There are a lot of people on these forums and other sites on the internet that need to take a step back and calm down.
The OGL was originally designed to allow content creators to create content for D&D and share it with others; it was never intended as a way for people to build businesses based on the use of other people's (WotC) content for free. It isn't reasonable to expect WotC to continue to accept other businesses making profits based on their IP with no control and no revenue.
Instead of everyone running around in a panic, perhaps it would be wiser to engage with WotC to point out flaws with the new version and work on comprises to address the issues raised.
That's not true, tons of third party content that was sold for 3.0/3.5 when the OGL was created.
Ever heard the phrase "read the bill"? It applies to politicians voting on something without reading it. I suggest you read the text of the new OGL.
There are a lot of people on these forums and other sites on the internet that need to take a step back and calm down.
The OGL was originally designed to allow content creators to create content for D&D and share it with others; it was never intended as a way for people to build businesses based on the use of other people's (WotC) content for free. It isn't reasonable to expect WotC to continue to accept other businesses making profits based on their IP with no control and no revenue.
Instead of everyone running around in a panic, perhaps it would be wiser to engage with WotC to point out flaws with the new version and work on comprises to address the issues raised.
If it were true that it was "never" the intention for people to be able to do that, Wizards would have sought litigatory action against publishers like Goodman Games, Green Ronin, Kobold Press, Mongoose, Paizo, etc. years ago.
You can't just rewrite history so you can look like the reasonable one for prostrating yourself before Wizards.
Nailed it! I would also pose the following question:
if the OGL 1.0a was "never intended" to allow competitors, why then did WoTC shift to a GSL in 4e? If they truly had the right to revoke it at will, why did they not do so when 4e or 5e were released to eliminate Paizo's competition?
Unfortunately AscendentBlue, your understanding of the history behind the OGL is faulty. Ryan Dancey (VP of Roleplaying Games at WoTC at the time) said in 2002:
The idea is to release a D20 System reference document under the Open Gaming License; essentially exposing the standard D&D mechanics, classes, races, spells, and monsters to the Open Gaming community. Anyone could use that material to develop a product using that information essentially without restrictions, including the lack of a royalty or a fee paid to Wizards of the Coast.
Ryan Dancey, 2002
You may wish to read some more of the history posted at opendnd.games within their Media Kit that explains more of the history and why so many 3rd party developers built careers around providing content for this game - content that, at least in 2000, WoTC recognized as being of sufficient value as to warrant providing them a perpetual license to use SRD content in consideration for their willingness to publish under OGL. One of my favorite 3rd Party producers, the Dungeon Coach on Youtube, just posted a video discussing his own personal challenges as a result of WoTC's decision - leaving he and his family potentially without the income they'd counted on less than 6 months after leaving a career in Education.
These 3rd Party publishers aren't monsterous organizations making huge sums of money at WoTC and Hasbro's suffering - these people published derivative works, made from their own imaginations, based upon the promise that WoTC would continue to honor an agreement they'd held to for over 20 years. Now, at their whim, they've decided to try and cancel the "perpetual" agreement and, even worse, claim that the derivative work is now their property.
Just how calm would you be if someone decided, after 20 years, that you could no longer work in your chosen career?
There are a lot of people on these forums and other sites on the internet that need to take a step back and calm down.
The OGL was originally designed to allow content creators to create content for D&D and share it with others; it was never intended as a way for people to build businesses based on the use of other people's (WotC) content for free. It isn't reasonable to expect WotC to continue to accept other businesses making profits based on their IP with no control and no revenue.
Instead of everyone running around in a panic, perhaps it would be wiser to engage with WotC to point out flaws with the new version and work on comprises to address the issues raised.
Incorrect, you should look up the original FAQ:
Web.archive.org:
Open Game License: Frequently Asked Questions Version 2.0 -- January 26, 2004
The questions and answers below refer to sections of the Open Game License. (12k RTF)
Q: What is the Open Game License?
A: The Open Game License (OGL) is a royalty free copyright license developed by Wizards of the Coast.
Q: Where can I read the text of the OGL?
A: You can download the full text of the current version of the OGL (12k RTF) right here.
Q: What are the penalties for violating the terms of the License?
A: You are potentially liable to three groups of people, for various types of lawsuits.
First, you could be sued by anyone listed in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE section related to any Open Game Content you copied, modified or distributed. Second, you could be sued by anyone who receives Open Game Content from you and relies on you to ensure that your work conforms to the terms of the License who subsequently discovers problems with the Open Game Content they received from you. Third, you could be sued by someone with a copyright or trademark interest in the work you've distributed, even if you did so while relying on a previous publisher's representation that they had followed the terms of the License.
You could be sued for a copyright infringement, you could be sued for misuse of a trademark, you could be sued for breach of contract, and you could be sued for any number of torts related to those three actions.
If you have concerns about the scope of your liability under the Open Game License, you should consult with your legal counsel.
Q: Why does Wizards of the Coast hold the copyright to the license?
A: Wizards of the Coast wrote the License and wants to control the right to make changes to the License in the future.
Q: Does Wizards of the Coast's copyright to the License mean that anything I publish using the License is owned by Wizards of the Coast?
A: No. The copyright on the License pertains to the terms of the License itself, not to materials distributed using the License.
Q: How can I distribute the License if Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright to the License?
A: Wizards of the Coast has granted a free and unrestricted right to distribute exact copies of the License.
Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?
A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
Q: The license is confusing and full of legal terms I don't understand. Is there a "plain English" version?
A: No, there is not. The License has been drafted with specific legal language to withstand any reasonable court challenge. An effort to simplify the text might introduce errors or omissions that would distort the License and could mislead potential users. You should consult your legal counsel if you have any questions about how to use the OGL.
Q: What is "Open Game Content"?
A: Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.
Q: What does "clearly identified" mean?
A: It means that the publisher has a burden to use some system to identify Open Game Content to any recipient of that content. Systems which have been used by some publishers include placing Open Game Content in shaded boxes, using a different font, italicizing or bolding the Open Game Content, and segregating all the Open Game Content into specifically designated chapters or appendixes. Some publishers have released documents that are identified as being comprised completely of Open Game Content.
"Clearly identified" means that the system should pass the "reasonable person" test; meaning that a reasonable person should be able to determine what portions of a given work are Open Game Content, and which portions are not. If you can't figure out what parts of a given work are Open Game Content, provided you exert a reasonable effort to read and apply the instructions for identification provided by the publisher, then the material isn't Clearly Identified.
This also applies to software. A reasonable person should be able to look at a piece of software and find and understand the Open Content. WeÍll make a slight allowance that they may have to take a little more time to understand some things, but they should be able to see and understand all Open Content. See the Software FAQ for more details.
Q: What is "an enhancement over the prior art"?
A: This term means that Open Game Content cannot be something that is in the public domain. The idea of a person using a sword and a shield, for example, is "prior art" - nobody can try to claim that such an idea is Open Game Content. Calling that person "Conan", and providing a detailed description of his physical features, history, manner of speaking, personality, equipment, and actions is an enhancement over the prior art. If something that is prior art appears in material that is clearly identified as Open Game Content, it isn't going to be treated as Open Game Content by the License. If you have questions about whether something identified as Open Game Content should be considered prior art, you should consult your legal counsel.
Note: You could take original material that you own and have previously published, and license it with the OGL as Open Game Content, because you still own the copyright to that material and it is not considered to be prior art. Just because something has been published in the past doesn't mean that it is automatically considered to be prior art.
Q: Is Open Game Content limited to just "the game mechanic"?
A: No. The definition of Open Game Content also provides for "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content." You can use the Open Game License for any kind of material you wish to distribute using the terms of the License, including fiction, artwork, maps, computer software, etc.
Wizards, however, rarely releases Open Content that is not just mechanics.
Q: What is Product Identity?
A: Product Identity is material, otherwise clearly identified as Open Game Content, that is excluded from the License terms that apply to Open Game Content. Product Identity usually includes trademarks and other Intellectual Property (characters, settings, etc.)
Q: How do I identify Product Identity?
A: Product Identity must be "clearly identified" just like Open Game Content.
Q: If something is clearly identified as both Open Game Content and Product Identity in the same work, what is it?
A: Product Identity.
Q: Can a work be derived from both Open Game Content and Product Identity?
A: Yes, but since the Open Game License only gives you the right to copy, modify and distribute Open Game Content, unless you had a separate license from whomever owned the Product Identity, you cannot legally copy or distribute a work that contained such material without a separate agreement from the owners of the Product Identity.
Q: If I identify something as Product Identity that was previously distributed as Open Game Content, does the material become Product Identity?
A: No. Once content has been distributed as Open Game Content, it cannot become Product Identity, even if you are the original creator of the content.
Q: If I identify something as Product Identity, then in the future I distribute that material as Open Game Content, does the material become Open Game Content?
A: Yes. By doing so, you will be relinquishing your claim that the material should be considered Product Identity.
Q: Say I wanted to publish some material that was formatted as in this example: "Character Name (Stat Block)." How do I keep the Product Identity separate from the Open Game Content?
A: You could clearly identify the Character Name as Product Identity elsewhere in the work. Assuming that the stat block was derived from other Open Game Content, the stat block must be clearly identified as Open Game Content (it will be Open Game Content even if you don't clearly identify it, but you have the burden to identify such content when you distribute the work).
Q: In the example above, could I designate all the text as Open Game Content?
A: Yes.
Q: But that would mean that anyone else could use Character Name in his or her own material without my permission?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?
A: Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.
Q: What if I distribute material that is Open Game Content, but I don't affix a notice saying that the Open Game Content can only be Used in compliance with the OGL?
A: You will have breached the terms of the License.
Q: Why can't any terms be added or subtracted from the License?
A: This clause ensures that each person that you distribute Open Game Content to will get exactly the same rights that you received when you got the Open Game Content yourself. Note that this clause means you can't restrict others from adapting your Open Game Content, or limit who can distribute Open Game Content, or add any other restrictive term. Likewise, you can't alter the terms of the license to remove sections that you might find objectionable, like the Product Identity definition.
Q: Does this mean that someone could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, and then put it in a product and sell that product to someone else?
A: Yes.
Q: To be clear: Does this mean that Wizards of the Coast could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, put it into a Dungeons & Dragons product and make money off it?
A: Yes.
Q: And they wouldn't have to ask my permission or pay me a royalty?
A: No, they would not.
Q: Isn't that pretty unfair?
A: If you don't like the terms of the Open Game License, don't publish Open Game Content. Since the terms of the License are public knowledge, and they apply to everyone equally, including commercial publishers like Wizards of the Coast, your decision to use the Open Game License means that you consent to abide by its terms freely and without coercion. That's about as fair as anything ever gets.
Q: Does Wizards of the Coast get the copyright to my Open Game Content?
A: No, they do not. When you distribute Open Game Content, you must assert a valid copyright either on your own behalf, or on the behalf of whoever does own the valid copyright on the material. You do so by adding your copyright information to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE section of the License when you distribute the License with your Open Game Content.
Wizards of the Coast has to follow the terms of the Open Game License just like anyone else. That means that if they want to use Open Game Content that isn't something they own outright or have a separate agreement with the copyright holder, they'll have to include a copy of the OGL in the work where they've used Open Game Content, they'll have to clearly identify what content is Open Game Content, and they'll have to preserve the COPYRIGHT NOTICE section of the OGL you used when you distributed your work originally. You will retain full copyright to your Open Game Content, regardless of who re-distributes it.
Q: What does "Acceptance" mean?
A: It means that by Using Open Game Content, you agree to be bound by the terms of the Open Game License. In order for a contract to be valid and enforceable, there must be an Offer (in this case, the terms of the License), Acceptance (in this case, your agreement to be bound by the terms of the License), and Consideration (in this case, the right to Use Open Game Content).
Q: What if I clearly identify something as Open Game Content but I don't own the copyright to that material or have the permission of the copyright owner to do so?
A: You will have breached Section 5, since you don't have Authority to Contribute. As a result, the material you clearly identified as Open Game Content does not become Open Game Content. The legal consequences of doing so could be quite dire. You should consult with your legal counsel to be sure that you have the Authority to Contribute anything you intend to distribute as Open Game Content.
Q: What is the COPYRIGHT NOTICE?
A: The COPYRIGHT NOTICE is a specific part of the License itself, as opposed to a general copyright notice that might appear elsewhere in a given work. The License requires that you combine all the COPYRIGHT NOTICE sections of each Open Game License you are extracting or deriving Open Game Content from, and include the consolidated notice with the copy of the Open Game License you will be distributing.
This mechanism is the way that proper credit is retained for each person who contributed some work to the Open Gaming community. No matter how small the contribution, each and every COPYRIGHT NOTICE propagates forward.
Q: Why can't I indicate compatibility with a Trademark or a Registered Trademark?
A: The Open Game License expands the control a Trademark owner has over your ability to use that Trademark beyond the restrictions normally allowed by trademark law. The explicit reason this clause is included in the Open Game License is to stop people from saying that their Open Game Content is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, or any other Wizards of the Coast game, without getting permission from Wizards of the Coast first. Of course, the clause is generic, so you can't indicate compatibility with any other company's trademarks either unless you get their permission first.
Q: Doesn't this conflict with the definition of an Open Game?
A: No, it does not. You are not restricted from freely copying, modifying or distributing the Open Game Content itself. Your freedom to Use the Open Game Content is not restricted, except to the extent that you cannot indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with someone else's Trademark or Registered Trademark.
The rationale behind this clause is related to the value of the material covered by the Open Game License. Companies (and individuals) spend a lot of time and effort to create and establish Trademarks that others recognize in the marketplace. By restricting your right to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with other people's Trademarks, the License recognizes that the value of those Trademarks is separate from the value of the Open Game Content itself. If you want to tap into the value represented by a given Trademark, you will need to negotiate a separate agreement with the Trademark holder for that privilege.
Q: My understanding of Trademark law is that it is legal for me to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with a Trademark so long as I don't dilute the mark, confuse consumers about the ownership of the mark, or attempt to claim ownership of the mark. How can the OGL stop me from using a Trademark in a way that is otherwise completely legal?
A: The terms of the Open Game License supercede the terms of general Trademark law. By agreeing to accept the Open Game License, gaining the benefit of the consideration of being able to use Open Game Content under the terms of the OGL, you limit certain other rights that you might otherwise have.
Q: What happens if I go ahead and indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with a Trademark I don't have permission to use?
A: You will be in breach of the Open Game License. You might also find yourself being sued by the owner of the trademark in question, under regular trademark law. If you have any question about your ability to use a Trademark owned by someone else, you should consult your legal counsel.
Q: I want to make a product that claims compatibility with someone else's Trademark, and uses Open Game Content. I'm going to put the Open Game Content in a separate booklet in a box, and only use the Trademark on the packaging on the box. Can I get away with this?
A: No. The terms of the Open Game License extend to the whole work. If you have questions about the technical legal definition of a "work", consult your legal counsel.
Q: Do I really have to include a copy of the whole license when I distribute Open Game Content?
A: Yes, you do.
Q: Can I include one copy of the license in a work with many separate portions that are Open Game Content?
A: Yes, so long as the copy of the License you include contains a complete and full list of all the COPYRIGHT NOTICE sections from all the source material.
Q: What if I'm writing an email message or using a very small amount of Open Game Content?
A: Technically, you are still required to include a copy of the License text. In the real world however, you are unlikely to be sued by someone over the use of Open Game Content in an email message or other trivial use if you fail to do so.
Q: I want to create a website that contains many different pages with Open Game Content. Do I have to include a copy of the License on every page?
A: It will be sufficient to include a link on every page containing Open Game Content to one centralized copy of the License.
Q: I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?
A: Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.
One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs.
Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasnÍt studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used.
Oh wow. Never expected my comment to blow up that much. Really not my intention, though looking back I realise I didn't explain myself that well.
And no, I'm not rewriting history or "prostrating myself before Wizards". The point I was trying (badly, as it happens) to make is that the scale of growth in 3rd party content wasn't foreseen back then. WotC certainly didn't predict it 20 years ago and they are now paying the price for their lack of foresight. They probably assumed at the time that the heightened profile from more content being in circulation outweighed any potential loss of future revenue. I'm sure they never expected there to be a number of larger publishers making millions off their IP.
The main point I was trying to make was that from their perspective it is not unreasonable (probably pushed by Hasbro) to attempt to pick up some of that revenue from the larger publishers and reassert some control over their IP. How they appear to be going about that is the issue.
Personally my issues with OGL 1.1 (and yes I have read the leaked doc) relate specifically to WotC attempting to de-authorise the previous versions. Attempting to retrospectively change the terms of the agreement seems at best bad PR and at worst legally unenforceable. It seems to me that engagement and dialogue with WotC is better than everyone running for the lifeboats. After all, it is smaller content creators who are the ones who will take the biggest hit moving to new systems as not all of their customers may necessarily follow such a transition.
I will not financially support Wizards of the Coast if they revoke any previous Open Gaming License.
If any previous Open Gaming License is revoked, I will not spend a dime on any products produced by Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro and encourage my friends and fellow RPG players to do the same. I will stop playing D&D and move to a non-OGL role playing system and encourage my friends and fellow players to also change to a non-OGL role playing system. I respect the right of Wizards of the Coast to operate their company in the marketplace as they see fit, but consumers have a right to choose to do or not to do business with a company.
This is not a practice I support or a company I am willing to support in the future, no matter the outcome of this OGL shitstorm... For me it doesn't even matter If its true or not true... the fact, that someone would write this in the WOTC or HASBRO and thought its a good idea is enough for me to cancel subscription to DnD Beyond and stop buying their printed releases. I will be printing charter sheets for my players going forward, swapping the digital toolset for analog, as I have the main books.
In truth the proposed changes in the ONE DnD are not that revolutionary to entice me spending more money on a new set of rules...
Because of the recent developments I also started looking for other TRPGs out there, first out of curiosity and then I found myself really likening what I have seen. Definitely gonna try some new systems of playing.
Hasbro is precisely as venal and unethical as virtually every other for-profit corporation currently extant and it's their decision that D&D is under-monetized that spurred this particular dumpster fire. Being disgusted by American corporations definitely isn't a new experience, but at least this is one of the times my reaction is easily determined.
If WotC carries through with revoking the original OGL that has been given full faith and credit for decades in order to satisfy corporate greed, I will no longer be a consumer of any new content of theirs in any form or be a customer of any paid services. As I firmly believe that should they follow through with triggering this potential catastrophe there would be a public movement to create a new open system, I would enthusiastically join and support it.
There's no doubt that I will continue role-playing, but it won't be under the scrutiny of WotC's accounting department with their proposed draconian requirements for invasive reporting, allowable content theft, and crippling royalties. I would be ashamed to participate in a system that seized free rein to abuse the creators that have immeasurably enhanced and expanded the D20 world.
Did you guys forget what happened with 4th Ed, I was looking forward to what was next for D&D but apparently the corporate boobs have decided to screw it up once again. My half orc rule on new editions seems to be running 3 for 3.
Welp... I've just disabled my D&D Beyond Master Tier auto renew, and deleted my revoked my Paypal creds from and deleted MtG Arena client where I'd spent about $1000/year over each of the last 3 years. Guess WotC better up their thievery to 30% from 25%
I've been a D&D Beyond subscriber for a couple years, but never posted in the forums before... never expected it to start this way.
I just don't get it. The internet Archive has full records of what the OGL was created for. The people who created it are on record in blogs, videos, websites, etc. all telling what their original intents were, and it isn't the story that Wizards of the Coast is trying to spin now.
D&D Trademarks (such as the D&D Logo, Dungeons and Dragons branding, etc.) were very carefully kept separate from the things licensed under the OGL - keeping the brand "safe" isn't really a problem, as Wizards can still protect their trademarks without changing the OGL.
NFT's are deader than my my last meal, are an asinine concept to begin with; I'm shocked they were even mentioned as a reason for updating the OGL.
Having multiple commercial games using the same D20 system was listed as a core strength of the OGL when it was introduced - the more games that used D20, the better! Strength through diversity!
The idea that people didn't make and share videos, animations, sculptures, miniatures, electronic publishing, etc. when the OGL was introduced must be some sort of play on the ignorance of younger players. I hate to admit I'm getting to be old, but there are perks - and one of them is recognizing that all of the things Wizards claimed didn't exist back when the OGL was created totally existed, and not only that, they absolutely existed the last time the OGL and SRD was updated in 2016.
This strikes me as nothing short of completely breaking the faith and spirit the OGL was created for.
While I doubt anybody at Wizards of the Coast will ever read this - if you do, Huzzah.
It's gotta suck to spend your career to watch D&D reach new heights of popularity and engagement, with a huge following and loving community... only to see the entire community turn on you because some ignorant outsider who doesn't know the community came along and forced a few changes... that ended up burning down the whole village. You have my sympathy, for I fear you're powerless to change anything.
But for the data point: I doubt I'll keep my subscription if the OGL 1.1 allegations are true, and they revoke the previous OGL license.
I was on the verge of cancelling anyway due to the complete lack of updates on DDB. No updates of any substance since the introduction of containers back in Feb '22.
I'm cancelling my subscription. I'm on an annual plan, so there's plenty of time for WotC to make a course correction, so sending a signal early is easy.
Losing DnD would have an impact I'm sure, but my players are a clever, empathetic and amazing bunch. They'll understand. As it is, I homebrew most of the monsters, setting and so on myself anyways, so it's not like I need any more content from WotC than what I already have and I could transfer it to another framework entirely if need be.
My yearly sub will expire this month, and I’ve already cancelled. Good luck with the new OGL, WotC/HASBRO. It’s been real and it’s been fun, but it hasn’t been real fun. You’ve lost your way. PS. Disabling everyone’s avatar to silence the detractors is a shit move, devs.
I'm one of those people who bought everything there is on here - sourcebooks and adventures (when I go to the store, I see "CONGRATULATIONS! YOU OWN IT ALL."). I additionally have a Masters-tier annual subscription.
I canceled my subscription. I will not be buying more products.
I will not change my mind until OSL 1.0 is reinforced and OSL 1.1 is scrapped.
Hasbro has shown that they act in bad faith, so I will not be accepting anything that leaves a sour taste on my tongue.
My perspective has changed a bit since I last posted here, so forgive me for sharing my thoughts once again: These leaks are concerning, but we still don't know for sure whether or not they're accurate. I am going to wait a bit more for Wizards of the Coast to either confirm or deny these rumors before deciding how I plan to proceed. At this point, I think it's likely that these rumors are overblown or inaccurate, but it would be a blow below the belt if they are real and correct. Right now, I think patience is key when deciding whether or not you will continue playing this wonderful game.
If the leaks are true, then I would probably stick with D&D. But I'm not 100% sure. Anyways, all of this depends on whether or not the leaks are true.
I think this is a very unlikely an ambitious take as we can now read the full ogl. With the evidence piling up and wizards refusing to say “this is false”… if this isn’t true this is a monumental mistake of theirs not to fix or correct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ever heard the phrase "read the bill"? It applies to politicians voting on something without reading it. I suggest you read the text of the new OGL.
Nailed it! I would also pose the following question:
if the OGL 1.0a was "never intended" to allow competitors, why then did WoTC shift to a GSL in 4e? If they truly had the right to revoke it at will, why did they not do so when 4e or 5e were released to eliminate Paizo's competition?
Unfortunately AscendentBlue, your understanding of the history behind the OGL is faulty. Ryan Dancey (VP of Roleplaying Games at WoTC at the time) said in 2002:
You may wish to read some more of the history posted at opendnd.games within their Media Kit that explains more of the history and why so many 3rd party developers built careers around providing content for this game - content that, at least in 2000, WoTC recognized as being of sufficient value as to warrant providing them a perpetual license to use SRD content in consideration for their willingness to publish under OGL. One of my favorite 3rd Party producers, the Dungeon Coach on Youtube, just posted a video discussing his own personal challenges as a result of WoTC's decision - leaving he and his family potentially without the income they'd counted on less than 6 months after leaving a career in Education.
These 3rd Party publishers aren't monsterous organizations making huge sums of money at WoTC and Hasbro's suffering - these people published derivative works, made from their own imaginations, based upon the promise that WoTC would continue to honor an agreement they'd held to for over 20 years. Now, at their whim, they've decided to try and cancel the "perpetual" agreement and, even worse, claim that the derivative work is now their property.
Just how calm would you be if someone decided, after 20 years, that you could no longer work in your chosen career?
Tell me again how this is "reasonable"?
#OpenDND - opendnd.games
Incorrect, you should look up the original FAQ:
Web.archive.org:
If the previous OGL is revoked, I will no longer be financially supporting Wizards of the Coast products. #opendnd
Oh wow. Never expected my comment to blow up that much. Really not my intention, though looking back I realise I didn't explain myself that well.
And no, I'm not rewriting history or "prostrating myself before Wizards". The point I was trying (badly, as it happens) to make is that the scale of growth in 3rd party content wasn't foreseen back then. WotC certainly didn't predict it 20 years ago and they are now paying the price for their lack of foresight. They probably assumed at the time that the heightened profile from more content being in circulation outweighed any potential loss of future revenue. I'm sure they never expected there to be a number of larger publishers making millions off their IP.
The main point I was trying to make was that from their perspective it is not unreasonable (probably pushed by Hasbro) to attempt to pick up some of that revenue from the larger publishers and reassert some control over their IP. How they appear to be going about that is the issue.
Personally my issues with OGL 1.1 (and yes I have read the leaked doc) relate specifically to WotC attempting to de-authorise the previous versions. Attempting to retrospectively change the terms of the agreement seems at best bad PR and at worst legally unenforceable. It seems to me that engagement and dialogue with WotC is better than everyone running for the lifeboats. After all, it is smaller content creators who are the ones who will take the biggest hit moving to new systems as not all of their customers may necessarily follow such a transition.
I will not financially support Wizards of the Coast if they revoke any previous Open Gaming License.
If any previous Open Gaming License is revoked, I will not spend a dime on any products produced by Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro and encourage my friends and fellow RPG players to do the same. I will stop playing D&D and move to a non-OGL role playing system and encourage my friends and fellow players to also change to a non-OGL role playing system. I respect the right of Wizards of the Coast to operate their company in the marketplace as they see fit, but consumers have a right to choose to do or not to do business with a company.
This is not a practice I support or a company I am willing to support in the future, no matter the outcome of this OGL shitstorm... For me it doesn't even matter If its true or not true... the fact, that someone would write this in the WOTC or HASBRO and thought its a good idea is enough for me to cancel subscription to DnD Beyond and stop buying their printed releases. I will be printing charter sheets for my players going forward, swapping the digital toolset for analog, as I have the main books.
In truth the proposed changes in the ONE DnD are not that revolutionary to entice me spending more money on a new set of rules...
Because of the recent developments I also started looking for other TRPGs out there, first out of curiosity and then I found myself really likening what I have seen. Definitely gonna try some new systems of playing.
Hasbro is precisely as venal and unethical as virtually every other for-profit corporation currently extant and it's their decision that D&D is under-monetized that spurred this particular dumpster fire. Being disgusted by American corporations definitely isn't a new experience, but at least this is one of the times my reaction is easily determined.
If WotC carries through with revoking the original OGL that has been given full faith and credit for decades in order to satisfy corporate greed, I will no longer be a consumer of any new content of theirs in any form or be a customer of any paid services. As I firmly believe that should they follow through with triggering this potential catastrophe there would be a public movement to create a new open system, I would enthusiastically join and support it.
There's no doubt that I will continue role-playing, but it won't be under the scrutiny of WotC's accounting department with their proposed draconian requirements for invasive reporting, allowable content theft, and crippling royalties. I would be ashamed to participate in a system that seized free rein to abuse the creators that have immeasurably enhanced and expanded the D20 world.
Did you guys forget what happened with 4th Ed, I was looking forward to what was next for D&D but apparently the corporate boobs have decided to screw it up once again. My half orc rule on new editions seems to be running 3 for 3.
vary disappointing
Welp... I've just disabled my D&D Beyond Master Tier auto renew, and deleted my revoked my Paypal creds from and deleted MtG Arena client where I'd spent about $1000/year over each of the last 3 years. Guess WotC better up their thievery to 30% from 25%
I've been a D&D Beyond subscriber for a couple years, but never posted in the forums before... never expected it to start this way.
I just don't get it. The internet Archive has full records of what the OGL was created for. The people who created it are on record in blogs, videos, websites, etc. all telling what their original intents were, and it isn't the story that Wizards of the Coast is trying to spin now.
This strikes me as nothing short of completely breaking the faith and spirit the OGL was created for.
While I doubt anybody at Wizards of the Coast will ever read this - if you do, Huzzah.
It's gotta suck to spend your career to watch D&D reach new heights of popularity and engagement, with a huge following and loving community... only to see the entire community turn on you because some ignorant outsider who doesn't know the community came along and forced a few changes... that ended up burning down the whole village. You have my sympathy, for I fear you're powerless to change anything.
But for the data point: I doubt I'll keep my subscription if the OGL 1.1 allegations are true, and they revoke the previous OGL license.
I've already canceled the plan. Not a single gold for this.
I will not financially support Wizards of the Coast if they attempt to revoke any previous OGL. #opendnd
Cancelled my DDB subscription yesterday.
I was on the verge of cancelling anyway due to the complete lack of updates on DDB. No updates of any substance since the introduction of containers back in Feb '22.
WotC greed tipped me over the edge.
#opendnd
I'm cancelling my subscription. I'm on an annual plan, so there's plenty of time for WotC to make a course correction, so sending a signal early is easy.
Losing DnD would have an impact I'm sure, but my players are a clever, empathetic and amazing bunch. They'll understand. As it is, I homebrew most of the monsters, setting and so on myself anyways, so it's not like I need any more content from WotC than what I already have and I could transfer it to another framework entirely if need be.
change your avatar to the OpenDND logo! That way your rebellion will be stamped forever!
"The D&D game has neither losers nor winners, it has only gamers who relish exercising their imagination."- T. Moldvay
My yearly sub will expire this month, and I’ve already cancelled. Good luck with the new OGL, WotC/HASBRO. It’s been real and it’s been fun, but it hasn’t been real fun. You’ve lost your way. PS. Disabling everyone’s avatar to silence the detractors is a shit move, devs.
Looks like they censored the revolt before it started with disabling avatar pics
I'm one of those people who bought everything there is on here - sourcebooks and adventures (when I go to the store, I see "CONGRATULATIONS! YOU OWN IT ALL."). I additionally have a Masters-tier annual subscription.
I canceled my subscription. I will not be buying more products.
I will not change my mind until OSL 1.0 is reinforced and OSL 1.1 is scrapped.
Hasbro has shown that they act in bad faith, so I will not be accepting anything that leaves a sour taste on my tongue.
I think this is a very unlikely an ambitious take as we can now read the full ogl. With the evidence piling up and wizards refusing to say “this is false”… if this isn’t true this is a monumental mistake of theirs not to fix or correct.