The Future of the Open Gaming License (OGL) and D&D

I’ve been thinking about this for a couple days, and I hadn’t planned on replying to this thread again as it prevents others from expressing their outrage and gives WoTC the excuse that there’s only a few people who are mad.

However, I think Hasbro is making a really big mistake from a fiduciary point of view - their 2004 FAQ which stated the older versions of the OGL could continue to be used very well could provide the legal basis for a fraud case (which is wholly different than just terms of licensing).

Specifically, by their stating publicly that the current license could continue to be used, and then reversing course, they very well may have committed fraud. This gives grounds to the third-party publishers to file lawsuits against future earnings, which could be very significant. And that is to say nothing of the fact that it might even open them up to criminal penalties.

I’m not a lawyer, but I would love to hear legal expertise on this point. If I am right, this very well could destroy Hasbro.

Quote from Phaeoron >>

If WotC/Hasbro won't back down from this appalling new direction with the OGL (that goes against WotC's explicit past promises), I'm straight back to pen and paper (and genuinely sorry that I renewed my subscriptions in autumn).

 I already cancelled my DnD-Beyond subscription for that reason.

TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.

It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.

It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.

 You should totally leave here and go do that!!! I bet you can come up with something great!

Quote from Golaryn >>

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.

It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.

 You should totally leave here and go do that!!! I bet you can come up with something great!

 I don't have a ton of time to actually do the making of content, but would anyone like me to start a discord server to start this project?

Quote from MayhemMolly >>

Quote from MadBlue >>

Quote from KenMarable >>

Pathfinder was an intended response to something like the radical changes of 4e. (Whether 4e was good, bad, or otherwise is beside the point. What matters is if enough fans want a different D&D experience than WotC was offering, the OGL was absolutely intended to facilitate that.)

 

The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.

 That doesn't matter.  They created the license.  They stated repeatedly that it was irrevokable.  Now they're trying to walk it back and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people just because they don't like a little competition.  Paizo's not the villain of the piece here.  WotC/Hasbro is.

I don't disagree there. 

Quote from eguy >>

<Snip>

I know this comment was made more than 24 hours ago, but I felt that there were several points in it that needed to be addressed.

• I find it kinda frustrating that I keep having to repeat myself, but the leaks about the Open Game License 1.1 and the comments about D&D being "under-monetized" are only tangentially related. Corporate officials using corporate language really isn't that shocking, and this comment wasn't even made in context related to the Open Game License.
• Yes, but the only companies/people that will be affected by the royalties are those making more than $750,000 annually. Even then, the royalties will only be on the revenue over that number, and under 20 organizations will be directly impacted by this. And yes, there are news terms to be accepted for the next Open Game License, but that was to be expected and what is most likely is that the terms are pretty small and unimportant, seeing as the article didn't seem to make much of them. We do know that the Open Game License is being modified, but most of the worries about what those modifications will be are just unconfirmed speculation at this point.
• Just because it is already in Wizards' TOS doesn't mean it will be in the next version of the Open Game License. Have you considered the fact that if someone is trying to make a false leak of a legal document, it makes sense that they will probably look at lines from other legal documents and insert the same language into the "leak". I am not saying that the Gizmodo article is wrong, just that this line doesn't really make what they have to say look any more trustworthy.
• People keep citing this tweet as evidence of changes to the Open Game License, but... We already knew it was changing. Nothing we didn't know was discussed in this tweet, since we already knew there would be some percentage based royalties and a few other minor terms, this tweet presents nothing new. I find it annoying that people are using as evidence to support the "leak" when it really isn't evidence at all.

I do get your point about language such as fearmongering and panicking; Many of the concerns and worries about Open Game License 1.1 are valid, and they deserve to be treated as such. However... There are some people panicking and acting like the sky is falling out. You may not be one of those people, and not everyone who fears for the OGL is like that, but there are people who are deleting their accounts, quitting the game, or cancelling their subscription. Why are they doing this? Because they are worried about unconfirmed leaks, and are acting now instead of waiting to see whether or not their are concerns are valid.

So yes, there are some people panicking and/or acting like the skying is falling out. There are also some people with important concerns, but a lot of people are overreacting to others' worries.

And finally, I am allowed to defend Wizards of the Coast. They may not be my friend, but they produce the wonderful game that we all love and enjoy. If they do something bad, then I will likely be among the fans to protest about it. However, if I feel that they are getting unfairly blamed and people are getting overly upset with them, then it is perfectly viable and valid for me to defend them.

I know this post has ended up being a lot longer than I intended it, so I just wanted to wrap it up by sending a message that I think everyone needs to hear: We are all D&D or TTRPG players, and while we may have disagreements and debates, let's also remember to focus on our similarities as well as our differences.

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from eguy >>

<Snip>

I know this comment was made more than 24 hours ago, but I felt that there were several points in it that needed to be addressed.I do get your point about language such as fearmongering and panicking; Many of the concerns and worries about Open Game License 1.1 are valid, and they deserve to be treated as such. However... There are some people panicking and acting like the sky is falling out. You may not be one of those people, and not everyone who fears for the OGL is like that, but there are people who are deleting their accounts, quitting the game, or cancelling their subscription. Why are they doing this? Because they are worried about unconfirmed leaks, and are acting now instead of waiting to see whether or not their are concerns are valid.

So yes, there are some people panicking and/or acting like the skying is falling out. There are also some people with important concerns, but a lot of people are overreacting to others' worries.

 

 
You are characterizing anyone who is following this and taking the position of "yeah, this is bad because the leak says that the old OGL will be revoked" as "panicking" and "acting like the skying [sic] is falling out." as being unreasonable and reactionary no matter if they have taken the same information or maybe even more and come to a different conclusion than you. You may be trying to come across as reasonable, but you are, by no means, being charitable and that's pretty bad in my books. A bit of shame on you for being like that.

Also, take a read here: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f

Quote from BoringBard >>

And finally, I am allowed to defend Wizards of the Coast

Well yeah, and other people are allowed to express their opinions about WOTC and your choices too. 

Quote from BoringBard >>

So yes, there are some people panicking and/or acting like the skying is falling out. There are also some people with important concerns, but a lot of people are overreacting to others' worries.

 

 And yes, there are sources citing that multiple sweetheart contracts were sent with copies of the 9000 word OGL 1.1 under NDA to large third party producers. The OGL1.1 as presented in the leak is real and WotC/Hasbro is going full metal Nuclear Lawfare on OGL 1.0a. The only reason it was not released on January 4 as planned was due to the leak. They will throw their weight around to insure OGL 1.0a projects cannot access funding through KickStarter and DriveThruRPG and they are prepared to litigate.

Multiple third party producers are bonding together and consulting attorneys as we surmise what may or may not be. Expect crowdsource funding for legal costs to hit as soon as OGL 1.1 is released.

This is real. It is happening, and when it hits it will hit hard.

You read it from me first. You will see this is 100% accurate.

Quote from BoringBard>>

And finally, I am allowed to defend Wizards of the Coast.

I know we’re friendly and all, but….

Quote from ZotWyzo >>

The only reason it was not released on January 4 as planned was due to the leak.

 That... doesn't make any sense. The normal response to leaks is to move release forward, not back. I'm sure there's a reason Wizards hasn't officially released OGL 1.1 yet, but I very much doubt that reason is the leak (not impossible the reaction to the leak is relevant, but the original leak, not so much).

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

This is the part that caught my attention:

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:  

1. Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale 

What are the terms?

My guess is that they'll be pretty minuscule, but a clearer explanation by Wizards still would be a bit nice. However, they did say that the base parts of the license are staying, so I wouldn't get too worried about this just yet.

 That would have been my assumption too... but, the leaked OGL 1.1 looks anything but miniscule. As a loyal D&D fan of three and a half decades, I am extremely disappointed. Without a massive retraction, I am afraid I cannot in good conscience support a brand that would do this.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

I think WotC's scared.  Despite the compatibility claims that seem pretty evident in the One D&D claim, someone, maybe a newly hired exec from the software industry or part of the braintrust they may have brought on board with them for the biz side of things was aware of what happened to D&D in the shift from 3.5 and 4.0 and is trying to devise a way to control the property of D&D in such a way that if 6e or whatever produces a similar "let's stick with 5e ftw" consensus among the player base, they won't see a Pathfinder scooping up their hard core players at the end of the core product release cycle.  And again, the folks devising this aren't really "D&D people" but "product moving people" so if it seems there's a disregard for community, etc., it's because these decisions are coming from the side of the house that doesn't even engage community.

 
If that was the goal... yikes. Because from what I've seen, it's likely to have exactly the opposite effect. I agree that this feels very much like a decision coming from people who are out of touch with the community.

WotC, I understand wanting to protect and futureproof your IP, but remember the immortal words of 38 Special. "Just hold on loosely, but don't let go. If you cling too tightly, you're gonna lose control."

Quote from BoringBard >>

• I find it kinda frustrating that I keep having to repeat myself, but the leaks about the Open Game License 1.1 and the comments about D&D being "under-monetized" are only tangentially related. Corporate officials using corporate language really isn't that shocking, and this comment wasn't even made in context related to the Open Game License.
• Yes, but the only companies/people that will be affected by the royalties are those making more than $750,000 annually. Even then, the royalties will only be on the revenue over that number, and under 20 organizations will be directly impacted by this. And yes, there are news terms to be accepted for the next Open Game License, but that was to be expected and what is most likely is that the terms are pretty small and unimportant, seeing as the article didn't seem to make much of them. We do know that the Open Game License is being modified, but most of the worries about what those modifications will be are just unconfirmed speculation at this point.

You keep repeating yourself largely because you aren't listening to anyones concerns, just saying everyone is being hyperbolistic because you don't think discussion of leaks should happen on anyones terms but WotCs. 

Nobody is saying the under monetised meeting contained a long meeting about the OGL, just that a meeting about revamping monetisation aspects of D&D followed by monetising 3rd parties is indicative of a change of corporate mindset. Similarly "We're just going to print more sets" as a MTG statement doesn't mean "We are going to intentionally increase misprints!" but that also happened, but they are two linked mindsets that worsen the overall landscape. 

Every time people quote the 750,000 figure to defend WotC they always seem to leave out that WotC want to collect financial data and will in all likelyhood change that figure as time goes on. 

Quote from BoringBard >>

[...]

I do get your point about language such as fearmongering and panicking; Many of the concerns and worries about Open Game License 1.1 are valid, and they deserve to be treated as such. However... There are some people panicking and acting like the sky is falling out. You may not be one of those people, and not everyone who fears for the OGL is like that, but there are people who are deleting their accounts, quitting the game, or cancelling their subscription. Why are they doing this? Because they are worried about unconfirmed leaks, and are acting now instead of waiting to see whether or not their are concerns are valid.

[...]

I've added some long posts here, but let me do a really short one.

The central issue of concern here to me, and to many folks following this issue with interest, is not any unconfirmed detail of the leaked terms of OGL 1.1. It is that Wizards intends to attempt to make OGL 1.1 more restrictive in any way than OGL 1.0a, when the terms of OGL 1.0a were supposed to prevent that. If they can do that, the exact terms of OGL 1.1 won't matter, because they could just change again at any time. If third party developers can't rely on the OGL, they won't develop OGL content. Period.

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.

It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.

 Count me in  

Can we call it “Blackmoor” or “Project Arneson” or the like?

I think Dave would approve. 

Quote from Yharim >>

 

I'm sure some kind of community system or network will arise out of this and I'm excited to see it. I doubt it will ever grow to a fraction of the titanic heights of D&D but no doubt I'll find a neat system in the making that I can contribute to. I'm sure Hasbro doesn't need my money. I've been dawdling on publishing an actual adventure module for years now and I had just decided on 5e OGL not even two weeks ago (New Year's resolution lol). Definitely not going that route now!

Quote from BoringBard >>

 

So I should've expected to be called out and I wanted to respect you with a response BoringBard.

I understand how you feel, TTRPG is one of my all time favorite hobbies and I feel very passionately about it too. There are people who even more necessarily passionate about now because it affects their livelihood. I think I've seen enough for me to pause on my spending with WotC and put that money into independent game makers. What I see here are people making reasonable decisions about how they use their money, which is their right. We don't have many places in WotC controlled spaces to express feedback (I was warned almost immediately in the discord) and people here are being very civil and reasonable while giving negative feedback. The folks above me have already done a thorough enough job of refuting your points so I'm going to avoid a back and forth (and more name calling!).

Despite how I feel about this morally, I think Hasbro's going to unfortunately get away with it.

It's a smart business decision. Chris Cooks and Cynthia Williams come from software and video games, where locking down your IP is proven to be effective at increasing profit while minimizing cost. Instead of the cost of having to create a product, the only expense needed to draft a new OGL is legal payroll. Doing this will perfectly situate WotC in preparation for their own VTT. With the proposed OGL 1.1, 3rd party content released under it could find itself included in that new VTT as an incentive for users to adopt. The proposed OGL 1.1 treats 3rd party IP the same was the existing DMs Guild licensing agreement does. So someone new to the company and not as familiar with the OGL (and its far reaching impact on the industry), it probably doesn't seem like a big deal to take the policy "uniform across platform."

Critical Role, Disney, Dimension 20 (maybe...), and other big players are probably already in negotiation for separate deals. Agreements will be signed or are already signed. There might not be enough resistance to test WotC in court. With the buzz of the upcoming movie, general interest in D&D will peak in a couple months and momentum for any protest/boycott will blow over. WotC might even walk a clause or two back, but they'll get an OGL 1.1 out that they think will benefit them financially. There is a clear directive that Williams promised the shareholders, she now has to monetize D&D otherwise that would be defrauding the shareholders. The VTT and DndBeyond need to succeed in order to enable that monetization, and they think tightening the reins on their IP will help ensure that success.

While I stop my spending, cancel my subscription, etc. my group will keep playing 5e because I'm not the DM currently. I'm not faulting anyone for continuing 5e as a hobby, I totally get it. I have hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours invested, lowballing. When it's my turn to run a game, maybe I'll suggest a different system to try out. I think that's a pretty healthy response, personally.

Quote from Mycelian_Studios >>

As a third party creator that has spent the last 2+ years working on a book this news is crushing and deeply disturbing. As a result I can no longer continue to support a company that cares more about profits than that of the players (and underappreciated DMs) that made those profits possible. I will soon be deleting my DNDBeyond account and I suggest anyone who actually supports 3rd party creators do the same and use the following hashtags on social media:

#mONEyDND and #OpenDnD

 all companies care more about profits then the people