Honestly the guys at WoTC trying to back pedal and act like they were always gonna take feedback on this before rolling it out and that everything we saw was drafts is hilarious they litterally sent it out with NDA's attached and gave people a week to sign.
This is the truth. They tried to do a secret backroom deal to strongarm content creators into handing over their IP and money and we wouldn't have found out until it was way too late. Then they turn around and act like it was all part of a draft? This is egregious behavior.
I feel so personally insulted by how much a lemming they must think I am. Any WOTC employee who reads my messages look at my account, I own every single book here, I'm a whale. You want to monetize things? How about actually making a real update on this website. When was the last time anything changed here besides new dice to buy? How long are things going to be in beta? How many more years will we go without any quality of life updates here? This website looks the same as the day I started my sub four years ago. How about instead of stealing the money from hardworking 3rd party creators you actually do your job here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You canceled your subscription on 01/14/2023."
(1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game: Wrong. We are the stewards of the game. You print books.
(2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans: Wrong. The OGL exists to benefit Wizards. 3rd party Creators have made your game what it is today.
The problem with this is because, as always with these clauses, there is NEVER any ironclad definition of what is "hateful or discriminatory" included in the document.
That's standard enough, you pretty much need a catchall for anything like that. The problem is when you can't even dispute the reasonableness of their decision.
It pains and saddens me that I'm seriously considering giving up my DDB subscription. I run campaigns for my kids with this suite. Half of my sources are digital. Hundreds of bucks just...gone. Because these grabby, gimpy, sludge-munchers want to take all my other content and sell it as their own, and the only reason they finally made a public "Whoops!" has to do with the already massive exodus from their membership (!?).
Big thanks to the actual DDB staff; they've done a great job converting 5e to a digital and mobile format, and it has made myself, and my children, very happy to clear the clutter from our table and get on with the fun!
To WotC, I sincerely hope y'all read these threads. My hope is that you reissue a revision of OGL 1.0a: a copy with some added security for your trademarked work, and its digital/virtual versions. Please keep yo grubby mitts off the backbone of the Homebrew community. We are not your idea generators. Our content is not yours. Our ideas are not yours. Take satisfaction in the millions you make off your sourcebooks and campaigns; and pay your developers, artists, and creators what they're worth.
Don't take what isn't yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've recently realized my tongue is at rest touching the top of my mouth.
I am simply not going to buy any WoTC products until they change the OGL 1.0a to say that it is irrevocable. Just that, perpetual and irrevocable.
And if they don't, I won't buy anything else from them. I've been playing D&D for 30 years, and regularly buying almost everything WoTC publishes (from TSR I bought at the time, but much less than now) for 20. But I also play other systems. Actually one of the main reasons I have for playing D&D is the vast amount of content that is out there. Both official and third party. Do you kill third party content? I have no incentive to continue playing your game.
So I will only continue buying if they guarantee that all that content will continue to exist. And the only way to do that is to ensure that OGL 1.0a is perpetual and irrevocable. WoTC has shown that it's not to be trusted, so they have to put in a clause that prevents them from attempting another overbearing coup like this.
Despite all the chaos of the last several days, they haven't actually released a new OGL yet. I'll evaluate it when they do, just like everyone else will.
My problem is deeper than the wording. I have a problem with their actual stated goals. The OGL was specifically aimed at 3pp's and professional designers. An entire industry has been built up on that to support the game far better than WotC could alone. But they stated as one of their three goals is to make the OGL no longer viable for 3pp's. It is for "fans, homebrewers, aspiring designers" etc.
That is a fundamental change in what the OGL even is.
So wording doesn't matter at all to me if the target they outright state they are aiming for is to undermine the entire purpose of the OGL and prevent 3pp's and professional designers from supporting the game. This will directly harm people I know (and the 3pp harming provisions goes far beyond just the royalty scheme to even the fundamental breach of 23 years of trust).
It will also hurt the game because WotC (circa 2000) knew that one of TSR's biggest failures was thinking they could meet all of fan's interests themselves, and one of WotC's (circa 2000) best ideas was fostering an entire ecosystem of supporting companies producing D&D products to keep fans satisfied and playing D&D. WotC (circa 2023) is taking some of the same steps that led TSR to go from ruling the RPG market to bankruptcy and almost killing the game. With WotC so much larger than TSR was at the time, the decisions are much larger and costlier, so that if they fail again, D&D will ironically crash faster now that's bigger.
So for the livelihood of people I know, and for a healthy business ecosystem around D&D, I completely disagree with their stated goals themselves. It's been tried before and it severely harmed D&D. Waiting for the wording is pointless when the goals themselves are misguided.
So for the livelihood of people I know, and for a healthy business ecosystem around D&D, I completely disagree with their stated goals themselves. It's been tried before and it severely harmed D&D. Waiting for the wording is pointless when the goals themselves are misguided.
This is what keeps getting lost in the conversation, but we can't let it be. After Hasbro/WotC's response, ORC is the correct answer.
Hopefully there will be another wave of subscription cancelation as people (like me) wrap up their campaigns to move away. It's so sad and disappointing; I was really looking forward to seeing the VTT.
The problem with this is because, as always with these clauses, there is NEVER any ironclad definition of what is "hateful or discriminatory" included in the document.
That's standard enough, you pretty much need a catchall for anything like that. The problem is when you can't even dispute the reasonableness of their decision.
I can dispute it. There is no NEED for it and this was proved in 23 years of the original OGL. It seems like none of you were around for the Book of Erotic Fantasy. It was a VERY adult book released under the OGL. And the OGL very much anticipated such a thing.
The key was, to gain brand recognition, a D20 license and logo was devised. D&D products were released with the logo, and anything that met the standards of THAT license also could use the logo. This immediately created brand recognition. If you had the logo, you were compatible with D&D.
The Book of Erotic Fantasy had no D20 logo. It was not immediately recognizable as compatible with D&D.
They KNEW that people could write white supremacist garbage, or any sort of garbage, under the OGL. THAT DID NOT MATTER! The market would determine the validity or idiocy of such products, AND IT WORKED FOR TWENTY-THREE YEARS!
This is all a red herring from WotC over their money/monopoly grab playing off NuTSR nonsense which has NOTHING to do with the OGL and EVERYTHING to do with copyright and trademark infringement. Star Frontier was NEVER released in any form under the OGL.
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.
In addition to all this, that clause is fallacious. Because let's face it, anything can be accused of discriminatory if you think about it enough. You just need to find the right angle to say "Hey, this is discriminatory" and throw the project down. In the end it is simply a clause to have power over what others do, sold under a noble pretext.
Some of you people are huffing on the smokescreen! Almost every sentence in their statement is a lie.
Does anyone really believe the "first concern" bullshit? Their first concern was MONEY. WotC CEO Cynthia Williams told investors in simple terms: "D&D is under-monetized."
THAT was their first concern. Their ONLY concern.
Back to the topic:
The Future of the Open Gaming License (OGL) and D&D = ORC LICENSE
Despite all the chaos of the last several days, they haven't actually released a new OGL yet. I'll evaluate it when they do, just like everyone else will.
My problem is deeper than the wording. I have a problem with their actual stated goals. The OGL was specifically aimed at 3pp's and professional designers. An entire industry has been built up on that to support the game far better than WotC could alone. But they stated as one of their three goals is to make the OGL no longer viable for 3pp's. It is for "fans, homebrewers, aspiring designers" etc.
That is a fundamental change in what the OGL even is.
So wording doesn't matter at all to me if the target they outright state they are aiming for is to undermine the entire purpose of the OGL and prevent 3pp's and professional designers from supporting the game. This will directly harm people I know (and the 3pp harming provisions goes far beyond just the royalty scheme to even the fundamental breach of 23 years of trust).
It will also hurt the game because WotC (circa 2000) knew that one of TSR's biggest failures was thinking they could meet all of fan's interests themselves, and one of WotC's (circa 2000) best ideas was fostering an entire ecosystem of supporting companies producing D&D products to keep fans satisfied and playing D&D. WotC (circa 2023) is taking some of the same steps that led TSR to go from ruling the RPG market to bankruptcy and almost killing the game. With WotC so much larger than TSR was at the time, the decisions are much larger and costlier, so that if they fail again, D&D will ironically crash faster now that's bigger.
So for the livelihood of people I know, and for a healthy business ecosystem around D&D, I completely disagree with their stated goals themselves. It's been tried before and it severely harmed D&D. Waiting for the wording is pointless when the goals themselves are misguided.
I don't see what's so objectionable or difficult to understand here. The OGL is intended for 3PP to make a name for themselves and create supplemental content for a popular game in a way that benefits both parties, but not to subsidize major or direct competitors (especially those outside of the TTRPG space, such as video games and other interactive experiences.) I find this perfectly reasonable. You can still be a Kobold Press or Ghostfire Games who attains considerable success they wouldnt' have otherwise, making modules and subclasses for the TTRPG game without being able to use the OGL in those other ways.
The leaked 1.1 text said you didn't have a reasonableness defense. That was the part that seemed excessive to me.
Now, I disagree that WotC needs to have that at all for noncommercial works. Generally speaking, they aren't going to get blamed for things they don't profit from and don't have approval authority over. However, once they start getting into having some control, they need to have sufficient control to actually prevent the objectionable content.
You don't demand contracts to be signed with "drafts". This message is just corporate BS that is just insulting. If they want my money again then the leadership of WOTC must be now removed. As long as the CEO and VP level remain, WOTC cannot and will not be trusted here. I have a book shelf of every source book of 5th edition. I won't pay another dime until and unless leadership is replaced. They are all tainted, and as long as they lead this business, the whole of D&D is poisoned as a result.
Agreed--even reaffirming the legitimacy of OGL 1.0a is no longer enough. It's time for new leadership. Between this and their idea for the $1000 MtG booster packs of proxies, it's clear that they have no interest in quality of product or positive customer relationships.
When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
We realized this was mostly already covered in OGL1.0a and could have been clarified with just an addendum clarifying that the rights for movies and making NFTs was only for us and that the use the OGL could be revoked for groups that make hateful and discriminatory products.
We would like to say that driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans and that nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
The reality is the driving force was increasing our profit while making a very restrictive license and pretending it was open.
The early copies of the new OGL included the provisions they did in order to coerce the third party creators we met with to sign a more favorable terms sheet and contract which were included with what we are now calling “drafts”. That “draft” language was not provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our “drafts” included royalty language designed to apply pressure to third party creators not to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent for this to impact our monetization negatively by the vast majority of the community.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a Nat 1 on both stealth and intimidation. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve our goals while still not negatively impacting subscriptions to D&D Beyond. So, here is what we are doing.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to be more subtle while pretending to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., may remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected as we would most likely lose the court cases by attempting to change that retroactively.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure, that will be negotiated in private. It also will not include the license back provision that some people realized was a means for us to steal work. That thought only crossed our minds when looking through Etsy but not at DM screens or drink coaster dice trays of course. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. We don’t need to own it to repackage and sell it royalty free in perpetuity. The license back language could be argued that it was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities so that is what we are going to do. As we continue to invest in the game that we hope you love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special to you, and that belongs to you.
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today because we need to rewrite it and try to allow time for this to blow over. We will continue to tell you it’s to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that the community won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won for now —and so did we because we believe you will forget this in a few months time.
Our plan was never to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the “drafts” you’ve seen were not attempting to do just that at all. We want to always profit from fans who create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was never to get exactly the type of blowback which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major should only have been done if we were willing to take feedback, that’s if we cared about the community – which we don’t. We love D&D’s devoted player’s money and the creator’s money who take them on so many incredible adventures. Don’t let us down.
I'll take "Pandering to the current sociopolitical climate for $500 Alex"
I am not surprised they tried to play the "but INCLUSTIVITY!" card (and if anyone honestly thinks Hasbro of all megacorps gives the slightest damn about that, I have some magic beans you might be interested in purchasing). I will admit though, I didn't think they would be quite as desperate as to play it in their literal opening sentence.
The backlash must be scaring the suits more than anticipated. Good.
Thank you. It's just so blatantly obvious its hilarious. The literal definition of the idiom "grasping at straws".
The problem with this is because, as always with these clauses, there is NEVER any ironclad definition of what is "hateful or discriminatory" included in the document.
That's standard enough, you pretty much need a catchall for anything like that. The problem is when you can't even dispute the reasonableness of their decision.
I can dispute it. There is no NEED for it and this was proved in 23 years of the original OGL. It seems like none of you were around for the Book of Erotic Fantasy. It was a VERY adult book released under the OGL. And the OGL very much anticipated such a thing.
The key was, to gain brand recognition, a D20 license and logo was devised. D&D products were released with the logo, and anything that met the standards of THAT license also could use the logo. This immediately created brand recognition. If you had the logo, you were compatible with D&D.
The Book of Erotic Fantasy had no D20 logo. It was not immediately recognizable as compatible with D&D.
They KNEW that people could write white supremacist garbage, or any sort of garbage, under the OGL. THAT DID NOT MATTER! The market would determine the validity or idiocy of such products, AND IT WORKED FOR TWENTY-THREE YEARS!
This is all a red herring from WotC over their money/monopoly grab playing off NuTSR nonsense which has NOTHING to do with the OGL and EVERYTHING to do with copyright and trademark infringement. Star Frontier was NEVER released in any form under the OGL.
Thanks for the reminder on this 3PP title.
I’m reminded of the old meme about the internet. 95% of humanity’s first thought when exposed to the internet was how to use it for pron. Nerds first thought was how could we use it to play Dungeons and Dragons.
I find it very interesting how much of a problem people have with the royaly thing.
First off, to clarify - the problem with the new OGL was not that the company wnated people making huge sums of money to give them a little for their contributions to the 3rd party companies existing at all. The problem was them trying to lay claim to everyones work.
And that's gone. They have announced that this was never the intention (which corresponds with their original statement at the start of that section which says it is to make sure they don't have to worry about releasing stuff in case the thousands of publishers online have released it first), so this actually remains a consistent message that they have sent out - they aren't trying to steal your stuff. They said it in the orignal OGL, they said it in the OGL1.1, they said it in their release after the fallout of OGL1.1. But hey, they're rich, so let's assume they're lying, right? [/sarcasm]
Now, onto the money thing. It's an important thing to note that dissent among the working classes has always - and likely will always - be about the rich people wanting money. we are conditioned to want to hate anyone who wants money. But there is severe hypocrisy in this whole shebang. I will try to elucidate:
It takes 2 things to make OGL products. It takes the licenced content from WotC, and it takes the original content from the OGL user.
WotC issued the royalty thing to say "Hey, you know how you're making over three quarters of a million dollars in revenue from this every year? Well, we think that we should be owed something for our contribution to your work from the revenue above that, because you're really making a fortune here and it seems unfair that we get nothing".
And people lost their minds because a rich person (corporation) wanted money. Because we're conditioned to hate that, because we blame all our ailments on the rich people having the money.
to sum up the hypocrisy as briefly as I can:
WotC say that if you make money using their IP, they would like a proportionally small cut of it. This is seen as bad and greedy.
3rd Party Publishers say they want to make all the money whilst still using WotC's IP. this is somehow seen as good and not greedy.
Somehow, the idea of two large companies (and if you're making over $750,000 a year, you'e a large company, financially) having to split the revenue when both have contributed to the works is seen as money-grabbing from the larger company. If WotC was only making $100k a year, you would all be on their side - somehow, we are allowing money to get between us and what's actually fair. Saying to someone who made $1,000,000 in one year that they should pay (at 25% of the last $250k) $62,500 to WotC (out of a million dollars. In one year.) for their contribution to the works is not exactly unreasonable. It's 6.25% of the revenue. If a publishing company has such a small profit margin as to be ruined by this, they are not doing very well anyway. And if they lay off staff or up prices to keep up profits, then they care more about their investors than their staff or customers, and so are just as bad as (or worse than) WotC.
There are 20 people in the world making enough money to qualify. If WotC was doing this for the money, they would be making the OGL require that you publish through DDB. They would have every piece of homebrew you make sold exclusively though here, and they would take a cut of every sale, similar to DMs Guild. But they aren't. Because they are only interested in making sure that big companies who can afford it pay them what's reasonably due for their contributions.
Every piece of work made on the OGL uses IP made by WotC and IP made by the content creator. If something is ludicrously successful, is it really unreasonable for the people who made some of the product to ask for a cut of the money?
At any rate, the important thing is done. WotC has removed the clause saying they own your stuff. I couldn't give a rats behind about the royalties, because if I made that much money, I would gladly pay! And then I would buy a freaking huge plot of land with all the money I still made in one year, build my dream home, and send WotC a christmas card every year to thank them for letting me use their IP.
Every piece of work made on the OGL uses IP made by WotC and IP made by the content creator. If something is ludicrously successful, is it really unreasonable for the people who made some of the product to ask for a cut of the money?
Yeah so Hasbro made $2.1 BILLION last year I’m sorry your “ludicrously successful” $750k is 0.00036% of that like my man sending them a Christmas card?
Every piece of work made on the OGL uses IP made by WotC and IP made by the content creator. If something is ludicrously successful, is it really unreasonable for the people who made some of the product to ask for a cut of the money?
Yeah so Hasbro made $2.1 BILLION last year I’m sorry your “ludicrously successful” $750k is 0.00036% of that like my man sending them a Christmas card?
That’s beyond unreasonable. That’s greedy.
Again, you're letting how much WotC made themselves get in the way of it. The product making over $750k per year contains their IP. They said before that the OGL was never meant to allow people to build large businesses on WotC's IP, it was meant to let creative people make some money doing what they love.
I mean, it's gone now - they're revoking the royalty thing as well following this backlash - and I cannot argue that they need the money. But the world doesn't work on people getting what they need, or there would be nobody hungry and nobody paying Jeff Bezos to go on a day-trip to space. The OGL is very much an exception to the rule in most things. You try making a game using content owned by EA, or Ubisoft, and see how much of the revenue you get to keep once they're done with you.
I'm just saying I dont think it was actually unreasonable, WotC's circumstances aside, for them to ask people making large amounts of money to pay them a small proportion for the IP they are using.
I find it very interesting how much of a problem people have with the royaly thing.
First off, to clarify - the problem with the new OGL was not that the company wnated people making huge sums of money to give them a little for their contributions to the 3rd party companies existing at all. The problem was them trying to lay claim to everyones work.
And that's gone. They have announced that this was never the intention (which corresponds with their original statement at the start of that section which says it is to make sure they don't have to worry about releasing stuff in case the thousands of publishers online have released it first), so this actually remains a consistent message that they have sent out - they aren't trying to steal your stuff. They said it in the orignal OGL, they said it in the OGL1.1, they said it in their release after the fallout of OGL1.1. But hey, they're rich, so let's assume they're lying, right? [/sarcasm]
Now, onto the money thing. It's an important thing to note that dissent among the working classes has always - and likely will always - be about the rich people wanting money. we are conditioned to want to hate anyone who wants money. But there is severe hypocrisy in this whole shebang. I will try to elucidate:
It takes 2 things to make OGL products. It takes the licenced content from WotC, and it takes the original content from the OGL user.
WotC issued the royalty thing to say "Hey, you know how you're making over three quarters of a million dollars in revenue from this every year? Well, we think that we should be owed something for our contribution to your work from the revenue above that, because you're really making a fortune here and it seems unfair that we get nothing".
And people lost their minds because a rich person (corporation) wanted money. Because we're conditioned to hate that, because we blame all our ailments on the rich people having the money.
to sum up the hypocrisy as briefly as I can:
WotC say that if you make money using their IP, they would like a proportionally small cut of it. This is seen as bad and greedy.
3rd Party Publishers say they want to make all the money whilst still using WotC's IP. this is somehow seen as good and not greedy.
Somehow, the idea of two large companies (and if you're making over $750,000 a year, you'e a large company, financially) having to split the revenue when both have contributed to the works is seen as money-grabbing from the larger company. If WotC was only making $100k a year, you would all be on their side - somehow, we are allowing money to get between us and what's actually fair. Saying to someone who made $1,000,000 in one year that they should pay (at 25% of the last $250k) $62,500 to WotC (out of a million dollars. In one year.) for their contribution to the works is not exactly unreasonable. It's 6.25% of the revenue. If a publishing company has such a small profit margin as to be ruined by this, they are not doing very well anyway. And if they lay off staff or up prices to keep up profits, then they care more about their investors than their staff or customers, and so are just as bad as (or worse than) WotC.
There are 20 people in the world making enough money to qualify. If WotC was doing this for the money, they would be making the OGL require that you publish through DDB. They would have every piece of homebrew you make sold exclusively though here, and they would take a cut of every sale, similar to DMs Guild. But they aren't. Because they are only interested in making sure that big companies who can afford it pay them what's reasonably due for their contributions.
Every piece of work made on the OGL uses IP made by WotC and IP made by the content creator. If something is ludicrously successful, is it really unreasonable for the people who made some of the product to ask for a cut of the money?
At any rate, the important thing is done. WotC has removed the clause saying they own your stuff. I couldn't give a rats behind about the royalties, because if I made that much money, I would gladly pay! And then I would buy a freaking huge plot of land with all the money I still made in one year, build my dream home, and send WotC a christmas card every year to thank them for letting me use their IP.
The point here, the really important thing and why all this fuss has been made, is because WoTC intends to change the terms of a license that was established as "perpetual" at the time.
No one made a fuss when in 4e, for example, a new, much more restrictive license was created. Mainly because OGL 1.0a was left untouched, which was a perpetual agreement.
Why doesn't WoTC keep OGL 1.0a, and create a new license for One D&D? Because they are afraid that the shot will backfire again, and a competitor will come out and surpass them (what happened with 4e).
And yes, nobody says that it is not understandable that WoTC (or Hasbro) want to exploit their product to the maximum, what is said is that it is intolerable that they try to disavow an agreement that was perpetual.
WoTC can protect its IP in many ways. And they have the right to do it. What they dont have is the right to modify the terms of an agreement that was perpetual.
That's the only important thing here. If someone were to take WoTC to court on this issue, only one thing would be settled by the judges. Can WoTC revoke OGL 1.0a by ignoring the perpetuity clause?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is the truth. They tried to do a secret backroom deal to strongarm content creators into handing over their IP and money and we wouldn't have found out until it was way too late. Then they turn around and act like it was all part of a draft? This is egregious behavior.
I feel so personally insulted by how much a lemming they must think I am. Any WOTC employee who reads my messages look at my account, I own every single book here, I'm a whale. You want to monetize things? How about actually making a real update on this website. When was the last time anything changed here besides new dice to buy? How long are things going to be in beta? How many more years will we go without any quality of life updates here? This website looks the same as the day I started my sub four years ago. How about instead of stealing the money from hardworking 3rd party creators you actually do your job here.
"You canceled your subscription on 01/14/2023."
(1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game: Wrong. We are the stewards of the game. You print books.
(2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans: Wrong. The OGL exists to benefit Wizards. 3rd party Creators have made your game what it is today.
That's standard enough, you pretty much need a catchall for anything like that. The problem is when you can't even dispute the reasonableness of their decision.
It pains and saddens me that I'm seriously considering giving up my DDB subscription. I run campaigns for my kids with this suite. Half of my sources are digital. Hundreds of bucks just...gone. Because these grabby, gimpy, sludge-munchers want to take all my other content and sell it as their own, and the only reason they finally made a public "Whoops!" has to do with the already massive exodus from their membership (!?).
Big thanks to the actual DDB staff; they've done a great job converting 5e to a digital and mobile format, and it has made myself, and my children, very happy to clear the clutter from our table and get on with the fun!
To WotC, I sincerely hope y'all read these threads. My hope is that you reissue a revision of OGL 1.0a: a copy with some added security for your trademarked work, and its digital/virtual versions. Please keep yo grubby mitts off the backbone of the Homebrew community. We are not your idea generators. Our content is not yours. Our ideas are not yours. Take satisfaction in the millions you make off your sourcebooks and campaigns; and pay your developers, artists, and creators what they're worth.
Don't take what isn't yours.
I've recently realized my tongue is at rest touching the top of my mouth.
I am simply not going to buy any WoTC products until they change the OGL 1.0a to say that it is irrevocable. Just that, perpetual and irrevocable.
And if they don't, I won't buy anything else from them. I've been playing D&D for 30 years, and regularly buying almost everything WoTC publishes (from TSR I bought at the time, but much less than now) for 20. But I also play other systems. Actually one of the main reasons I have for playing D&D is the vast amount of content that is out there. Both official and third party. Do you kill third party content? I have no incentive to continue playing your game.
So I will only continue buying if they guarantee that all that content will continue to exist. And the only way to do that is to ensure that OGL 1.0a is perpetual and irrevocable. WoTC has shown that it's not to be trusted, so they have to put in a clause that prevents them from attempting another overbearing coup like this.
LOL glad it wasn't just me.
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
My problem is deeper than the wording. I have a problem with their actual stated goals. The OGL was specifically aimed at 3pp's and professional designers. An entire industry has been built up on that to support the game far better than WotC could alone. But they stated as one of their three goals is to make the OGL no longer viable for 3pp's. It is for "fans, homebrewers, aspiring designers" etc.
That is a fundamental change in what the OGL even is.
So wording doesn't matter at all to me if the target they outright state they are aiming for is to undermine the entire purpose of the OGL and prevent 3pp's and professional designers from supporting the game. This will directly harm people I know (and the 3pp harming provisions goes far beyond just the royalty scheme to even the fundamental breach of 23 years of trust).
It will also hurt the game because WotC (circa 2000) knew that one of TSR's biggest failures was thinking they could meet all of fan's interests themselves, and one of WotC's (circa 2000) best ideas was fostering an entire ecosystem of supporting companies producing D&D products to keep fans satisfied and playing D&D. WotC (circa 2023) is taking some of the same steps that led TSR to go from ruling the RPG market to bankruptcy and almost killing the game. With WotC so much larger than TSR was at the time, the decisions are much larger and costlier, so that if they fail again, D&D will ironically crash faster now that's bigger.
So for the livelihood of people I know, and for a healthy business ecosystem around D&D, I completely disagree with their stated goals themselves. It's been tried before and it severely harmed D&D. Waiting for the wording is pointless when the goals themselves are misguided.
This is what keeps getting lost in the conversation, but we can't let it be. After Hasbro/WotC's response, ORC is the correct answer.
Hopefully there will be another wave of subscription cancelation as people (like me) wrap up their campaigns to move away. It's so sad and disappointing; I was really looking forward to seeing the VTT.
I can dispute it. There is no NEED for it and this was proved in 23 years of the original OGL. It seems like none of you were around for the Book of Erotic Fantasy. It was a VERY adult book released under the OGL. And the OGL very much anticipated such a thing.
The key was, to gain brand recognition, a D20 license and logo was devised. D&D products were released with the logo, and anything that met the standards of THAT license also could use the logo. This immediately created brand recognition. If you had the logo, you were compatible with D&D.
The Book of Erotic Fantasy had no D20 logo. It was not immediately recognizable as compatible with D&D.
They KNEW that people could write white supremacist garbage, or any sort of garbage, under the OGL. THAT DID NOT MATTER! The market would determine the validity or idiocy of such products, AND IT WORKED FOR TWENTY-THREE YEARS!
This is all a red herring from WotC over their money/monopoly grab playing off NuTSR nonsense which has NOTHING to do with the OGL and EVERYTHING to do with copyright and trademark infringement. Star Frontier was NEVER released in any form under the OGL.
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.
In addition to all this, that clause is fallacious. Because let's face it, anything can be accused of discriminatory if you think about it enough. You just need to find the right angle to say "Hey, this is discriminatory" and throw the project down.
In the end it is simply a clause to have power over what others do, sold under a noble pretext.
Some of you people are huffing on the smokescreen!
Almost every sentence in their statement is a lie.
Does anyone really believe the "first concern" bullshit? Their first concern was MONEY.
WotC CEO Cynthia Williams told investors in simple terms: "D&D is under-monetized."
THAT was their first concern. Their ONLY concern.
Back to the topic:
The Future of the Open Gaming License (OGL) and D&D
=
ORC LICENSE
I don't see what's so objectionable or difficult to understand here. The OGL is intended for 3PP to make a name for themselves and create supplemental content for a popular game in a way that benefits both parties, but not to subsidize major or direct competitors (especially those outside of the TTRPG space, such as video games and other interactive experiences.) I find this perfectly reasonable. You can still be a Kobold Press or Ghostfire Games who attains considerable success they wouldnt' have otherwise, making modules and subclasses for the TTRPG game without being able to use the OGL in those other ways.
The leaked 1.1 text said you didn't have a reasonableness defense. That was the part that seemed excessive to me.
Now, I disagree that WotC needs to have that at all for noncommercial works. Generally speaking, they aren't going to get blamed for things they don't profit from and don't have approval authority over. However, once they start getting into having some control, they need to have sufficient control to actually prevent the objectionable content.
Agreed--even reaffirming the legitimacy of OGL 1.0a is no longer enough. It's time for new leadership. Between this and their idea for the $1000 MtG booster packs of proxies, it's clear that they have no interest in quality of product or positive customer relationships.
Fixed it for them.
Thank you. It's just so blatantly obvious its hilarious. The literal definition of the idiom "grasping at straws".
Thanks for the reminder on this 3PP title.
I’m reminded of the old meme about the internet. 95% of humanity’s first thought when exposed to the internet was how to use it for pron. Nerds first thought was how could we use it to play Dungeons and Dragons.
I find it very interesting how much of a problem people have with the royaly thing.
First off, to clarify - the problem with the new OGL was not that the company wnated people making huge sums of money to give them a little for their contributions to the 3rd party companies existing at all. The problem was them trying to lay claim to everyones work.
And that's gone. They have announced that this was never the intention (which corresponds with their original statement at the start of that section which says it is to make sure they don't have to worry about releasing stuff in case the thousands of publishers online have released it first), so this actually remains a consistent message that they have sent out - they aren't trying to steal your stuff. They said it in the orignal OGL, they said it in the OGL1.1, they said it in their release after the fallout of OGL1.1. But hey, they're rich, so let's assume they're lying, right? [/sarcasm]
Now, onto the money thing. It's an important thing to note that dissent among the working classes has always - and likely will always - be about the rich people wanting money. we are conditioned to want to hate anyone who wants money. But there is severe hypocrisy in this whole shebang. I will try to elucidate:
It takes 2 things to make OGL products. It takes the licenced content from WotC, and it takes the original content from the OGL user.
WotC issued the royalty thing to say "Hey, you know how you're making over three quarters of a million dollars in revenue from this every year? Well, we think that we should be owed something for our contribution to your work from the revenue above that, because you're really making a fortune here and it seems unfair that we get nothing".
And people lost their minds because a rich person (corporation) wanted money. Because we're conditioned to hate that, because we blame all our ailments on the rich people having the money.
to sum up the hypocrisy as briefly as I can:
Somehow, the idea of two large companies (and if you're making over $750,000 a year, you'e a large company, financially) having to split the revenue when both have contributed to the works is seen as money-grabbing from the larger company. If WotC was only making $100k a year, you would all be on their side - somehow, we are allowing money to get between us and what's actually fair. Saying to someone who made $1,000,000 in one year that they should pay (at 25% of the last $250k) $62,500 to WotC (out of a million dollars. In one year.) for their contribution to the works is not exactly unreasonable. It's 6.25% of the revenue. If a publishing company has such a small profit margin as to be ruined by this, they are not doing very well anyway. And if they lay off staff or up prices to keep up profits, then they care more about their investors than their staff or customers, and so are just as bad as (or worse than) WotC.
There are 20 people in the world making enough money to qualify. If WotC was doing this for the money, they would be making the OGL require that you publish through DDB. They would have every piece of homebrew you make sold exclusively though here, and they would take a cut of every sale, similar to DMs Guild. But they aren't. Because they are only interested in making sure that big companies who can afford it pay them what's reasonably due for their contributions.
Every piece of work made on the OGL uses IP made by WotC and IP made by the content creator. If something is ludicrously successful, is it really unreasonable for the people who made some of the product to ask for a cut of the money?
At any rate, the important thing is done. WotC has removed the clause saying they own your stuff. I couldn't give a rats behind about the royalties, because if I made that much money, I would gladly pay! And then I would buy a freaking huge plot of land with all the money I still made in one year, build my dream home, and send WotC a christmas card every year to thank them for letting me use their IP.
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!
Yeah so Hasbro made $2.1 BILLION last year I’m sorry your “ludicrously successful” $750k is 0.00036% of that like my man sending them a Christmas card?
That’s beyond unreasonable. That’s greedy.
D&D is Now Trash
Goodbye
Again, you're letting how much WotC made themselves get in the way of it. The product making over $750k per year contains their IP. They said before that the OGL was never meant to allow people to build large businesses on WotC's IP, it was meant to let creative people make some money doing what they love.
I mean, it's gone now - they're revoking the royalty thing as well following this backlash - and I cannot argue that they need the money. But the world doesn't work on people getting what they need, or there would be nobody hungry and nobody paying Jeff Bezos to go on a day-trip to space. The OGL is very much an exception to the rule in most things. You try making a game using content owned by EA, or Ubisoft, and see how much of the revenue you get to keep once they're done with you.
I'm just saying I dont think it was actually unreasonable, WotC's circumstances aside, for them to ask people making large amounts of money to pay them a small proportion for the IP they are using.
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!
The point here, the really important thing and why all this fuss has been made, is because WoTC intends to change the terms of a license that was established as "perpetual" at the time.
No one made a fuss when in 4e, for example, a new, much more restrictive license was created. Mainly because OGL 1.0a was left untouched, which was a perpetual agreement.
Why doesn't WoTC keep OGL 1.0a, and create a new license for One D&D? Because they are afraid that the shot will backfire again, and a competitor will come out and surpass them (what happened with 4e).
And yes, nobody says that it is not understandable that WoTC (or Hasbro) want to exploit their product to the maximum, what is said is that it is intolerable that they try to disavow an agreement that was perpetual.
WoTC can protect its IP in many ways. And they have the right to do it. What they dont have is the right to modify the terms of an agreement that was perpetual.
That's the only important thing here. If someone were to take WoTC to court on this issue, only one thing would be settled by the judges. Can WoTC revoke OGL 1.0a by ignoring the perpetuity clause?