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.
D&D is under-monetized, and if you looked at the context in which that statement was made, you will find that it didn't relate to the Open Game License whatsosever. The direction in which D&D is going in isn't "clear", hence all the rumors and speculation about what they might and might not do. What is clear though is that they never said anything about "squeezing every cent from" their player base, and they wouldn't do that (at least not to the degree you are suggesting) because it would be a terrible business strategy and would hurt them a lot in the wrong run.
You are going off your sole opinion and judgement on the quality of D&D content and trying to connect it to the Open Game License and how the game is in general for everyone. A lot of the new books from Wizards of the Coast have been quite enjoyable reads for me at least, and the reason that they might seem subpar in terms of quality is likely because the D&D devs have to split time between 1DD and new releases. In other words, you are making connections which don't exist.
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.
The part about other RPGs being better than D&D is subjective, and we don't know whether or not the Open Game License will actually be changed in a way to stop companies such as Pathfinder from continuing to produce content without giving Wizards a portion of their revenue. These leaks are unconfirmed, they may well be correct, and that would be an unsettling change for the worst. However, we really don't know at this point, and I personally am going to avoid panicking until Wizards of the Coast either confirms or denies these rumors.
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 believe WotC does own any content released on the DM's Guild, but that content has never been released under the OGL. The DM's Guild allows people to use any DND content they would like as well as the DND brand (unlike the OGL and SRDs which only allows a certain amount of limited content and they can't use the DND brand). The terms of using the DM's Guild has always been clear to people and you're getting to use DND as a brand in exchange for better terms for WotC.
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.
D&D is under-monetized, and if you looked at the context in which that statement was made, you will find that it didn't relate to the Open Game License whatsosever. The direction in which D&D is going in isn't "clear", hence all the rumors and speculation about what they might and might not do.
What is clear though is that they never said anything about "squeezing every from" their player base, and they wouldn't do that (at least not to the degree you are suggesting) because it would be a terrible business strategy and would hurt them a lot in the wrong run.
I feel like an investor meeting about under monetisation followed immediately by plans to... Monetize third party works- is not a coincidence. There's a very clear connected corporate mindset there.
And I feel from looking at the way they've been dealing MTG They're perfectly willing to gouge and gouge until they hit a wall. It wont really matter if they Squeeze everything- But bigger squeezes are likely to make the landscape worse. Especially if they are directly targeting competitors without actually increases the amount or quality of their own product.
I am not a hardcore DnD player, but I have purchased quite a few sourcebooks and adventures to play with friends over the past few years. This stinks of the same sleazebag thinking that brought AI into the rental property game and saw my neighbors rents get jacked up $1000/mo overnight because the software felt the rental place hadn't "Monetized" enough for the corporation, or the same scummy thought process that has the US dropping yearly in internet quality and speed because of monopoly rent-seeking.
If this is the route that they are going, I will just invest my sparse entertainment dollars elsewhere.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When truth presents itself, the wise person see the light, takes it in, and makes adjustments. The fool tries to adjust the truth so he does not have to adjust to it." ~ Henry Cloud #ORC #OpenDND
I am continually disappointed seeing community members defending WotC. Especially when it's clear that even those defending WotC/Hasbro are seemingly against the leaked OGL 1.1 draft. Everyone who has taken the time to read the reporting are uniformly agreeing that the leaked content is terrible if implemented as is.
Hasbro is a Fortune 500 company during a recession and a stock price that has fallen 30-40% - they have a legal obligation to their shareholders to increase profit. The new CEO of WotC has gone on record to assure these shareholders that WotC will be seeking more ways to monetize D&D, including digital recurring revenue. (Source)
We know that a new OGL revision is currently being drafted to help with that effort as means of getting royalty revenue and that publishers will need to accept the new terms. This is already published on the DndBeyond home page. That press release states: "...you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do...Accept the [new OGL revision] license terms..." (OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D)
The concerning leaked language regarding 3rd party created content - specifically the language around granting WotC a "worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license" is already published as part of Wizards existing Terms of Service. (Section 5.2 License to Wizards)
Kickstarter leadership has also independently corroborated the royalty split and that they are actively negotiated with WotC for a better deal for 3rd party content creators - despite this being a potential legal liability for Kickstarter to discuss openly. (Jon Ritter, Kickstarter Director of Games)
Given all of these separate corroborating pieces of information, it's unfortunate to hear terms like "panicking", "sky falling out", "fearmongering", etc. used to describe the concerns of fellow D&D fans. It is perfectly reasonable to withhold personal decision making until WotC makes another official announcement about the OGL, but language like that comes off as undermining and belittling those who are taking action.
It's understandable that some of the folks defending WotC are also those most invested in the D&D community as their identity (i.e. mods and users most active in subreddits, forums, discord). But using such language in response to real concerns only sours the community at large and driving people away - doing the exact opposite as what you're intending. It's extremely disheartening since in another context, we otherwise could've easily shared a table and played together.
How about instead of screaming that the sky is falling and the game is ruined we actually wait and see what the actual OGL is. no one has read this supposed leak. it is not posted fully anywhere, which just seems suspicious to me.
Multiple sources have backed up parts of the leaked document, if you don't want to discuss the leaked content that's a fine opinion. But people aren't being unreasonable by trusting those sources, especially given we know Hasbro had a whole investor meeting about how under monetized D&D was, and doubly especially after all the iffy shit thats gone on with MTG these last few years.
Multiple sources are quoting the gizmodo article and have not seen this supposed document themselves.
It's wild to me that anyone would be working so hard to go to bat for Hasbro here. They aren't your friend.
It's not necessarily about batting for or against anything. It can just be about having a discussion. I hate how people always try to polarize every discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I left D&D at 4th edition and the odious GSL and moved to Pathfinder with no problems at all. Came back to D&D recently because hey, 5E was under OGL 1.0a so let's give it a shot. It's so sad they appear to be ready to declare Nuclear Lawfare and to back out of the perpetual license that was OGL 1.0a and revoke it. Time to leave D&D again for better gaming pastures. I'll have nothing to do with D&Done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Unless an aftermarket part specifically uses the auto makers logo or name on the part they do not have to pay a cent in royalties. They can even specifically state that the part works with a particular car.
So as long as no content creator uses the D&D logo, name, references the D20 system(?) or quotes copy written material anyplace in the content then they should never have to pay any royalty fee of any kind.
No matter how much they make in profit. WotC has no right to even ask for financials in that case.
All old contracts must be upheld by both sides. Even if a new contract is offered.
Pretty sure that, if you're a multibillion dollar company like Hasbro, you only have to treat laws as guidelines. As long as you can outlast your opponants in "legal fee bankruptcy", they can do what they want. The only actual way to force corporations against anti-consumer practices? Yo ho, yo ho...
I am simply amazed at this shameless attempt to "steal" creativity from Wotc / Hasbro. Indeed, without third party publishers, DD5 would surely not be what it is. Since the beginning of v5, this edition is not shining by its creativity and I would say that the most successful DD5 campaigns are the ones produced by third party publishers. Really new content can be counted on the fingers of one hand. This is clearly an attempt by Hasbro's financiers to take over the company at the expense of the players and their partners simply to prop up the stock price. There is nothing wrong with wanting the company to be profitable. From there to change the rules for profit without doing anything, I simply say no. The rules of intellectual property that were there to protect inventors and entrepreneurs are being transformed into a means to protect profiteers and idlers.
Unless an aftermarket part specifically uses the auto makers logo or name on the part they do not have to pay a cent in royalties. They can even specifically state that the part works with a particular car.
So as long as no content creator uses the D&D logo, name, references the D20 system(?) or quotes copy written material anyplace in the content then they should never have to pay any royalty fee of any kind.
No matter how much they make in profit. WotC has no right to even ask for financials in that case.
All old contracts must be upheld by both sides. Even if a new contract is offered.
You pretty much will need to write your own setting, monsters, spells, magic items, campaign, art (if wanted) etc to ensure you do not infringe on anyone else or sublicensed non-WotC content that has say a compatibility logo on it. (ie, 5E compatible like Tomb of Beasts1/2/3 manuals and the like)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I just used the One D&D survey to express my thoughts directly to WOTC. I marked every category as unsatisfied and used every comment box to rant about the OGL. If they are going to end the good relationship they have with this community, then they can develop their products in a vacuum and see if they sell or not.
Don't be fooled by the "Golden Rule." People treat you the way you treat them. Act like a money grubbing corporation and you will get treated like one. Be a good steward of a friendly community and you will get the benefits of that.
Pretty sure that, if you're a multibillion dollar company like Hasbro, you only have to treat laws as guidelines. As long as you can outlast your opponants in "legal fee bankruptcy", they can do what they want. The only actual way to force corporations against anti-consumer practices? Yo ho, yo ho...
There is always kickstarters and other methods of fundraising for efforts to fight / protect against corporate tyranny.
It's like when Caldera bought SCO and started suing all the small companies claiming they owned Linux. Small companies didn't want to get into a legal war and just paid Caldera / SCO. The Linux and Open Source community (like the Free Software Foundation (FSF) started and there were legal defense funds created to protect against raiding corporations trying to monetize other peoples work for themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Your comparison of SCO versus Linux is correct - except it is unlikely that all of the third-party publishers combined will have the legal funds to defend their rights.
What they do have, however, is the ability to create a brand new TTRPG system similar to but wholly different from DnD. And if just two or three of them were to get together and create a truly open source license, or use creative Commons license, then Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro stands to lose their market dominance.
If this doesn’t scare them, it really should. Right now they control the market and the third-party publishers account for a tiny fraction of sales. With a consortium writing an open rules set, they stand to lose it all.
I hope that by Monday we get a statement stating that 1.1 was a mistake, and 1.0(a) will be updated to state it is irrevocable. I don’t expect it, and that’s why I’ve already canceled my subscription here and have started to look for a system to move my table to that isn’t tainted by the OSL.
I do not know much about legal stuff but I doubt any 3rd party publisher will even consider writing up 5e Adventure Modules under that terms. And that is really an issue. Cause lets be honest WoTC official Adventure books are mediocre at best. The real gems come from 3rd party publishers.
So yeah, they are killing their own franchise cause who needs new sourcebooks for a game you don't play anymore.....
What they do have, however, is the ability to create a brand new TTRPG system similar to but wholly different from DnD. And if just two or three of them were to get together and create a truly open source license, or use creative Commons license, then Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro stands to lose their market dominance.
Do you mean Pathfinder?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
D&D is under-monetized, and if you looked at the context in which that statement was made, you will find that it didn't relate to the Open Game License whatsosever. The direction in which D&D is going in isn't "clear", hence all the rumors and speculation about what they might and might not do. What is clear though is that they never said anything about "squeezing every cent from" their player base, and they wouldn't do that (at least not to the degree you are suggesting) because it would be a terrible business strategy and would hurt them a lot in the wrong run.
You are going off your sole opinion and judgement on the quality of D&D content and trying to connect it to the Open Game License and how the game is in general for everyone. A lot of the new books from Wizards of the Coast have been quite enjoyable reads for me at least, and the reason that they might seem subpar in terms of quality is likely because the D&D devs have to split time between 1DD and new releases. In other words, you are making connections which don't exist.
The part about other RPGs being better than D&D is subjective, and we don't know whether or not the Open Game License will actually be changed in a way to stop companies such as Pathfinder from continuing to produce content without giving Wizards a portion of their revenue. These leaks are unconfirmed, they may well be correct, and that would be an unsettling change for the worst. However, we really don't know at this point, and I personally am going to avoid panicking until Wizards of the Coast either confirms or denies these rumors.
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.I believe WotC does own any content released on the DM's Guild, but that content has never been released under the OGL. The DM's Guild allows people to use any DND content they would like as well as the DND brand (unlike the OGL and SRDs which only allows a certain amount of limited content and they can't use the DND brand). The terms of using the DM's Guild has always been clear to people and you're getting to use DND as a brand in exchange for better terms for WotC.
I feel like an investor meeting about under monetisation followed immediately by plans to... Monetize third party works- is not a coincidence. There's a very clear connected corporate mindset there.
And I feel from looking at the way they've been dealing MTG They're perfectly willing to gouge and gouge until they hit a wall. It wont really matter if they Squeeze everything- But bigger squeezes are likely to make the landscape worse. Especially if they are directly targeting competitors without actually increases the amount or quality of their own product.
I am not a hardcore DnD player, but I have purchased quite a few sourcebooks and adventures to play with friends over the past few years. This stinks of the same sleazebag thinking that brought AI into the rental property game and saw my neighbors rents get jacked up $1000/mo overnight because the software felt the rental place hadn't "Monetized" enough for the corporation, or the same scummy thought process that has the US dropping yearly in internet quality and speed because of monopoly rent-seeking.
If this is the route that they are going, I will just invest my sparse entertainment dollars elsewhere.
"When truth presents itself, the wise person see the light, takes it in, and makes adjustments. The fool tries to adjust the truth so he does not have to adjust to it." ~ Henry Cloud #ORC #OpenDND
I am continually disappointed seeing community members defending WotC. Especially when it's clear that even those defending WotC/Hasbro are seemingly against the leaked OGL 1.1 draft. Everyone who has taken the time to read the reporting are uniformly agreeing that the leaked content is terrible if implemented as is.
Given all of these separate corroborating pieces of information, it's unfortunate to hear terms like "panicking", "sky falling out", "fearmongering", etc. used to describe the concerns of fellow D&D fans. It is perfectly reasonable to withhold personal decision making until WotC makes another official announcement about the OGL, but language like that comes off as undermining and belittling those who are taking action.
It's understandable that some of the folks defending WotC are also those most invested in the D&D community as their identity (i.e. mods and users most active in subreddits, forums, discord). But using such language in response to real concerns only sours the community at large and driving people away - doing the exact opposite as what you're intending. It's extremely disheartening since in another context, we otherwise could've easily shared a table and played together.
Multiple sources are quoting the gizmodo article and have not seen this supposed document themselves.
It's wild to me that anyone would be working so hard to go to bat for Hasbro here. They aren't your friend.
https://www.change.org/p/stop-hasbro-s-monopoly-on-dungeons-and-dragons-a-class-action-lawsuit-petition
Its lawsuit time, games are over
Some people just bury their head in the sand.
It's not necessarily about batting for or against anything. It can just be about having a discussion. I hate how people always try to polarize every discussion.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I left D&D at 4th edition and the odious GSL and moved to Pathfinder with no problems at all. Came back to D&D recently because hey, 5E was under OGL 1.0a so let's give it a shot. It's so sad they appear to be ready to declare Nuclear Lawfare and to back out of the perpetual license that was OGL 1.0a and revoke it. Time to leave D&D again for better gaming pastures. I'll have nothing to do with D&Done.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
I do a lot of automotive work.
Unless an aftermarket part specifically uses the auto makers logo or name on the part they do not have to pay a cent in royalties.
They can even specifically state that the part works with a particular car.
So as long as no content creator uses the D&D logo, name, references the D20 system(?) or quotes copy written material anyplace in the content then they should never have to pay any royalty fee of any kind.
No matter how much they make in profit. WotC has no right to even ask for financials in that case.
All old contracts must be upheld by both sides. Even if a new contract is offered.
Pretty sure that, if you're a multibillion dollar company like Hasbro, you only have to treat laws as guidelines. As long as you can outlast your opponants in "legal fee bankruptcy", they can do what they want. The only actual way to force corporations against anti-consumer practices? Yo ho, yo ho...
Good evening,
I am simply amazed at this shameless attempt to "steal" creativity from Wotc / Hasbro. Indeed, without third party publishers, DD5 would surely not be what it is. Since the beginning of v5, this edition is not shining by its creativity and I would say that the most successful DD5 campaigns are the ones produced by third party publishers. Really new content can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
This is clearly an attempt by Hasbro's financiers to take over the company at the expense of the players and their partners simply to prop up the stock price.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the company to be profitable. From there to change the rules for profit without doing anything, I simply say no.
The rules of intellectual property that were there to protect inventors and entrepreneurs are being transformed into a means to protect profiteers and idlers.
You pretty much will need to write your own setting, monsters, spells, magic items, campaign, art (if wanted) etc to ensure you do not infringe on anyone else or sublicensed non-WotC content that has say a compatibility logo on it. (ie, 5E compatible like Tomb of Beasts1/2/3 manuals and the like)
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I just used the One D&D survey to express my thoughts directly to WOTC. I marked every category as unsatisfied and used every comment box to rant about the OGL. If they are going to end the good relationship they have with this community, then they can develop their products in a vacuum and see if they sell or not.
Don't be fooled by the "Golden Rule." People treat you the way you treat them. Act like a money grubbing corporation and you will get treated like one. Be a good steward of a friendly community and you will get the benefits of that.
There is always kickstarters and other methods of fundraising for efforts to fight / protect against corporate tyranny.
It's like when Caldera bought SCO and started suing all the small companies claiming they owned Linux. Small companies didn't want to get into a legal war and just paid Caldera / SCO. The Linux and Open Source community (like the Free Software Foundation (FSF) started and there were legal defense funds created to protect against raiding corporations trying to monetize other peoples work for themselves.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Your comparison of SCO versus Linux is correct - except it is unlikely that all of the third-party publishers combined will have the legal funds to defend their rights.
What they do have, however, is the ability to create a brand new TTRPG system similar to but wholly different from DnD. And if just two or three of them were to get together and create a truly open source license, or use creative Commons license, then Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro stands to lose their market dominance.
If this doesn’t scare them, it really should. Right now they control the market and the third-party publishers account for a tiny fraction of sales. With a consortium writing an open rules set, they stand to lose it all.
I hope that by Monday we get a statement stating that 1.1 was a mistake, and 1.0(a) will be updated to state it is irrevocable. I don’t expect it, and that’s why I’ve already canceled my subscription here and have started to look for a system to move my table to that isn’t tainted by the OSL.
I do not know much about legal stuff but I doubt any 3rd party publisher will even consider writing up 5e Adventure Modules under that terms.
And that is really an issue. Cause lets be honest WoTC official Adventure books are mediocre at best. The real gems come from 3rd party publishers.
So yeah, they are killing their own franchise cause who needs new sourcebooks for a game you don't play anymore.....
Do you mean Pathfinder?