I haven't the time to ead it now, but I am reasonably sure that the OGL1.0 (or it might have bee the DMs Guild terms) does the same thing people are concerned with here of allowing WotC to use their material.
Is this actually changing, or is it just that we've noticed it this time?
I cancelled my D&D Beyond subscription yesterday, and let them know exactly why in the comment box. If they announce they are not changing the OGL then I'll resubscribe, but not until then. In the meantime all the money I spend on game books and official materials will be going to other companies. I've been picking up Mongoose Traveller lately... about time I ran something that wasn't D&D.
I have been playing DnD since the earliest versions when dice didn't exist and you had to pick chits from a box. It is with some sadness that I now turn my back on the game.
Since the Hasbro buyout the game and WoTC has been declining in quality while increasing in greed. Recent years have seen pure regurgitation of older content, stale story telling, very poor maps and increasing costs. The company seems more focused on charging customers repeatedly for the same content over and over, suing to make money, and engaging in social political commentary.
So, congrats WoTC, you just made Paizo a lot of money as I switch systems and won't look back. And should your new attempt at greed survive court, and I don't think it will, I will embrace any new game system that overthrows you as king of the hill.
To third party publishers and streamers, I unfortunately have no reason to buy content that used DnD as it's source. Please abandon this company.
That the claims have been independently corroborated in part lends a lot of credibility to the value of those statements. And again, if Kickstarter is willing to go on record confirming they did negotiate a reduced fee for creators, something no one would would have assumed prior to this, also points to the genuine article. Gizmodo has a draft, maybe early and it has since been revised, but by all signs a valid copy of what was going to be 1.1. That it is not "circumstantial", that is proof that points directly to WotC since only WotC and Kickstarter would have been privy to those talks.
But hey, this just reads more of the "I don't trust the media" line I see from reality deniers all the time.
What this actually means is that "I don't trust random media leaks claiming to know super confidential information." Not only have I not seen Kickstarter go on record to confirm this, and not only do you keep making statements without providing any actual sources, but two places saying similar things doesn't make it true. Yes, it means the information is more likely to be true, but I give numerous other reasons as to why it doesn't make it 100% accurate in my previous post.
However, you seem to have ignored that post to repeat the exact things I literally just talked about and make rude generalizations about how anyone who disagrees with you is a "science denier".
Uh... what? I am trying to disprove nothing, you are the one casting aspersions when we see a pattern of behaviour, consistent with each other and are expressing obvious disgust, anger, distrust and fear over what amounts to a hostile threat from WotC. WotC has the means to solve this though I am aware that the machinations of corporations run slow so no official comment will be immediately forthcoming.
My point about disproving things was in response to your comment that "unfounded" speculation "should be treated as a serious threat" until it is completely disproven. You took my quote out of context and also ignored the fact that I literally said it was okay to be worried, distrustful, and fearful over this, but deleting accounts or leaving the game is a step too far.
No one is implying that WotC has the obligation to state their intentions, however they would be blind not to notice the very large stinker floating in their end of the pool. And more people are commenting on it. IGN picked it up today. More media outlets will run the story, fueling the reactions. They can remain in silence and be damned by it, or they put out a statement to calm the flames. Or they can own it, and deal with the backlash now in hopes it blows over before OneD&D launches
Yes, they should put out a statement, I genuinely would like them to. However, them not putting out another statement (they've already put out several) doesn't necessarily mean that the rumors are true, merely that they are not ready to share their confidential business plans with the public.
Also, I too am concerned about this. If Gizmodo is correct, then I honestly don't know what I would do. However, we only have rumors and speculation at this point. I think a lot of people are overreacting because the sky isn't falling just yet.
That the claims have been independently corroborated in part lends a lot of credibility to the value of those statements. And again, if Kickstarter is willing to go on record confirming they did negotiate a reduced fee for creators, something no one would would have assumed prior to this, also points to the genuine article. Gizmodo has a draft, maybe early and it has since been revised, but by all signs a valid copy of what was going to be 1.1. That it is not "circumstantial", that is proof that points directly to WotC since only WotC and Kickstarter would have been privy to those talks.
But hey, this just reads more of the "I don't trust the media" line I see from reality deniers all the time.
What this actually means is that "I don't trust random media leaks claiming to know super confidential information." Not only have I not seen Kickstarter go on record to confirm this, and not only do you keep making statements without providing any actual sources, but two places saying similar things doesn't make it true. Yes, it means the information is more likely to be true, but I give numerous other reasons as to why it doesn't make it 100% accurate in my previous post.
However, you seem to have ignored that post to repeat the exact things I literally just talked about and make rude generalizations about how anyone who disagrees with you is a "science denier".
Uh... what? I am trying to disprove nothing, you are the one casting aspersions when we see a pattern of behaviour, consistent with each other and are expressing obvious disgust, anger, distrust and fear over what amounts to a hostile threat from WotC. WotC has the means to solve this though I am aware that the machinations of corporations run slow so no official comment will be immediately forthcoming.
My point about disproving things was in response to your comment that "unfounded" speculation "should be treated as a serious threat" until is it completely disproven. You took my quote out of context and also ignored the fact that I literally said it was okay to be worried, distrustful, and fearful over this, but deleting accounts or leaving the game is a step too far.
No one is implying that WotC has the obligation to state their intentions, however they would be blind not to notice the very large stinker floating in their end of the pool. And more people are commenting on it. IGN picked it up today. More media outlets will run the story, fueling the reactions. They can remain in silence and be damned by it, or they put out a statement to calm the flames. Or they can own it, and deal with the backlash now in hopes it blows over before OneD&D launches
Yes, they should put out a statement, I genuinely would like them to. However, them not putting out another statement (they've already put out several) doesn't necessarily mean that the rumors are true, merely that they are not ready to share their confidential business plans with the public.
Also, I too am concerned about this. If Gizmodo is correct, then I honestly don't know what I would do. However, we only have rumors and speculation at this point. I think a lot of people are overreacting because the sky isn't falling just yet.
More than likely WotC were the source of the leak themselves and they are testing the waters now for feedback to change their new OGL before they release it. Seeing as this push is coming from the brand new CEO of WotC, I doubt there will be much of a material change. She has too much invested in the new OGL as a revenue generator to admit she is wrong. That being written, she might realize it and not put it out, but the sticker is she got people to realize WotC can revoke the OGL "authorization" at any time now. To me, she did this deliberately to cross the Rubicon so there is no going back. The damage to trust is done now WotC has no choice but to continue on to their long death march, but they will make short term gains.
It will be interesting to see how many workers and influencers who are only in this space to be seen as virtuous people and how many of them quit once that is taken away from them and WotC is viewed as the bad guys. I've got my popcorn ready.
This leak has shattered my confidence that 6e(oneD&D) is anything worth investing in and makes me very worried that my current 5e games won't continue.
Same. Unless I hear/read some sort of official statement from WotC that about the OGL 1.1 leak and that they intend to modify it, I will also be ending my D&D Beyond subscription.
Their blatant attempt to lay claim to third party creators content is the nail in the coffin for me. Its like WotC is saying "Our recent publications suck so bad, and we are unimaginative, that our only recourse is to claim rights to everyone else's work."
Also, you don't need to believe the leaked 1.1 draft is accurate to object to these moves. In their own official post, they confirm that they plan to 'update' the OGL with more restrictive terms. They specifically indicate that they plan to restrict third-party content to "printed media and static electronic files," that other forms of media will be covered by other licenses, and that revenue-reporting and royalties will be imposed on some creators. This all implicitly confirms their plan to "deauthorize" the current OGL, because otherwise there would be no way for them to enforce this "update."
As I understand it (which I admit is limited to how I understand other people understanding it), the bolded text is a lie. Updating the OGL for 1D&D doesn't necessarily "deauthorize" the current OGL. They can make a new agreement for new editions without removing the old agreement for old editions. The post in question (and, I believe, any of the events that caused it) didn't make any suggestions that the updates to the OGL would apply to 5e.
Kinda weird to admit that you don't have a firm understanding of the issues and accuse me of being a liar in the same sentence, but w/e. Let me clarify my comments for you.
The OGL contains a clause that permits licensees to use any "authorized" version of the OGL, even after an updated version has been published, regardless of the version of the OGL attached to the published content.
Wizards has previously confirmed this reading in a statement that there would be no point to updating the OGL to make it more restrictive, because the community could just continue to apply the less-restrictive version of the OGL to content published under a more-restrictive version of the OGL.
Wizards published 4E under a new and different license scheme rather than a more restrictive version of the OGL, which also appears to tacitly confirm this reading of the OGL.
Taken together, those facts clearly and strongly imply that it is not possible for Wizards to enforce a more-restrictive version of the OGL while a less-restrictive version of the OGL is available. All clear? Next facts:
Leaked documents suggested that Wizards intended to release and enforce a more-restrictive version of the OGL.
This should not be possible, given that "It is not possible for Wizards to enforce a more-restrictive version of the OGL while a less-restrictive version of the OGL is available." However, the leaked documents state that Wizards intends to make it possible to enforce a more-restrictive OGL by "deauthorizing" the original OGL.
In response to the leaks, Wizards has confirmed their intention to issue and enforce a more-restrictive version of the OGL.
If it's not possible to enforce a more-restrictive OGL without attempting to deauthorize the original OGL, and Wizards has publicly confirmed their intention to enforce a more-restrictive OGL, then that implies that Wizards intends to attempt to deauthorize the original OGL.
That's a highly controversial move, and it's not at all clear that they have any authority under that agreement to deauthorize a prior version of the agreement. Indeed, it appears as though the agreement was written specifically to prevent those kinds of future revisions as a way of safeguarding the rights granted to third parties under the original agreement—and that point may be a crucial element of litigation in the near future, so the lawyers at Wizards have likely advised other staff to avoid commenting directly on that crucial point in public posts. Understandably, then, in their public posts, Wizards staff haven't directly indicated their intention to "deauthorize" the existing OGL in order to issue and enforce a more restrictive version; rather, they are taking the rhetorical position that they're merely clarifying the agreement, and that the new language reflects the original intent. But the implications are quite clear: it's a different and more restrictive agreement, and that's only possible if they intend to attempt to deauthorize the existing one.
EDIT: Also, just to reiterate something from a prior post: nothing under the OGL requires Wizards to publish new content under any version of the OGL. If they want to put future content under a new and more restrictive license, that's fine—that's exactly what they did for 4E. The whole point is that, by 'revising' the OGL rather than creating a new and different licensing scheme, they will alter the rights that attach to existing SRD content and change the agreements they have with existing third-party creators and companies.
I think it's far more reasonable that the OGL 1.1 leak came from WotC and the license language is from Hasbro, the parent company, because WotC has far more relationships established and skin in the game vs. Hasbro who owns how many IPs it's trying to make money off of to look good to its investors?... I'll also make a leap and suggest that there are people at WotC who are just as concerned because they know how bad the fallout could be from this.
I really don't understand what was broke here that needed fixing. WotC had record profits last year, and Hasbro has been in near constant growth till the pandemic hit... Why do they need to make the market landscape worse.
"I can understand why WotC would feel that they deserve a piece of the pie when Paizo and other publishers are using the OGL to create games that directlycompete with D&D as fantasy RPGs, instead of creating material for D&D (or using it to create games in genres that D&D doesn't cover). I don't know what the best way to handle this would be. I think it's fair for WotC to ask for royalties in such cases, as it amounts to lost business for them,"
The thing is though, they're not DIRECTLY competing with D&D. Anyone playing PF is playing PF because they like the way that system works, and they don't like D&D's system, am I wrong?
This isn't Coca Cola shutting down someone who's stolen their secret recipe and is selling literally the same product with a different name for a few cents less. This is more akin to McDonald's shutting down Five Guys and Shake Shack for selling burgers.
If Hasbro/WotC sues/squeezes companies like Paizo into oblivion, all those PF players aren't just going to say "Welp, the system we loved has been decimated, let's go spend our money on this thing we didn't like, made by the guys who ruined our favorite hobby."
Nobody's playing PF because they don't know about D&D. It's literally the biggest, most well recognized entity in the TTRPG world. PF players are playing it because it gives them something that D&D doesn't offer.
Pathfinder is definitely directly competing with D&D, as it delivers the same kind of product as D&D does, and is built on the D&D game system developed by WotC and made available under the OGL. It's not like it's a completely different system, like Savage Worlds, that both offer fantasy games. D&D and Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion are "two restaurants that are similar in that they both sell burgers". D&D and Pathfinder are much more similar than that.
That said, I'm not saying I support WotC squeezing Paizo into oblivion, but I can understand why they feel entitled to royalties when it comes to Pathfinder. I find seeking royalties for publishers who are producing materials that support D&D more objectionable.
PF is 100% a competitor, and that should actually be understood to put this in a more negative light. It suggests that Wizards has plainly anticompetitive motives for attempting to renege on an existing agreement after allowing a competitor to develop a business that relies on that agreement.
It would be like an architecture & construction firm distributing free building plans 'for the benefit of the community,' waiting for competing firms to invest time and effort constructing buildings according to those plans, and then declaring that they're retroactively modifying the terms of the agreement and demanding royalties on revenues from buildings constructed according to their 'free' plans. Their earlier actions created the community of competitors that rely on their plans, and their current actions will force competitors to fork over onerous royalties. 25% on revenue over $750k would be ~23.4% of Paizo's total revenue, as of 2021. For reference, Hasbro, WotC's parent company, had profit margins of only ~11% in 2021—so unless Paizo is more than twice as profitable as Hasbro (which seems unlikely), the royalties under the revised OGL would be more than all of their profits in a pretty good year. That means they would have to dramatically scale back their business operations, be driven out of business altogether, or be forced into negotiating a separate agreement with Wizards that only allows their business to exist as a functional subsidiary of Wizards.
This was a good article, and WotC/Hasbro may be correct that VTTs will be a big part of the future. It's definitely the case from the leaked OGL 1.1 that they are trying to lock down virtual. Problem is that it takes only one solid competitor with a competing game system covered under an OGL without royalties to blow OneD&D's VTT plans out of the water, particularly if it could be done prior to WotC releasing their VTT.
WotC will be a new entrant to the VTT market, so they'll have to work to entice consumers away from existing platforms. Platforms that many people are already invested in. If those other platforms can use a different OGL game system that is supported by an army of 3rd party content creators -- particularly if OGL 1.1 effectively shuts down 5e content creation -- WotC's VTT has a much greater chance of dying on the vine.
I just want to reiterate a few points to keep some perspective on it all.
No one here has actually been able to read the document, so we don't have any context for the parts the article highlighted
It was supposedly a draft. Legal drafts often start off awful and gradually get fixed.
OGL 1.1 is a license that you have to actively opt into. Only if you opt into 1.1 will any of those terms apply to you. If you don't like the terms, don't sign it.
Obviously signing into a new license would void old licenses for you, the individual that signed it. It's the only way they can enforce it. So voiding 1.0, as part of your agreement to 1.1, should be expected as it applies to you, the signer.
They mention OGL 1.0. But no one has used 1.0 for over 20 years. Every 3rd party content you have been using is under 1.0a. That's not the same license as 1.0. This could be a mistake in the leaked draft, or on the part of the article, or it could only mean that the 1.0 license that no one uses is void.
I hate corporations as much as the next person. And if WotC really screws this up, I'll be right there with everyone finding another game. But we don't have confirmation of anything except the fact that the new 1.1 license will have to be signed to use any One DnD SRD, that you will have to report your gains from it, and pay some amount of royalties over 750k. Everything else is just speculation based on one interpretation of a leak of a draft we haven't read.
First: There's some very relevant recent history here that should probably be mentioned, but that I don't see in this thread yet. This isn't the first time Wizards has tried to move away from the OGL, and the prior effort might offer some insights into the current one.
Wizards published 4th edition D&D under the "Game System License" or GSL. That license is far more restrictive than the OGL. 4E, published under the GSL, also significantly underperformed—and its poor performance may have had something to do with a lack of community engagement stemming from its restrictive license, and also created room in the market for rising competitors using OGL content.
It seems clear from the historical context that Wizards understood, at the time they published 4E, that they couldn't actually just revise the OGL to be more restrictive—because it contains a clause that allows licensees to choose the version of the license that they want to use. But it seems that they also learned that publishing under a more-restrictive license while the community is still enjoying content under a less-restrictive license doesn't work especially well. It looks an awful lot like they decided to just set aside the plain reading of the OGL and shoot their shot—rewrite the license, and let third parties decide if they were willing to go to court over it.
Second: I don't like this very much.
Just in terms of the specific revisions that seem to be coming, it seems like a move to swat down relatively small competitors who are benefitting from (and in compliance with) the OGL as written. The new license would likely not permit titles like Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, for example. The Pathfinder game launched around the same time as Dungeons and Dragons: Dark Alliance, and it's way better. It's very, very significantly outperforming the Wizards title in both the volume and positivity of Steam reviews—just like its predecessor, Pathfinder: Kingmaker. It's also in perfect compliance with the terms of the OGL as Wizards wrote it, so Paizo and Owlcat games haven't done anything wrong by creating a superior video game in the same market—but Wizards is trying to rewrite the rules in a way that would eliminate that competition. And there's a huge difference in resources here: Paizo had ~$12 million in total revenue in 2021, Owlcat Games had <$5 million, and Wizards of the Coast had $1.3 billion. So does anyone really think that companies like Paizo and Owlcat are in a position to vigorously defend their rights under the OGL in litigation against a company like Wizards?
But this is also much more deeply screwed up than any of the direct implications of the specific anticipated revisions. Much more important is that the original OGL purported to be a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free" license, and the clause that Wizards is claiming implies their right to "de-authorize" the OGL appears to have been intended to do exactly the opposite. That clause says that Wizards may post updated versions of the license, but that creators can continue to use any version of the license with content published under any other version of the license. There's a specific and important reason that's in there, and it's not just some wishy-washy "commitment to openness" or some kind of ethical ideal or something: third party creators have been and are investing their time and energy into producing commercial products, and in order to feel safe enough to do that, they need to have a reasonable degree of confidence that the earth isn't going to shift under their feet.
Regardless of the specific terms Wizards wants to impose, if they're successful in converting the OGL from the "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free" license that it was written as into something Wizards can "deauthorize" and rewrite with no specified process, then the OGL will be functionally dead. Third-party creators, like Paizo, who have created huge libraries of OGL content in good faith and in full compliance with the terms originallyset forth by Wizards will be screwed, and no third party developer in their right mind will even consider investing significant resources and effort into OGL content. Not because any specific term of any specific iteration of the OGL will necessarily prevent them from doing what they want, but because the OGL itself will have been converted from a reliable covenant with the community into a capricious instrument of enforcement against the community.
EDIT: Also, importantly: nothing in the OGL compels Wizards to keep creating content under the OGL. They proved that when they published content under a different license for 4E. I've seen a lot of folks understanding about Wizards wanting to 'protect their IP' or 'not give away their content to competitors.' That's just fine! But Wizards wrote the OGL and Wizards put content into an SRD under the OGL, and when they did that they were making a promise. They could abandon the OGL for all new development, and that would be fine. I didn't think it was wrong for them to publiish 4E under a different license; I just didn't buy it! But people have been relying on the promises they made under the OGL for 20+ years, and for them to try to walk that back now is just wrong.
This is a very good post, but I would like to point out that 4E did not only do poorly due to the GSL of 4E. While GSL was not good for 3rd party publishers and helped keep their efforts on 4E at bay, the changes to the 4E game were putrid which gave 3rd parties no incentive to write content for 4E. (why make content for a game that very few people particularly likes?)
5E while not perfect, created a situation were it was far better game that 4E and far more welcoming to new TTRPG players than 3.5E (and previous games versions) Then you had the perfect storm of COVID and mass adoption of VTTs created this huge boost in popularity of 5E.
Given WotC owns D&D, I don't blame them for wanting to better monetize D&D and share less with 3rd parties. That said, of WotC isn't careful. Their customers who many of also happen to be the 3rd party developers will start a war of attrition with them.
I would like to see a new *community* game come out that operates like the Open Source Software (OSS) community. That is kind of what the original OGL was going for, but a single corporate overlord remaining in control which gives way to changing ideas. Especially when the overload is a public entity with shareholders. Then have the community license it similar to the OGL, but the new license should maintain specific verbiage that protects / thwarts anyone who attempts to circumvents the license or even it's derivative works.
Well, that is if WotC actually attempts to go through with this license change we are seeing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I cancelled my D&D Beyond subscription yesterday, and let them know exactly why in the comment box. If they announce they are not changing the OGL then I'll resubscribe, but not until then. In the meantime all the money I spend on game books and official materials will be going to other companies. I've been picking up Mongoose Traveller lately... about time I ran something that wasn't D&D.
I haven't cancelled my subscription and for now I do not plan too. Now, I do plan to not engage in D&D One at all. I already own all of official WotC 5E content and combined with my custom rules alterations. I'm very happy with what I already have. (especially with the bleep ton of 3rd party 5E content I already own to go with it)
If WotC / DnDBeyond decide that I can no longer use tools to import / update my characters into / out of my favorite VTT (Foundry) and only allow me to use those characters in their new WotC VTT. Yeah, that will officially terminate my DnDBeyond subscription.
At that point, I will build my own online Character Management tools for my group to use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Williams......coincidence? I think not. I knew when they brought her on that it meant bad tidings for my beloved game. How absurdly ironic/tragic/historically repetitive it is that the name is Williams, an name that will once again live in infamy just as it did decades ago.
Taken together, those facts clearly and strongly imply that it is not possible for Wizards to enforce a more-restrictive version of the OGL while a less-restrictive version of the OGL is available.
Not actually true. Anything released under a version of the OGL that includes the text about being allowed to use it with any authorized version of the OGL cannot be enforced as long as a less restrictive OGL is available, but if they release new product under an OGL that says any authorized version > X people can't go back and use old versions of the OGL. There's zero need for Wizards to deauthorize older versions -- unless the intent is to affect product released under those older versions.
It isn't JUST the new OGL that I dislike, the general direction of "DnD is under monetized and we need to start squeezing every cent from our player base" that has started to move to the front is very disheartening. Even if they walk back the new OGL, the intent of the company is clear at this point. Honestly, most of their recent releases have been mediocre at best. Sucking life away from, honestly, BETTER content from third parties is just a step too far. I've run 2-3 DnD games since the 3e days and loved it, but all but one of my groups has moved on to other systems. The last group will be converting to Pathfinder 2e once that campaign wraps up in the next few months. It's sad to say it, but with so many other systems out there, WotC's products just aren't good enough to justify their greed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I haven't the time to ead it now, but I am reasonably sure that the OGL1.0 (or it might have bee the DMs Guild terms) does the same thing people are concerned with here of allowing WotC to use their material.
Is this actually changing, or is it just that we've noticed it this time?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I cancelled my D&D Beyond subscription yesterday, and let them know exactly why in the comment box. If they announce they are not changing the OGL then I'll resubscribe, but not until then. In the meantime all the money I spend on game books and official materials will be going to other companies. I've been picking up Mongoose Traveller lately... about time I ran something that wasn't D&D.
I have been playing DnD since the earliest versions when dice didn't exist and you had to pick chits from a box. It is with some sadness that I now turn my back on the game.
Since the Hasbro buyout the game and WoTC has been declining in quality while increasing in greed. Recent years have seen pure regurgitation of older content, stale story telling, very poor maps and increasing costs. The company seems more focused on charging customers repeatedly for the same content over and over, suing to make money, and engaging in social political commentary.
So, congrats WoTC, you just made Paizo a lot of money as I switch systems and won't look back. And should your new attempt at greed survive court, and I don't think it will, I will embrace any new game system that overthrows you as king of the hill.
To third party publishers and streamers, I unfortunately have no reason to buy content that used DnD as it's source. Please abandon this company.
What this actually means is that "I don't trust random media leaks claiming to know super confidential information." Not only have I not seen Kickstarter go on record to confirm this, and not only do you keep making statements without providing any actual sources, but two places saying similar things doesn't make it true. Yes, it means the information is more likely to be true, but I give numerous other reasons as to why it doesn't make it 100% accurate in my previous post.
However, you seem to have ignored that post to repeat the exact things I literally just talked about and make rude generalizations about how anyone who disagrees with you is a "science denier".
My point about disproving things was in response to your comment that "unfounded" speculation "should be treated as a serious threat" until it is completely disproven. You took my quote out of context and also ignored the fact that I literally said it was okay to be worried, distrustful, and fearful over this, but deleting accounts or leaving the game is a step too far.
Yes, they should put out a statement, I genuinely would like them to. However, them not putting out another statement (they've already put out several) doesn't necessarily mean that the rumors are true, merely that they are not ready to share their confidential business plans with the public.
Also, I too am concerned about this. If Gizmodo is correct, then I honestly don't know what I would do. However, we only have rumors and speculation at this point. I think a lot of people are overreacting because the sky isn't falling just yet.
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.More than likely WotC were the source of the leak themselves and they are testing the waters now for feedback to change their new OGL before they release it. Seeing as this push is coming from the brand new CEO of WotC, I doubt there will be much of a material change. She has too much invested in the new OGL as a revenue generator to admit she is wrong. That being written, she might realize it and not put it out, but the sticker is she got people to realize WotC can revoke the OGL "authorization" at any time now. To me, she did this deliberately to cross the Rubicon so there is no going back. The damage to trust is done now WotC has no choice but to continue on to their long death march, but they will make short term gains.
It will be interesting to see how many workers and influencers who are only in this space to be seen as virtuous people and how many of them quit once that is taken away from them and WotC is viewed as the bad guys. I've got my popcorn ready.
Same. Unless I hear/read some sort of official statement from WotC that about the OGL 1.1 leak and that they intend to modify it, I will also be ending my D&D Beyond subscription.
Their blatant attempt to lay claim to third party creators content is the nail in the coffin for me. Its like WotC is saying "Our recent publications suck so bad, and we are unimaginative, that our only recourse is to claim rights to everyone else's work."
Kinda weird to admit that you don't have a firm understanding of the issues and accuse me of being a liar in the same sentence, but w/e. Let me clarify my comments for you.
Taken together, those facts clearly and strongly imply that it is not possible for Wizards to enforce a more-restrictive version of the OGL while a less-restrictive version of the OGL is available. All clear? Next facts:
If it's not possible to enforce a more-restrictive OGL without attempting to deauthorize the original OGL, and Wizards has publicly confirmed their intention to enforce a more-restrictive OGL, then that implies that Wizards intends to attempt to deauthorize the original OGL.
That's a highly controversial move, and it's not at all clear that they have any authority under that agreement to deauthorize a prior version of the agreement. Indeed, it appears as though the agreement was written specifically to prevent those kinds of future revisions as a way of safeguarding the rights granted to third parties under the original agreement—and that point may be a crucial element of litigation in the near future, so the lawyers at Wizards have likely advised other staff to avoid commenting directly on that crucial point in public posts. Understandably, then, in their public posts, Wizards staff haven't directly indicated their intention to "deauthorize" the existing OGL in order to issue and enforce a more restrictive version; rather, they are taking the rhetorical position that they're merely clarifying the agreement, and that the new language reflects the original intent. But the implications are quite clear: it's a different and more restrictive agreement, and that's only possible if they intend to attempt to deauthorize the existing one.
EDIT: Also, just to reiterate something from a prior post: nothing under the OGL requires Wizards to publish new content under any version of the OGL. If they want to put future content under a new and more restrictive license, that's fine—that's exactly what they did for 4E. The whole point is that, by 'revising' the OGL rather than creating a new and different licensing scheme, they will alter the rights that attach to existing SRD content and change the agreements they have with existing third-party creators and companies.
I'm surprised this thread is allowed to exist. Haven't they shut down the discord discussion of the OGL?
I think it's far more reasonable that the OGL 1.1 leak came from WotC and the license language is from Hasbro, the parent company, because WotC has far more relationships established and skin in the game vs. Hasbro who owns how many IPs it's trying to make money off of to look good to its investors?... I'll also make a leap and suggest that there are people at WotC who are just as concerned because they know how bad the fallout could be from this.
PF is 100% a competitor, and that should actually be understood to put this in a more negative light. It suggests that Wizards has plainly anticompetitive motives for attempting to renege on an existing agreement after allowing a competitor to develop a business that relies on that agreement.
It would be like an architecture & construction firm distributing free building plans 'for the benefit of the community,' waiting for competing firms to invest time and effort constructing buildings according to those plans, and then declaring that they're retroactively modifying the terms of the agreement and demanding royalties on revenues from buildings constructed according to their 'free' plans. Their earlier actions created the community of competitors that rely on their plans, and their current actions will force competitors to fork over onerous royalties. 25% on revenue over $750k would be ~23.4% of Paizo's total revenue, as of 2021. For reference, Hasbro, WotC's parent company, had profit margins of only ~11% in 2021—so unless Paizo is more than twice as profitable as Hasbro (which seems unlikely), the royalties under the revised OGL would be more than all of their profits in a pretty good year. That means they would have to dramatically scale back their business operations, be driven out of business altogether, or be forced into negotiating a separate agreement with Wizards that only allows their business to exist as a functional subsidiary of Wizards.
This was a good article, and WotC/Hasbro may be correct that VTTs will be a big part of the future. It's definitely the case from the leaked OGL 1.1 that they are trying to lock down virtual. Problem is that it takes only one solid competitor with a competing game system covered under an OGL without royalties to blow OneD&D's VTT plans out of the water, particularly if it could be done prior to WotC releasing their VTT.
WotC will be a new entrant to the VTT market, so they'll have to work to entice consumers away from existing platforms. Platforms that many people are already invested in. If those other platforms can use a different OGL game system that is supported by an army of 3rd party content creators -- particularly if OGL 1.1 effectively shuts down 5e content creation -- WotC's VTT has a much greater chance of dying on the vine.
I just want to reiterate a few points to keep some perspective on it all.
No one here has actually been able to read the document, so we don't have any context for the parts the article highlighted
It was supposedly a draft. Legal drafts often start off awful and gradually get fixed.
OGL 1.1 is a license that you have to actively opt into. Only if you opt into 1.1 will any of those terms apply to you. If you don't like the terms, don't sign it.
Obviously signing into a new license would void old licenses for you, the individual that signed it. It's the only way they can enforce it. So voiding 1.0, as part of your agreement to 1.1, should be expected as it applies to you, the signer.
They mention OGL 1.0. But no one has used 1.0 for over 20 years. Every 3rd party content you have been using is under 1.0a. That's not the same license as 1.0. This could be a mistake in the leaked draft, or on the part of the article, or it could only mean that the 1.0 license that no one uses is void.
I hate corporations as much as the next person. And if WotC really screws this up, I'll be right there with everyone finding another game. But we don't have confirmation of anything except the fact that the new 1.1 license will have to be signed to use any One DnD SRD, that you will have to report your gains from it, and pay some amount of royalties over 750k. Everything else is just speculation based on one interpretation of a leak of a draft we haven't read.
The dice did exist, they just ran out of production, and TSR substituted chits for a while:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/08/bols-prime-the-time-dungeons-dragons-created-a-shortage-of-dice.html
This is a very good post, but I would like to point out that 4E did not only do poorly due to the GSL of 4E. While GSL was not good for 3rd party publishers and helped keep their efforts on 4E at bay, the changes to the 4E game were putrid which gave 3rd parties no incentive to write content for 4E. (why make content for a game that very few people particularly likes?)
5E while not perfect, created a situation were it was far better game that 4E and far more welcoming to new TTRPG players than 3.5E (and previous games versions) Then you had the perfect storm of COVID and mass adoption of VTTs created this huge boost in popularity of 5E.
Given WotC owns D&D, I don't blame them for wanting to better monetize D&D and share less with 3rd parties. That said, of WotC isn't careful. Their customers who many of also happen to be the 3rd party developers will start a war of attrition with them.
I would like to see a new *community* game come out that operates like the Open Source Software (OSS) community. That is kind of what the original OGL was going for, but a single corporate overlord remaining in control which gives way to changing ideas. Especially when the overload is a public entity with shareholders. Then have the community license it similar to the OGL, but the new license should maintain specific verbiage that protects / thwarts anyone who attempts to circumvents the license or even it's derivative works.
Well, that is if WotC actually attempts to go through with this license change we are seeing.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I haven't cancelled my subscription and for now I do not plan too. Now, I do plan to not engage in D&D One at all. I already own all of official WotC 5E content and combined with my custom rules alterations. I'm very happy with what I already have. (especially with the bleep ton of 3rd party 5E content I already own to go with it)
If WotC / DnDBeyond decide that I can no longer use tools to import / update my characters into / out of my favorite VTT (Foundry) and only allow me to use those characters in their new WotC VTT. Yeah, that will officially terminate my DnDBeyond subscription.
At that point, I will build my own online Character Management tools for my group to use.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Williams......coincidence? I think not. I knew when they brought her on that it meant bad tidings for my beloved game. How absurdly ironic/tragic/historically repetitive it is that the name is Williams, an name that will once again live in infamy just as it did decades ago.
Sounds like WotC needs to come up with a few new RPG games.
The D&D trend waxes and wains like normal. It might help if they put out a few different games to smooth the waves of popularity and demand.
But that would require coming up with new content. And we have all noticed they are having trouble in that respect.
A Marvel RPG might work, or a DC one. If they would invest in the rights. Or even some Anime one. Something new.
Not actually true. Anything released under a version of the OGL that includes the text about being allowed to use it with any authorized version of the OGL cannot be enforced as long as a less restrictive OGL is available, but if they release new product under an OGL that says any authorized version > X people can't go back and use old versions of the OGL. There's zero need for Wizards to deauthorize older versions -- unless the intent is to affect product released under those older versions.
Oh brother - Every small time D&D Youtuber that I've never viewed before is coming up in my suggested feed because of the OGL controversy...
It isn't JUST the new OGL that I dislike, the general direction of "DnD is under monetized and we need to start squeezing every cent from our player base" that has started to move to the front is very disheartening. Even if they walk back the new OGL, the intent of the company is clear at this point. Honestly, most of their recent releases have been mediocre at best. Sucking life away from, honestly, BETTER content from third parties is just a step too far. I've run 2-3 DnD games since the 3e days and loved it, but all but one of my groups has moved on to other systems. The last group will be converting to Pathfinder 2e once that campaign wraps up in the next few months. It's sad to say it, but with so many other systems out there, WotC's products just aren't good enough to justify their greed.