On a lighter note, those of us wanting to move away from D&D, what creature should replace "Dragon" as the quinessential monster of the next TTRPG? I think trolls/giants could work, if the setting had a bit of a norse-inspired feel to it.
Dungeon.
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)
On a lighter note, those of us wanting to move away from D&D, what creature should replace "Dragon" as the quinessential monster of the next TTRPG? I think trolls/giants could work, if the setting had a bit of a norse-inspired feel to it.
Dungeon.
The book cover is a group of frightened adventurers trying to fend off a hungry dungeon? XD
On a lighter note, those of us wanting to move away from D&D, what creature should replace "Dragon" as the quinessential monster of the next TTRPG? I think trolls/giants could work, if the setting had a bit of a norse-inspired feel to it.
Dungeon.
The book cover is a group of frightened adventurers trying to fend off a hungry dungeon? XD
We can call it Mimics & Mimics. Literally everything tries to eat you.
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'd like to see three different worlds focused on.
A steam-punk/retro-punk world where a magical calamity and a technological apocalypse has had the misfortune of fusing two worlds together, resulting in a new world where magic is erratic, technology is unstable and the survivors of both end-of-days events now have to figure out if they want to build a new world, try to drag back their old societies or descend into barbarism fighting over resources and old grudges. A four-way struggle between the bickering Gods of the Magical World, the AI's that engineered the destruction of the Technology World, the Cthulu-like entities that engineered the fusion in the first place and the Mortal Races who are caught in the middle of all of this.
A more light-hearted world where the planet is mostly ocean, and the landmasses are few and far between, with most societies living on the backs of pods of Kaiju-like creatures, whose shells and hides give rise to island-like biomes (tropical, jungle, desert, tundra etc) and whose bodies are rich with magical energy, slowly generating metal ores, gems and other, stranger materials, giving rise to a Monster Hunter-esque system of gearing up and magical items, with a focus on exploration, fighting off pirates and smaller, predatory Kaiju who attempt to attack the Kaiju Pods, and befriending, enslaving or domesticating 'wild' Kaiju to gain new territory and resources for their communities.
A politics and intrigue-focused world where ambassadors, spies, zealots and scholars all rub shoulders as nations, factions and powerful individuals vie for position and influence in a Hollow World-themed setting, with the 'Core' of the world being the liveable, save region, and the 'Under-Dark' and 'Surface' being home to progressively more and more lethal and hostile entities and biomes. The 'Core' may be safe, but resources are scarce and space is at a premium, meaning each faction and nation is constantly on the brink of out-right war over these resources, and constant pressure is put on Mercenary Houses and Private Armies to seek out resources in the 'Under-Dark' and the 'Surface' to supplement their meager supplies and claim strategic areas to expand into, both for defending their territories and enabling access to the ruins of the 'Old World' and unravel the secrets of the Bleaching War that turned the surface world into a monster-infested hell-pit and forced all the races of the world to huddle together in the heart of the world for survival.
Let's leave Ye Olde European Fantasy behind for a time. I'm not saying wipe out Faerun or the scores of Faerun-Copy settings out there, but let see a move away from that kind of setting as the default setting, since WotC/Hasbro is likely to go feral against anyone who even comes close to any aspect of their IP.
Seconded. Great insight and context from Ryan. Don't want to jump the gun, but really seems like Wizard's only good move is to back off the edge of the cliff rn.
I would be fine if Wizards just said, "Look, if you want to create and market material for any of our existing REALMS, then the OGL 1.1 applies. However, if you are creating content and marketing your material that is not exclusive to any of our existing REALMS, then OGL 1.0a applies."
That makes way, way more sense. I completely back their right to protect Faerun, Eberron, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc... But they should not be able to claim $$ from Exandria, or a random Magical Items Compendium that others put their own research and development into and ultimately put their own money on the line for.
I would be fine if Wizards just said, "Look, if you want to create and market material for any of our existing REALMS, then the OGL 1.1 applies. However, if you are creating content and marketing your material that is not exclusive to any of our existing REALMS, then OGL 1.0a applies."
That makes way, way more sense. I completely back their right to protect Faerun, Eberron, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc... But they should not be able to claim $$ from Exandria, or a random Magical Items Compendium that others put their own research and development into and ultimately put their own money on the line for.
The OGL 1.0a already bars people from using their realms. It's a license with 15 clauses simple enough for most folks to understand, and that is clause 7:
"7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity."
I would be fine if Wizards just said, "Look, if you want to create and market material for any of our existing REALMS, then the OGL 1.1 applies. However, if you are creating content and marketing your material that is not exclusive to any of our existing REALMS, then OGL 1.0a applies."
That makes way, way more sense. I completely back their right to protect Faerun, Eberron, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc... But they should not be able to claim $$ from Exandria, or a random Magical Items Compendium that others put their own research and development into and ultimately put their own money on the line for.
The OGL 1.0a already bars people from using their realms. It's a license with 15 clauses simple enough for most folks to understand, and that is clause 7:
"7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity."
Exactly. They're not coming for their IP, that was already protected in 1.0. They're coming for your IP. They want that too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Exactly. They're not coming for their IP, that was already protected in 1.0. They're coming for your IP. They want that too.
Pretty much nobody supports that provision from the leak, I highly doubt it ends up sticking around. If it does, well, it's pretty safe to say 1DnD will fail.
Seconded. Great insight and context from Ryan. Don't want to jump the gun, but really seems like Wizard's only good move is to back off the edge of the cliff rn.
Loved this podcast. I would dare say Ryan’s responses should be mandatory viewing for MBAs.
Exactly. They're not coming for their IP, that was already protected in 1.0. They're coming for your IP. They want that too.
Pretty much nobody supports that provision from the leak, I highly doubt it ends up sticking around. If it does, well, it's pretty safe to say 1DnD will fail.
Please understand, that that outcome would not be a win for the community. The OGL 1.0a was designed to be an immutible promise to the community and the third-party support sector. The fact that WotC are perfectly comfortable in going back on their word on such a fundamentally core written agreement with its audience has shattered any due trust for the company going forward. Nothing in the OGL 1.1 is an IMPROVEMENT on the original. If they reversed 99% of it and released it, it would still be harm done to the community. OGL 1.1 doesn't need to be reigned in, or lessened, or revised, it needs to be prevented completely. Full stop.
Exactly. They're not coming for their IP, that was already protected in 1.0. They're coming for your IP. They want that too.
Pretty much nobody supports that provision from the leak, I highly doubt it ends up sticking around. If it does, well, it's pretty safe to say 1DnD will fail.
Please understand, that that outcome would not be a win for the community. The OGL 1.0a was designed to be an immutible promise to the community and the third-party support sector. The fact that WotC are perfectly comfortable in going back on their word on such a fundamentally core written agreement with its audience has shattered any due trust for the company going forward. Nothing in the OGL 1.1 is an IMPROVEMENT on the original. If they reversed 99% of it and released it, it would still be harm done to the community. OGL 1.1 doesn't need to be reigned in, or lessened, or revised, it needs to be prevented completely. Full stop.
There is another thread describing reasons that 1.0a should not stick around unchanged, and I support that viewpoint, even as I oppose the current leaked 1.1.
While some on this thread hem and haw, and wait for Hasbro to "answer questions" about this "unverified leak" my friends in the outside creative community who have relied on the OGL 1.0a are not waiting.
I know those small, medium, and large TTRPG content creators are right now hard at work trying to salvage their livelihoods. Some have already spent thousands on lawyer fees based on this "unverified leak." They are writing their own OGL which will overtake the industry. And even if Hasbro does nothing, even if Hasbro were to let the OGL 1.0a stand, these creators will never forget, and never again trust this soulless corporation.
Which system will rule them all? I think we all know what that looks like. It will be a system that will allow creativity without bounds.
The creatives and innovators are enraged and engaged. What you will see in 2023 is a wave of independent open game content the likes of which has only been hinted at in the past. This Cambrian explosion of open game content will gather force until it smashes upon this rotting beached whale like a tidal wave.
The OGL of the future will not belong to Hasbro.
That sounds remarkably similar to anarchist anthems and revolutionary movements the past is littered with.
It's cute, but entirely disregards the players/costumers role in all of this. The small creators may band together and march under the banner of freedom all day long, but in the end it's going to come down to the quality of the vtt, it's pervasiveness, customer service, price, marketing and overall appeal.
We can be mad all we like, but if enough customers, old and new, only care about their game and how and were to play it best, and where to find people to play it with, the big companies are always going to have a leg up
Exactly. They're not coming for their IP, that was already protected in 1.0. They're coming for your IP. They want that too.
Pretty much nobody supports that provision from the leak, I highly doubt it ends up sticking around. If it does, well, it's pretty safe to say 1DnD will fail.
Please understand, that that outcome would not be a win for the community. The OGL 1.0a was designed to be an immutible promise to the community and the third-party support sector. The fact that WotC are perfectly comfortable in going back on their word on such a fundamentally core written agreement with its audience has shattered any due trust for the company going forward. Nothing in the OGL 1.1 is an IMPROVEMENT on the original. If they reversed 99% of it and released it, it would still be harm done to the community. OGL 1.1 doesn't need to be reigned in, or lessened, or revised, it needs to be prevented completely. Full stop.
There is another thread describing reasons that 1.0a should not stick around unchanged, and I support that viewpoint, even as I oppose the current leaked 1.1.
If you haven’t listened it it yet, I strongly suggest watching the Ryan Dancey youtube video show above. It, either directly or indirectly, addresses the five items from the other thread you mentioned (most of which boil down to protecting and monitizing Hasbro’s IP).
Hasbro IP, as defined as the 5.0 SRD, is already protected under the current situation. The SRD specifically states what is protected property of Hasbro, and no one can legally use any of these terms in their document. The first protected term is Dungeons and Dragons. If you publish under the SRD and OGL, you are legally bound NOT to reference Dungeons and Dragons. Hasbro has also by virtue of releasing these term (and the rest of the SRD) stated what they are legally comfortable with a third party using to profit off of. They have specifically decided what you can and can’t use. The whole arguement about creating competitors is bull and anti competitive. They have the right to say what you can and can’t use. Argue,ents 3-5 are simply anti-competitive malarkey.
Dancey is right - this is a simple question. Can Hasbro change the terms of the OGL that prior SRD were released under, replacing the older OGL with a new OGL? Hasbro states they can, but I would argue that the terms of the original OGL prevent this.
BTW - in case you’re curious, here is the list of protected items from the 5.1 SRD. No third party can use any of this without a separate agreement with Hasbro:
The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-‐‑ Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-‐‑ti.
Exactly. They're not coming for their IP, that was already protected in 1.0. They're coming for your IP. They want that too.
Pretty much nobody supports that provision from the leak, I highly doubt it ends up sticking around. If it does, well, it's pretty safe to say 1DnD will fail.
Please understand, that that outcome would not be a win for the community. The OGL 1.0a was designed to be an immutible promise to the community and the third-party support sector. The fact that WotC are perfectly comfortable in going back on their word on such a fundamentally core written agreement with its audience has shattered any due trust for the company going forward. Nothing in the OGL 1.1 is an IMPROVEMENT on the original. If they reversed 99% of it and released it, it would still be harm done to the community. OGL 1.1 doesn't need to be reigned in, or lessened, or revised, it needs to be prevented completely. Full stop.
There is another thread describing reasons that 1.0a should not stick around unchanged, and I support that viewpoint, even as I oppose the current leaked 1.1.
If you haven’t listened it it yet, I strongly suggest watching the Ryan Dancey youtube video show above. It, either directly or indirectly, addresses the five items from the other thread you mentioned (most of which boil down to protecting Hasbro’s IP).
Hasbro IP, as defined as the 5.0 SRD, is already protected under the current situation. The SRD specifically states what is protected property of Hasbro, and no one can legally use any of these terms in their document. The first protected term is Dungeons and Dragons. If you publish under the SRD and OGL, you are legally bound NOT to reference Dungeons and Dragons. Hasbro has also by virtue of releasing these term (and the rest of the SRD) stated what they are legally comfortable with a third party using to profit off of. They have specifically decided what you can and can’t use. The whole arguement about creating competitors is bull and anti competitive. They have the right to say what you can and can’t use. Argue,ents 3-5 are simply anti-competitive malarkey.
Dancey is right - this is a simple question. Can Hasbro change the terms of the OGL that prior SRD were released under, replacing the older OGL with a new OGL? Hasbro states they can, but I would argue that the terms of the original OGL prevent this.
BTW - in case you’re curious, here is the list of protected items from the 5.1 SRD. No third party can use any of this without a separate agreement with Hasbro:
The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-‐‑ Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-‐‑ti.
And, for the record, that Product Identity declaration is entirely superfluous and unnecessary. None of those terms appear in the SRD so other publishers would not be allowed to use them anyway! If you go back to the original 3.0 SRD, it did not have this PI declaration because it was utterly unnecessary. But I believe with the 3.5 SRD, they added it, I'm sure as a compromise with some exec who didn't actually understand the license. (As an example of how this was added at a specific time and then completely ignored - how often has "the City of Union" come up? Has it appeared anywhere other than the Epic Level Handbook that came out about the time these PI terms were unnecessarily added to the SRD? Yet it was just cut and pasted to the 5.0 and 5.1 SRDs despite not even appearing in this edition of the game at all!!)
As I said over on Mastodon as well, it's like if I published a book all about faeries and listed a bunch of dragon names as Product Identity despite not even appearing in the product! Not sure how it is product identity when it's not even in the product. *eyeroll* Over the years I've had to explain to many newer writers to ignore how WotC uses their own license because it's a really bad example. It just confuses the issue because not only does it show a massive misunderstanding of the role of PI, but it also adds confusion. What about all of the many, many other things that also are not in the SRDs but are not listed as PI? I've seen many writers think that as long as it's not in that list, then it was fair game (which, of course, is wrong!).
It just goes to show that after Ryan Dancey was laid off, WotC upper management has never taken the OGL serious enough to bother even understanding it properly.
So... Any one wanna hazard a guess at when Hasbro/WotC's going to actually react to the shitstorm they created?
They don't really have to. (Although they'll probably issue some sort of feel good statement when these type of threads calm down)
They've likely already made deals with large 3rd party creators (who signed NDA's), and they probably don't care about the small ones.
They've probably also calculated the potential number of lost customers vs. new ones who will come on board via the movie(s), merchandising, and such, as well as the monetization of those who stick around. And despite all of the people proclaiming to never buy or play D&D again, WoTC is counting on most of them coming back.
All corps do cost/benefit analysis, and WoTC/Hasbro is no exception. I'm sure the analysis concluded that 1.1 would ultimately result in a net positive for them.
So... Any one wanna hazard a guess at when Hasbro/WotC's going to actually react to the shitstorm they created?
They don't really have to. (Although they'll probably issue some sort of feel good statement when these type of threads calm down)
They've likely already made deals with large 3rd party creators (who signed NDA's), and they probably don't care about the small ones.
They've probably also calculated the potential number of lost customers vs. new ones who will come on board via the movie(s), merchandising, and such, as well as the monetization of those who stick around. And despite all of the people proclaiming to never buy or play D&D again, WoTC is counting on most of them coming back.
All corps do cost/benefit analysis, and WoTC/Hasbro is no exception. I'm sure the analysis concluded that 1.1 would ultimately result in a net positive for them.
Otoh, know it all c-suite types ram their personal "great ideas" and pet projects past objections, concerns, and risk assessments they don't like all the time.
They could be scrambling to pivot and change course after public outcry.
We can hope.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dungeon.
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)
The book cover is a group of frightened adventurers trying to fend off a hungry dungeon? XD
We can call it Mimics & Mimics. Literally everything tries to eat you.
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)
Labyrinths and Legends.
I'd like to see three different worlds focused on.
A steam-punk/retro-punk world where a magical calamity and a technological apocalypse has had the misfortune of fusing two worlds together, resulting in a new world where magic is erratic, technology is unstable and the survivors of both end-of-days events now have to figure out if they want to build a new world, try to drag back their old societies or descend into barbarism fighting over resources and old grudges. A four-way struggle between the bickering Gods of the Magical World, the AI's that engineered the destruction of the Technology World, the Cthulu-like entities that engineered the fusion in the first place and the Mortal Races who are caught in the middle of all of this.
A more light-hearted world where the planet is mostly ocean, and the landmasses are few and far between, with most societies living on the backs of pods of Kaiju-like creatures, whose shells and hides give rise to island-like biomes (tropical, jungle, desert, tundra etc) and whose bodies are rich with magical energy, slowly generating metal ores, gems and other, stranger materials, giving rise to a Monster Hunter-esque system of gearing up and magical items, with a focus on exploration, fighting off pirates and smaller, predatory Kaiju who attempt to attack the Kaiju Pods, and befriending, enslaving or domesticating 'wild' Kaiju to gain new territory and resources for their communities.
A politics and intrigue-focused world where ambassadors, spies, zealots and scholars all rub shoulders as nations, factions and powerful individuals vie for position and influence in a Hollow World-themed setting, with the 'Core' of the world being the liveable, save region, and the 'Under-Dark' and 'Surface' being home to progressively more and more lethal and hostile entities and biomes. The 'Core' may be safe, but resources are scarce and space is at a premium, meaning each faction and nation is constantly on the brink of out-right war over these resources, and constant pressure is put on Mercenary Houses and Private Armies to seek out resources in the 'Under-Dark' and the 'Surface' to supplement their meager supplies and claim strategic areas to expand into, both for defending their territories and enabling access to the ruins of the 'Old World' and unravel the secrets of the Bleaching War that turned the surface world into a monster-infested hell-pit and forced all the races of the world to huddle together in the heart of the world for survival.
Let's leave Ye Olde European Fantasy behind for a time. I'm not saying wipe out Faerun or the scores of Faerun-Copy settings out there, but let see a move away from that kind of setting as the default setting, since WotC/Hasbro is likely to go feral against anyone who even comes close to any aspect of their IP.
Seconded. Great insight and context from Ryan. Don't want to jump the gun, but really seems like Wizard's only good move is to back off the edge of the cliff rn.
They can not back off. They have already signed contracts under the new license. They would have to go back a re-do all of them.
I would be fine if Wizards just said, "Look, if you want to create and market material for any of our existing REALMS, then the OGL 1.1 applies. However, if you are creating content and marketing your material that is not exclusive to any of our existing REALMS, then OGL 1.0a applies."
That makes way, way more sense. I completely back their right to protect Faerun, Eberron, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc... But they should not be able to claim $$ from Exandria, or a random Magical Items Compendium that others put their own research and development into and ultimately put their own money on the line for.
The OGL 1.0a already bars people from using their realms. It's a license with 15 clauses simple enough for most folks to understand, and that is clause 7:
"7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity."
Exactly. They're not coming for their IP, that was already protected in 1.0. They're coming for your IP. They want that too.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Pretty much nobody supports that provision from the leak, I highly doubt it ends up sticking around. If it does, well, it's pretty safe to say 1DnD will fail.
Loved this podcast. I would dare say Ryan’s responses should be mandatory viewing for MBAs.
Please understand, that that outcome would not be a win for the community. The OGL 1.0a was designed to be an immutible promise to the community and the third-party support sector. The fact that WotC are perfectly comfortable in going back on their word on such a fundamentally core written agreement with its audience has shattered any due trust for the company going forward. Nothing in the OGL 1.1 is an IMPROVEMENT on the original. If they reversed 99% of it and released it, it would still be harm done to the community. OGL 1.1 doesn't need to be reigned in, or lessened, or revised, it needs to be prevented completely. Full stop.
There is another thread describing reasons that 1.0a should not stick around unchanged, and I support that viewpoint, even as I oppose the current leaked 1.1.
That sounds remarkably similar to anarchist anthems and revolutionary movements the past is littered with.
It's cute, but entirely disregards the players/costumers role in all of this. The small creators may band together and march under the banner of freedom all day long, but in the end it's going to come down to the quality of the vtt, it's pervasiveness, customer service, price, marketing and overall appeal.
We can be mad all we like, but if enough customers, old and new, only care about their game and how and were to play it best, and where to find people to play it with, the big companies are always going to have a leg up
If you haven’t listened it it yet, I strongly suggest watching the Ryan Dancey youtube video show above. It, either directly or indirectly, addresses the five items from the other thread you mentioned (most of which boil down to protecting and monitizing Hasbro’s IP).
Hasbro IP, as defined as the 5.0 SRD, is already protected under the current situation. The SRD specifically states what is protected property of Hasbro, and no one can legally use any of these terms in their document. The first protected term is Dungeons and Dragons. If you publish under the SRD and OGL, you are legally bound NOT to reference Dungeons and Dragons. Hasbro has also by virtue of releasing these term (and the rest of the SRD) stated what they are legally comfortable with a third party using to profit off of. They have specifically decided what you can and can’t use. The whole arguement about creating competitors is bull and anti competitive. They have the right to say what you can and can’t use. Argue,ents 3-5 are simply anti-competitive malarkey.
Dancey is right - this is a simple question. Can Hasbro change the terms of the OGL that prior SRD were released under, replacing the older OGL with a new OGL? Hasbro states they can, but I would argue that the terms of the original OGL prevent this.
BTW - in case you’re curious, here is the list of protected items from the 5.1 SRD. No third party can use any of this without a separate agreement with Hasbro:
The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-‐‑ Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-‐‑ti.
And, for the record, that Product Identity declaration is entirely superfluous and unnecessary. None of those terms appear in the SRD so other publishers would not be allowed to use them anyway! If you go back to the original 3.0 SRD, it did not have this PI declaration because it was utterly unnecessary. But I believe with the 3.5 SRD, they added it, I'm sure as a compromise with some exec who didn't actually understand the license. (As an example of how this was added at a specific time and then completely ignored - how often has "the City of Union" come up? Has it appeared anywhere other than the Epic Level Handbook that came out about the time these PI terms were unnecessarily added to the SRD? Yet it was just cut and pasted to the 5.0 and 5.1 SRDs despite not even appearing in this edition of the game at all!!)
As I said over on Mastodon as well, it's like if I published a book all about faeries and listed a bunch of dragon names as Product Identity despite not even appearing in the product! Not sure how it is product identity when it's not even in the product. *eyeroll* Over the years I've had to explain to many newer writers to ignore how WotC uses their own license because it's a really bad example. It just confuses the issue because not only does it show a massive misunderstanding of the role of PI, but it also adds confusion. What about all of the many, many other things that also are not in the SRDs but are not listed as PI? I've seen many writers think that as long as it's not in that list, then it was fair game (which, of course, is wrong!).
It just goes to show that after Ryan Dancey was laid off, WotC upper management has never taken the OGL serious enough to bother even understanding it properly.
So... Any one wanna hazard a guess at when Hasbro/WotC's going to actually react to the shitstorm they created?
The 13th is tomorrow so I am betting tomorrow.
They don't really have to. (Although they'll probably issue some sort of feel good statement when these type of threads calm down)
They've likely already made deals with large 3rd party creators (who signed NDA's), and they probably don't care about the small ones.
They've probably also calculated the potential number of lost customers vs. new ones who will come on board via the movie(s), merchandising, and such, as well as the monetization of those who stick around. And despite all of the people proclaiming to never buy or play D&D again, WoTC is counting on most of them coming back.
All corps do cost/benefit analysis, and WoTC/Hasbro is no exception. I'm sure the analysis concluded that 1.1 would ultimately result in a net positive for them.
Otoh, know it all c-suite types ram their personal "great ideas" and pet projects past objections, concerns, and risk assessments they don't like all the time.
They could be scrambling to pivot and change course after public outcry.
We can hope.