You'll have to explain how the OGL 1.0a forces WotC to subsidize their competition, because it actually doesn't.
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
You'll have to explain how the OGL 1.0a forces WotC to subsidize their competition, because it actually doesn't.
Wizard made 1 billion (B) dollars in 2021. Paizo makes 12 million (m) annually. It dwarfs paizo by a multiple of a hundred. Not only are they not subsiding their "competition" but they currently do not have a single competitor. The only true competition is all 3rd party creators combined which is what this move is all about. Thinking about stealing the IP and 25% net revenue of the entire 3rd party ecosystem was too big of a payout for them not to try and take it.
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Well, it's always hard to speak for a community. But let me venture that probably the only change the community will accept from OGL 1.0a is the clarification that it is an irrevocable and perpetual license.
Anything else will hurt WoTC because it will be a betrayal.
Making 1.0a irrevocable will hurt them too. It accomplishes none of the goals they laid out in either press release.
No, what we will accept is ORC. WotC doesn't get to write the license. They need to announce that they will join the other publishers in the process of creating ORC and a commitment to use ORC for the new SRD.
No, OGL 1.0a is fine. All they have to do is make it legally clear that it is perpetual and irrevocable.
Then, if Paizo, Green Ronin, Kobold Press, Chaousium, etc... Want to go ahead with the ORC, great.
"Want to?" They're going to go ahead with ORC anyway. Why wouldn't they? Conversely, why should WotC subsidize their efforts by leaving 1.0a alone?
If ORC takes off, great, WotC will use it too. And if it doesn't, more 3PP will have a reason to use OGL 2.0. In neither case is leaving 1.0a intact the better strategy.
So you claim that WotC are subsidising small creators but you're perfectly fine for them to benefit from the hard work of the little guy?
Anyone else remember when WotC published OA in 3rd edition which used the setting, Rokugan? That was when WotC were truly in synch with the actual goal behind the d20 license. They also gave permission for (I think Necromancer Games) to publish a bunch of monsters that weren't going to be in the Monster Manual but were from the old fiend folio.
At their best WotC and third party creators have been in a symbiotic relationship. If anyone is a parasite in the relationship now, it's not the third party creators.
NFTs: Can be dealt with through trademarks just fine. Plus the golden age of NFT scams is already over. Racism and other forms of bigotry: Adding that to 1.0b would have not been a problem for anybody pretty much assuming the terms would not have been totally being at WotC's whims. Data collection: While having no competition is an easier data collection environment, they are orders of magnitude bigger than the competitors and there is market research. “Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties: Yeah, that probably really mattered, but is missunderstanding the value generation and pretty absurd given the market shares. Plus once more, royalties (in a realistic numbers framework, not 25% gross revenue) would not have exploded the community. Recapturing Lost Revenue: Nobody making money can afford to sign 1.1. It was to destroy all competition. If you want to call is that okay.
But hey, the first longer white knight's comment is better than their PR statement, so gz.
Next time explain the all your IP is exploitable by us without limits and we can change everything without any reasons by giving you 30 days notice.
I didn’t read through all the discussion, but I will agree that the changes in technology alone necessitated a change. I also agree that tapping into the revenue of companies using their IP is justified and that a company that is making excess of 750k should have never been using OGL. They should have either simply created generic content using the rule set, or negotiated a actual license, while I agree 25% of revenue is high, it may be deliberate to encourage those creators to work with a license.
I'm curious. What technology changes do you think forced WotC to rewrite the OGL? Keep in mind that they are already selling NFTs for their own properties and I haven't heard of a single outside entity selling D&D related NFTs.
Also, you realize that it's 25% of gross, correct? That means before expenses like wages, benefits, printing costs, shipping, marketing, etc. Meaning that not one of those companies could operate at anything but a loss. Because 25% off the top very likely means each unit is costing them more to produce than they are receiving after royalties.
And worse yet, the 750k or 25% are all easily changeable with 30 days notice.
Companies that are smaller than the sharks near them in the pond need to know they are not going to be eaten in a legal action. That's what the OGL was for. It gave the third parties an assurance that they were playing by WotC's rules and would not end up in court if they complied. Court actions quickly bleed small companies into bankruptcy. So, operate unprofitably or go bankrupt. I wonder how many companies want to sign up for that?
You'll have to explain how the OGL 1.0a forces WotC to subsidize their competition, because it actually doesn't.
This. A thousand times this.
I think the argument is that, by access to the D&D core rules (and in particular, copyright applicable parts, like spell descriptions and the like), those 3rd party producers, who are competition, actually, even when much lower market share, gain the benefits of WotC's market share without any significant benefits to WotC. It isn't like people are going to buy a 3rd party supplement, then decide later to pick up the core rules. The main market is going to be people with the core rules looking to do something different with them.
Also, the more the text of the core rules is treated as public domain, again, not just the mechanics (not subject to copyright) but the actual text (subject to copyright), then the less incentive there is for people even to buy the core rules themselves.
I've seen multiple lawyers who would disagree with your interpretation of the standard. I can give you references for sources if you like.
You'll have to explain how the OGL 1.0a forces WotC to subsidize their competition, because it actually doesn't.
This. A thousand times this.
I think the argument is that, by access to the D&D core rules (and in particular, copyright applicable parts, like spell descriptions and the like), those 3rd party producers, who are competition, actually, even when much lower market share, gain the benefits of WotC's market share without any significant benefits to WotC. It isn't like people are going to buy a 3rd party supplement, then decide later to pick up the core rules. The main market is going to be people with the core rules looking to do something different with them.
Also, the more the text of the core rules is treated as public domain, again, not just the mechanics (not subject to copyright) but the actual text (subject to copyright), then the less incentive there is for people even to buy the core rules themselves.
This argument would hold more water if we didn't have 23 years of pretty good evidence that the OGL has impacted Wizards' (and Hasbro's) bottom line in the positive. Hell, anecdotally, there's a lot of belief that without the explosion of 3PPs under the OGL 1.0a after 2000 D&D may have never survived. From day 1 the rules were freely available in the SRD to anyone with an internet connection. D&D's market share didn't vanish as verbatim copies of the SRD flooded the market selling for $1 (which was certainly possible and allowed). Their income didn't shrink with piles of unsold core books*. Both of them multiplied with the core books staying consistently on the NY Times best sellers list (to this day!). So your claim that there are 'no significant beneifts to WotC' under the OGL 1.0a is 100% incorrect.
The OGL was not created because Hasbro wanted to be generous and charitable. It was done with a very specific business reason: grow the player base in the cheapest way possible. This meant that, yes, other people would make money on what Hasbro created (the 3e, 3.5, and 5e rule systems). The upside is if people want to play these games that Hasbro isn't making a dime on, they have to buy Player's Handbooks, DM's Guides, and Monster Manuals. To claim now that the OGL gave away the farm or 'subsidizing' the competition is, I think, lacking context and history.
If you're interested this is a REALLY good breakdown from the creator of the original OGL on the business decisions he was pushing in regards to the OGL way back in 1999. It is long but you can also find other parts of it in much smaller clips on youtube as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg
*Well unwanted core books did pile up but that was when they switched to 3.5e and that's another story.
You'll have to explain how the OGL 1.0a forces WotC to subsidize their competition, because it actually doesn't.
This. A thousand times this.
I think the argument is that, by access to the D&D core rules (and in particular, copyright applicable parts, like spell descriptions and the like), those 3rd party producers, who are competition, actually, even when much lower market share, gain the benefits of WotC's market share without any significant benefits to WotC. It isn't like people are going to buy a 3rd party supplement, then decide later to pick up the core rules. The main market is going to be people with the core rules looking to do something different with them.
Also, the more the text of the core rules is treated as public domain, again, not just the mechanics (not subject to copyright) but the actual text (subject to copyright), then the less incentive there is for people even to buy the core rules themselves.
I'm sure your right, that that is the argument eluded to.Yet the fact remains, the rules are not owned by WotC. The rules of any game are de facto public domain. That is the business that Wizards is in, and no one forced them into it. That is why they created the OGL to begin with - because they knew if they alienated the creators, they would become irrelevant. Instead they fostered goodwill and said "hey you guys can use the SRD and call it DnD and we all benefit", which they all did.
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
..., by access to the D&D core rules (and in particular, copyright applicable parts, like spell descriptions and the like), those 3rd party producers, who are competition, actually, even when much lower market share, gain the benefits of WotC's market share without any significant benefits to WotC.
... The rules of any game are de facto public domain. ...
Perhaps, but WotC's specific writing of them and illustrating of them are copyright. That's why there is a suspected issue for alternate virtual tabletop systems that cut and paste sections of text from WotC copyright materials.
..., by access to the D&D core rules (and in particular, copyright applicable parts, like spell descriptions and the like), those 3rd party producers, who are competition, actually, even when much lower market share, gain the benefits of WotC's market share without any significant benefits to WotC.
... The rules of any game are de facto public domain. ...
Perhaps, but WotC's specific writing of them and illustrating of them are copyright. That's why there is a suspected issue for alternate virtual tabletop systems that cut and paste sections of text from WotC copyright materials.
Reprinting anything and everything in the SRD is fair game under OGL 1.0a. That's what the OGL is there to allow. If there is some specific copyright violation beyond what's in the SRD, it has *absolutely nothing* to do with the OGL.
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
..., by access to the D&D core rules (and in particular, copyright applicable parts, like spell descriptions and the like), those 3rd party producers, who are competition, actually, even when much lower market share, gain the benefits of WotC's market share without any significant benefits to WotC.
... The rules of any game are de facto public domain. ...
Perhaps, but WotC's specific writing of them and illustrating of them are copyright. That's why there is a suspected issue for alternate virtual tabletop systems that cut and paste sections of text from WotC copyright materials.
Reprinting anything and everything in the SRD is fair game under OGL 1.0a. That's what the OGL is there to allow. If there is some specific copyright violation beyond what's in the SRD, it has *absolutely nothing* to do with the OGL.
In theory. In reality there is also uncertainties reduced by it, which is not at all irrelevant given that we have a 1.3 Billion dollars corporation on one side and mostly below five people creatives on the other. Because that uncertainty is very far reaching. Nobody really knows where rules end and literature begins with TTRPGs. That is the problem with the whole idea of not needing the OGL in the first place if you'd just... Just what exactly?
You'll have to explain how the OGL 1.0a forces WotC to subsidize their competition, because it actually doesn't.
This. A thousand times this.
I think the argument is that, by access to the D&D core rules (and in particular, copyright applicable parts, like spell descriptions and the like), those 3rd party producers, who are competition, actually, even when much lower market share, gain the benefits of WotC's market share without any significant benefits to WotC. It isn't like people are going to buy a 3rd party supplement, then decide later to pick up the core rules. The main market is going to be people with the core rules looking to do something different with them.
Also, the more the text of the core rules is treated as public domain, again, not just the mechanics (not subject to copyright) but the actual text (subject to copyright), then the less incentive there is for people even to buy the core rules themselves.
I'm sure your right, that that is the argument eluded to.Yet the fact remains, the rules are not owned by WotC. The rules of any game are de facto public domain. That is the business that Wizards is in, and no one forced them into it. That is why they created the OGL to begin with - because they knew if they alienated the creators, they would become irrelevant. Instead they fostered goodwill and said "hey you guys can use the SRD and call it DnD and we all benefit", which they all did.
While it's true that you can't copyright game mechanics, the line between uncopyrightable mechanics and copyrightable expression is blurrier for TTRPGs than any other kind of board game medium. That legal precedent refers to much simpler things like "you can't copyright rolling a dice and then moving a piece that many spaces" from Sorry, or "you can't copyright placing letter tiles on a scoreboard to form words worth corresponding point values" like Scrabble likely wanted to when Words With Friends blew up. Divorcing D&D's mechanics from its expression is the hard part that makes a safe harbor like an OGL inherently valuable, and rebalancing that value proposition to keep up with two decades of industry shifts is WotC's responsibility. (Where they stumbled pretty hard was the execution of that.)
You'll have to explain how the OGL 1.0a forces WotC to subsidize their competition, because it actually doesn't.
This. A thousand times this.
I think the argument is that, by access to the D&D core rules (and in particular, copyright applicable parts, like spell descriptions and the like), those 3rd party producers, who are competition, actually, even when much lower market share, gain the benefits of WotC's market share without any significant benefits to WotC. It isn't like people are going to buy a 3rd party supplement, then decide later to pick up the core rules. The main market is going to be people with the core rules looking to do something different with them.
Also, the more the text of the core rules is treated as public domain, again, not just the mechanics (not subject to copyright) but the actual text (subject to copyright), then the less incentive there is for people even to buy the core rules themselves.
3rd party content is what keeps people from moving on to something else. If WotC isn't producing the things you want, you can look to a third party or another game entirely. How many Critical Role fans would stick with D&D if CR products are published under a different system?? None of them, they'll all transition.
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
The community has spoken though, we do NOT want this.
Sure. Neither do I. I'm just talking about the legalities. Here's the history, The Tolkein estate sued TSR for use of the words dragon, dwarf, elf, ent (which referenced an Old English word for giant), goblin, hobbit, orc (which referenced... the Anglo-Saxon for spectre, or goblin), and warg which they wanted removed from the game. TSR settled out of court giving birth to the halfling, the tree-giant treants and the balur (balrogs). TSR then became "They Sue Regularly" - "T$R". The likes of Mayfair Games' “Role Aids” product included the words “suitable for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons”. The resultant case was settled with Role Aids removing the "suitable for" reference and adding an on cover small print disclaimer. Other lawsuits followed (on other issues) with results including Mayfair Games being forced to sell up for their company to be liquified. TSR sold to wizards, Ryan Dancey (as VP) championed the OGL (though, in context, I'd question whether everyone would have approved), and a new era was born.
On a PDF of the notice page of (a perhaps US edition of) the player's handbook we read: "DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, Wizards of the Coast, Forgotten Realms, the dragon ampersand, Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, Dungeon Master's Guide, all other Wizards of the Coast product names, and their respective logos and trademarks of Wizards of the Coast in the USA and other countries. All characters and their distinctive likenesses are property of Wizards of the Coast. This material is protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. Any reproduction or unauthorised use of the material or artwork contained herein is prohibited without the express written permission of Wizards of the Coast."
The OGL was written as a perpetual licence but, perhaps unfortunately, it wasn't therein described as an irrevocable licence. That's the lawyer's stuff.
If the OGL is made less open, if it is replaced by a gaming licence or if it is plain revoked (if any of these things are possible and if WotC act against public pressure) then we might go back to the days of lawsuits. :(
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
1) OneD&D will have an OGL.
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
They called 1.1 an OGL. If that is fine with you it will have one. If you are talking about an open license that would require quite some movement on WotC's side. What they wrote on Friday, and that was nothing legal, just a press release in which they could just as well have said sorry, never mind without being legally bound, would still not be an open license in any way. Maybe they have not read up on open licenses yet, but that would mean legal malpractise on the part of their lawyers, so I very much doubt it.
OneDnD will only have an open license if the community (maybe with the help of people within WotC that actually care about the game of DnD and not just quarterly figures and investor relations) forces WotC's top management's hands. Some saw it clearly after Cynthia William's "fireside chat", when I still thought that might be perfectly compatible with not changing the landscape by actively killing everybody else, but by offering an attractive product. But 1.1 leaves no doubts about what the plans are at the very top.
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
1) OneD&D will have an OGL.
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
It may call itself an OGL, but what they are proposing is not anything like one. I know you think all those tiny third party publishers are predating on poor WotC's back, but there won't likely be any third party support.
4e's failures were many, and part of it was definitely the GSL and lack of third party publisher support. Only a fraction of the companies that had supported 3.x released anything for 4e. With most opting to support Pathfinder. It was also very unpopular because one had to pay to play the game on a subscription basis because 4e was kind of useless without DDI and all signs show that 6e will be the same.
So far all the "playtest" (it's really more like the marketing before a release from what I have seen), has made many of 5e's problems worse. The power level of the player characters did not need to be increased in any way.
If the OGL is made less open, if it is replaced by a gaming licence or if it is plain revoked (if any of these things are possible and if WotC act against public pressure) then we might go back to the days of lawsuits. :(
For sure that would happen. It would be one giant make-work project for lawyers, as all the energy, creativity, and resources of the the community (including Wizards) gets sucked in fighting over who owns what. That's why Wizards made the OLG(i.e. 1.0a) to begin with, and that's another major way that they've benefited. It's a document of sustained and sustainable peace. OGL 1.1 (or 2.0 or whatever they choose to call it) is the opposite. All of that talk of "recouping lost revenue" is Wizards' ******* lebensraum.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You'll have to explain how the OGL 1.0a forces WotC to subsidize their competition, because it actually doesn't.
“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 SatieWizard made 1 billion (B) dollars in 2021. Paizo makes 12 million (m) annually. It dwarfs paizo by a multiple of a hundred. Not only are they not subsiding their "competition" but they currently do not have a single competitor. The only true competition is all 3rd party creators combined which is what this move is all about. Thinking about stealing the IP and 25% net revenue of the entire 3rd party ecosystem was too big of a payout for them not to try and take it.
"You canceled your subscription on 01/14/2023."
(1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game: Wrong. We are the stewards of the game. You print books.
(2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans: Wrong. The OGL exists to benefit Wizards. 3rd party Creators have made your game what it is today.
So you claim that WotC are subsidising small creators but you're perfectly fine for them to benefit from the hard work of the little guy?
Anyone else remember when WotC published OA in 3rd edition which used the setting, Rokugan? That was when WotC were truly in synch with the actual goal behind the d20 license. They also gave permission for (I think Necromancer Games) to publish a bunch of monsters that weren't going to be in the Monster Manual but were from the old fiend folio.
At their best WotC and third party creators have been in a symbiotic relationship. If anyone is a parasite in the relationship now, it's not the third party creators.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
NFTs: Can be dealt with through trademarks just fine. Plus the golden age of NFT scams is already over.
Racism and other forms of bigotry: Adding that to 1.0b would have not been a problem for anybody pretty much assuming the terms would not have been totally being at WotC's whims.
Data collection: While having no competition is an easier data collection environment, they are orders of magnitude bigger than the competitors and there is market research.
“Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties: Yeah, that probably really mattered, but is missunderstanding the value generation and pretty absurd given the market shares. Plus once more, royalties (in a realistic numbers framework, not 25% gross revenue) would not have exploded the community.
Recapturing Lost Revenue: Nobody making money can afford to sign 1.1. It was to destroy all competition. If you want to call is that okay.
But hey, the first longer white knight's comment is better than their PR statement, so gz.
Next time explain the all your IP is exploitable by us without limits and we can change everything without any reasons by giving you 30 days notice.
This. A thousand times this.
I'm curious. What technology changes do you think forced WotC to rewrite the OGL? Keep in mind that they are already selling NFTs for their own properties and I haven't heard of a single outside entity selling D&D related NFTs.
Also, you realize that it's 25% of gross, correct? That means before expenses like wages, benefits, printing costs, shipping, marketing, etc. Meaning that not one of those companies could operate at anything but a loss. Because 25% off the top very likely means each unit is costing them more to produce than they are receiving after royalties.
And worse yet, the 750k or 25% are all easily changeable with 30 days notice.
Companies that are smaller than the sharks near them in the pond need to know they are not going to be eaten in a legal action. That's what the OGL was for. It gave the third parties an assurance that they were playing by WotC's rules and would not end up in court if they complied. Court actions quickly bleed small companies into bankruptcy. So, operate unprofitably or go bankrupt. I wonder how many companies want to sign up for that?
I've seen multiple lawyers who would disagree with your interpretation of the standard. I can give you references for sources if you like.
This argument would hold more water if we didn't have 23 years of pretty good evidence that the OGL has impacted Wizards' (and Hasbro's) bottom line in the positive. Hell, anecdotally, there's a lot of belief that without the explosion of 3PPs under the OGL 1.0a after 2000 D&D may have never survived. From day 1 the rules were freely available in the SRD to anyone with an internet connection. D&D's market share didn't vanish as verbatim copies of the SRD flooded the market selling for $1 (which was certainly possible and allowed). Their income didn't shrink with piles of unsold core books*. Both of them multiplied with the core books staying consistently on the NY Times best sellers list (to this day!). So your claim that there are 'no significant beneifts to WotC' under the OGL 1.0a is 100% incorrect.
The OGL was not created because Hasbro wanted to be generous and charitable. It was done with a very specific business reason: grow the player base in the cheapest way possible. This meant that, yes, other people would make money on what Hasbro created (the 3e, 3.5, and 5e rule systems). The upside is if people want to play these games that Hasbro isn't making a dime on, they have to buy Player's Handbooks, DM's Guides, and Monster Manuals. To claim now that the OGL gave away the farm or 'subsidizing' the competition is, I think, lacking context and history.
If you're interested this is a REALLY good breakdown from the creator of the original OGL on the business decisions he was pushing in regards to the OGL way back in 1999. It is long but you can also find other parts of it in much smaller clips on youtube as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg
*Well unwanted core books did pile up but that was when they switched to 3.5e and that's another story.
I'm sure your right, that that is the argument eluded to.Yet the fact remains, the rules are not owned by WotC. The rules of any game are de facto public domain. That is the business that Wizards is in, and no one forced them into it. That is why they created the OGL to begin with - because they knew if they alienated the creators, they would become irrelevant. Instead they fostered goodwill and said "hey you guys can use the SRD and call it DnD and we all benefit", which they all did.
“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 SatiePerhaps, but WotC's specific writing of them and illustrating of them are copyright. That's why there is a suspected issue for alternate virtual tabletop systems that cut and paste sections of text from WotC copyright materials.
The community has spoken though, we do NOT want this.
Reprinting anything and everything in the SRD is fair game under OGL 1.0a. That's what the OGL is there to allow. If there is some specific copyright violation beyond what's in the SRD, it has *absolutely nothing* to do with the OGL.
“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 SatieIn theory. In reality there is also uncertainties reduced by it, which is not at all irrelevant given that we have a 1.3 Billion dollars corporation on one side and mostly below five people creatives on the other. Because that uncertainty is very far reaching. Nobody really knows where rules end and literature begins with TTRPGs. That is the problem with the whole idea of not needing the OGL in the first place if you'd just... Just what exactly?
While it's true that you can't copyright game mechanics, the line between uncopyrightable mechanics and copyrightable expression is blurrier for TTRPGs than any other kind of board game medium. That legal precedent refers to much simpler things like "you can't copyright rolling a dice and then moving a piece that many spaces" from Sorry, or "you can't copyright placing letter tiles on a scoreboard to form words worth corresponding point values" like Scrabble likely wanted to when Words With Friends blew up. Divorcing D&D's mechanics from its expression is the hard part that makes a safe harbor like an OGL inherently valuable, and rebalancing that value proposition to keep up with two decades of industry shifts is WotC's responsibility. (Where they stumbled pretty hard was the execution of that.)
3rd party content is what keeps people from moving on to something else. If WotC isn't producing the things you want, you can look to a third party or another game entirely. How many Critical Role fans would stick with D&D if CR products are published under a different system?? None of them, they'll all transition.
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
Sure. Neither do I.
I'm just talking about the legalities.
Here's the history,
The Tolkein estate sued TSR for use of the words dragon, dwarf, elf, ent (which referenced an Old English word for giant), goblin, hobbit, orc (which referenced... the Anglo-Saxon for spectre, or goblin), and warg which they wanted removed from the game. TSR settled out of court giving birth to the halfling, the tree-giant treants and the balur (balrogs).
TSR then became "They Sue Regularly" - "T$R". The likes of Mayfair Games' “Role Aids” product included the words “suitable for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons”. The resultant case was settled with Role Aids removing the "suitable for" reference and adding an on cover small print disclaimer. Other lawsuits followed (on other issues) with results including Mayfair Games being forced to sell up for their company to be liquified.
TSR sold to wizards, Ryan Dancey (as VP) championed the OGL (though, in context, I'd question whether everyone would have approved), and a new era was born.
On a PDF of the notice page of (a perhaps US edition of) the player's handbook we read:
"DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, Wizards of the Coast, Forgotten Realms, the dragon ampersand, Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, Dungeon Master's Guide, all other Wizards of the Coast product names, and their respective logos and trademarks of Wizards of the Coast in the USA and other countries. All characters and their distinctive likenesses are property of Wizards of the Coast. This material is protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. Any reproduction or unauthorised use of the material or artwork contained herein is prohibited without the express written permission of Wizards of the Coast."
The OGL was written as a perpetual licence but, perhaps unfortunately, it wasn't therein described as an irrevocable licence. That's the lawyer's stuff.
If the OGL is made less open, if it is replaced by a gaming licence or if it is plain revoked (if any of these things are possible and if WotC act against public pressure) then we might go back to the days of lawsuits. :(
1) OneD&D will have an OGL.
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
They called 1.1 an OGL. If that is fine with you it will have one. If you are talking about an open license that would require quite some movement on WotC's side. What they wrote on Friday, and that was nothing legal, just a press release in which they could just as well have said sorry, never mind without being legally bound, would still not be an open license in any way. Maybe they have not read up on open licenses yet, but that would mean legal malpractise on the part of their lawyers, so I very much doubt it.
OneDnD will only have an open license if the community (maybe with the help of people within WotC that actually care about the game of DnD and not just quarterly figures and investor relations) forces WotC's top management's hands. Some saw it clearly after Cynthia William's "fireside chat", when I still thought that might be perfectly compatible with not changing the landscape by actively killing everybody else, but by offering an attractive product. But 1.1 leaves no doubts about what the plans are at the very top.
It may call itself an OGL, but what they are proposing is not anything like one. I know you think all those tiny third party publishers are predating on poor WotC's back, but there won't likely be any third party support.
4e's failures were many, and part of it was definitely the GSL and lack of third party publisher support. Only a fraction of the companies that had supported 3.x released anything for 4e. With most opting to support Pathfinder. It was also very unpopular because one had to pay to play the game on a subscription basis because 4e was kind of useless without DDI and all signs show that 6e will be the same.
So far all the "playtest" (it's really more like the marketing before a release from what I have seen), has made many of 5e's problems worse. The power level of the player characters did not need to be increased in any way.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
For sure that would happen. It would be one giant make-work project for lawyers, as all the energy, creativity, and resources of the the community (including Wizards) gets sucked in fighting over who owns what. That's why Wizards made the OLG(i.e. 1.0a) to begin with, and that's another major way that they've benefited. It's a document of sustained and sustainable peace. OGL 1.1 (or 2.0 or whatever they choose to call it) is the opposite. All of that talk of "recouping lost revenue" is Wizards' ******* lebensraum.
“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