Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their logo.
This is incorrect. The OGL does not and never has allowed the use of any of WotC's logos. In fact, it specifically denies the right to claim compatibility.
The use of "Star Frontiers" as a product name and brand relates to other issues completely unrelated to the OGL, primarily an expired trademark that WotC decided not renew, I believe. But either way, it is currently part of a lawsuit which is, again, completely and utterly unrelated to the OGL.
I should have written “brand” not “logo” and will correct that error. What the OGL does require, however, is various disclosures that clearly tie the OGL product to Wizards—even if there is not Wizards’ logo, there are Wizards’ fingerprints all over any OGL content, enough that racist content published under the OGL can and would cause problems for Wizards.
As for Star Frontiers, as acknowledged it is not covered by the OGL. However, that lawsuit is all but certainly at the forefront of Wizards’ mind - their lawyers are all but certainly telling them “so, you dodged a bullet this time, but next time, if this was under the OGL, we would have problems - we need to update that.” I know that is what I would say if I were their attorney.
What "various disclosures"? The section 15 mention at the very end of a big block of legalese that is usually on the last page of a book in small print? I'm not sure the level of association between OGL products and WotC's brand is enough to force WotC to need to make this change.
Moving against bigotry is good, but the level of association between OGL products and Wizards of the Coast itself is intentionally distant enough that to claim their brand is harmed so that they need to update the OGL just does not hold. In over 20 years of products, the best example you came up with isn't even an OGL issue. Bigoted products are bad and should be shunned. However, the level of impact on WotC's own brand is so trivial or even nonexistent that taking legal steps to prevent it is wholly unnecessary (and likely useless anyway given the "mechanics can't be copyrighted" approach).
Aside from the possible trademark infringement of Star Frontiers, there has not been a notable case in 20 years of a bigoted or problematic product being directly associated with WotC since the Book of Erotic Fantasy in 2003, and that was because it used the d20 logo which was permissible under a different license. (Also that was not even an issue of bigotry but of graphic sexual content.) In all that time, there hasn't been any noticeable issues that I am aware with negative brand association until Star Frontiers. So, reason two is wholly unnecessary as well as an inappropriate and ineffective "fix" to the problem. There are effective ways WotC and the community can and should progress on this issue, but altering the OGL is not one of them.
In the real world, of course, it doesn’t matter what size the disclosure is - if it is printed in the back of the book in small font or at the front in all bold, that’s still a tacit acknowledgment the content was created under authority granted by Wizards. You might not see that as a significant connection - but you can rest assured their lawyers do. And for good reason - gaming journalism is pretty darn bad (see how many sites are burying the lead on the fact they don’t actually know what this leaked draft might be or what stage of the drafting process it came from) and “Wizards is still not doing enough to stop racism - look at this product released under the rights they gave to racists!” is some bad PR.
As a player, I would love to say that folks would not care and would place the blame on others. As an attorney who lives in the real world, one very public PR issue would force me to reevaluate what comes next - and reevaluate whether giving bigoted content the shield of OGL they could try to use to publish bigotry with the client’s finger princess and to complicate the court process was a good idea.
Just to be clear, "Freedom of Speech" itself is a term that pertains to rights of speech that concern all citizens of this planet - not just Americans, not just with regards to the US government.
What you are referencing is called the "1st Amendment to the US Constitution". In this context, Slaughter is instead refers to Wizard's plain intent in the new OGL to assert control (i.e. censor) whatever game community-created content the OGL covers that they deem "offensive", which is very much a "Freedom of Speech" issue for gamers and creators everywhere in the world.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Just to be clear, "Freedom of Speech" itself is a term that pertains to rights of speech that concern all citizens of this planet - not just Americans, not just with regards to the US government.
What you are referencing is called the "1st Amendment to the US Constitution". In this context, Slaughter is instead refers to Wizard's plain intent in the new OGL to assert control (i.e. censor) whatever game community-created content the OGL covers that they deem "offensive", which is very much a "Freedom of Speech" issue for gamers and creators everywhere in the world.
This position is likewise a bad argument - it ignores that Wizards has freedom of speech rights as well, and their right to decree that their intellectual property not be associated with bigotry is superior to that of content creators who want to use Wizards’ speech as a springboard for their own.
As is often the case, this type of argument is less about “freedom of speech” as an esoteric concept, and more about “I want to be free to communicate hate speech, and to heck with the free speech rights of those who tell me I cannot.”
Regarding Freedom of Speech: Unless you contend that Wizards of the Coast is an arm of the United States government (or another government with similar freedom of speech protections in their country) that argument is completely inapplicable. If you do not know why that argument is inapplicable, I suggest you take a basic civics class, since you fundamentally do not understand the First Amendment.
That is incorrect (and more than a little patronising, I might add).
From the ACLU: Censorship - the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
Freedom of speech is not synonymous with the US constitution, or any government's constitution, thought these documents may mention speech rights. Your argument is a straw man. Slaughter did not mention constitutionality. He is not making a making a legal argument. He is clearly talking about rights in the moral sense, and his use of the to "Freedom of Speech" is entirely valid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I feel like this post is misunderstanding what the OGL is and isn't. All the things the OP mentions are not reasons to change the OGL, they're reasons to be very careful about what you actually release under the OGL.
The OGL is not D&D. Rather, certain parts of D&D (the SRD) have been released under the OGL. If you don't want them used openly... don't release them.
The OGL (section 7) already gives the ability to prevent brand problems, because it explicitly does not cover trademarks. It's entirely possible under the existing OGL to prevent 'D&D' NFTs/etc, because 'D&D' is a trademark that isn't released under the OGL in the first place. Of course, this applies somewhat in the other direction as well: the OGL even in 1.0a doesn't protect you if you try to claim D&D compatibility.
Just to be clear, "Freedom of Speech" itself is a term that pertains to rights of speech that concern all citizens of this planet - not just Americans, not just with regards to the US government.
What you are referencing is called the "1st Amendment to the US Constitution". In this context, Slaughter is instead refers to Wizard's plain intent in the new OGL to assert control (i.e. censor) whatever game community-created content the OGL covers that they deem "offensive", which is very much a "Freedom of Speech" issue for gamers and creators everywhere in the world.
This position is likewise a bad argument - it ignores that Wizards has freedom of speech rights as well, and their right to decree that their intellectual property not be associated with bigotry is superior to that of content creators who want to use Wizards’ speech as a springboard for their own.
As is often the case, this type of argument is less about “freedom of speech” as an esoteric concept, and more about “I want to be free to communicate hate speech, and to heck with the free speech rights of those who tell me I cannot.”
"Wizards" is not a person. It does not have moral rights, only legal ones. Furthermore, what exactly is the "right to decree that [one's] intellectual property not be associated with bigotry"? Did you just made that up? I've never heard of such a thing before. It certainly doesn't roll off the tongue. It's also incredibly nebulous. "Associated"? That could mean practically anything.
And since when is morality an "esoteric concept"? And why do you state all those assumptions about people's unstated intent, and assume that this actually constitutes a valid argument instead of mere Ad Hominem? I don't know what he intends to do and neither do you, and it just isn't relevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
It's definitely hurt my trust in WotC. I mean in their original FAQ they specifically stated that earlier versions would always be available. They also had an FAQ about software and how to use it in that. This leaked version has definitely violated the spirit and the intent of the OGL.
It's baffling to see anyone defending their position.No one would, I imagine, object if WotC decided to revive the more restrictive d20 license as they had in 3rd edition, which was quite successful. That did have rights for WotC to review and terminate the license and did ask people to register. It even had restrictions that nothing published under the d20 license could be "an interactive game".
If updating the OGL is about protecting WotC, then they'd do that. If it's about hurting 3rd party publishers and the hobby in general, they'll continue with the leaked OGL.
Looking at all of this, one thing everybody can agree on is, that a move like this to the OGL (true or not) will absolutely split the fan base. Either way, the shareholders are not going to like this...
There's nothing about this that is really in keeping with the OGL. We might as refer to it as the rebirth of the Game System License which was massively unpopular, but its terms weren't nearly as bad as this.
This almost confirms that the leak was not intentional. The bad press from this is astonishingly harmful for WotC and Hasbro. In fact the OP is the one and only person on the entire internet who is defending, even in a roundabout way, WotC in this mess. I agree with everything OP said btw, but at some point the actual OGL 1.1 will come out and it might be much worse than I (and probably the OP) hope it is. I honestly think that hard-core gamers who even know this is happening are just a fraction of WotCs consumers, at this point most are pure casuals, DMs included. If the entire hard core community switches to something else (but not Pathfinder, by the leak they are in deep trouble), there will still be a player and customer base for WotC to not go under. Sure, they will take a massive blow in PR and it might take a year or two to recover, but unless Hasbro shuts them down for this failure (an unsound business move) WotC will stay in business.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I will not financially support Wizards of the Coast if they attempt to revoke any previous OGL. #opendnd
My fear is still that this was a deliberate plan to leak a terrible version, so they can release a slightly less bad version and we'll all be "grateful".
Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act states: “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”
"Copyright does not protect the idea for game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form."
So, the rules of D&D can't be protected, only the specific wording used to describe lore, spells, classes, etc ... If you don't use their wording to describe an action that a warrior can take, or spell names or descriptions that are their original IP you're good. You could publish a book detailing new spells, spell effects, subclasses, etc... and mention that it is compatible with 'version 6 of the largest TTRPG' and you're good without the OGL. Just don't accidentally say Dungeons and Dragons (trademarked) or Fizban (copyright) or something they can copyright or trademark.
Hasbro / WotC's silence on this has been deafening. The damage being done to their reputation, and the speed at which any goodwill toward the company has dried up should be a stark reminder to them that fanbases can and will stop buying products from a company that antagonizes them.
It happened several years ago with a certain miniature Wargame from England that is Hammer-related. The company was actively hostile to the community, and the community abandoned the company, which had to take substantial steps to bring people back into the fold.
Hasbro/WotC have the added issue of having some very popular IPs that use their products who don't really NEED them any longer. If you look at those nerdy voice actors playing Dungeons and Dragons on Thursdays, they've brought a TON of people into the hobby...it wouldn't be a stretch to think they might decide to create their own system and forge off on their own once they wrap their third campaign...and if they leave DnD behind, it's a much larger issue for Hasbro/WotC than it is for the nerdy voice actors. Those critters will follow them to whatever they do.
Just to be clear, "Freedom of Speech" itself is a term that pertains to rights of speech that concern all citizens of this planet - not just Americans, not just with regards to the US government.
What you are referencing is called the "1st Amendment to the US Constitution". In this context, Slaughter is instead refers to Wizard's plain intent in the new OGL to assert control (i.e. censor) whatever game community-created content the OGL covers that they deem "offensive", which is very much a "Freedom of Speech" issue for gamers and creators everywhere in the world.
This position is likewise a bad argument - it ignores that Wizards has freedom of speech rights as well, and their right to decree that their intellectual property not be associated with bigotry is superior to that of content creators who want to use Wizards’ speech as a springboard for their own.
As is often the case, this type of argument is less about “freedom of speech” as an esoteric concept, and more about “I want to be free to communicate hate speech, and to heck with the free speech rights of those who tell me I cannot.”
"Wizards" is not a person. It does not have moral rights, only legal ones. Furthermore, what exactly is the "right to decree that [one's] intellectual property not be associated with bigotry"? Did you just made that up? I've never heard of such a thing before. It certainly doesn't roll off the tongue. It's also incredibly nebulous. "Associated"? That could mean practically anything.
And since when is morality an "esoteric concept"? And why do you state all those assumptions about people's unstated intent, and assume that this actually constitutes a valid argument instead of mere Ad Hominem? I don't know what he intends to do and neither do you, and it just isn't relevant.
Did we learn nothing from Mitt Romney? Corporations are people. At least in a legal sense. Not every legal sense, but US corporations do have US first amendment rights.
And moral rights are a defined legal term in parts of the world. As I understand it, they give a content creator limited control even after they sell their product. Like, moral rights would allow George Lucas to tell Disney they can’t do certain things with his characters. In the US, we don’t have have such a concept. But since this will apply to creators in countries with a legal doctrine of moral rights, they include the term to get ahead of cases outside the US.
Re: Reason 1, NFTs, I think you may be incorrect about Hasbro's motives.
OGL 1.1 doesn't contain provisions to prevent the use of NFTs in D&D. It contains provisions to block third parties from minting them. Hasbro has already expressed interest in using NFTs to further monetize numerous product lines including MTG, Transformers, and D&D: https://www.gamebyte.com/hasbro-considering-nfts-for-magic-the-gathering-dd-transformers/
Ecological disater, predatory bubble, yadda yadda yadda—those aren't their concerns. They'd be happy to have D&D NTFs; they just want to be the only entity allowed to mint them.
Re, Reason 2, there may be some relevant history you're not aware of.
At the same time they released the OGL, they also released the d20STL to protect the d20 system trademarks. And their other trademarks remain protected by other standard protections. You say that they've just been "lucky," but that's actually not it at all. There's already content running on OGL rules that Wizards doesn't like, but the publishers of that content can't use the d20 trademarks. We're talking about graphic sexual content, extreme gore, bigotry, sexual violence—just all of the trigger warnings. And, apparently, the distancing provided by the d20STL protects their brand well enough that you're able to operate under the assumption that nobody has ever published anything gross using OGL content. I'd say that's going pretty well for them!
Reasons 3-5 all just boil down to "Hasbro/Wizards wants more money, though." I don't doubt that, but it hardly seems like an imperative for the gaming community. Indeed, given that Wizards made $1.3 billion in 2021 with the OGL intact, it seems like they're doing a pretty vigorous business without any of the changes they're now trying to make.
I find this to be a bit of a strange thread. I am curious what your intensions were when you created it Caerwyn. Perhaps you were simply attempting to provide a view contrary to what we see in most discourse on the subject. Perhaps you believe very firmly in supporting Wizards of the Coast as an avid fan and supporter. Perhaps you actually work for the company and are attempting to perform some support role under the guise of being unrelated to them. Regardless of the motivation behind your post I would like to put a few thoughts out, even though I am certain no one will care what I have to say and if read this likely falls on deaf ears.
To begin, I agree that WOTC should indeed put out and update to the 1.0a OGL. This update should cover those topics that are concerning from a brand harm perspective. Protecting us all from D&D NFTs is not a bad plan, and yes this could cover other types of media, though this should be handled very carefully as not to alienate those supporting and engaging positively with the brand.
Keeping harmful language, imagery, etc. separate from their brand is also important to maintaining that brand as well as keeping potentially negatively impacted segments of the community away from hurtful materials. Again, this needs to be handled carefully though as there is a difference between keeping away hate speech and removing creativity (though the two should never be anywhere near each other in my mind)
As for data, to be honest quite a bit exists. While it is not readily available with zero effort to WOTC, much can be gathered and if solid relationships are created with platforms agreements can be made to acquire this data in a way that does not negatively impact either party. Yes this does require work from WOTC.
When we get to the final points here there is far more to consider than what you initially wrote. Let's talk about third party sales and lost revenue. To start off, without the OGL 1.0(a) written as is it is quite unlikely that the vast majority of these third party books, games, shows, etc. would have ever come to be. If they weren't created they would have not been sold and no revenue would have been generated. What I am getting at is that this is not revenue that would have been earned by WOTC if the OGL as written didn't exist because none of it would have been created in the first place.
Perhaps we should quickly entertain the idea that if these third parties didn't exist the money spent on them would have been spent on WOTC products. Now while I have no ability to view a version of the world in which the OGL 1.0(a) was never created, we can come to some conclusion based on what we do know has happened. The increase in popularity of D&D, and thus is sales, can be directly tied to the exposure that has come from many OGL projects. The sales that WOTC has seen are directly tied to the media profile the brand has due to projects made using the OGL like Critical Role, Stranger Things and even small ventures like Solasta. Without these funnels driving love of the D&D brand fewer people would have been interested in playing the game and thus buying products. So no, this part of the OGL would only serve in hurting their brand and likely revenue, not protecting it.
Honestly I have a feeling almost everyone (except Hasbro) would be fine with the CGL 1.1 if they just removed the line about previous versions of the OGL no longer being authorized. Then WotC can have their CGL 1.1 for D&D 6e, and anyone who doesn't want to sign on can keep making content for previous editions and games based on 1.0(a).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Honestly I have a feeling almost everyone (except Hasbro) would be fine with the CGL 1.1 if they just removed the line about previous versions of the OGL no longer being authorized. Then WotC can have their CGL 1.1 for D&D 6e, and anyone who doesn't want to sign on can keep making content for previous editions and games based on 1.0(a).
Eh... the problem is that people will just not use it in that case. Wizards has a choice: if they want people to actually use OGL 1.1, they either have to make it sufficiently appealing that people will choose to switch over (they can still get something out of this, current edition compatibility has non-zero value, though trying to make One D&D backwards compatible is contradictory to that goal), or they have to invalidate the old ones.
Honestly I have a feeling almost everyone (except Hasbro) would be fine with the CGL 1.1 if they just removed the line about previous versions of the OGL no longer being authorized. Then WotC can have their CGL 1.1 for D&D 6e, and anyone who doesn't want to sign on can keep making content for previous editions and games based on 1.0(a).
Eh... the problem is that people will just not use it in that case. Wizards has a choice: if they want people to actually use OGL 1.1, they either have to make it sufficiently appealing that people will choose to switch over (they can still get something out of this, current edition compatibility has non-zero value, though trying to make One D&D backwards compatible is contradictory to that goal), or they have to invalidate the old ones.
They they better hope 6e is so freaking amazing that everyone will need to play it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In the real world, of course, it doesn’t matter what size the disclosure is - if it is printed in the back of the book in small font or at the front in all bold, that’s still a tacit acknowledgment the content was created under authority granted by Wizards. You might not see that as a significant connection - but you can rest assured their lawyers do. And for good reason - gaming journalism is pretty darn bad (see how many sites are burying the lead on the fact they don’t actually know what this leaked draft might be or what stage of the drafting process it came from) and “Wizards is still not doing enough to stop racism - look at this product released under the rights they gave to racists!” is some bad PR.
As a player, I would love to say that folks would not care and would place the blame on others. As an attorney who lives in the real world, one very public PR issue would force me to reevaluate what comes next - and reevaluate whether giving bigoted content the shield of OGL they could try to use to publish bigotry with the client’s finger princess and to complicate the court process was a good idea.
Just to be clear, "Freedom of Speech" itself is a term that pertains to rights of speech that concern all citizens of this planet - not just Americans, not just with regards to the US government.
What you are referencing is called the "1st Amendment to the US Constitution". In this context, Slaughter is instead refers to Wizard's plain intent in the new OGL to assert control (i.e. censor) whatever game community-created content the OGL covers that they deem "offensive", which is very much a "Freedom of Speech" issue for gamers and creators everywhere in the world.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
This position is likewise a bad argument - it ignores that Wizards has freedom of speech rights as well, and their right to decree that their intellectual property not be associated with bigotry is superior to that of content creators who want to use Wizards’ speech as a springboard for their own.
As is often the case, this type of argument is less about “freedom of speech” as an esoteric concept, and more about “I want to be free to communicate hate speech, and to heck with the free speech rights of those who tell me I cannot.”
That is incorrect (and more than a little patronising, I might add).
From the ACLU: Censorship - the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
Freedom of speech is not synonymous with the US constitution, or any government's constitution, thought these documents may mention speech rights. Your argument is a straw man. Slaughter did not mention constitutionality. He is not making a making a legal argument. He is clearly talking about rights in the moral sense, and his use of the to "Freedom of Speech" is entirely valid.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I feel like this post is misunderstanding what the OGL is and isn't. All the things the OP mentions are not reasons to change the OGL, they're reasons to be very careful about what you actually release under the OGL.
The OGL is not D&D. Rather, certain parts of D&D (the SRD) have been released under the OGL. If you don't want them used openly... don't release them.
The OGL (section 7) already gives the ability to prevent brand problems, because it explicitly does not cover trademarks. It's entirely possible under the existing OGL to prevent 'D&D' NFTs/etc, because 'D&D' is a trademark that isn't released under the OGL in the first place. Of course, this applies somewhat in the other direction as well: the OGL even in 1.0a doesn't protect you if you try to claim D&D compatibility.
"Wizards" is not a person. It does not have moral rights, only legal ones. Furthermore, what exactly is the "right to decree that [one's] intellectual property not be associated with bigotry"? Did you just made that up? I've never heard of such a thing before. It certainly doesn't roll off the tongue. It's also incredibly nebulous. "Associated"? That could mean practically anything.
And since when is morality an "esoteric concept"? And why do you state all those assumptions about people's unstated intent, and assume that this actually constitutes a valid argument instead of mere Ad Hominem? I don't know what he intends to do and neither do you, and it just isn't relevant.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
It's definitely hurt my trust in WotC. I mean in their original FAQ they specifically stated that earlier versions would always be available. They also had an FAQ about software and how to use it in that. This leaked version has definitely violated the spirit and the intent of the OGL.
It's baffling to see anyone defending their position.No one would, I imagine, object if WotC decided to revive the more restrictive d20 license as they had in 3rd edition, which was quite successful. That did have rights for WotC to review and terminate the license and did ask people to register. It even had restrictions that nothing published under the d20 license could be "an interactive game".
If updating the OGL is about protecting WotC, then they'd do that. If it's about hurting 3rd party publishers and the hobby in general, they'll continue with the leaked OGL.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Looking at all of this, one thing everybody can agree on is, that a move like this to the OGL (true or not) will absolutely split the fan base. Either way, the shareholders are not going to like this...
"When heroes fall, legends are born." - Aeon, the Awesome
There's nothing about this that is really in keeping with the OGL. We might as refer to it as the rebirth of the Game System License which was massively unpopular, but its terms weren't nearly as bad as this.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
This almost confirms that the leak was not intentional. The bad press from this is astonishingly harmful for WotC and Hasbro. In fact the OP is the one and only person on the entire internet who is defending, even in a roundabout way, WotC in this mess. I agree with everything OP said btw, but at some point the actual OGL 1.1 will come out and it might be much worse than I (and probably the OP) hope it is. I honestly think that hard-core gamers who even know this is happening are just a fraction of WotCs consumers, at this point most are pure casuals, DMs included. If the entire hard core community switches to something else (but not Pathfinder, by the leak they are in deep trouble), there will still be a player and customer base for WotC to not go under. Sure, they will take a massive blow in PR and it might take a year or two to recover, but unless Hasbro shuts them down for this failure (an unsound business move) WotC will stay in business.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I will not financially support Wizards of the Coast if they attempt to revoke any previous OGL. #opendnd
My fear is still that this was a deliberate plan to leak a terrible version, so they can release a slightly less bad version and we'll all be "grateful".
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Relevant column: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2014-15/march-april/its_how_you_play_game_why_videogame_rules_are_not_expression_protected_copyright_law
Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act states: “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”
"Copyright does not protect the idea for game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form."
So, the rules of D&D can't be protected, only the specific wording used to describe lore, spells, classes, etc ... If you don't use their wording to describe an action that a warrior can take, or spell names or descriptions that are their original IP you're good. You could publish a book detailing new spells, spell effects, subclasses, etc... and mention that it is compatible with 'version 6 of the largest TTRPG' and you're good without the OGL. Just don't accidentally say Dungeons and Dragons (trademarked) or Fizban (copyright) or something they can copyright or trademark.
Hasbro / WotC's silence on this has been deafening. The damage being done to their reputation, and the speed at which any goodwill toward the company has dried up should be a stark reminder to them that fanbases can and will stop buying products from a company that antagonizes them.
It happened several years ago with a certain miniature Wargame from England that is Hammer-related. The company was actively hostile to the community, and the community abandoned the company, which had to take substantial steps to bring people back into the fold.
Hasbro/WotC have the added issue of having some very popular IPs that use their products who don't really NEED them any longer. If you look at those nerdy voice actors playing Dungeons and Dragons on Thursdays, they've brought a TON of people into the hobby...it wouldn't be a stretch to think they might decide to create their own system and forge off on their own once they wrap their third campaign...and if they leave DnD behind, it's a much larger issue for Hasbro/WotC than it is for the nerdy voice actors. Those critters will follow them to whatever they do.
Did we learn nothing from Mitt Romney? Corporations are people. At least in a legal sense. Not every legal sense, but US corporations do have US first amendment rights.
And moral rights are a defined legal term in parts of the world. As I understand it, they give a content creator limited control even after they sell their product. Like, moral rights would allow George Lucas to tell Disney they can’t do certain things with his characters. In the US, we don’t have have such a concept. But since this will apply to creators in countries with a legal doctrine of moral rights, they include the term to get ahead of cases outside the US.
Re: Reason 1, NFTs, I think you may be incorrect about Hasbro's motives.
OGL 1.1 doesn't contain provisions to prevent the use of NFTs in D&D. It contains provisions to block third parties from minting them. Hasbro has already expressed interest in using NFTs to further monetize numerous product lines including MTG, Transformers, and D&D: https://www.gamebyte.com/hasbro-considering-nfts-for-magic-the-gathering-dd-transformers/
Ecological disater, predatory bubble, yadda yadda yadda—those aren't their concerns. They'd be happy to have D&D NTFs; they just want to be the only entity allowed to mint them.
Re, Reason 2, there may be some relevant history you're not aware of.
At the same time they released the OGL, they also released the d20STL to protect the d20 system trademarks. And their other trademarks remain protected by other standard protections. You say that they've just been "lucky," but that's actually not it at all. There's already content running on OGL rules that Wizards doesn't like, but the publishers of that content can't use the d20 trademarks. We're talking about graphic sexual content, extreme gore, bigotry, sexual violence—just all of the trigger warnings. And, apparently, the distancing provided by the d20STL protects their brand well enough that you're able to operate under the assumption that nobody has ever published anything gross using OGL content. I'd say that's going pretty well for them!
Reasons 3-5 all just boil down to "Hasbro/Wizards wants more money, though." I don't doubt that, but it hardly seems like an imperative for the gaming community. Indeed, given that Wizards made $1.3 billion in 2021 with the OGL intact, it seems like they're doing a pretty vigorous business without any of the changes they're now trying to make.
I find this to be a bit of a strange thread. I am curious what your intensions were when you created it Caerwyn. Perhaps you were simply attempting to provide a view contrary to what we see in most discourse on the subject. Perhaps you believe very firmly in supporting Wizards of the Coast as an avid fan and supporter. Perhaps you actually work for the company and are attempting to perform some support role under the guise of being unrelated to them. Regardless of the motivation behind your post I would like to put a few thoughts out, even though I am certain no one will care what I have to say and if read this likely falls on deaf ears.
To begin, I agree that WOTC should indeed put out and update to the 1.0a OGL. This update should cover those topics that are concerning from a brand harm perspective. Protecting us all from D&D NFTs is not a bad plan, and yes this could cover other types of media, though this should be handled very carefully as not to alienate those supporting and engaging positively with the brand.
Keeping harmful language, imagery, etc. separate from their brand is also important to maintaining that brand as well as keeping potentially negatively impacted segments of the community away from hurtful materials. Again, this needs to be handled carefully though as there is a difference between keeping away hate speech and removing creativity (though the two should never be anywhere near each other in my mind)
As for data, to be honest quite a bit exists. While it is not readily available with zero effort to WOTC, much can be gathered and if solid relationships are created with platforms agreements can be made to acquire this data in a way that does not negatively impact either party. Yes this does require work from WOTC.
When we get to the final points here there is far more to consider than what you initially wrote. Let's talk about third party sales and lost revenue. To start off, without the OGL 1.0(a) written as is it is quite unlikely that the vast majority of these third party books, games, shows, etc. would have ever come to be. If they weren't created they would have not been sold and no revenue would have been generated. What I am getting at is that this is not revenue that would have been earned by WOTC if the OGL as written didn't exist because none of it would have been created in the first place.
Perhaps we should quickly entertain the idea that if these third parties didn't exist the money spent on them would have been spent on WOTC products. Now while I have no ability to view a version of the world in which the OGL 1.0(a) was never created, we can come to some conclusion based on what we do know has happened. The increase in popularity of D&D, and thus is sales, can be directly tied to the exposure that has come from many OGL projects. The sales that WOTC has seen are directly tied to the media profile the brand has due to projects made using the OGL like Critical Role, Stranger Things and even small ventures like Solasta. Without these funnels driving love of the D&D brand fewer people would have been interested in playing the game and thus buying products. So no, this part of the OGL would only serve in hurting their brand and likely revenue, not protecting it.
Honestly I have a feeling almost everyone (except Hasbro) would be fine with the CGL 1.1 if they just removed the line about previous versions of the OGL no longer being authorized. Then WotC can have their CGL 1.1 for D&D 6e, and anyone who doesn't want to sign on can keep making content for previous editions and games based on 1.0(a).
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Eh... the problem is that people will just not use it in that case. Wizards has a choice: if they want people to actually use OGL 1.1, they either have to make it sufficiently appealing that people will choose to switch over (they can still get something out of this, current edition compatibility has non-zero value, though trying to make One D&D backwards compatible is contradictory to that goal), or they have to invalidate the old ones.
They they better hope 6e is so freaking amazing that everyone will need to play it
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?