I would like to remind everyone that the "leaks" about OGL 1.1 are unconfirmed and unverified. If Wizards of the Coast announces the next Open Game License, and Gizmodo was correct, then feel free to get angry with them. But right now at least, it's feels just a bit too early to panic.
Nobody is panicking. They are simply voicing their concerns with the current situation. I assume you don't like when others minimize your concerns but maybe you do. Additionally, voicing concerns PRIOR to something becoming official is the BEST time to do so. That's why playtesting UA, alpha or beta content is a thing.
No one's concerns should be minimized for sure. But there are people on these forums today saying they have already canceled their subscriptions, that they will leave the game forever and actively try to turn others away too, and that it's going to destroy everything good about DnD. That sounds a little like panic. Or at least, panic is a fairly succinct word that doesn't feel too far off the mark. It's okay if someone panics over something. There is nothing shameful about it. And there is nothing wrong with other people trying to help calm them.
Then why are people being shamed for it?
Also, if people wanting to take their money elsewhere because of a potential direction they see a company going is panicking or panic-adjacent, well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Nothing Boring Bard said sounded like shaming to me. If you personally felt shamed by it, no one can change that. I just don't think it was Bard's intent at all. Nothing they have said has ever seemed antagonistic to me. They've always been a very reasonable and polite contributor here.
Not specifically bard, but anyone saying this is concern/fear-mongering or these opinion don't matter because it's all speculation/hypothetical/theoretical. Again, it is minimizing legitimate concern or shaming people for having a differing opinion.
Sigh, what I've heard about ogl 1.1 sounds like it'll have a lot of sweeping effects of killing dnd on FoundryVTT, and the bit about "pantomimes" might have an effect on live play streaming.
4) Is now subject for a formal request for comment from at least one law firm representing 2 third party publishers as well as a warning of potential litigation in response.
Which is, honestly, the only way some of the legal questions are going to get answered, because there appears to be legitimate legal questions about Wizards' ability to can revoke prior editions of the OGL (at least, for products released under prior editions; they can do whatever they want with One D&D).
Effectively, WOTC will be putting a 20% or 25% tax on top of every third party content creator.
Do remember that the royalties will not be charged for the first $750,000 of revenue, and you will only have to give a percentage of all the money above that number to Wizards. Also, Wizards explicitly said that they would only charge the people who made this massive amount of money, so saying that they're putting a "tax on top of every third party content creator" is downright incorrect.
It is important to remember that these are unconfirmed leaks. This would be bad if it were real, but we can't be sure that it is. I would recommend patience before panicking, because while you may be right and the sky may be falling, we really just don't know yet.
Don't forget that they worded the OGL so that they can change it in 30 days without your approval. $750,000 can easily become $7.50 with 30 days notice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Sigh, what I've heard about ogl 1.1 sounds like it'll have a lot of sweeping effects of killing dnd on FoundryVTT, and the bit about "pantomimes" might have an effect on live play streaming.
Not to mention they could easily start charging Twitch / Youtube / whomever else for rights to stream D&D One VTT on their platform just like Internet backbone provides do with streaming services after Ajit Pai (A Verizon lawyer) took over the FTC and killed net neutrality for his Verizon overlords.
Now, I'm not saying that will happen, but the leaked 1.1 OGL is written in such a way that they reserve the right to change anything and everything with 30 days notice. I mean, there is legal writing in OGL 1.1 that is extremely aggressive towards the original spirit of the OGL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
That's not necessarily correct. I've been trying to find the actual draft of the leak, but haven't seen it. All it would take is a single line indicating that the granted rights to wizards survive termination and they could do exactly as this person claims.
I don't think they would if only because it would be better for them to just keep the license up while selling your stuff on bigger platforms they own without paying you. You make something new, hey we're selling that too.
Unfortunately Wizards of the Coast burned a lot of goodwill with their greed in Magic the Gathering, so while it is best not to jump to conclusions, WotC do not deserve the benefit of the doubt either.
Not to mention they could easily start charging Twitch / Youtube / whomever else for rights to stream D&D One VTT on their platform just like Internet backbone provides do with streaming services after Ajit Pai (A Verizon lawyer) took over the FTC and killed net neutrality for his Verizon overlords.
Streaming D&D games has never been OGL to start with (how many games have you seen streamed with no classes, monster, or spells that aren't in the basic rules?), it's covered by the fan content policy.
4) Is now subject for a formal request for comment from at least one law firm representing 2 third party publishers as well as a warning of potential litigation in response.
Which is, honestly, the only way some of the legal questions are going to get answered, because there appears to be legitimate legal questions about Wizards' ability to can revoke prior editions of the OGL (at least, for products released under prior editions; they can do whatever they want with One D&D).
No, the only way we get answers about their ability to revoke a license or if the OGL1.1 as leaked is enforceable, is if it gets before a judge in court. WotC would have to sue or be sued and the case survive the years long process in order to get such a ruling. Such actions would be very costly and likely would result in the bankruptcy of anyone else but WotC even if they won.
1) A journalist on record citing exact clauses with numerous independent sources verifying parts of it, including Kickstarter's Jon Ritter, Director of Games. 2) Fit a trend of comments and behaviour seen from Hasbro and WotC regarding the future of D&D 3) Even if unfounded, deserve to treated as a serious threat against the community and market as a whole unless and until proven otherwise. 4) Is now subject for a formal request for comment from at least one law firm representing 2 third party publishers as well as a warning of potential litigation in response.
All of these pieces of evidence are circumstantial and different sources repeating what someone else says doesn't necessarily mean that they are verifying it, merely that they are stating what those other sources said. Even if other people have verified parts of it, that doesn't mean they are accurate. All humans make mistakes, and one of the many problems with anonymous sources is that they can provide the same information to different people, and it will look like multiple people have different sources echoing the same thing.
I have addressed your second point in numerous other threads, namely in this one on Nerd Immersion's very first video on the subject.
Also, you can't disprove everything. Yes, these rumors should be treated seriously (and they are), but the notion that facts are facts until they are 100% disproved just doesn't really make sense. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are treating this as much more than a "serious threat".
Your fourth point is one I've seen repeated a lot, but it doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense (to me at least). As I explained multiple times in the thread linked above, Wizards of the Coast has been quite transparent on this. And them not responding to requests for information about their future private business plans is typical. Just because a company doesn't deny something doesn't mean it's true.
Not specifically bard, but anyone saying this is concern/fear-mongering or these opinion don't matter because it's all speculation/hypothetical/theoretical. Again, it is minimizing legitimate concern or shaming people for having a differing opinion.
I do not think your concerns are fearmongering or that they don't matter. What I did say was that I think some people are overreacting based off speculation. I am sorry if that offended you, that was not my intent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
That's not necessarily correct. I've been trying to find the actual draft of the leak, but haven't seen it. All it would take is a single line indicating that the granted rights to wizards survive termination and they could do exactly as this person claims.
I don't think they would if only because it would be better for them to just keep the license up while selling your stuff on bigger platforms they own without paying you. You make something new, hey we're selling that too.
"You agree to give us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty free license to use that content for any purpose."
If they're irrevocable then you don't get them back just because you no longer benefit from the agreement.
I would like to see that stand up in court lol. You cannot revoke an agreement but only leave parts of it that benefit you. If WotC revokes the agreement, it will revoke the entire agreement. That would result in content theft by WotC. Ie, if this was actually legal. They could do it to everyone and steal all 3rd party content.
That would NEVER stand up in court.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
WotC/Hasbro have shown their true colors, and for some, that is enough for them to leave. What we know about OGL 1.1 is sufficient to form an opinion of what WotC/Hasbro intend (or at least intended) to do and how they're approaching the game moving forward. In my opinion, it's pretty damning and constitutes a slap in the face of the community that kept D&D alive and then helped it flourish all these years.
A change to the OGL was not required. They could have chosen not to update it. But they didn't. They chose to update it, and the only interests the update serves are those of WotC/Hasbro, not the gaming community.
That's not necessarily correct. I've been trying to find the actual draft of the leak, but haven't seen it. All it would take is a single line indicating that the granted rights to wizards survive termination and they could do exactly as this person claims.
I don't think they would if only because it would be better for them to just keep the license up while selling your stuff on bigger platforms they own without paying you. You make something new, hey we're selling that too.
"You agree to give us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty free license to use that content for any purpose."
If they're irrevocable then you don't get them back just because you no longer benefit from the agreement.
I would like to see that stand up in court lol. You cannot revoke an agreement but only leave parts of it that benefit you. If WotC revokes the agreement, it will revoke the entire agreement. That would result in content theft by WotC. Ie, if this was actually legal. They could do it to everyone and steal all 3rd party content.
That would NEVER stand up in court.
The problem is; this is a slanted playing field. It doesn't matter what "is legal/enforceable", if nobody has the war chest to actually call them on it. Remember: MOST if not all third-party companies this effects are small businesses with very narrow margins. Their opposition is... The Hasbro corporation; with teams, plural, of lawyers and functionally infinite money. We saw the exact same thing happen with Games Workshop: it doesn't matter that "they'll enver win" if they can bury anyone who tries in paperwork and fees until they have to give in, long before any judge gets involved.
The problem is; this is a slanted playing field. It doesn't matter what "is legal/enforceable", if nobody has the war chest to actually call them on it. Remember: MOST if not all third-party companies this effects are small businesses with very narrow margins. Their opposition is... The Hasbro corporation; with teams, plural, of lawyers and functionally infinite money. We saw the exact same thing happen with Games Workshop: it doesn't matter that "they'll enver win" if they can bury anyone who tries in paperwork and fees until they have to give in, long before any judge gets involved.
WotC/Hasbro won't go after the content creators. They'll go after the platforms with takedown notices and cease-and-desist orders. Content creators won't even be able to bring a suit against WotC/Hasbro because WotC/Hasbro will not have committed a tort against them; the platforms and retailers that "cancel" the creators can do whatever they want.
That's not necessarily correct. I've been trying to find the actual draft of the leak, but haven't seen it. All it would take is a single line indicating that the granted rights to wizards survive termination and they could do exactly as this person claims.
I don't think they would if only because it would be better for them to just keep the license up while selling your stuff on bigger platforms they own without paying you. You make something new, hey we're selling that too.
"You agree to give us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty free license to use that content for any purpose."
If they're irrevocable then you don't get them back just because you no longer benefit from the agreement.
I would like to see that stand up in court lol. You cannot revoke an agreement but only leave parts of it that benefit you. If WotC revokes the agreement, it will revoke the entire agreement. That would result in content theft by WotC. Ie, if this was actually legal. They could do it to everyone and steal all 3rd party content.
That would NEVER stand up in court.
The problem is; this is a slanted playing field. It doesn't matter what "is legal/enforceable", if nobody has the war chest to actually call them on it. Remember: MOST if not all third-party companies this effects are small businesses with very narrow margins. Their opposition is... The Hasbro corporation; with teams, plural, of lawyers and functionally infinite money. We saw the exact same thing happen with Games Workshop: it doesn't matter that "they'll enver win" if they can bury anyone who tries in paperwork and fees until they have to give in, long before any judge gets involved.
While it is true, that a large corporation has nearly unlimited litigation, it is also true that it is an absolute PR nightmare. It will only take one lawsuit for there to be a go fund me page setup that will likely draw a massive amount, media attention. The big firm investors really don’t like negative PR.
Hasbro is on very shaky grounds trying to invalidate a license that they themselves in 2004 effectively said that they couldn’t. I have no doubt the financial analysts that cover Hasbro will notice this eventually.
In other words, regardless if they can make the 1.1 changes, it will cost them much more. I’ve done my part by canceling my subscription here. Should they backtrack and do the right thing, I’ll just re-subscribe - with no loss for either of us. If they do the wrong thing, I stay canceled and move my table to whatever system they can’t touch.
Looking at all the money I've invested into this site, it makes the though of having to move on from D&D full of regret. The sense of sunk cost fallacy wants to stick with it, to compromise, and not make all that money wasted. Well, it wasn't wasted. I had a lot of fun with the game these past few years. I'll take away those experiences, the lessons learned, and the ideas inspired by that time. But I cannot stay. Not now this kind of decision making directing the company's relationship with its audience. A hostile shake down of fans and third party creators alike, demanding ownership of homebrew concepts without any compensation to the creators, terms which can be changed on a whim, with no safety net preventing them from demanding royalties from even small-time creators, retro-actively making the 5e licence invalid to prevent anyone from simply continuing with that. This is what happened with the Fourth edition licence, and the killed 4e, and motivated the creation of their competitor Pathfinder to boot. Am I going to invest in One D&D now, knowing the whole thing is obviously, yet somehow obliviously, destined to collapse and require another fresh start? Of course I'm not. I don't understand how you think anyone could? Honestly, I feel bad for the D&D Beyond team. They worked hard to create an accessible toolset to make D&D easier for new and old players. Now, because of Hasbro and WotC, the future of this site looks so unwelcoming. Corporate decisions pushing people away from the brand, and away from the site, which Corps will complain about D&DB not bringing in enough revenue, imposing more greedy monetisation methods, driving away more, and so on. Thank you, D&DB staff, creators, and mods. You made a pretty neat thing, and I'm sorry that, for reasons outside of your control, it may not last as long as it could have.
So, I haven't posted on these forums in the past, however, this is a topic that I feel compelled to post about. I won't fault, shame or call out Hasboro/WoTC (despite wanting to) about their business decisions, it's their business and at the end of the day they can decide to do with it what they want. It doesn't matter if I agree with their decision or not, I have zero influence in the company... well, almost zero. See, I don't like the new direction of the company's decisions around a game that I have loved and played since TSR first published it (or shortly there after as I didn't play the whit box, but started with the Red). So, I will do what I did when they bungled 4th edition, I'll simply pack up my DM supplies, and my books, and do my own thing. WoTC/Hasboro won't get any more of my money regarding this product. Sucks, true, but I use my dollars to do the talking. Me doing this alone will have zero impact, but if enough of us do it, then who knows, it worked with 4th. And yes, this includes using this site, D&D Beyond, I will shut off my sub here as well. Can't demand a refund for the products I've already purchased, but that's the way it goes. This is a simple no brainer for me, there are plenty of games out there that are high fantasy (and other genres) for me to explore. WoTC/Hasboro is making the biggest mistake that I've seen so many other companies over the years make, they think that the consumer will just suck it up and take it. But, imagine if a company like Critical Roll suddenly opts to play (and by extension promote) a game like Ironsworn. Heh, so much for me not commenting. Anyway, DnD, it's been a good run, 30+ years or so, me and mine have enjoyed it, but implement the changes to OGL where you not only demand payment for the stuff you've made, but can seize the things I make, no. To paraphrase a once very popular song (that predates me), take your new license and shove it.
First: There's some very relevant recent history here that should probably be mentioned, but that I don't see in this thread yet. This isn't the first time Wizards has tried to move away from the OGL, and the prior effort might offer some insights into the current one.
Wizards published 4th edition D&D under the "Game System License" or GSL. That license is far more restrictive than the OGL. 4E, published under the GSL, also significantly underperformed—and its poor performance may have had something to do with a lack of community engagement stemming from its restrictive license, and also created room in the market for rising competitors using OGL content.
It seems clear from the historical context that Wizards understood, at the time they published 4E, that they couldn't actually just revise the OGL to be more restrictive—because it contains a clause that allows licensees to choose the version of the license that they want to use. But it seems that they also learned that publishing under a more-restrictive license while the community is still enjoying content under a less-restrictive license doesn't work especially well. It looks an awful lot like they decided to just set aside the plain reading of the OGL and shoot their shot—rewrite the license, and let third parties decide if they were willing to go to court over it.
Second: I don't like this very much.
Just in terms of the specific revisions that seem to be coming, it seems like a move to swat down relatively small competitors who are benefitting from (and in compliance with) the OGL as written. The new license would likely not permit titles like Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, for example. The Pathfinder game launched around the same time as Dungeons and Dragons: Dark Alliance, and it's way better. It's very, very significantly outperforming the Wizards title in both the volume and positivity of Steam reviews—just like its predecessor, Pathfinder: Kingmaker. It's also in perfect compliance with the terms of the OGL as Wizards wrote it, so Paizo and Owlcat games haven't done anything wrong by creating a superior video game in the same market—but Wizards is trying to rewrite the rules in a way that would eliminate that competition. And there's a huge difference in resources here: Paizo had ~$12 million in total revenue in 2021, Owlcat Games had <$5 million, and Wizards of the Coast had $1.3 billion. So does anyone really think that companies like Paizo and Owlcat are in a position to vigorously defend their rights under the OGL in litigation against a company like Wizards?
But this is also much more deeply screwed up than any of the direct implications of the specific anticipated revisions. Much more important is that the original OGL purported to be a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free" license, and the clause that Wizards is claiming implies their right to "de-authorize" the OGL appears to have been intended to do exactly the opposite. That clause says that Wizards may post updated versions of the license, but that creators can continue to use any version of the license with content published under any other version of the license. There's a specific and important reason that's in there, and it's not just some wishy-washy "commitment to openness" or some kind of ethical ideal or something: third party creators have been and are investing their time and energy into producing commercial products, and in order to feel safe enough to do that, they need to have a reasonable degree of confidence that the earth isn't going to shift under their feet.
Regardless of the specific terms Wizards wants to impose, if they're successful in converting the OGL from the "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free" license that it was written as into something Wizards can "deauthorize" and rewrite with no specified process, then the OGL will be functionally dead. Third-party creators, like Paizo, who have created huge libraries of OGL content in good faith and in full compliance with the terms originallyset forth by Wizards will be screwed, and no third party developer in their right mind will even consider investing significant resources and effort into OGL content. Not because any specific term of any specific iteration of the OGL will necessarily prevent them from doing what they want, but because the OGL itself will have been converted from a reliable covenant with the community into a capricious instrument of enforcement against the community.
EDIT: Also, importantly: nothing in the OGL compels Wizards to keep creating content under the OGL. They proved that when they published content under a different license for 4E. I've seen a lot of folks understanding about Wizards wanting to 'protect their IP' or 'not give away their content to competitors.' That's just fine! But Wizards wrote the OGL and Wizards put content into an SRD under the OGL, and when they did that they were making a promise. They could abandon the OGL for all new development, and that would be fine. I didn't think it was wrong for them to publiish 4E under a different license; I just didn't buy it! But people have been relying on the promises they made under the OGL for 20+ years, and for them to try to walk that back now is just wrong.
Not specifically bard, but anyone saying this is concern/fear-mongering or these opinion don't matter because it's all speculation/hypothetical/theoretical. Again, it is minimizing legitimate concern or shaming people for having a differing opinion.
Sigh, what I've heard about ogl 1.1 sounds like it'll have a lot of sweeping effects of killing dnd on FoundryVTT, and the bit about "pantomimes" might have an effect on live play streaming.
May Eilistraee's Song touch your heart and bring you joy.
uhh, yeah..that's literally what this entire thread is already about. that's the article that sparked all the online controversy.
Which is, honestly, the only way some of the legal questions are going to get answered, because there appears to be legitimate legal questions about Wizards' ability to can revoke prior editions of the OGL (at least, for products released under prior editions; they can do whatever they want with One D&D).
Don't forget that they worded the OGL so that they can change it in 30 days without your approval. $750,000 can easily become $7.50 with 30 days notice.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Not to mention they could easily start charging Twitch / Youtube / whomever else for rights to stream D&D One VTT on their platform just like Internet backbone provides do with streaming services after Ajit Pai (A Verizon lawyer) took over the FTC and killed net neutrality for his Verizon overlords.
Now, I'm not saying that will happen, but the leaked 1.1 OGL is written in such a way that they reserve the right to change anything and everything with 30 days notice. I mean, there is legal writing in OGL 1.1 that is extremely aggressive towards the original spirit of the OGL.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
This article excerpts the relevant chunk of text
"You agree to give us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty free license to use that content for any purpose."
If they're irrevocable then you don't get them back just because you no longer benefit from the agreement.
Unfortunately Wizards of the Coast burned a lot of goodwill with their greed in Magic the Gathering, so while it is best not to jump to conclusions, WotC do not deserve the benefit of the doubt either.
Streaming D&D games has never been OGL to start with (how many games have you seen streamed with no classes, monster, or spells that aren't in the basic rules?), it's covered by the fan content policy.
No, the only way we get answers about their ability to revoke a license or if the OGL1.1 as leaked is enforceable, is if it gets before a judge in court. WotC would have to sue or be sued and the case survive the years long process in order to get such a ruling. Such actions would be very costly and likely would result in the bankruptcy of anyone else but WotC even if they won.
All of these pieces of evidence are circumstantial and different sources repeating what someone else says doesn't necessarily mean that they are verifying it, merely that they are stating what those other sources said. Even if other people have verified parts of it, that doesn't mean they are accurate. All humans make mistakes, and one of the many problems with anonymous sources is that they can provide the same information to different people, and it will look like multiple people have different sources echoing the same thing.
I have addressed your second point in numerous other threads, namely in this one on Nerd Immersion's very first video on the subject.
Also, you can't disprove everything. Yes, these rumors should be treated seriously (and they are), but the notion that facts are facts until they are 100% disproved just doesn't really make sense. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are treating this as much more than a "serious threat".
Your fourth point is one I've seen repeated a lot, but it doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense (to me at least). As I explained multiple times in the thread linked above, Wizards of the Coast has been quite transparent on this. And them not responding to requests for information about their future private business plans is typical. Just because a company doesn't deny something doesn't mean it's true.
I do not think your concerns are fearmongering or that they don't matter. What I did say was that I think some people are overreacting based off speculation. I am sorry if that offended you, that was not my intent.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I would like to see that stand up in court lol. You cannot revoke an agreement but only leave parts of it that benefit you. If WotC revokes the agreement, it will revoke the entire agreement. That would result in content theft by WotC. Ie, if this was actually legal. They could do it to everyone and steal all 3rd party content.
That would NEVER stand up in court.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
WotC/Hasbro have shown their true colors, and for some, that is enough for them to leave. What we know about OGL 1.1 is sufficient to form an opinion of what WotC/Hasbro intend (or at least intended) to do and how they're approaching the game moving forward. In my opinion, it's pretty damning and constitutes a slap in the face of the community that kept D&D alive and then helped it flourish all these years.
A change to the OGL was not required. They could have chosen not to update it. But they didn't. They chose to update it, and the only interests the update serves are those of WotC/Hasbro, not the gaming community.
The problem is; this is a slanted playing field. It doesn't matter what "is legal/enforceable", if nobody has the war chest to actually call them on it. Remember: MOST if not all third-party companies this effects are small businesses with very narrow margins. Their opposition is... The Hasbro corporation; with teams, plural, of lawyers and functionally infinite money. We saw the exact same thing happen with Games Workshop: it doesn't matter that "they'll enver win" if they can bury anyone who tries in paperwork and fees until they have to give in, long before any judge gets involved.
WotC/Hasbro won't go after the content creators. They'll go after the platforms with takedown notices and cease-and-desist orders. Content creators won't even be able to bring a suit against WotC/Hasbro because WotC/Hasbro will not have committed a tort against them; the platforms and retailers that "cancel" the creators can do whatever they want.
While it is true, that a large corporation has nearly unlimited litigation, it is also true that it is an absolute PR nightmare. It will only take one lawsuit for there to be a go fund me page setup that will likely draw a massive amount, media attention. The big firm investors really don’t like negative PR.
Hasbro is on very shaky grounds trying to invalidate a license that they themselves in 2004 effectively said that they couldn’t. I have no doubt the financial analysts that cover Hasbro will notice this eventually.
In other words, regardless if they can make the 1.1 changes, it will cost them much more. I’ve done my part by canceling my subscription here. Should they backtrack and do the right thing, I’ll just re-subscribe - with no loss for either of us. If they do the wrong thing, I stay canceled and move my table to whatever system they can’t touch.
Looking at all the money I've invested into this site, it makes the though of having to move on from D&D full of regret. The sense of sunk cost fallacy wants to stick with it, to compromise, and not make all that money wasted. Well, it wasn't wasted. I had a lot of fun with the game these past few years. I'll take away those experiences, the lessons learned, and the ideas inspired by that time. But I cannot stay. Not now this kind of decision making directing the company's relationship with its audience. A hostile shake down of fans and third party creators alike, demanding ownership of homebrew concepts without any compensation to the creators, terms which can be changed on a whim, with no safety net preventing them from demanding royalties from even small-time creators, retro-actively making the 5e licence invalid to prevent anyone from simply continuing with that. This is what happened with the Fourth edition licence, and the killed 4e, and motivated the creation of their competitor Pathfinder to boot. Am I going to invest in One D&D now, knowing the whole thing is obviously, yet somehow obliviously, destined to collapse and require another fresh start? Of course I'm not. I don't understand how you think anyone could? Honestly, I feel bad for the D&D Beyond team. They worked hard to create an accessible toolset to make D&D easier for new and old players. Now, because of Hasbro and WotC, the future of this site looks so unwelcoming. Corporate decisions pushing people away from the brand, and away from the site, which Corps will complain about D&DB not bringing in enough revenue, imposing more greedy monetisation methods, driving away more, and so on. Thank you, D&DB staff, creators, and mods. You made a pretty neat thing, and I'm sorry that, for reasons outside of your control, it may not last as long as it could have.
When I was in prison we played DnD with dice made of soap and a wax pen. Will the new OGL prevent me from doing that in the future?
So, I haven't posted on these forums in the past, however, this is a topic that I feel compelled to post about. I won't fault, shame or call out Hasboro/WoTC (despite wanting to) about their business decisions, it's their business and at the end of the day they can decide to do with it what they want. It doesn't matter if I agree with their decision or not, I have zero influence in the company... well, almost zero. See, I don't like the new direction of the company's decisions around a game that I have loved and played since TSR first published it (or shortly there after as I didn't play the whit box, but started with the Red). So, I will do what I did when they bungled 4th edition, I'll simply pack up my DM supplies, and my books, and do my own thing. WoTC/Hasboro won't get any more of my money regarding this product. Sucks, true, but I use my dollars to do the talking. Me doing this alone will have zero impact, but if enough of us do it, then who knows, it worked with 4th. And yes, this includes using this site, D&D Beyond, I will shut off my sub here as well. Can't demand a refund for the products I've already purchased, but that's the way it goes. This is a simple no brainer for me, there are plenty of games out there that are high fantasy (and other genres) for me to explore. WoTC/Hasboro is making the biggest mistake that I've seen so many other companies over the years make, they think that the consumer will just suck it up and take it. But, imagine if a company like Critical Roll suddenly opts to play (and by extension promote) a game like Ironsworn. Heh, so much for me not commenting. Anyway, DnD, it's been a good run, 30+ years or so, me and mine have enjoyed it, but implement the changes to OGL where you not only demand payment for the stuff you've made, but can seize the things I make, no. To paraphrase a once very popular song (that predates me), take your new license and shove it.
So, two things.
First: There's some very relevant recent history here that should probably be mentioned, but that I don't see in this thread yet. This isn't the first time Wizards has tried to move away from the OGL, and the prior effort might offer some insights into the current one.
Wizards published 4th edition D&D under the "Game System License" or GSL. That license is far more restrictive than the OGL. 4E, published under the GSL, also significantly underperformed—and its poor performance may have had something to do with a lack of community engagement stemming from its restrictive license, and also created room in the market for rising competitors using OGL content.
It seems clear from the historical context that Wizards understood, at the time they published 4E, that they couldn't actually just revise the OGL to be more restrictive—because it contains a clause that allows licensees to choose the version of the license that they want to use. But it seems that they also learned that publishing under a more-restrictive license while the community is still enjoying content under a less-restrictive license doesn't work especially well. It looks an awful lot like they decided to just set aside the plain reading of the OGL and shoot their shot—rewrite the license, and let third parties decide if they were willing to go to court over it.
Second: I don't like this very much.
Just in terms of the specific revisions that seem to be coming, it seems like a move to swat down relatively small competitors who are benefitting from (and in compliance with) the OGL as written. The new license would likely not permit titles like Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, for example. The Pathfinder game launched around the same time as Dungeons and Dragons: Dark Alliance, and it's way better. It's very, very significantly outperforming the Wizards title in both the volume and positivity of Steam reviews—just like its predecessor, Pathfinder: Kingmaker. It's also in perfect compliance with the terms of the OGL as Wizards wrote it, so Paizo and Owlcat games haven't done anything wrong by creating a superior video game in the same market—but Wizards is trying to rewrite the rules in a way that would eliminate that competition. And there's a huge difference in resources here: Paizo had ~$12 million in total revenue in 2021, Owlcat Games had <$5 million, and Wizards of the Coast had $1.3 billion. So does anyone really think that companies like Paizo and Owlcat are in a position to vigorously defend their rights under the OGL in litigation against a company like Wizards?
But this is also much more deeply screwed up than any of the direct implications of the specific anticipated revisions. Much more important is that the original OGL purported to be a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free" license, and the clause that Wizards is claiming implies their right to "de-authorize" the OGL appears to have been intended to do exactly the opposite. That clause says that Wizards may post updated versions of the license, but that creators can continue to use any version of the license with content published under any other version of the license. There's a specific and important reason that's in there, and it's not just some wishy-washy "commitment to openness" or some kind of ethical ideal or something: third party creators have been and are investing their time and energy into producing commercial products, and in order to feel safe enough to do that, they need to have a reasonable degree of confidence that the earth isn't going to shift under their feet.
Regardless of the specific terms Wizards wants to impose, if they're successful in converting the OGL from the "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free" license that it was written as into something Wizards can "deauthorize" and rewrite with no specified process, then the OGL will be functionally dead. Third-party creators, like Paizo, who have created huge libraries of OGL content in good faith and in full compliance with the terms originally set forth by Wizards will be screwed, and no third party developer in their right mind will even consider investing significant resources and effort into OGL content. Not because any specific term of any specific iteration of the OGL will necessarily prevent them from doing what they want, but because the OGL itself will have been converted from a reliable covenant with the community into a capricious instrument of enforcement against the community.
EDIT: Also, importantly: nothing in the OGL compels Wizards to keep creating content under the OGL. They proved that when they published content under a different license for 4E. I've seen a lot of folks understanding about Wizards wanting to 'protect their IP' or 'not give away their content to competitors.' That's just fine! But Wizards wrote the OGL and Wizards put content into an SRD under the OGL, and when they did that they were making a promise. They could abandon the OGL for all new development, and that would be fine. I didn't think it was wrong for them to publiish 4E under a different license; I just didn't buy it! But people have been relying on the promises they made under the OGL for 20+ years, and for them to try to walk that back now is just wrong.