I am not concerned with how Wizards control and monetize their own IP, so I will keep subscribing to Beyond. Just as it is people's right to exercise their wallet, Wizards has the right to do what they want with their own stuff, and what Wizards has done so far is literally nothing. Even if the leaks are true and Wizards stick with it, I will still be fine with it.
I am not concerned with how Wizards control and monetize their own IP, so I will keep subscribing to Beyond. Just as it is people's right to exercise their wallet, Wizards has the right to do what they want with their own stuff, and what Wizards has done so far is literally nothing. Even if the leaks are true and Wizards stick with it, I will still be fine with it.
It's not "their own stuff." The leaked OGL (and there have been enough confirmations from others who have seen it that I do, indeed believe that this is the new OGL) allows Wizards to take control of any material produced under it without payment. Have you produced a cool new game world under the OGL? Wizards now controls it, and can lock you out of it. Built a new subclass that people like? Wizards now controls it, and can lock you out of it.
Under this new license Hasbro could simply take the Critical Role characters, and there wouldn't be anything Mercer and company could do about it. Do you object to that?
Your comment seems to fall under "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care." If you use any third party materials it affects you.
I have already cancelled my D&D Beyond subscription, and let them know why in the comment box. I will be purchasing nothing else from Hasbro/Wizards, and that includes any official merchandise produced by other companies. And it means I won't be seeing the new movie either. I was already growing increasingly annoyed with the direction the game was going, and this was the last straw. There have been enough confirmations from content creators who have been sent the new OGL that I do believe that what we've seen is indeed the document.
The only way I will return is if this new OGL is torn up, Hasbro issues a formal apology, and a statement that 1.0a will stay in place. Better would be adding the word "irrevocable" to it.
The new OGL (OGL 1.1) is a slap in the face to the D&D community and a betrayal of the original intent (and promise) of the original OGL.
[truncated]
I'm in a grey area personally.
If the leak is true, than yeah I might cancel my sub to DnDB and switch my online group to Pathfinder. But at this time, its a leak, and not confirmed or denied by anyone. As to what is posted by WotC on DnDB, I see no issues with what they have. I do not disagree with charging royalties to use D&D if your product is making $750k. I'm more concerned with percentages, and what was said about past licenses. The past license was open to all, and for all content, and many games not related to D&D used the OGL to design other kinds of games. Also, the wording about streamed games and content creators makes me concerned.
Then there is the bit about requiring people to destroy their inventory on the whim of WotC. No. Just no.
I do hope the leaked document is either false, or changed.
You are aware that Pathfinder is also impacted? It was built on the OGL.
And it's not like Paizo is a great company either ... they have quite a dodgy history with how they treat employees. It's like picking with turd is more palatable.
The new OGL (OGL 1.1) is a slap in the face to the D&D community and a betrayal of the original intent (and promise) of the original OGL.
Unless WotC backs off of it's current position, I plan on migrating all my games to a different system and terminating my subscription to D&DB. It's heartbreaking to think, but I have no intention of supporting a company that exercises in this kind of over-reach against the community of players, developers, writers, and DMs that have made the game the success it is today.
I literally own everything WotC has published for DnD5e - even the stuff that is of questionable quality - and prefer the content made third party in many cases. My interest in 5e was only because of the amazing community out there. I would have gone with a completely different TTRPG when I returned to gaming a couple years ago had it not been for the content of people like Critical Role, Acquisitions Inc., Dungeon Dudes, Matt Covill, How to Be a Great GM, and many other contributors. To NOT recognize that they are the driving force behind your product's success and popularity is unforgivable.
I will be watching, very carefully, for a change in position from WotC... and if I don't see one, I'll be voting with my feet... and my wallet.
"I am concerned about what WOTC is planning with the OGL 1.1. Third party creators play a big part in my enjoyment of 5e DnD. As a dungeon master, I use a lot of tools and resources in addition to DnD Beyond to run my games. The draconian restrictions in the OGL 1.1 are going to severely restrict the ability for community members and publishers to contribute to our fun. This is unacceptable."
I think the poll can be reasonably critizised for being slightly biased. I picked the last option, but I don't think it's entirely truthful that WOTC is 'eliminating the 3rd party content developers'. Limiting sounds a little more reasonable, or it might be said that they're making it very hard for 3rd party content developers to make a living that way.
I'm a 3rd party developer, but since I don't publish or charge for anything I create (which is everything except the system itself, from adventures to monster to magic items and settings and so on), I doubt WOTC will have anything to say about it, or any way to enforce it if they did.
So: Picked the last option, not because I don't sympathize, or am blind to the effects - but because I think it's something of an overreaction, and because WOTC are entitled to do as they please with their product. It'll surely backfire if they overdo it, anyways. I for one am totally willing to switch to Pathfinder if I really have to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I see a few people talking about how WotC is "entitled to do as they please with their product" or that they have, " the right to do what they want with their own stuff". These arguments ignore the history of promises that were relied on by 3rd party creators to the benefit of WotC. A recent reddit post does a good job summing it up:
"I've seen a few people try to defend WotC's behavior on these grounds, so let me explain why they are thinking about the situation entirely wrong.
In 2000, Wizards of the Coast released the third edition of Dungeons and Dragons, complete with the Open Gaming License, which explicitly made the core mechanics of D&D easily available for others to borrow, reference, and play with. Back in the days of TSR, it had been legally difficult and fraught to produce third party content for D&D, and Wizards (correctly, in my view) saw that they could do better if they instead brought third party developers into D&D and let them sink or swim on their own.
The OGL v1.0a was not some generous gift, given thoughtlessly and without good business sense. It was an intelligent act that allowed Wizards to effectively flood the market with d20 products. Competitors released games that entered Wizards' ever-expanding ecosystem: White Wolf, the makers of the World of Darkness gameline, which was once the dominant TTRPG in market share, created an imprint that released Ravenloft, Everquest, and Warcraft RPGs under d20; Chaosium, the makers of Call of Cthulhu, released a Call of Cthulhu d20 book; an edition of Traveller was released that was compatible with d20; and so on.
Overall, this was positive for most people's gaming experience: TTRPG players and GMs in general overwhelmingly focus on the quality of settings and concepts over the quality of a game system's rules, and d20's rules were and are quite functional for the typical RPG experience. Additionally, the fact that these systems were often cross-compatible, or at least quite easy to make a jump between, meant that players and DMs were benefiting from their mechanical similarity by smoothing out transitions.
The severe impact of the OGL on the market can't be underestimated. Prior to it, effectively every publisher had their own bespoke systems which used different resolution mechanics, generally for no real benefit. After the OGL, new games were written using a unified core resolution mechanic, and people didn't feel a need to worry about whether they had developed something too close to a competitor's product and invited litigation, as long as they hewed to the OGL. Other creators automatically entered their own game mechanics into OGC, so even if some other D20-based product had a similar mechanic, they couldn't sue you over copying it.
All this is to say: the OGL v1.0a was an astonishingly good business move, particularly given the fact that, by its nature, it involved giving up rights that a company could otherwise hold onto (always psychologically hard). WotC-era D&D came the closest to losing its dominant market share during the 4e era, when third parties effectively could not make supplements for the game due to its lack of OGL (there was the GSL, but it had truly awful terms). Even though WotC was by 2014 firmly under Hasbro control, the economic value of the OGL was enough that the suits let them bring it back for 5e, though they still tried to throttle it (that's why there's only one Background in the SRD, for example).
The decision to revoke the OGL for 6e is not "just wanting royalties for their system." The value of the d20 system exists because of the OGL, and the OGL has value because it was represented as being irrevocable. The attempt to revoke 1.0a is based on deceiving and betraying people who in good faith put trust in Wizards, that when they had written the OGL they had, for all time, created a core gaming system that anyone could freely graft their own ideas onto and use as they liked. Legal or not - something, sadly, only an expensive litigation can decide - it is perfidious. It is an attempt to strongarm smaller publishers into participating in a draconian deal, and to drive larger (but still relatively small) publishers out of business. It is quite literally a theft from the commons.
If it goes through as is, even though it doesn't directly impact me in any significant way, I won't be buying any more WOTC products, just on principle.
There is still time to change it, hopefully, they listen to the community.
I'm not sure even with a walkback I would ever consider purchasing another Hasbro product of any sort. This just shatters the trust relationship Wizards has built with the community. The only way to hold them accountable is with our wallets. They will not listen to words.
I also encourage any designers working on these games to quit.
I don't approve of the methodology of this poll, as it too much editorializes the responses. My current response is "No", but not because "I have no objection to WotC eliminating the 3rd party content developers." Partially it is because everything is rumors and I would want to wait and see what the final OGL 1.1 looks like before altering anything, but mostly it's because I currently have a good amount of digital books on D&D Beyond and have 3 campaigns going with shared content that are not close to being over. I cannot just pull the plug on those campaigns or try to switch everything to analogue right now, it's not feasible for the campaigns.
I would enjoy looking at other systems in the future, but that's also to do with just wanting to try other things. I'm playing in a DUNE RPG game coming up, and I've always wanted to try to run a Cthulhu game, or Vampire the Masquerade, or even Scion. We'll see what happens with everything, but in the meantime I can't pull the rug on all of my players like that.
I am not concerned with how Wizards control and monetize their own IP, so I will keep subscribing to Beyond. Just as it is people's right to exercise their wallet, Wizards has the right to do what they want with their own stuff, and what Wizards has done so far is literally nothing. Even if the leaks are true and Wizards stick with it, I will still be fine with it.
It's not "their own stuff." The leaked OGL (and there have been enough confirmations from others who have seen it that I do, indeed believe that this is the new OGL) allows Wizards to take control of any material produced under it without payment. Have you produced a cool new game world under the OGL? Wizards now controls it, and can lock you out of it. Built a new subclass that people like? Wizards now controls it, and can lock you out of it.
Under this new license Hasbro could simply take the Critical Role characters, and there wouldn't be anything Mercer and company could do about it. Do you object to that?
Your comment seems to fall under "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care." If you use any third party materials it affects you.
If you agreed to OGL1.0a but not the new leaked one, that does not mean Wizards can simply take your work that is already published and claim past revenue that have already accrued. If you agree to the new one, then that does mean you agree to let Wizards take your stuff. If you do not want Wizards to take your stuff, then stop using OGL1.0a because it will be revoked, and do not use the new OGL. If you worked on a new world, you can just make it system agnostic. If you worked on a subclass, that is a bit more difficult separate your IP from Wizards IP, but you can still take your flavor and mechanics away and separate it from the class, and say your stuff applies to people with and/or without access to magic, and let the reader decide how to apply and homebrew those flavor and mechanics.
Wizards cannot simply take control of Critical Role unless Mercer agrees to the new OGL. All Mercer had to do is to not agree to the new OGL and stop using the old one, and Critical Role will be fine. Mercer can still publish Critical Role books, he just have to divorce his IP from Wizards' IP.
Yeah, I really do not care because it does not affect me. For third party materials that I do use, mainly GM books, minis, and maps, they work with any game system and not just D&D, so I am not worried about them being out of business. No one is entitled to Wizards' IP, and Wizards is not entitled to anyone else's IP either.
Wizards cannot simply take control of Critical Role unless Mercer agrees to the new OGL.
Wizards is not going to "take control" of Critical Role under any OGL. This is the kind of absurdity that's made discussion of what's actually happening almost impossible
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Wizards cannot simply take control of Critical Role unless Mercer agrees to the new OGL.
Wizards is not going to "take control" of Critical Role under any OGL. This is the kind of absurdity that's made discussion of what's actually happening almost impossible
Completely agree. It's difficult to find a balanced and sane discussion on it ... mostly because those commenting are or would be directly impacted. I get their angst and anger, but I also think it causes the discussion to deathspiral. Case in point is Roll for Combat. They had a pretty good and measured discussion with a contract lawyer which boiled down to WoTC can "try" anything, but doesn't make it legal/enforceable and they have a steep hill to climb to make it so (at least with the revoking of 1.0a). But then posted another ranty video shortly after, pretty much ignoring all they talked about earlier.
What sucks is all this, if published as leaked, will just lead to long and drawn out legal fights as the courts will eventually need to decide.
I obviously like D&D and I love DDB, being a subscriber for years now.
But this OGL issue was a wake up call to how harmful and greedy can WotC and Hasbro be to D&D. I've just canceled my subscription's renewal out of precaution.
I have been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have spent thousands of dollars on official content.
I am done supporting Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro.
No caveats; no pleas for them to change... I am done. Wizards of the Coast has made it abundantly clear what they think of their communities. To them, we are cash-cows and free labor. Even if they reverse their decision to make the changes that were leaked, I do not doubt that their greed will cause them to try this, or something else like it) again at a later date.
I have friends in the gaming industry, many of them publish D&D content under the existing OGL, and this would destroy them and their companies.
I see a lot of people up in arms about this and I do have to ask, what SPECIFICALLY are you angry about?
Angry about them controlling their IP? Are you angry about Star Wars or 40k or Marvel doing the same? 20 to 25 % royalties only after 750K yearly income is pretty generous. I didn’t have a problem when they did it 2nd edition (before the OGL for those who can remember).
Are you angry about them not allowing content that is discriminatory or promotes bigotry using their IP?
I am angry about them taking rights of creators away to their own OGL created IP and giving not collaborative control over it. That is dirty . But outside of that?
Specifically, I'm upset about them attempting to revoke a license they spent 20+ years promising could never be revoked. I'm upset about them putting hundreds of businesses and thousands of people out of work. I'm upset about them attempting to claim ownership of other people's work without credit or compensation.
I was planning on dropping several hundred dollars on DnD and Hasbro products at the end of this month. Roughly $500 on DnD, and nearly that much on Transformers. Both purchases have been cancelled, and my DnDBeyond sub will end the moment the campaign I am currently playing in is over because of this.
I am not concerned with how Wizards control and monetize their own IP, so I will keep subscribing to Beyond. Just as it is people's right to exercise their wallet, Wizards has the right to do what they want with their own stuff, and what Wizards has done so far is literally nothing. Even if the leaks are true and Wizards stick with it, I will still be fine with it.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
It's not "their own stuff." The leaked OGL (and there have been enough confirmations from others who have seen it that I do, indeed believe that this is the new OGL) allows Wizards to take control of any material produced under it without payment. Have you produced a cool new game world under the OGL? Wizards now controls it, and can lock you out of it. Built a new subclass that people like? Wizards now controls it, and can lock you out of it.
Under this new license Hasbro could simply take the Critical Role characters, and there wouldn't be anything Mercer and company could do about it. Do you object to that?
Your comment seems to fall under "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care." If you use any third party materials it affects you.
I have already cancelled my D&D Beyond subscription, and let them know why in the comment box. I will be purchasing nothing else from Hasbro/Wizards, and that includes any official merchandise produced by other companies. And it means I won't be seeing the new movie either. I was already growing increasingly annoyed with the direction the game was going, and this was the last straw. There have been enough confirmations from content creators who have been sent the new OGL that I do believe that what we've seen is indeed the document.
The only way I will return is if this new OGL is torn up, Hasbro issues a formal apology, and a statement that 1.0a will stay in place. Better would be adding the word "irrevocable" to it.
And it's not like Paizo is a great company either ... they have quite a dodgy history with how they treat employees. It's like picking with turd is more palatable.
I'm with you!
"I am concerned about what WOTC is planning with the OGL 1.1. Third party creators play a big part in my enjoyment of 5e DnD. As a dungeon master, I use a lot of tools and resources in addition to DnD Beyond to run my games. The draconian restrictions in the OGL 1.1 are going to severely restrict the ability for community members and publishers to contribute to our fun. This is unacceptable."
I think the poll can be reasonably critizised for being slightly biased. I picked the last option, but I don't think it's entirely truthful that WOTC is 'eliminating the 3rd party content developers'. Limiting sounds a little more reasonable, or it might be said that they're making it very hard for 3rd party content developers to make a living that way.
I'm a 3rd party developer, but since I don't publish or charge for anything I create (which is everything except the system itself, from adventures to monster to magic items and settings and so on), I doubt WOTC will have anything to say about it, or any way to enforce it if they did.
So: Picked the last option, not because I don't sympathize, or am blind to the effects - but because I think it's something of an overreaction, and because WOTC are entitled to do as they please with their product. It'll surely backfire if they overdo it, anyways. I for one am totally willing to switch to Pathfinder if I really have to.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I see a few people talking about how WotC is "entitled to do as they please with their product" or that they have, " the right to do what they want with their own stuff". These arguments ignore the history of promises that were relied on by 3rd party creators to the benefit of WotC. A recent reddit post does a good job summing it up:
"I've seen a few people try to defend WotC's behavior on these grounds, so let me explain why they are thinking about the situation entirely wrong.
In 2000, Wizards of the Coast released the third edition of Dungeons and Dragons, complete with the Open Gaming License, which explicitly made the core mechanics of D&D easily available for others to borrow, reference, and play with. Back in the days of TSR, it had been legally difficult and fraught to produce third party content for D&D, and Wizards (correctly, in my view) saw that they could do better if they instead brought third party developers into D&D and let them sink or swim on their own.
The OGL v1.0a was not some generous gift, given thoughtlessly and without good business sense. It was an intelligent act that allowed Wizards to effectively flood the market with d20 products. Competitors released games that entered Wizards' ever-expanding ecosystem: White Wolf, the makers of the World of Darkness gameline, which was once the dominant TTRPG in market share, created an imprint that released Ravenloft, Everquest, and Warcraft RPGs under d20; Chaosium, the makers of Call of Cthulhu, released a Call of Cthulhu d20 book; an edition of Traveller was released that was compatible with d20; and so on.
Overall, this was positive for most people's gaming experience: TTRPG players and GMs in general overwhelmingly focus on the quality of settings and concepts over the quality of a game system's rules, and d20's rules were and are quite functional for the typical RPG experience. Additionally, the fact that these systems were often cross-compatible, or at least quite easy to make a jump between, meant that players and DMs were benefiting from their mechanical similarity by smoothing out transitions.
The severe impact of the OGL on the market can't be underestimated. Prior to it, effectively every publisher had their own bespoke systems which used different resolution mechanics, generally for no real benefit. After the OGL, new games were written using a unified core resolution mechanic, and people didn't feel a need to worry about whether they had developed something too close to a competitor's product and invited litigation, as long as they hewed to the OGL. Other creators automatically entered their own game mechanics into OGC, so even if some other D20-based product had a similar mechanic, they couldn't sue you over copying it.
All this is to say: the OGL v1.0a was an astonishingly good business move, particularly given the fact that, by its nature, it involved giving up rights that a company could otherwise hold onto (always psychologically hard). WotC-era D&D came the closest to losing its dominant market share during the 4e era, when third parties effectively could not make supplements for the game due to its lack of OGL (there was the GSL, but it had truly awful terms). Even though WotC was by 2014 firmly under Hasbro control, the economic value of the OGL was enough that the suits let them bring it back for 5e, though they still tried to throttle it (that's why there's only one Background in the SRD, for example).
The decision to revoke the OGL for 6e is not "just wanting royalties for their system." The value of the d20 system exists because of the OGL, and the OGL has value because it was represented as being irrevocable. The attempt to revoke 1.0a is based on deceiving and betraying people who in good faith put trust in Wizards, that when they had written the OGL they had, for all time, created a core gaming system that anyone could freely graft their own ideas onto and use as they liked. Legal or not - something, sadly, only an expensive litigation can decide - it is perfidious. It is an attempt to strongarm smaller publishers into participating in a draconian deal, and to drive larger (but still relatively small) publishers out of business. It is quite literally a theft from the commons.
In conclusion, f*** Wizards."
If it goes through as is, even though it doesn't directly impact me in any significant way, I won't be buying any more WOTC products, just on principle.
There is still time to change it, hopefully, they listen to the community.
I'm not sure even with a walkback I would ever consider purchasing another Hasbro product of any sort. This just shatters the trust relationship Wizards has built with the community. The only way to hold them accountable is with our wallets. They will not listen to words.
I also encourage any designers working on these games to quit.
I don't approve of the methodology of this poll, as it too much editorializes the responses. My current response is "No", but not because "I have no objection to WotC eliminating the 3rd party content developers." Partially it is because everything is rumors and I would want to wait and see what the final OGL 1.1 looks like before altering anything, but mostly it's because I currently have a good amount of digital books on D&D Beyond and have 3 campaigns going with shared content that are not close to being over. I cannot just pull the plug on those campaigns or try to switch everything to analogue right now, it's not feasible for the campaigns.
I would enjoy looking at other systems in the future, but that's also to do with just wanting to try other things. I'm playing in a DUNE RPG game coming up, and I've always wanted to try to run a Cthulhu game, or Vampire the Masquerade, or even Scion. We'll see what happens with everything, but in the meantime I can't pull the rug on all of my players like that.
If you agreed to OGL1.0a but not the new leaked one, that does not mean Wizards can simply take your work that is already published and claim past revenue that have already accrued. If you agree to the new one, then that does mean you agree to let Wizards take your stuff. If you do not want Wizards to take your stuff, then stop using OGL1.0a because it will be revoked, and do not use the new OGL. If you worked on a new world, you can just make it system agnostic. If you worked on a subclass, that is a bit more difficult separate your IP from Wizards IP, but you can still take your flavor and mechanics away and separate it from the class, and say your stuff applies to people with and/or without access to magic, and let the reader decide how to apply and homebrew those flavor and mechanics.
Wizards cannot simply take control of Critical Role unless Mercer agrees to the new OGL. All Mercer had to do is to not agree to the new OGL and stop using the old one, and Critical Role will be fine. Mercer can still publish Critical Role books, he just have to divorce his IP from Wizards' IP.
Yeah, I really do not care because it does not affect me. For third party materials that I do use, mainly GM books, minis, and maps, they work with any game system and not just D&D, so I am not worried about them being out of business. No one is entitled to Wizards' IP, and Wizards is not entitled to anyone else's IP either.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Wizards is not going to "take control" of Critical Role under any OGL. This is the kind of absurdity that's made discussion of what's actually happening almost impossible
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Completely agree. It's difficult to find a balanced and sane discussion on it ... mostly because those commenting are or would be directly impacted. I get their angst and anger, but I also think it causes the discussion to deathspiral. Case in point is Roll for Combat. They had a pretty good and measured discussion with a contract lawyer which boiled down to WoTC can "try" anything, but doesn't make it legal/enforceable and they have a steep hill to climb to make it so (at least with the revoking of 1.0a). But then posted another ranty video shortly after, pretty much ignoring all they talked about earlier.
What sucks is all this, if published as leaked, will just lead to long and drawn out legal fights as the courts will eventually need to decide.
I obviously like D&D and I love DDB, being a subscriber for years now.
But this OGL issue was a wake up call to how harmful and greedy can WotC and Hasbro be to D&D. I've just canceled my subscription's renewal out of precaution.
The damage to the hobby is already done.
I have been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have spent thousands of dollars on official content.
I am done supporting Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro.
No caveats; no pleas for them to change... I am done. Wizards of the Coast has made it abundantly clear what they think of their communities. To them, we are cash-cows and free labor. Even if they reverse their decision to make the changes that were leaked, I do not doubt that their greed will cause them to try this, or something else like it) again at a later date.
I have friends in the gaming industry, many of them publish D&D content under the existing OGL, and this would destroy them and their companies.
Specifically, I'm upset about them attempting to revoke a license they spent 20+ years promising could never be revoked. I'm upset about them putting hundreds of businesses and thousands of people out of work. I'm upset about them attempting to claim ownership of other people's work without credit or compensation.
I was planning on dropping several hundred dollars on DnD and Hasbro products at the end of this month. Roughly $500 on DnD, and nearly that much on Transformers. Both purchases have been cancelled, and my DnDBeyond sub will end the moment the campaign I am currently playing in is over because of this.
Honestly?
No. Because I don't use or enjoy any 3rd party 5e content. And I've already bought all the books.
I just cancelled my master tier subscription. Was pending renewal in two months.
I'm sorry, even if I don't buy 3rd party content, I cannot support a company which is willing to do this.