the largest like Pazio and Kolbold Press into the ground. If some indy dev is making 20K in revenue on some product and wotc sends a letter saying "You will change all the material in your product to meet our standards, or we will destroy you", what do you think happens?
Seem like they have a right to protect their product. Few people will make a distinction between Wizards-created content and 3PP. If someone is out there calling it D&D-compatible, seems like the company that actually makes D&D should have a say in it.
From what I understand, content that's compatible with D&D never specifically calls out D&D. They say "5e compatible" which is completely legal because WotC never refers to 5e as "5e".
So, from what I've read on the newest DDB article, WotC wants to know how much money one earns from sold homebrew content, and if it exceeds a certain value, they'll charge you for royalties? That seems... questionable to say the least. At least compared to the current OGL.
I could be misunderstanding it, but I don't know many 3PP who make $50,000+ per year.
What didn't get quoted is that the royalties don't start until 2024, and the threshold for having to pay them is $750K
For the fewer than 20 creators worldwide who make more than $750,000 in income in a year, we will add a royalty starting in 2024. So, even for the creators making significant money selling D&D supplements and games, no royalties will be due for 2023 and all revenue below $750,000 in future years will be royalty-free.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Like, imagine Disney saying something like, "OK, just can use our IP, but we'll start charging you a royalty only if you start making close to a million a year off it"
I can only assume the people in this thread trying to get outraged over that are Hasbro shareholders
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Wow, they had better also be offering a GIGANTIC carrot to go with that stick. Otherwise, no one will use OGL v1.1. They'll just stick with v1.0. That's why with 4e they created the GSL as a different license rather than updating the OGL. The terms of the OGL can never get worse, only better. Unless there is something to be gained by using the v1.1, there is zero reason to use it. The original OGL works for all content released under any version of it.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
WotC (Hasbro) has a competent legal team and might be able to work something out to get around that. I don't know how any of that works though so you are probably right.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who isn’t a layperson, it really is not hard to get around this. They just need to revoke authorisation of the OGL 1.0, leaving OGL 1.1 as the only authorised version of the license. All the content included in the SRD of OGL 1.0 will still be available under 1.1, even if not explicitly included in 1.1’s SRD (it would be Open Game Content distributed under a “any version of the license”), but the authorised version of 1.1 would govern the use for any new products copying, modifying, or distributing the content. Not all that hard a work-around, and pretty standard when new terms and conditions are included.
It will certainly be interesting to see what the changes are - as things stand, it doesn’t look that significant unless you are making more than $750,000 per year selling D&D content. Sure, folks making between $50,000 and $749,999.99 have to do send some accounting to Wizards (accounting they will really just need to forward, since they’ll have already collected and organised the data for their taxes).
And, anyone who is freaking out because they will have to report that they are selling something? Let’s live in reality for a second - Wizards does not really care to monitor the contents of your sold homebrew. Monitoring the content (a) would be expensive and (b) would open them up to PR and legal problems when someone inevitably says “this person’s homebrew violated my rights/was racist/etc., how did you, having monitored the submission, let it go out?”
They don’t want to do that, certainly not for small potatoes things. It would be too expensive and too risky, without anything for them to gain. Realistically, they’ll probably just have some place where you can say “I am selling an adventure under the OGL” and maybe provide a link to it, but are unlikely to require much more than that.
I mean, I get that folks think Wizards and their lawyers are some kind of faceless behemoth with infinite power and a desire to crush everything, but that just is not the case.
Like, imagine Disney saying something like, "OK, just can use our IP, but we'll start charging you a royalty only if you start making close to a million a year off it"
I can only assume the people in this thread trying to get outraged over that are Hasbro shareholders
The issue is that the OGL currently doesn't have such restrictions.
Most likely, and I say this as someone who hates the company and expects them to do Evil?
They want reporting of anything that hits 50k or higher as market research. "This D&D product not sold by us did really well; what can we learn from it?" The royalties thing is pure greed, but I'm willing to bet that the lower-level reporting is just so Wizards can figure out what people want from future Wizards products better.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who isn’t a layperson, it really is not hard to get around this. They just need to revoke authorisation of the OGL 1.0, leaving OGL 1.1 as the only authorised version of the license.
But there are no terms in the OGL to revoke or "de-authorize" it. It is a perpetual license that only be ended for individual licensees by violating it's terms.
When the license was created, Ryan Dancey, as official representative of WotC, explained this and discussed this very clearly and the terms of license itself are also very clear on this. It is an irrevocable, perpetual license. There was A LOT of public discussion about this on industry emailing lists during the drafting of it and for years afterwards between official WotC representatives and lawyers that is all very clear on this. It is a perpetual license with no terms for WotC to revoke it, and that was intentional.
I was there for all of those discussions and the initial drafting of the license (as a lurker, of course), but it was clearly and intentionally designed by the powers-that-were at WotC at the time to be irrevocable.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who isn’t a layperson, it really is not hard to get around this. They just need to revoke authorisation of the OGL 1.0, leaving OGL 1.1 as the only authorised version of the license.
But there are no terms in the OGL to revoke or "de-authorize" it. It is a perpetual license that only be ended for individual licensees by violating it's terms.
When the license was created, Ryan Dancey, as official representative of WotC, explained this and discussed this very clearly and the terms of license itself are also very clear on this. It is an irrevocable, perpetual license. There was A LOT of public discussion about this on industry emailing lists during the drafting of it and for years afterwards between official WotC representatives and lawyers that is all very clear on this. It is a perpetual license with no terms for WotC to revoke it, and that was intentional.
I was there for all of those discussions and the initial drafting of the license (as a lurker, of course), but it was clearly and intentionally designed by the powers-that-were at WotC at the time to be irrevocable.
...so the OGL 1.1 can be circumvented by just making your content with 1.0?
If that is the case, you'd have to use the original 5e SRD as well. Either way we can be certain it's more complicated than that, because Wizards wouldn't be doing this "OGL 1.1" thing if they weren't certain it would work. Remember that when dismissing OGL 1.1 as irrelevant - they wouldn't do it if it was truly irrelevant.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who isn’t a layperson, it really is not hard to get around this. They just need to revoke authorisation of the OGL 1.0, leaving OGL 1.1 as the only authorised version of the license.
But there are no terms in the OGL to revoke or "de-authorize" it. It is a perpetual license that only be ended for individual licensees by violating it's terms.
When the license was created, Ryan Dancey, as official representative of WotC, explained this and discussed this very clearly and the terms of license itself are also very clear on this. It is an irrevocable, perpetual license. There was A LOT of public discussion about this on industry emailing lists during the drafting of it and for years afterwards between official WotC representatives and lawyers that is all very clear on this. It is a perpetual license with no terms for WotC to revoke it, and that was intentional.
I was there for all of those discussions and the initial drafting of the license (as a lurker, of course), but it was clearly and intentionally designed by the powers-that-were at WotC at the time to be irrevocable.
However, what I think you missed is that the OGL does not always apply - you have to opt into it by using Open Game Content, as noted in Paragraph 3. Only when you do that do you receive the perpetual license as applied to that usage of Open Game Content under Paragraph 4. That provides you with the license to those exact terms, as prescribed by the version of the OGL at time of agreement.
However, nothing provides that the individual an indefinite right to use all Open Game Content - the contract refers to “the” OGC, specifically referencing “the” specific OGC content being used at contract formation. If it lacked a “the” the situation might be different - it would say by using OGC you get a right to OGC. They probably could have written that a bit better - I know I would have probably used a “that” in there somewhere if I were drafting.
Further, the paragraph about changing the terms refers to both “authorised version” and “any version”, clearly indicating that Wizards can revoke an authorisation, though prior versions still confer some rights.
What does this all mean? Folks who have current OGL content will keep the 1.0 rights for their current OGL products; but any new products are going to fall under 1.1. Wizards, after all, will not be offering 1.0 as an option for future contract creation, and a contract cannot exist unless offer and acceptance occurs.
Now, might there be some parol evidence (evidence outside the contract itself) issues based on their representations and communications? Maybe, perhaps to define a term like “authorised version.” However, parol evidence is rather hard to use based on the threshold requirements before it can be utilised and, even then, it is an uphill battle to overcome the terms.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who isn’t a layperson, it really is not hard to get around this. They just need to revoke authorisation of the OGL 1.0, leaving OGL 1.1 as the only authorised version of the license.
But there are no terms in the OGL to revoke or "de-authorize" it. It is a perpetual license that only be ended for individual licensees by violating it's terms.
When the license was created, Ryan Dancey, as official representative of WotC, explained this and discussed this very clearly and the terms of license itself are also very clear on this. It is an irrevocable, perpetual license. There was A LOT of public discussion about this on industry emailing lists during the drafting of it and for years afterwards between official WotC representatives and lawyers that is all very clear on this. It is a perpetual license with no terms for WotC to revoke it, and that was intentional.
I was there for all of those discussions and the initial drafting of the license (as a lurker, of course), but it was clearly and intentionally designed by the powers-that-were at WotC at the time to be irrevocable.
...so the OGL 1.1 can be circumvented by just making your content with 1.0?
Yes. Section 9 of the OGL v1.0 allows you to publish your open gaming content under any version of the OGL using open gaming content from any version of the OGL. The only ways for WotC to avoid that are: 1) The 4e GSL route where it was a different license, not an updated OGL, or 2) give enough of a benefit that publishers voluntarily use v1.1 rather than v1.0.
That was by design (and shows how WotC's attitude towards the OGL changed after Ryan Dancey left).
Sounds like they are not going with route #1, so #2 is more likely. Good money is on DDB and OneD&D VTT integration, but, to be clear, that's just pure speculation at this point.
...so the OGL 1.1 can be circumvented by just making your content with 1.0?
Yes. Section 9 of the OGL v1.0 allows you to publish your open gaming content under any version of the OGL using open gaming content from any version of the OGL. The only ways for WotC to avoid that are: 1) The 4e GSL route where it was a different license, not an updated OGL, or 2) give enough of a benefit that publishers voluntarily use v1.1 rather than v1.0.
That was by design (and shows how WotC's attitude towards the OGL changed after Ryan Dancey left).
Sounds like they are not going with route #1, so #2 is more likely. Good money is on DDB and OneD&D VTT integration, but, to be clear, that's just pure speculation at this point.
That is not what it says - see the text of paragraph 9 and the fact that it uses “any version” and “authorised version” as if they are different terms within the same paragraph. A Legal reading of this paragraph would be closer to: “If something was considered open game content under a prior version of this agreement, that content will continue to be available under any future authorised version, even if that figure authorised version does not explicitly mention the content.” So, under 1.1, which likely will only list OneD&D Open Game Content specifically, that “authorised version” would look back in time to the 5e content authorised under the 1.0, and 1.1 would apply to the 5e content even though not specifically delineated by 1.1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am curious why people think WotC should let other (for profit) companies make money on their hugely popular intellectual property without paying a royalty other than "capitalism sucks"? Obviously as a fan and consumer I love that, but from a business standpoint it doesn't make much sense. WotC built the framework of the game, they have grown the DnD brand, and then other companies should be able to come in and make unlimited money off that framework/brand without WotC getting something for it?
It doesn't sound like they are trying to make royalties from little mom and pop creators. They want other serious companies with significant revenue to not keep 100% of the profits they are bringing in from leveraging WotC's IP and enormous DnD brand. That seems reasonable.
I could be misunderstanding it, but I don't know many 3PP who make $50,000+ per year.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.🛎️DINGDINGDINGDING🛎️ And you win the cupie doll. That’s👆what I have been saying this whole time. Thank you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Wow, they had better also be offering a GIGANTIC carrot to go with that stick. Otherwise, no one will use OGL v1.1. They'll just stick with v1.0. That's why with 4e they created the GSL as a different license rather than updating the OGL. The terms of the OGL can never get worse, only better. Unless there is something to be gained by using the v1.1, there is zero reason to use it. The original OGL works for all content released under any version of it.
WotC (Hasbro) has a competent legal team and might be able to work something out to get around that. I don't know how any of that works though so you are probably right.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I honestly don't think something of that nature is likely to happen. However, when the OGL was first made, D&D was not exactly worth much. Things have changed though, so it only make sense to me that they would try to walk it back some how. I don't know if they can, but I don't doubt that they might try. But like I said. I don't know much about it all in all. I am mostly just curious to see how it all plays out.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Seem like they have a right to protect their product. Few people will make a distinction between Wizards-created content and 3PP. If someone is out there calling it D&D-compatible, seems like the company that actually makes D&D should have a say in it.
They have a very easy way around it - GSL 2.0 (or 1.1 or whatever). It doesn't have to be an OGL v1.1 unless WotC chooses for it to be an OGL. But I think it is very highly likely that they will offer access to DDB and their VTT to only v1.1 products, and that will entice publishers to convert over.
Plus, as for lawyering, they also need to include in their equation that the language of the OGL is specifically based on open-source software licenses, and if they try a legal approach to getting an otherwise irrevocable license revoked, there are businesses far larger than Hasbro that would have a vested interest in not having that precedent set. Plus it would just be a really bad PR idea when the GSL-style route would be far easier than trying to legally challenge the clear wording of their own license that one of their official representatives spoke all over the internet about that being the intent. They have a competent legal team, so they know that's a really bad path to try for when FAR easier ones exist.
From what I understand, content that's compatible with D&D never specifically calls out D&D. They say "5e compatible" which is completely legal because WotC never refers to 5e as "5e".
[REDACTED]
What didn't get quoted is that the royalties don't start until 2024, and the threshold for having to pay them is $750K
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Like, imagine Disney saying something like, "OK, just can use our IP, but we'll start charging you a royalty only if you start making close to a million a year off it"
I can only assume the people in this thread trying to get outraged over that are Hasbro shareholders
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Speaking from the perspective of someone who isn’t a layperson, it really is not hard to get around this. They just need to revoke authorisation of the OGL 1.0, leaving OGL 1.1 as the only authorised version of the license. All the content included in the SRD of OGL 1.0 will still be available under 1.1, even if not explicitly included in 1.1’s SRD (it would be Open Game Content distributed under a “any version of the license”), but the authorised version of 1.1 would govern the use for any new products copying, modifying, or distributing the content. Not all that hard a work-around, and pretty standard when new terms and conditions are included.
It will certainly be interesting to see what the changes are - as things stand, it doesn’t look that significant unless you are making more than $750,000 per year selling D&D content. Sure, folks making between $50,000 and $749,999.99 have to do send some accounting to Wizards (accounting they will really just need to forward, since they’ll have already collected and organised the data for their taxes).
And, anyone who is freaking out because they will have to report that they are selling something? Let’s live in reality for a second - Wizards does not really care to monitor the contents of your sold homebrew. Monitoring the content (a) would be expensive and (b) would open them up to PR and legal problems when someone inevitably says “this person’s homebrew violated my rights/was racist/etc., how did you, having monitored the submission, let it go out?”
They don’t want to do that, certainly not for small potatoes things. It would be too expensive and too risky, without anything for them to gain. Realistically, they’ll probably just have some place where you can say “I am selling an adventure under the OGL” and maybe provide a link to it, but are unlikely to require much more than that.
I mean, I get that folks think Wizards and their lawyers are some kind of faceless behemoth with infinite power and a desire to crush everything, but that just is not the case.
The issue is that the OGL currently doesn't have such restrictions.
[REDACTED]
Most likely, and I say this as someone who hates the company and expects them to do Evil?
They want reporting of anything that hits 50k or higher as market research. "This D&D product not sold by us did really well; what can we learn from it?" The royalties thing is pure greed, but I'm willing to bet that the lower-level reporting is just so Wizards can figure out what people want from future Wizards products better.
Please do not contact or message me.
But there are no terms in the OGL to revoke or "de-authorize" it. It is a perpetual license that only be ended for individual licensees by violating it's terms.
When the license was created, Ryan Dancey, as official representative of WotC, explained this and discussed this very clearly and the terms of license itself are also very clear on this. It is an irrevocable, perpetual license. There was A LOT of public discussion about this on industry emailing lists during the drafting of it and for years afterwards between official WotC representatives and lawyers that is all very clear on this. It is a perpetual license with no terms for WotC to revoke it, and that was intentional.
I was there for all of those discussions and the initial drafting of the license (as a lurker, of course), but it was clearly and intentionally designed by the powers-that-were at WotC at the time to be irrevocable.
...so the OGL 1.1 can be circumvented by just making your content with 1.0?
[REDACTED]
If that is the case, you'd have to use the original 5e SRD as well. Either way we can be certain it's more complicated than that, because Wizards wouldn't be doing this "OGL 1.1" thing if they weren't certain it would work. Remember that when dismissing OGL 1.1 as irrelevant - they wouldn't do it if it was truly irrelevant.
Please do not contact or message me.
However, what I think you missed is that the OGL does not always apply - you have to opt into it by using Open Game Content, as noted in Paragraph 3. Only when you do that do you receive the perpetual license as applied to that usage of Open Game Content under Paragraph 4. That provides you with the license to those exact terms, as prescribed by the version of the OGL at time of agreement.
However, nothing provides that the individual an indefinite right to use all Open Game Content - the contract refers to “the” OGC, specifically referencing “the” specific OGC content being used at contract formation. If it lacked a “the” the situation might be different - it would say by using OGC you get a right to OGC. They probably could have written that a bit better - I know I would have probably used a “that” in there somewhere if I were drafting.
Further, the paragraph about changing the terms refers to both “authorised version” and “any version”, clearly indicating that Wizards can revoke an authorisation, though prior versions still confer some rights.
What does this all mean? Folks who have current OGL content will keep the 1.0 rights for their current OGL products; but any new products are going to fall under 1.1. Wizards, after all, will not be offering 1.0 as an option for future contract creation, and a contract cannot exist unless offer and acceptance occurs.
Now, might there be some parol evidence (evidence outside the contract itself) issues based on their representations and communications? Maybe, perhaps to define a term like “authorised version.” However, parol evidence is rather hard to use based on the threshold requirements before it can be utilised and, even then, it is an uphill battle to overcome the terms.
Yes. Section 9 of the OGL v1.0 allows you to publish your open gaming content under any version of the OGL using open gaming content from any version of the OGL. The only ways for WotC to avoid that are: 1) The 4e GSL route where it was a different license, not an updated OGL, or 2) give enough of a benefit that publishers voluntarily use v1.1 rather than v1.0.
That was by design (and shows how WotC's attitude towards the OGL changed after Ryan Dancey left).
Sounds like they are not going with route #1, so #2 is more likely. Good money is on DDB and OneD&D VTT integration, but, to be clear, that's just pure speculation at this point.
That is not what it says - see the text of paragraph 9 and the fact that it uses “any version” and “authorised version” as if they are different terms within the same paragraph. A Legal reading of this paragraph would be closer to: “If something was considered open game content under a prior version of this agreement, that content will continue to be available under any future authorised version, even if that figure authorised version does not explicitly mention the content.” So, under 1.1, which likely will only list OneD&D Open Game Content specifically, that “authorised version” would look back in time to the 5e content authorised under the 1.0, and 1.1 would apply to the 5e content even though not specifically delineated by 1.1.