Reasons One and Two: They could have added stipulations about these issues without making the changes they are pushing, which have almost nothing to do with the stated issues.
Reason Three: Personally, I think you are naïve if you believe this. I also think you are placing the cart before the horse. Phenomena like Critical Role paved the way. The pandemic simply super charged that growth. But it began outside of Hasbro. The OGL has been a positive in that it helped them capture market share even when their own products were substandard. Look at recent releases for examples. Monsters of the Multiverse might be an exception, but most the the recent stuff has been sub-par while the third party community kept consumers focused on 5e, rather than moving to other systems.
Reason Four: Copyright law would prevent this. No one under OGL can reproduce any of WotC's non- SRD materials. Since WotC gives SRD away for free, there is no potential for lost revenue.
Reason Five: Revenue comes from good products. If Hasbro wants more money, that might be a good place to start. Invest in your business instead of trying to destroy your competitors. Most companies who take the approach you advocate see their products lag and eventually lose massive market share.
Maybe WoTC is seeing a decline in new introduction purchases post-pandemic. Smart actions would be to ensure there is a growing market for the main source books (PHB, DMG, MM) which will come not just from WoTC products but from others. Demanding some form of control over them, in the form of censorship ("moderation") or monetization (which limits who does it) will not improve the marketplace for it. The world of TTRPG is reminding me again of the 80's post AD&D launch, where every idea became a new RPG (I still own, somewhere, the James Bond Role-Playing Game, along with a few others besides Gamma World). I feel they want a cut of those that seem to be built on the D&D model instead of promoting themselves as the starting point/star of it all.
But you are right on 1 & 4, small changes and enforcement are the solutions - OGL 1.1 (or 1.1.1) don't seem to do it outside of using a sledgehammer. #2 is fraught with issues and #3 is just looking for ways to drive #5. It's not necessary unless you just want 100% control over it all - nothing done without a "seal of approval" (aka a WoTC tax stamp).
Reasons One and Two: They could have added stipulations about these issues without making the changes they are pushing, which have almost nothing to do with the stated issues.
Reason Three: Personally, I think you are naïve if you believe this. I also think you are placing the cart before the horse. Phenomena like Critical Role paved the way. The pandemic simply super charged that growth. But it began outside of Hasbro. The OGL has been a positive in that it helped them capture market share even when their own products were substandard. Look at recent releases for examples. Monsters of the Multiverse might be an exception, but most the the recent stuff has been sub-par while the third party community kept consumers focused on 5e, rather than moving to other systems.
Reason Four: Copyright law would prevent this. No one under OGL can reproduce any of WotC's non- SRD materials. Since WotC gives SRD away for free, there is no potential for lost revenue.
Reason Five: Revenue comes from good products. If Hasbro wants more money, that might be a good place to start. Invest in your business instead of trying to destroy your competitors. Most companies who take the approach you advocate see their products lag and eventually lose massive market share.
Maybe WoTC is seeing a decline in new introduction purchases post-pandemic. Smart actions would be to ensure there is a growing market for the main source books (PHB, DMG, MM) which will come not just from WoTC products but from others. Demanding some form of control over them, in the form of censorship ("moderation") or monetization (which limits who does it) will not improve the marketplace for it. The world of TTRPG is reminding me again of the 80's post AD&D launch, where every idea became a new RPG (I still own, somewhere, the James Bond Role-Playing Game, along with a few others besides Gamma World). I feel they want a cut of those that seem to be built on the D&D model instead of promoting themselves as the starting point/star of it all.
But you are right on 1 & 4, small changes and enforcement are the solutions - OGL 1.1 (or 1.1.1) don't seem to do it outside of using a sledgehammer. #2 is fraught with issues and #3 is just looking for ways to drive #5. It's not necessary unless you just want 100% control over it all - nothing done without a "seal of approval" (aka a WoTC tax stamp).
Honestly, the smartest play by wizards would have been to bring on more people from the third party so that they can have a wider variety of content.
Because that's what D&D needs more of then anything else; if they decide to put out a module that doesn't jive with your party for whatever reason and no one wants to make a home brew groups are basically stuck for 6 months to a year.
"I refuse to give Hasbrozards any more money until Hasbrozards prostrates themselves, wallows in shit, eats the shit, and blubbers like a baby for forgiveness after firing every single person in the company from the CEO down to the part-time janitor" is not a realistic stance to take. If you are dead-set on opposing the company until they bawl like a berated schoolgirl for forgiveness, then you are effectively beyond the reach of this issue and have decided to no longer be a customer. You're more than welcome to so decide, but let's stop pretending that's a reasonable ask. It's not, it never was, and it's tarnishing the very real progress we otherwise made today.
"I refuse to give Hasbrozards any more money until Hasbrozards prostrates themselves, wallows in shit, eats the shit, and blubbers like a baby for forgiveness after firing every single person in the company from the CEO down to the part-time janitor" is not a realistic stance to take. If you are dead-set on opposing the company until they bawl like a berated schoolgirl for forgiveness, then you are effectively beyond the reach of this issue and have decided to no longer be a customer. You're more than welcome to so decide, but let's stop pretending that's a reasonable ask. It's not, it never was, and it's tarnishing the very real progress we otherwise made today.
By the same coin acting like D&D is the only game in town and everyone is going to forget about this in 4 hours because we have goldfish brains isn't exactly realistic either.
And honestly, a CEO who has screwed the pooch this hard and this publically should have been removed days ago with a full and formal apology that fully rejects and condemns this behavior.
... We also have no clue how far this mess has reached into the D&D consumer base. There is no way of knowing for sure how many players/DM's are aware of this. Many last Sat where I play many had no clue. The casuals may not be reached, but then, the casuals don't spend nearly as much.
They don't have to spend as much.
Selling peanuts to millions of casuals is Hasbro's modus operandi. They don't want to sell a thousand dollars in novelty Monopoly riffs to a small, dedicated community of Monopoly adherents; they want to put one twenty-dollar board game in every single house in America, and ideally every single house in Europe, Japan, and wherever else they can get their foot in the door. That was the whole deal behind the "undermonetized" comment - Hasbro doesn't like that D&D is currently mostly just a series of expensive game books not fit for casual consumption, with a relative paucity of side gewgaws. Hasbro wants D&D in every single house in America, but that does not mean they want D&D game books in every single house in America.
Except that is EXACTLY what they did with MTG. They do want to sell everyone a book, and they want to sell their hardcore fans a $1000 special book, and make sure none of them can be used anywhere except the walled garden of OneDND.
Reasons One and Two: They could have added stipulations about these issues without making the changes they are pushing, which have almost nothing to do with the stated issues.
Reason Three: Personally, I think you are naïve if you believe this. I also think you are placing the cart before the horse. Phenomena like Critical Role paved the way. The pandemic simply super charged that growth. But it began outside of Hasbro. The OGL has been a positive in that it helped them capture market share even when their own products were substandard. Look at recent releases for examples. Monsters of the Multiverse might be an exception, but most the the recent stuff has been sub-par while the third party community kept consumers focused on 5e, rather than moving to other systems.
Reason Four: Copyright law would prevent this. No one under OGL can reproduce any of WotC's non- SRD materials. Since WotC gives SRD away for free, there is no potential for lost revenue.
Reason Five: Revenue comes from good products. If Hasbro wants more money, that might be a good place to start. Invest in your business instead of trying to destroy your competitors. Most companies who take the approach you advocate see their products lag and eventually lose massive market share.
Maybe WoTC is seeing a decline in new introduction purchases post-pandemic. Smart actions would be to ensure there is a growing market for the main source books (PHB, DMG, MM) which will come not just from WoTC products but from others. Demanding some form of control over them, in the form of censorship ("moderation") or monetization (which limits who does it) will not improve the marketplace for it. The world of TTRPG is reminding me again of the 80's post AD&D launch, where every idea became a new RPG (I still own, somewhere, the James Bond Role-Playing Game, along with a few others besides Gamma World). I feel they want a cut of those that seem to be built on the D&D model instead of promoting themselves as the starting point/star of it all.
But you are right on 1 & 4, small changes and enforcement are the solutions - OGL 1.1 (or 1.1.1) don't seem to do it outside of using a sledgehammer. #2 is fraught with issues and #3 is just looking for ways to drive #5. It's not necessary unless you just want 100% control over it all - nothing done without a "seal of approval" (aka a WoTC tax stamp).
Honestly, the smartest play by wizards would have been to bring on more people from the third party so that they can have a wider variety of content.
Because that's what D&D needs more of then anything else; if they decide to put out a module that doesn't jive with your party for whatever reason and no one wants to make a home brew groups are basically stuck for 6 months to a year.
The thing is, I heard once they did some market research (this was in past editions, where they put out splat books seemingly every other week) and found most people only really ever buy four books. Not a year, mind you, but across the entire life cycle of an edition. Which is a big part of what's driving the current, and historically slow, release calendar. Couple that with their current statement that 20% of the customers do the vast bulk of the buying, and it seems likely to still make sense. If something isn't going to sell lots of units, if this one isn't going to be one of the magic 4 for a lot of people (and its a safe bet the PHB is one of those four, so really, we're down to three), then why spend the resources to make it. Let the 3pp's fill in that gap, since they can make smaller sales numbers still work for them.
Obviously, someone didn't get the memo about the symbiotic relationship, and here we are this week.
It seems like their latest statement is full of very blatant false statements and misrepresentations.
Hasbro use NFTs
they have the ability to remove the OGL from specific creators breaching their rules
the terms stated that any and all derived creator's work could be used by Hasbro for profit without consent
creators only had 1 week to agree to the new OGL otherwise their OGL licence would be pulled and their businesses destroyed
this was a finished contract and not a draft
the OGL release was under an NDA, the only reason this was discovered was because a creator breached that NDA
the next (post leak) OGL is not required to achieve their objectives unless their objectives are purely financial,
the OGL targeted turnover and not profit
the OGL demanded financial data sharing so that future revisions can target the most profitable strategy
the OGL has not been updated, they have only posted online, which is not legally binding
the post they've made seem to have words in it to try and alter the narrative rather than focus on the issue.
they can update and change any of it with less than a month's notice, which seems to indicate malicious intent.
It feels like they have lost all the goodwill they could have possibly lost in this situation, the only recovery in my mind is stating outright, that the OGL will go back to the original and the word "irrevocable" be added.
Please, if you haven't already, cancel your dndbeyond subscription until this is resolved, and the creators which have given so much to this community are protected.
This thread is about addressing a certain argument that has been raised on those other threads - the proposition that the OGL did not need to change.This proposition is incorrect, as is plainly apparent from actual statements from Wizards and actual facts about recent events and how Wizards operates as a company.
Below, I will spell out the five reasons (presented in no particular order) Wizards has given or heavily implied are their reasons for changing OGL 1.0, all of which follow from this article.There may be other reasons as well, but this is sticking just with actual facts and statements, and the reasonable extrapolation therefrom in light of other tangible facts.
OK, you seem to have some misunderstandings about the OGL, and what it actually allows, so let me take this opportunity to clear it up
Reason One: NFTs
As Wizards mentioned in the OGL article on this site, one of the reasons they need to update the OGL is to ensure it cannot be used for “third-parties to mint D&D NFTs”
NFTs are, as is widely known, a rather predatory bubble - both predatory in terms of commonly ripping off others’ intellectual property rights and in how they are marketed to folks as a get-rich-quick scheme that is little more than an exploitative bubble.Like most other things that rely on blockchain, they are also an ecological disaster, consuming huge amounts of energy during transactions.As such, there are incredibly obvious reasons Wizards would not want to be associated with these commodities, especially as controlled by third-parties.
The current OGL is silent on NFTs and could allow their creation - which makes sense, when OGL 1.0 was drafted, the idea of an NFT did not exist, except perhaps in parody.Thus, an update to address NFTs is needed to protect both customers and the brand from
So, first off, no the current OGL would not allow for the creation of NFTs. An NFT proposes to grant exclusive rights to it's owner (it is basically the modern day equivalent of the "Name a Star" scam from the 70s & 80s). The terms of the OGL is that 1) a copy of the OGL must be included in any derivative works (the OGL is copyright WTC) and does nt allow a 3rd party to claim ownership of pen content released under the OGL. Meaning, it would be impossible for an NFT to grant exclusive rights to anyone using the terms of the OGL, removing the entire "point" of owning an NFT (if there can be said to be one).
Moreover, Hasbro claiming that it is motivated to "protect" anyone from NFTs is a bit odd, considering this statement from the Hasbro CEO last year:
Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their branding.
First off, the current OGL does not allow access to WotC's branding. A third party producer cannot use any of Wizards' trademarks or logos. They are not even able to claim on their product that it is "compatible with Dungeons & Dragons". That requires a separate license, like the D20 license that allowed products to use the D20 logo on their books. So there is absolutely no danger that any 3PP producer's work will be associated with the D&D brand.
Secondly, racism and bigotry existed in 2000 too. Yet in 23 years not a single racist manifesto was released using the OGL. This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Even if someone were to make, say a 5e compatible version of FATAL or RaHoWa - the simple truth is that there would be no market for it. Just as with the leaked documents from NuTSR (which do not use the OGL), the backlash and condemnation from the community would be swift and decisive.
Third, and perhaps most important, a major corporation should not be appointing itself as moral guardian of the hobby. Especially not by granting themselves the right to pass judgements with no oversight or structured method of debate/appeals.
Reason Three: Data collection.
Wizards has consistently said that sales data is one of their most important assets.For both D&D and Magic, they have talked about how carefully they collect and track product data to know what types of product players like, and determine what settings, themes, and other elements folks enjoy.
When OGL 1.0 was drafted, Wizards likely did not know the extent to which 5e would take off. Many elements in 5e’s success were external - Stranger Things, shows like Critical Role becoming cultural phenomenons, a global pandemic - greatly expanding D&D’s popularity to new heights.
This in turn led to a surge in third party content being created - content Wizards does not necessarily receive sales data on.This unprecedented surge in third-party sales impacts Wizards’ ability to better tune and target their own products as they do not receive the same level of data collection they historically relied upon.The reporting requirements Wizards has stated the new OGL will contain for larger third-party developers are all but certainly designed to help recapture this otherwise lost data.
This point is nonsensical. It is not the duty of the hobby to provide market data to Hasbro. That was not the purpose of the OGL, and is no one's concern except Hasbro themselves. Third Party Creators are not Hasbro employees. If Hasbro wants sales data, they can pay firms to collect it for them, just like everyone else (or be smart about it, and set up a social network like Facebook that incentivizes people to give them market data in exchange for using their site).
Reason Four: “Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties.
Right now, there is nothing stopping Amazon or any other large company from mass producing mass-scale products rivalling D&D.Recently, Amazon dipped its toes in the D&D business with their publication of Critical Role’s Vox Machina.While Critical Role did an admirable job respecting Wizards’ rights with the show, Amazon is not exactly known for being the most respectful of other people’s products and designs.An updated OGL will prevent someone like Amazon from releasing a product at a scale unprecedented by existing third-party contributors.
The current OGL does not grant access to Wizard's IP. You can't create a game using the OGL that includes Beholders, or references to Dragonlance or again, even the name "Dungeons & Dragons". The only thig the OGL allows is access to certain specific expressions of game rules included in the SRD (game rules themselves not being copyrightable). If Amazon for some reason wanted to use that to create their own game (note the wording there, Amazon would be the creators), and it was very successful because Amazon has a big distribution chain....well, so what? That frankly is none of Wizards' business. They don't own content created using the OGL.
Reason Five: Recapturing Lost Revenue.
Almost certainly the most controversial on this list, Wizards is clearly return to recapture revenue from the largest creators (they have said there are only about twenty such creators at the scale for their royalty component to kick in).
That is not "lost revenue", it is someone else's revenue, from THEIR work. Wizard's is not entitled to that.
Basically, all of this is a smokescreen. WotC is trying to appease you by obfuscating the actual issues at stake, by throwing up strawmen, trying to claim their motivations are in some way altruistic, and flat out lying about needing to protect you from problems that don't exist.
I do not agree that the OGL needs to be updated, though if so. I would limited to the ability to control their trademark of the name D&D / Dungeons and Dragons only.
Reason One:
You already cannot just create official Dungeons and Dragons NFTs as only WotC can. (Trademark protections) You can however, create NFTs that related to your own content. WotC has no right to limit someone else's rights to their own content.
Reason Two:
There is this little thing called Freedom of Speech. You don't have to like what's being said, but it's their right to do it. While I get that WotC / Hasbro doesn't want that associated with their brand. There is absolutely no way WotC or Hasbro can stop someone from writing content in this manor. If the OGL needs to be updated for this to protect WotC, then it should only be updated to the point that they cannot use WotC name or content on a *commercial* product. There is nothing they can do about non-commercial products being released into the wild. As far as I'm concerned, WotC should be able to block commercial products from using Dungeons and Dragons / D&D as a part of their trademark protections.
[REDACTED]
Reason Three:
If I were to update the OGL here, it would only be to limit the use of the name Dungeons and Dragons / D&D on products outside of gaming material. (TV, movies, etc) As far as I'm concerned, the OGL should be closed to only gaming materials. (and yes, VTTs are gaming materials) Not other non-gaming material productions.
Reason Four:
Trademark law, end of story. Outside of that, I can create anything I want providing I obey trademark. This has nothing to do with the OGL IMHO.
Reason Five:
Oh hell no. This is EXACTLY why the OGL exist! You are also leaving out the fact that when customer purchase 3rd party content, they are doing so as Dungeons and Dragons players which in turn ensures those players remain official D&D consumers. The percentage of people who have bought 3rd party D&D content, but not official D&D content is probably so minuscule that we are probably on the Planck Length Scale!
The sale of 3rd party content directly relates to sales of official D&D content. What I'm saying here is 3rd party content creators are re-enforcing players to be D&D proper customers! If WotC ends up losing their biggest 3rd party content creators, guess who else is going to suffer?
Now, that all said. I 1000% agree that WotC is losing revenue. If there is a place that WotC should go after for revenue. It's the actual D&D character players! In my group, (I'm the DM) I've spent thousands of dollars on both official D&D content and 3rd party content over just the last two years. The players that I DM, all six combined probably hasn't spend $500.
So yes, WotC should go after revenue streams from the actual players. I know a way they should do that too right here on DnDBeyond that could increase there sales quite a bit.
NFT is gonna NFT-they are a scam anyways and whatever...that is art...people are gonna make art and fan art and they can try to sell an NFT but they most likely won't sell...and Andy Warhol didn't have to pay ANY money to Brillo pad for using their imagery once it was turned into art....thank god they are helping stop NFT's as the superheros they are
PCL through Paizo says "If you use this for hateful/discriminating content that Paizo believes we will terminate this license"....they can easily add that clause to the OGL-easy enough...nothing in that huge document addressed hateful or discriminatory stuff...lie
Come on-drafted a document-DRAFTED a license to use all of our content; home brew stuff in perpetuity irrevocably for any purpose....they did that to fight the companies-not the people uploading homebrew to dnd beyond so they could steal-I mean use it.
There were signature lines-this wasn't a draft....they needed to apologize for what they did. They should do better-they lie and lie again...they didn't make this with the community in their mind or eyes they did this to pinch for more money off of good ideas they don't have.
They should have come out with a VTT-They should have done more cool actual and live plays, they should have made cool BOX SETS AGAIN WITH COOL STUFF how they USED TO unlike Beadle and Grimm coming in to fill that niche that the box set used to fill. Maps+minis+hand outs....Box sets suck from WoTC now....Starter sets are just big boxes filled with nothing cool or extra.
Their content they make for 5th edition is alright but they are lying-they were the number one TTRPG that everyone was happy to play but they wanted/needed to make money and this was an easy cash grab for them. The entire community is in uproar...
They didn't release the OGL 1.1 stuff to get feeback-it was a leak-there were dates to be signed....they are lying to our faces.
The OGL's only need for a fix is that it could NEVER be undone and is set in stone....instead Paizo rolled a crit 20 and stepped up to the plate to do that for the TTRPG community....
Wizards could make way more money with cool stuff to buy for games-better box sets-bags and gear-adult themed things-statues-better books....taking a small fraction form 3rd party creators was only gonna net them like an extra couple million...3rd party doesn't make THAT much they aren't losing out on millions and millions of dollars.... just a couple million...a 750,000 company is Matt Colville producing books...they wanted to take Paizo down and out and they got everyone looking at Paizo like heroes after EIGHT days of silence and allowing a fire to burn.
They are making the stockholders and executives happy-the people in charge are not gamers or passionate nerds-they just like money and to make more of it. They couldn't be happy making MORE money than every other company in the business and being the most popular table top game in the world. They lit a fire with greed.
It seems that the long story short was that, despite best intentions, presuming that's what they were, the language of the document was far too broad and potentially exploitable to be feasible as a legal document. For example: the fact that there was such a phrase as pertaining to 3rd party creators to allow WotC to shut down their project "for any reason at any time" provided they gave "thirty (30) days notice" is a deeply problematic precedent.
If their goal is to shut down "NFTs, major content producers creating racist content with Wizards’ intellectual property, ultra-corporations setting their eyes on D&D content" then the language of the document needs to address those particular issues. Sections that clearly define 'NFT' or any kind of dubious currency scheme that utilizes D&D's image as financial exchange should be stated in the document. A section devoted to target "content that can be deemed racist, deeply offensive, or harmful to specific ethnic communities" can be stated plain and explicitly. Lastly, there are other legal protections and agreements that can be adapted to protect D&D from being taken or reproduced by ultra-corporations, the OGL does not visibly appear to address that with its current language.
Thankfully, if in truth they are willing to rewrite the language of OGL 1.1 such that it only affects big name corporations and excludes small-scale third-party content creators, ideally independent developers such as The Griffon's Saddlebag, Ghostfire Gaming, or even YouTube D&D content creators (such as XPtoLevel3, MrRhexx, CritCrab, Zee Bashew, Dingo Doodles, etc.) and retailers such as Hitpoint Press, that could be a good first step. If their goal is to collect royalties from major corporations and prevent NFTs from who attempt make money off of the D&D brand, then that needs to be explicitly stated as such.
When crafting a legal document, it is possible to write in such specific language, and it's possible that was their eventual intention. We may not know what their full intention was. The hardest part of this whole debacle is that we must trust the actions of the company as opposed to their words. "Actions speak louder than words" as they say. However, I sincerely hope that they fulfill their stated intents with their most recent article.
TL;DR the document as it is written is too open to interpretation and subsequent exploitation by the company as a whole. It needs to be defined more clearly and much more carefully than they've recently "leaked". If they want to achieve these goals they've stated, make sure your document addresses those goals and not broadly affect everyone, or open up the potential to affect everyone who could conceivably be considered "third-party", which includes YouTube creators, retailers, and independent studios.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hiya, this is the forever DM profile of the Forever DM known as Kaz, or Kiko, or whatever you prefer. Bottom Text? More like Bottom Hex am I right lads or am I right lads?
It is clear that any alteration to the current Open Gaming License (OGL) not only signifies a desire to implement further changes, but also reveals the direction in which these changes will be heading. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that if the community were to accept this "harsh" version of the OGL, the data collected would not be used to prioritize profit over the well-being of content creators.
The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success. However, now that the community has grown and thrived under the current OGL, it is both immature and greed-driven to change the terms of the agreement.
You said it best: "The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success." There's nothing in there about subsidizing competitors, which is what the current OGL is also doing.
BALONEY! They knew a direct competitor could arise when they wrote the thing and they DID NOT CARE! So long as WotC did its job right, no competitor could out do them, AND THEY KNEW IT!
Were any of you even around when WotC bought out TSR?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
It seems that the long story short was that, despite best intentions, presuming that's what they were, the language of the document was far too broad and potentially exploitable to be feasible as a legal document. For example: the fact that there was such a phrase as pertaining to 3rd party creators to allow WotC to shut down their project "for any reason at any time" provided they gave "thirty (30) days notice" is a deeply problematic precedent.
If their goal is to shut down "NFTs, major content producers creating racist content with Wizards’ intellectual property, ultra-corporations setting their eyes on D&D content" then the language of the document needs to address those particular issues. Sections that clearly define 'NFT' or any kind of dubious currency scheme that utilizes D&D's image as financial exchange should be stated in the document. A section devoted to target "content that can be deemed racist, deeply offensive, or harmful to specific ethnic communities" can be stated plain and explicitly. Lastly, there are other legal protections and agreements that can be adapted to protect D&D from being taken or reproduced by ultra-corporations, the OGL does not visibly appear to address that with its current language.
Thankfully, if in truth they are willing to rewrite the language of OGL 1.1 such that it only affects big name corporations and excludes small-scale third-party content creators, ideally independent developers such as The Griffon's Saddlebag, Ghostfire Gaming, or even YouTube D&D content creators (such as XPtoLevel3, MrRhexx, CritCrab, Zee Bashew, Dingo Doodles, etc.) and retailers such as Hitpoint Press, that could be a good first step. If their goal is to collect royalties from major corporations and prevent NFTs from who attempt make money off of the D&D brand, then that needs to be explicitly stated as such.
When crafting a legal document, it is possible to write in such specific language, and it's possible that was their eventual intention. We may not know what their full intention was. The hardest part of this whole debacle is that we must trust the actions of the company as opposed to their words. "Actions speak louder than words" as they say. However, I sincerely hope that they fulfill their stated intents with their most recent article.
TL;DR the document as it is written is too open to interpretation and subsequent exploitation by the company as a whole. It needs to be defined more clearly and much more carefully than they've recently "leaked". If they want to achieve these goals they've stated, make sure your document addresses those goals and not broadly affect everyone, or open up the potential to affect everyone who could conceivably be considered "third-party", which includes YouTube creators, retailers, and independent studios.
There were no "best intentions" that wasn't a draft. There were dates to be signed-they gave all these 3rd party people a week to sign them and they whistle blew.
It was. athreat and bullyment by the biggest strongest, wealthiest TTRPG company to strong arm the little companies and content creators and homebrewers alike.
They love NFT's-they just released a bunch of power ranger ones....ALSO the original OGL has a clause written in that it will be revoked for hateful and discriminatory things-freaking look at it-it is a tiny document but it is in there!! They can already do what they said!!!
AND they are the ones who released racists art and racist races and stuff to be in Spelljammer- NOT 3rd party content creators.
They thought they could strong arm tiny content creators into signing this dumb document and it turned into an entire fire.
Never satisfied until they say the OGL 1.0a is here to stay and will never be changed ever.
They can't be trusted-they lied in their apology/response-how can people make content in earnest without worrying that WoTC and Hasbro will re-write a document...AND MIND YOU!!! THEY LITERALLY EDITED THEIR RESPONSE IN REAL TIME TODAY ON THE WEBSITE! LOOK IT UP!
They are not to be trusted. Actions speak louder than words-and they gaslighted all their fans with todays' lame excuse of a response.
As Wizards mentioned in the OGL article on this site, one of the reasons they need to update the OGL is to ensure it cannot be used for “third-parties to mint D&D NFTs”
NFTs are, as is widely known, a rather predatory bubble - both predatory in terms of commonly ripping off others’ intellectual property rights and in how they are marketed to folks as a get-rich-quick scheme that is little more than an exploitative bubble.Like most other things that rely on blockchain, they are also an ecological disaster, consuming huge amounts of energy during transactions.As such, there are incredibly obvious reasons Wizards would not want to be associated with these commodities, especially as controlled by third-parties.
The current OGL is silent on NFTs and could allow their creation - which makes sense, when OGL 1.0 was drafted, the idea of an NFT did not exist, except perhaps in parody.Thus, an update to address NFTs is needed to protect both customers and the brand from
IT’S MORPHIN TIME – We’re putting the FUN in Non-fungible token]
Hasbro is getting into the NFT game and we’re doing it in style, with an exclusive Power Rangers NFT backed by the WAX blockchain that features unique artwork of the Dino Megazord and its component Dino Zords in all their black-and-gold glory.
Hasbro/WOTC doesn't care about the environmental impact of NFTs. They just don't want OTHER PEOPLE profiting off of their name.
As Wizards mentioned in the OGL article on this site, one of the reasons they need to update the OGL is to ensure it cannot be used for “third-parties to mint D&D NFTs”
NFTs are, as is widely known, a rather predatory bubble - both predatory in terms of commonly ripping off others’ intellectual property rights and in how they are marketed to folks as a get-rich-quick scheme that is little more than an exploitative bubble.Like most other things that rely on blockchain, they are also an ecological disaster, consuming huge amounts of energy during transactions.As such, there are incredibly obvious reasons Wizards would not want to be associated with these commodities, especially as controlled by third-parties.
The current OGL is silent on NFTs and could allow their creation - which makes sense, when OGL 1.0 was drafted, the idea of an NFT did not exist, except perhaps in parody.Thus, an update to address NFTs is needed to protect both customers and the brand from
IT’S MORPHIN TIME – We’re putting the FUN in Non-fungible token]
Hasbro is getting into the NFT game and we’re doing it in style, with an exclusive Power Rangers NFT backed by the WAX blockchain that features unique artwork of the Dino Megazord and its component Dino Zords in all their black-and-gold glory.
Hasbro/WOTC doesn't care about the environmental impact of NFTs. They just don't want OTHER PEOPLE profiting off of their name.
And? Ever try to open something with the name Margaritaville? Jimmy Buffett's business will be on you as soon as it is found with a cease and desist letter... no exceptions. Same with basically ever other copyrighted material out there.
I get the anger and WoTC really blew it but the complaint that they are trying to make money - they own it. 100%. Yes, people "can go other places". I got a handful of TTRPGs from the 80s when i was in HS and then the army you can start with. You can't find them anymore as they didn't last more than a year or two... while D&D is still around.
It is clear that any alteration to the current Open Gaming License (OGL) not only signifies a desire to implement further changes, but also reveals the direction in which these changes will be heading. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that if the community were to accept this "harsh" version of the OGL, the data collected would not be used to prioritize profit over the well-being of content creators.
The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success. However, now that the community has grown and thrived under the current OGL, it is both immature and greed-driven to change the terms of the agreement.
You said it best: "The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success." There's nothing in there about subsidizing competitors, which is what the current OGL is also doing.
BALONEY! They knew a direct competitor could arise when they wrote the thing and they DID NOT CARE! So long as WotC did its job right, no competitor could out do them, AND THEY KNEW IT!
Were any of you even around when WotC bought out TSR?
I was there. Got onto the industry mailing lists where this was all discussed. Kept up with all the debates about it. Read the pre-1.0 drafts. Rear when Necromancer Games published their Creature Collection with the cooperation from WotC for classic monsters that wouldn’t be in the MM, and Ryan Dancey (then Sr VP head of D&D) was gleeful about it. Showed it all around the WotC offices like a proud father.
Even for those who weren’t there, Ryan and Peter have stated repeatedly their thinking, both during their time at WotC and in the years since. WotC wanted their competitors to benefit from the OGL because that benefited WotC in turn.
Rather than trying to pick off the same customers from each other, they knew bringing in more customers would benefit them all (“a rising tide lifts all ships” was the catchphrase) but it would also help the industry leader even more since they would be the easiest to find people to play with.
Trying to do too many things was one of the factors that killed TSR. Too many different product lines tried to meet gamer wants but many of them were too niche for TSR to profit from. But a smaller 3pp could profitably fill that niche and keep those gamers happy and playing, and most importantly, buying the core rulebooks and rule supplements that were the money makers for TSR/WotC.
They could even get their competitors supporting D&D and were again overjoyed to get White Wolf, their #1 competitor to create an entire d20 product line, because it was profitable for WW to make products for the most popular game, and it was profitable for WotC to get more people playing D&D, especially when you have the #2 company putting resources into marketing your game. Free advertising and customer recruitment.
Also the talent development was a deliberate feature.
They also hoped it would increase the R&D, so to speak, in new features and ideas for the game.
Finally, they also wanted to protect D&D from a hypothetical Lorraine Williams 2.0. They could only do that reliably if more than one company could publish D&D.
So, yes, WotC very specifically and deliberately wanted their competitors to make a profit off of the OGL It was at the core of the idea. Current WotC execs either never bothered to look into that history or are just trying to gaslight us hoping most 5e fans are too new to the game to know the truth. But many of us were there at the time and are still here now. Plus many interviews, posts, and FAQs state all of this very clearly.
WotC wanted 3pp, including competitors, to profit and grow by using the OGL.
It is clear that any alteration to the current Open Gaming License (OGL) not only signifies a desire to implement further changes, but also reveals the direction in which these changes will be heading. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that if the community were to accept this "harsh" version of the OGL, the data collected would not be used to prioritize profit over the well-being of content creators.
The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success. However, now that the community has grown and thrived under the current OGL, it is both immature and greed-driven to change the terms of the agreement.
You said it best: "The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success." There's nothing in there about subsidizing competitors, which is what the current OGL is also doing.
BALONEY! They knew a direct competitor could arise when they wrote the thing and they DID NOT CARE! So long as WotC did its job right, no competitor could out do them, AND THEY KNEW IT!
Were any of you even around when WotC bought out TSR?
I was, I've been playing since 2e. As for a competitor outdoing them, that happened with 1.0a (Pathfinder.) It's understandable they wouldn't want to make that happen so easily this time.
As Wizards mentioned in the OGL article on this site, one of the reasons they need to update the OGL is to ensure it cannot be used for “third-parties to mint D&D NFTs”
NFTs are, as is widely known, a rather predatory bubble - both predatory in terms of commonly ripping off others’ intellectual property rights and in how they are marketed to folks as a get-rich-quick scheme that is little more than an exploitative bubble.Like most other things that rely on blockchain, they are also an ecological disaster, consuming huge amounts of energy during transactions.As such, there are incredibly obvious reasons Wizards would not want to be associated with these commodities, especially as controlled by third-parties.
The current OGL is silent on NFTs and could allow their creation - which makes sense, when OGL 1.0 was drafted, the idea of an NFT did not exist, except perhaps in parody.Thus, an update to address NFTs is needed to protect both customers and the brand from
IT’S MORPHIN TIME – We’re putting the FUN in Non-fungible token]
Hasbro is getting into the NFT game and we’re doing it in style, with an exclusive Power Rangers NFT backed by the WAX blockchain that features unique artwork of the Dino Megazord and its component Dino Zords in all their black-and-gold glory.
Hasbro/WOTC doesn't care about the environmental impact of NFTs. They just don't want OTHER PEOPLE profiting off of their name.
They never said it was about environmental impact. It was always about protecting their brand from abuse by outsiders.
So WOTC will retcon that Drow are no longer xenophobic and racist? I guess the Drow like everyone now. I mean they saw they want to fight racism and what not.
So I guess Morlock the Hateful wants to dominate the world but he won't hate you because of race and never **** nor pillage.
What an interesting time to be alive.
Lolthite Drow are those things. Playable Drow are generally not part of that cult.
So WOTC will retcon that Drow are no longer xenophobic and racist? I guess the Drow like everyone now. I mean they saw they want to fight racism and what not.
So I guess Morlock the Hateful wants to dominate the world but he won't hate you because of race and never **** nor pillage.
What an interesting time to be alive.
Lolthite Drow are those things. Playable Drow are generally not part of that cult.
We are not talking about the minority groups or Jarlaxles People or the vaunted Drizzt D'ourden (whom I am a big fan of). Talking about the Underdark itself.
However, 'generally' is an option. What about the player who wants to play the cult, because that is an option would be playing that role. It is a role playing game after all. Not saying I truck with that, but the good guy is only as great as his antagonist.
Just saying the civilization and their traditions are not going to change overnight. I agree races are not inherently evil (unless abyssal or devil), I believe the civilizations or their governments will be so, and if it is so in the book it kind of gives a good hook.
WOTC should let the creators, create. They weren't complaining when DnD had its resurgence, now did they? And as long as our society has issues the art and media will always reflect it in one form or fashion. One person will see tyranny or empowerment. It is really in the eye of the beholder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.
The OGL did not need to change. I don't see rampant abuse and no one else does. They have copyrights for a reason and have always had the right to revoke the OGL from any creator. This is a cash grab that was done in secret to strongarm creators into giving over money and IP and we weren't going to find out until it was too late. Remember the leak is the only reason why we knew about this. Dont let the update fool you they were never planning on telling us anything about this. They were already planning on enforcing the new OGL with kickstarter and others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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.
The OGL did not need to change. I don't see rampant abuse and no one else does. They have copyrights for a reason and have always had the right to revoke the OGL from any creator. This is a cash grab that was done in secret to strongarm creators into giving over money and IP and we weren't going to find out until it was too late. Remember the leak is the only reason why we knew about this. Dont let the update fool you they were never planning on telling us anything about this. They were already planning on enforcing the new OGL with kickstarter and others.
Well the big brain theory is that New CEO that got that came from Microsoft wants to Microtransact us into the ground. I mean it seems to be the new mantra, "Rent everything, the buyer will own nothing." They are using a tactic that while is messed up as it does nudge the gambling urge (microtransactions) to turn our Table Top pass time into pretty much a video game. DnD and other table tops are clearly different, but the Corporate people are not worried about it. Its control. Most addictive drug of all.
Money will come and go, but there is a seduction in being able to control human behavior. After all, they got to light them cuban cigars with that money that was supposed to go to war orphans.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe WoTC is seeing a decline in new introduction purchases post-pandemic. Smart actions would be to ensure there is a growing market for the main source books (PHB, DMG, MM) which will come not just from WoTC products but from others. Demanding some form of control over them, in the form of censorship ("moderation") or monetization (which limits who does it) will not improve the marketplace for it.
The world of TTRPG is reminding me again of the 80's post AD&D launch, where every idea became a new RPG (I still own, somewhere, the James Bond Role-Playing Game, along with a few others besides Gamma World). I feel they want a cut of those that seem to be built on the D&D model instead of promoting themselves as the starting point/star of it all.
But you are right on 1 & 4, small changes and enforcement are the solutions - OGL 1.1 (or 1.1.1) don't seem to do it outside of using a sledgehammer.
#2 is fraught with issues and #3 is just looking for ways to drive #5. It's not necessary unless you just want 100% control over it all - nothing done without a "seal of approval" (aka a WoTC tax stamp).
Honestly, the smartest play by wizards would have been to bring on more people from the third party so that they can have a wider variety of content.
Because that's what D&D needs more of then anything else; if they decide to put out a module that doesn't jive with your party for whatever reason and no one wants to make a home brew groups are basically stuck for 6 months to a year.
"I refuse to give Hasbrozards any more money until Hasbrozards prostrates themselves, wallows in shit, eats the shit, and blubbers like a baby for forgiveness after firing every single person in the company from the CEO down to the part-time janitor" is not a realistic stance to take. If you are dead-set on opposing the company until they bawl like a berated schoolgirl for forgiveness, then you are effectively beyond the reach of this issue and have decided to no longer be a customer. You're more than welcome to so decide, but let's stop pretending that's a reasonable ask. It's not, it never was, and it's tarnishing the very real progress we otherwise made today.
Please do not contact or message me.
By the same coin acting like D&D is the only game in town and everyone is going to forget about this in 4 hours because we have goldfish brains isn't exactly realistic either.
And honestly, a CEO who has screwed the pooch this hard and this publically should have been removed days ago with a full and formal apology that fully rejects and condemns this behavior.
Except that is EXACTLY what they did with MTG. They do want to sell everyone a book, and they want to sell their hardcore fans a $1000 special book, and make sure none of them can be used anywhere except the walled garden of OneDND.
The thing is, I heard once they did some market research (this was in past editions, where they put out splat books seemingly every other week) and found most people only really ever buy four books. Not a year, mind you, but across the entire life cycle of an edition. Which is a big part of what's driving the current, and historically slow, release calendar. Couple that with their current statement that 20% of the customers do the vast bulk of the buying, and it seems likely to still make sense. If something isn't going to sell lots of units, if this one isn't going to be one of the magic 4 for a lot of people (and its a safe bet the PHB is one of those four, so really, we're down to three), then why spend the resources to make it. Let the 3pp's fill in that gap, since they can make smaller sales numbers still work for them.
Obviously, someone didn't get the memo about the symbiotic relationship, and here we are this week.
It seems like their latest statement is full of very blatant false statements and misrepresentations.
It feels like they have lost all the goodwill they could have possibly lost in this situation, the only recovery in my mind is stating outright, that the OGL will go back to the original and the word "irrevocable" be added.
Please, if you haven't already, cancel your dndbeyond subscription until this is resolved, and the creators which have given so much to this community are protected.
OK, you seem to have some misunderstandings about the OGL, and what it actually allows, so let me take this opportunity to clear it up
So, first off, no the current OGL would not allow for the creation of NFTs. An NFT proposes to grant exclusive rights to it's owner (it is basically the modern day equivalent of the "Name a Star" scam from the 70s & 80s). The terms of the OGL is that 1) a copy of the OGL must be included in any derivative works (the OGL is copyright WTC) and does nt allow a 3rd party to claim ownership of pen content released under the OGL. Meaning, it would be impossible for an NFT to grant exclusive rights to anyone using the terms of the OGL, removing the entire "point" of owning an NFT (if there can be said to be one).
Moreover, Hasbro claiming that it is motivated to "protect" anyone from NFTs is a bit odd, considering this statement from the Hasbro CEO last year:
First off, the current OGL does not allow access to WotC's branding. A third party producer cannot use any of Wizards' trademarks or logos. They are not even able to claim on their product that it is "compatible with Dungeons & Dragons". That requires a separate license, like the D20 license that allowed products to use the D20 logo on their books. So there is absolutely no danger that any 3PP producer's work will be associated with the D&D brand.
Secondly, racism and bigotry existed in 2000 too. Yet in 23 years not a single racist manifesto was released using the OGL. This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Even if someone were to make, say a 5e compatible version of FATAL or RaHoWa - the simple truth is that there would be no market for it. Just as with the leaked documents from NuTSR (which do not use the OGL), the backlash and condemnation from the community would be swift and decisive.
Third, and perhaps most important, a major corporation should not be appointing itself as moral guardian of the hobby. Especially not by granting themselves the right to pass judgements with no oversight or structured method of debate/appeals.
This point is nonsensical. It is not the duty of the hobby to provide market data to Hasbro. That was not the purpose of the OGL, and is no one's concern except Hasbro themselves. Third Party Creators are not Hasbro employees. If Hasbro wants sales data, they can pay firms to collect it for them, just like everyone else (or be smart about it, and set up a social network like Facebook that incentivizes people to give them market data in exchange for using their site).
The current OGL does not grant access to Wizard's IP. You can't create a game using the OGL that includes Beholders, or references to Dragonlance or again, even the name "Dungeons & Dragons". The only thig the OGL allows is access to certain specific expressions of game rules included in the SRD (game rules themselves not being copyrightable). If Amazon for some reason wanted to use that to create their own game (note the wording there, Amazon would be the creators), and it was very successful because Amazon has a big distribution chain....well, so what? That frankly is none of Wizards' business. They don't own content created using the OGL.
That is not "lost revenue", it is someone else's revenue, from THEIR work. Wizard's is not entitled to that.
Basically, all of this is a smokescreen. WotC is trying to appease you by obfuscating the actual issues at stake, by throwing up strawmen, trying to claim their motivations are in some way altruistic, and flat out lying about needing to protect you from problems that don't exist.
NFT is gonna NFT-they are a scam anyways and whatever...that is art...people are gonna make art and fan art and they can try to sell an NFT but they most likely won't sell...and Andy Warhol didn't have to pay ANY money to Brillo pad for using their imagery once it was turned into art....thank god they are helping stop NFT's as the superheros they are
PCL through Paizo says "If you use this for hateful/discriminating content that Paizo believes we will terminate this license"....they can easily add that clause to the OGL-easy enough...nothing in that huge document addressed hateful or discriminatory stuff...lie
Come on-drafted a document-DRAFTED a license to use all of our content; home brew stuff in perpetuity irrevocably for any purpose....they did that to fight the companies-not the people uploading homebrew to dnd beyond so they could steal-I mean use it.
There were signature lines-this wasn't a draft....they needed to apologize for what they did. They should do better-they lie and lie again...they didn't make this with the community in their mind or eyes they did this to pinch for more money off of good ideas they don't have.
They should have come out with a VTT-They should have done more cool actual and live plays, they should have made cool BOX SETS AGAIN WITH COOL STUFF how they USED TO unlike Beadle and Grimm coming in to fill that niche that the box set used to fill. Maps+minis+hand outs....Box sets suck from WoTC now....Starter sets are just big boxes filled with nothing cool or extra.
Their content they make for 5th edition is alright but they are lying-they were the number one TTRPG that everyone was happy to play but they wanted/needed to make money and this was an easy cash grab for them. The entire community is in uproar...
They didn't release the OGL 1.1 stuff to get feeback-it was a leak-there were dates to be signed....they are lying to our faces.
The OGL's only need for a fix is that it could NEVER be undone and is set in stone....instead Paizo rolled a crit 20 and stepped up to the plate to do that for the TTRPG community....
Wizards could make way more money with cool stuff to buy for games-better box sets-bags and gear-adult themed things-statues-better books....taking a small fraction form 3rd party creators was only gonna net them like an extra couple million...3rd party doesn't make THAT much they aren't losing out on millions and millions of dollars.... just a couple million...a 750,000 company is Matt Colville producing books...they wanted to take Paizo down and out and they got everyone looking at Paizo like heroes after EIGHT days of silence and allowing a fire to burn.
They are making the stockholders and executives happy-the people in charge are not gamers or passionate nerds-they just like money and to make more of it. They couldn't be happy making MORE money than every other company in the business and being the most popular table top game in the world. They lit a fire with greed.
WWW.WERERATSTUDIOS.COM
DND PODCAST - THE CHICAGO TABLE -
www.thomaskiserart.com
It seems that the long story short was that, despite best intentions, presuming that's what they were, the language of the document was far too broad and potentially exploitable to be feasible as a legal document. For example: the fact that there was such a phrase as pertaining to 3rd party creators to allow WotC to shut down their project "for any reason at any time" provided they gave "thirty (30) days notice" is a deeply problematic precedent.
If their goal is to shut down "NFTs, major content producers creating racist content with Wizards’ intellectual property, ultra-corporations setting their eyes on D&D content" then the language of the document needs to address those particular issues. Sections that clearly define 'NFT' or any kind of dubious currency scheme that utilizes D&D's image as financial exchange should be stated in the document. A section devoted to target "content that can be deemed racist, deeply offensive, or harmful to specific ethnic communities" can be stated plain and explicitly. Lastly, there are other legal protections and agreements that can be adapted to protect D&D from being taken or reproduced by ultra-corporations, the OGL does not visibly appear to address that with its current language.
Thankfully, if in truth they are willing to rewrite the language of OGL 1.1 such that it only affects big name corporations and excludes small-scale third-party content creators, ideally independent developers such as The Griffon's Saddlebag, Ghostfire Gaming, or even YouTube D&D content creators (such as XPtoLevel3, MrRhexx, CritCrab, Zee Bashew, Dingo Doodles, etc.) and retailers such as Hitpoint Press, that could be a good first step. If their goal is to collect royalties from major corporations and prevent NFTs from who attempt make money off of the D&D brand, then that needs to be explicitly stated as such.
When crafting a legal document, it is possible to write in such specific language, and it's possible that was their eventual intention. We may not know what their full intention was. The hardest part of this whole debacle is that we must trust the actions of the company as opposed to their words. "Actions speak louder than words" as they say. However, I sincerely hope that they fulfill their stated intents with their most recent article.
TL;DR the document as it is written is too open to interpretation and subsequent exploitation by the company as a whole. It needs to be defined more clearly and much more carefully than they've recently "leaked". If they want to achieve these goals they've stated, make sure your document addresses those goals and not broadly affect everyone, or open up the potential to affect everyone who could conceivably be considered "third-party", which includes YouTube creators, retailers, and independent studios.
Hiya, this is the forever DM profile of the Forever DM known as Kaz, or Kiko, or whatever you prefer. Bottom Text? More like Bottom Hex am I right lads or am I right lads?
BALONEY! They knew a direct competitor could arise when they wrote the thing and they DID NOT CARE! So long as WotC did its job right, no competitor could out do them, AND THEY KNEW IT!
Were any of you even around when WotC bought out TSR?
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
There were no "best intentions" that wasn't a draft. There were dates to be signed-they gave all these 3rd party people a week to sign them and they whistle blew.
It was. athreat and bullyment by the biggest strongest, wealthiest TTRPG company to strong arm the little companies and content creators and homebrewers alike.
They love NFT's-they just released a bunch of power ranger ones....ALSO the original OGL has a clause written in that it will be revoked for hateful and discriminatory things-freaking look at it-it is a tiny document but it is in there!! They can already do what they said!!!
AND they are the ones who released racists art and racist races and stuff to be in Spelljammer- NOT 3rd party content creators.
They thought they could strong arm tiny content creators into signing this dumb document and it turned into an entire fire.
Never satisfied until they say the OGL 1.0a is here to stay and will never be changed ever.
They can't be trusted-they lied in their apology/response-how can people make content in earnest without worrying that WoTC and Hasbro will re-write a document...AND MIND YOU!!! THEY LITERALLY EDITED THEIR RESPONSE IN REAL TIME TODAY ON THE WEBSITE! LOOK IT UP!
They are not to be trusted. Actions speak louder than words-and they gaslighted all their fans with todays' lame excuse of a response.
WWW.WERERATSTUDIOS.COM
DND PODCAST - THE CHICAGO TABLE -
www.thomaskiserart.com
Oh, wow.
Better tell Hasbro that...
https://hasbropulse.com/products/power-rangers-digital-zord-nft-redeemable-for-special-edition-zord-ascension-project-mighty-morphin-dino-megazord
From the NFT purchase page (My emphasis added):
Hasbro/WOTC doesn't care about the environmental impact of NFTs. They just don't want OTHER PEOPLE profiting off of their name.
And? Ever try to open something with the name Margaritaville? Jimmy Buffett's business will be on you as soon as it is found with a cease and desist letter... no exceptions.
Same with basically ever other copyrighted material out there.
I get the anger and WoTC really blew it but the complaint that they are trying to make money - they own it. 100%. Yes, people "can go other places". I got a handful of TTRPGs from the 80s when i was in HS and then the army you can start with. You can't find them anymore as they didn't last more than a year or two... while D&D is still around.
I was there. Got onto the industry mailing lists where this was all discussed. Kept up with all the debates about it. Read the pre-1.0 drafts. Rear when Necromancer Games published their Creature Collection with the cooperation from WotC for classic monsters that wouldn’t be in the MM, and Ryan Dancey (then Sr VP head of D&D) was gleeful about it. Showed it all around the WotC offices like a proud father.
Even for those who weren’t there, Ryan and Peter have stated repeatedly their thinking, both during their time at WotC and in the years since. WotC wanted their competitors to benefit from the OGL because that benefited WotC in turn.
So, yes, WotC very specifically and deliberately wanted their competitors to make a profit off of the OGL It was at the core of the idea. Current WotC execs either never bothered to look into that history or are just trying to gaslight us hoping most 5e fans are too new to the game to know the truth. But many of us were there at the time and are still here now. Plus many interviews, posts, and FAQs state all of this very clearly.
WotC wanted 3pp, including competitors, to profit and grow by using the OGL.
I was, I've been playing since 2e. As for a competitor outdoing them, that happened with 1.0a (Pathfinder.) It's understandable they wouldn't want to make that happen so easily this time.
They never said it was about environmental impact. It was always about protecting their brand from abuse by outsiders.
Lolthite Drow are those things. Playable Drow are generally not part of that cult.
We are not talking about the minority groups or Jarlaxles People or the vaunted Drizzt D'ourden (whom I am a big fan of). Talking about the Underdark itself.
However, 'generally' is an option. What about the player who wants to play the cult, because that is an option would be playing that role. It is a role playing game after all. Not saying I truck with that, but the good guy is only as great as his antagonist.
Just saying the civilization and their traditions are not going to change overnight. I agree races are not inherently evil (unless abyssal or devil), I believe the civilizations or their governments will be so, and if it is so in the book it kind of gives a good hook.
WOTC should let the creators, create. They weren't complaining when DnD had its resurgence, now did they? And as long as our society has issues the art and media will always reflect it in one form or fashion. One person will see tyranny or empowerment. It is really in the eye of the beholder.
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.
The OGL did not need to change. I don't see rampant abuse and no one else does. They have copyrights for a reason and have always had the right to revoke the OGL from any creator. This is a cash grab that was done in secret to strongarm creators into giving over money and IP and we weren't going to find out until it was too late. Remember the leak is the only reason why we knew about this. Dont let the update fool you they were never planning on telling us anything about this. They were already planning on enforcing the new OGL with kickstarter and others.
"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.
Well the big brain theory is that New CEO that got that came from Microsoft wants to Microtransact us into the ground. I mean it seems to be the new mantra, "Rent everything, the buyer will own nothing." They are using a tactic that while is messed up as it does nudge the gambling urge (microtransactions) to turn our Table Top pass time into pretty much a video game. DnD and other table tops are clearly different, but the Corporate people are not worried about it. Its control. Most addictive drug of all.
Money will come and go, but there is a seduction in being able to control human behavior. After all, they got to light them cuban cigars with that money that was supposed to go to war orphans.
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.