They will have broken trust, trust that some gave them to take financial risks. Why anyone sympathizes with Hasbro/WoTC or engages in the "both sides" fallacy, I don't know.
99% of the folks who "took financial risks" will still be able to maintain their businesses under the new OGL. It was one thing when it had the licenseback and the royalty stuff but those are gone now. Even our savior Linda Codega is saying the diehards need to back off the 1.0a deauthorization stuff and just get the hell over it already.
Just being able to keep your business as-is isn't exactly a great gift from Wizards; that's the status quo. You are acting like we should be grateful for Wizards agreeing to give us some of the rights they previously wanted to take away back is a win-win, but it's not the whole deal here. It's not all of the rights that we are currently enjoying, we're still losing in the new 1.2 OGL for a variety of reasons.
Once again, Wizards is the one showing up and insisting things need to change for no reason. Acting like everyone is crazy for wanting things to stay the way they've been for decades now is a bit irrational to me, and I'm not sure why you're doing it. We still have the Constitution and that's hundreds of years old; sure there are amendments, but it's still the same old constitution, and when they want to make changes about it people discuss it at length because it's important. This is a similar kind of document for this hobby, the end result will fundamentally change the landscape of the game - honestly all of WotC's actions and choices thus far have already done so. Forcing people to give up their rights and sign a new OGL for no reason other than you're just sick of hearing about it isn't the best argument on why we should agree to a change that, frankly from all accounts, is entirely something that was meant to be optional for us to agree to adapt to or not.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
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.
Because a lot of us are old and experienced enough to KNOW the world and the rules within it have changed dramatically from when the OGL was written. Tons of stuff seems like a great idea now, but 20 years from now, will look like idiots were making decisions. Companies, contracts and legal issues evolve and the companies need to evolve with them, If this includes cleaning up a license that has holes in it, that were not recognized when it was created, then so be it.
See, there's a demographic who understand evolution of business and that world. We want things to keep up, not remain in the dark ages. There is no "both sides" fallacy, it's a reality. There are 2 sides to the tale, even if you only want to listen to one. Denial of facts does not invalidate or erase them. OGL or die is a losing cause. Make the new OGL fair and sensible will, eventually, be the winning side, I have little doubt. The only real question is will it take 2, 3 or 25 drafts before they get it right?
You made some claims with no evidence. Who are making NFTs that WoTC needs to worry about? Don't Trademark laws already apply? What exactly is it about VTTs that you think makes the old OGL null and void, or that the old (and still operating) OGL doesn't handle? We've had VTTs for a while. Where are the legal clashes you would think to find? How has WoTC been harmed by VTTs with the present OGL?
They will have broken trust, trust that some gave them to take financial risks. Why anyone sympathizes with Hasbro/WoTC or engages in the "both sides" fallacy, I don't know.
99% of the folks who "took financial risks" will still be able to maintain their businesses under the new OGL. It was one thing when it had the licenseback and the royalty stuff but those are gone now. Even our savior Linda Codega is saying the diehards need to back off the 1.0a deauthorization stuff and just get the hell over it already.
Their new OGL has zip to do with Ernie Gygax. - What business will they be able to maintain? Publishing their OLD 5E OGL works? 6E compatible materials will require the new OGL and it is still rather restrictive. I am fully aware that WoTC is going to create a new OGL. Doesn't mean critics should let up on them. They still haven't pulled the trigger. The "nicer" we are, the less the new OGL will be different in its many problematic areas that were leaked.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
The OGL itself even says this. Quote:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
This is why they were so insistent on claiming they were unauthorizing 1.0a despite the fact that 1.0a doesn't have any mechanism to become de-authorized. They have to sell that lie or we'll just keep legally using the version we want.
Once it is published and authorized, that's that. It is. Currently that refers to 1.0 and 1.0a.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
The OGL itself even says this. Quote:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
This is why they were so insistent on claiming they were unauthorizing 1.0a despite the fact that 1.0a doesn't have any mechanism to become de-authorized. They have to sell that lie or we'll just keep legally using the version we want.
Once it is published and authorized, that's that. It is. Currently that refers to 1.0 and 1.0a.
WOTC obviously believe one of three things. That (1) they can legally deauthorise the old OGL, that (2) no one will have the money or desire to challenge them in court, or that (3) they'll win if someone does.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that they want everyone on the new OGL as it will give them more control over the D&D game. Some people think they'll be ridiculously punitive, others think they won't, and others still (myself included) am ok with it as long as they create some sort of review/appeal system, provide some clarity around VTT (which their FAQ suggests they're working on) and something a bit stronger for TPP that can prove that their property has been usurped. And most of the reason is money. No surprises there. D&D is so much more popular now than it was when the original OGL was written, so the losses and gains are much more significant. I doubt anyone back in the early 2000's saw this RPG boom coming. Not like this, anyway. But if they want everyone on the new OGL, they have to deauthorise the old one. Otherwise, what's the point of all of this?
Yeah, you can argue that they should make a better OGL that all the TPP will want to move to, but what could be better than the deal they're currently on? They pay nothing and get to do pretty much whatever they want, right? Honestly, it seems to me like the old OGL is pretty skewed towards TPP and not the company that created it.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
The OGL itself even says this. Quote:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
This is why they were so insistent on claiming they were unauthorizing 1.0a despite the fact that 1.0a doesn't have any mechanism to become de-authorized. They have to sell that lie or we'll just keep legally using the version we want.
Once it is published and authorized, that's that. It is. Currently that refers to 1.0 and 1.0a.
WOTC obviously believe one of three things. That (1) they can legally deauthorise the old OGL, that (2) no one will have the money or desire to challenge them in court, or that (3) they'll win if someone does.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that they want everyone on the new OGL as it will give them more control over the D&D game. Some people think they'll be ridiculously punitive, others think they won't, and others still (myself included) am ok with it as long as they create some sort of review/appeal system, provide some clarity around VTT (which their FAQ suggests they're working on) and something a bit stronger for TPP that can prove that their property has been usurped. And most of the reason is money. No surprises there. D&D is so much more popular now than it was when the original OGL was written, so the losses and gains are much more significant. I doubt anyone back in the early 2000's saw this RPG boom coming. Not like this, anyway. But if they want everyone on the new OGL, they have to deauthorise the old one. Otherwise, what's the point of all of this?
Yeah, you can argue that they should make a better OGL that all the TPP will want to move to, but what could be better than the deal they're currently on? They pay nothing and get to do pretty much whatever they want, right? Honestly, it seems to me like the old OGL is pretty skewed towards TPP and not the company that created it.
I think you are ignoring 20+ years of history. 3rd parties feed sales to WoTC. 4E had a restrictive OGL and was designed for VTT. It flopped. 5E opened up again and it surged in sales. A rising tide lifts all boats. The OGL would never have been offered in the first place if WoTC hadn't seen a benefit in it.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
The OGL itself even says this. Quote:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
This is why they were so insistent on claiming they were unauthorizing 1.0a despite the fact that 1.0a doesn't have any mechanism to become de-authorized. They have to sell that lie or we'll just keep legally using the version we want.
Once it is published and authorized, that's that. It is. Currently that refers to 1.0 and 1.0a.
WOTC obviously believe one of three things. That (1) they can legally deauthorise the old OGL, that (2) no one will have the money or desire to challenge them in court, or that (3) they'll win if someone does.
As a company filled with a bunch of different people, WOTC staff probably believes all 3 of those things in some unknowable ratio and also a bunch of other things too... because, again, it is a collection of individuals and not a thinking creature itself. TLDR: WOTC does "believe" anything. It is a company. It has no belief structure.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that they want everyone on the new OGL as it will give them more control over the D&D game.
Some of them want that, some probably don't. They staff over a thousand people. The odds they're all aligned in a single belief about anything is remarkably silly.
You talk about WOTC like it is a single person.
Some people think they'll be ridiculously punitive, others think they won't, and others still (myself included) am ok with it as long as they create some sort of review/appeal system, provide some clarity around VTT (which their FAQ suggests they're working on) and something a bit stronger for TPP that can prove that their property has been usurped. And most of the reason is money. No surprises there. D&D is so much more popular now than it was when the original OGL was written, so the losses and gains are much more significant. I doubt anyone back in the early 2000's saw this RPG boom coming. Not like this, anyway. But if they want everyone on the new OGL, they have to deauthorise the old one. Otherwise, what's the point of all of this?
The point? Well, its a bit bold to assume there even is one coherent point to all of this.
For example, they've found themselves into a related cluster%^. They've already dumped money into dndbeyond for some reason. They bought this site for 140 mil. Crazy. I mean that. If WotC was a single person like you talk about, they'd be insane.
They were already developing a digital marketplace... their own. So now they've dumped millions to buy this one, and so what happens with the one in work? Their other digital market plans?
They're not acting rationally. Why? Because they're not one person.
WotC goals and direction can and will change on a dime based on whoever is holding the reigns at any one particular moment. It can happen often, it will happen repeatedly, it has happened many...many time already throughout its past. You gotta stop expecting their actions to have a coherent plan the likes a single person might hatch. A company this size simply doesn't...cannot operate like that. They're a collection of people all making choices and taking actions with different goals and desires. It'll always be messier than you think.
Post-hoc assigning some rationale to their behavior isn't warranted.
Yeah, you can argue that they should make a better OGL that all the TPP will want to move to, but what could be better than the deal they're currently on? They pay nothing and get to do pretty much whatever they want, right? Honestly, it seems to me like the old OGL is pretty skewed towards TPP and not the company that created it.
That's because you don't understand why the OGL was originally released. You're fond of assigning rationale like WotC is a thinking being, so try it again with this question: Why would WotC go the great lengths to dream up the OGL, create it, and release it, if it doesn't benefit them to do so? Why would they have ever created this thing in the first place if it was always the better deal for the TPP?? Even by your own line of thinking this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
We've heard from the actual people who wrote it at the time, and for some of us who were around at the time we saw the effect it had for WotC directly. It was a slam dunk win for WotC. They won everything when they released the OGL.
Why? Because people can publish TPP content regardless of the OGL. People were publishing it before the OGL, and they're publish it after the OGL. D&D doesn't own the fantasy RPG genre. You can publish whatever you want. As long as it isn't copy-written expression, and I assure you, you could absolutely publish TPP materials that are compatible with D&D without ever infringing on WotC copywrite. That's straightforward.
So why then, did anyone ever use the OGL if they didn't need to use the OGL? Why accept the not-so-great terms outlined in the OGL if you could always just publish whatever you wanted to anyway? Why follow any rules dictated to you by WotC if you didn't have to?
Easy. Security. By agreeing to and following the rules of the OGL it made it clear that WotC wasn't going to play dirty. That, for a small time TPP was everything. A lawsuit, even one they were objectively correct about, could ruin a small TPP. So the security of knowing there was this safe little sandbox in which if you played nice in, and followed the rules, no big ol' bullies would come by and take your lunch money... that was everything.
But now there is a bully on the field again. They're telling everyone to get out of the sandbox, and never come back. To instead head over to that other sandbox where you have to pay to enter and they can still take your lunch if they want. People are justifiably upset.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
The OGL itself even says this. Quote:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
This is why they were so insistent on claiming they were unauthorizing 1.0a despite the fact that 1.0a doesn't have any mechanism to become de-authorized. They have to sell that lie or we'll just keep legally using the version we want.
Once it is published and authorized, that's that. It is. Currently that refers to 1.0 and 1.0a.
WOTC obviously believe one of three things. That (1) they can legally deauthorise the old OGL, that (2) no one will have the money or desire to challenge them in court, or that (3) they'll win if someone does.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that they want everyone on the new OGL as it will give them more control over the D&D game. Some people think they'll be ridiculously punitive, others think they won't, and others still (myself included) am ok with it as long as they create some sort of review/appeal system, provide some clarity around VTT (which their FAQ suggests they're working on) and something a bit stronger for TPP that can prove that their property has been usurped. And most of the reason is money. No surprises there. D&D is so much more popular now than it was when the original OGL was written, so the losses and gains are much more significant. I doubt anyone back in the early 2000's saw this RPG boom coming. Not like this, anyway. But if they want everyone on the new OGL, they have to deauthorise the old one. Otherwise, what's the point of all of this?
Yeah, you can argue that they should make a better OGL that all the TPP will want to move to, but what could be better than the deal they're currently on? They pay nothing and get to do pretty much whatever they want, right? Honestly, it seems to me like the old OGL is pretty skewed towards TPP and not the company that created it.
I think you are ignoring 20+ years of history. 3rd parties feed sales to WoTC. 4E had a restrictive OGL and was designed for VTT. It flopped. 5E opened up again and it surged in sales. A rising tide lifts all boats. The OGL would never have been offered in the first place if WoTC hadn't seen a benefit in it.
Oh, for sure they saw benefit in increasing third party content. And I think they still see benefit in it. I don't think they want to eliminate all the TPP, they just want more control over the content that third parties want to put out there. They want everyone to fall under the D&D umbrella because it makes their brand stronger but they also want to protect (in their minds) the brand as well.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
The OGL itself even says this. Quote:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
This is why they were so insistent on claiming they were unauthorizing 1.0a despite the fact that 1.0a doesn't have any mechanism to become de-authorized. They have to sell that lie or we'll just keep legally using the version we want.
Once it is published and authorized, that's that. It is. Currently that refers to 1.0 and 1.0a.
Your reading appears to be "no mechanism = they can't do it," when it could just as easily be interpreted as "no mechanism = all they need to do is say it." The very first sentence of 1.0a states it's their license, after all.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
The OGL itself even says this. Quote:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
This is why they were so insistent on claiming they were unauthorizing 1.0a despite the fact that 1.0a doesn't have any mechanism to become de-authorized. They have to sell that lie or we'll just keep legally using the version we want.
Once it is published and authorized, that's that. It is. Currently that refers to 1.0 and 1.0a.
Your reading appears to be "no mechanism = they can't do it," when it could just as easily be interpreted as "no mechanism = all they need to do is say it." The very first sentence of 1.0a states it's their license, after all.
Yes, and as long as you abide by the guidelines of the present OGL, it is PERPETUAL.
Yes, and as long as you abide by the guidelines of the present OGL, it is PERPETUAL.
Perpetual in licenses just means no defined end date. Think "permanent until dispelled" duration in the game itself, it can still be ended externally.
Like spells, licenses only do what they say they do.
It doesn't say "perpetual until revoked" it just says "perpetual". It lacks a means to end it, and it provides an explanation for why that is.
Because you can use any version of it you prefer. If they update it, you can use the updated version or a previous one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, and as long as you abide by the guidelines of the present OGL, it is PERPETUAL.
Which does not necessarily mean irrevokable. There is reason to think WotC meant it to be irrevokable, but intent is relevant but not controlling in contract law.
Yes, and as long as you abide by the guidelines of the present OGL, it is PERPETUAL.
Perpetual in licenses just means no defined end date. Think "permanent until dispelled" duration in the game itself, it can still be ended externally.
Like spells, licenses only do what they say they do.
It doesn't say "perpetual until revoked" it just says "perpetual". It lacks a means to end it, and it provides an explanation for why that is.
Because you can use any version of it you prefer. If they update it, you can use the updated version or a previous one.
Got a case you can cite as precedent for that? People try those kinds of semantic games in court all the time. Sometimes they work, but not always.
You want me to cite a case in which the court doesn't accept a bunch of made up nonsense that wasn't included in a license? Seriously? I know what my signature says but, no. Go do your own homework.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, and as long as you abide by the guidelines of the present OGL, it is PERPETUAL.
Which does not necessarily mean irrevokable. There is reason to think WotC meant it to be irrevokable, but intent is relevant but not controlling in contract law.
It doesn't say it is revocable.
It does say it is perpetual.
It also very clearly says you can choose to continue using other versions even if they release a new one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We're getting so hung up on whether they can do it, when the simple truth is they shouldn't even be threatening to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We're getting so hung up on whether they can do it, when the simple truth is they shouldn't even be threatening to.
Because you now own their immortal soul? Because you benefited from something they did two editions ago in an edition now effectively being run by a completely different company, likely with sufficiently different text that it is arguably immune from any changes to 1.0 anyway?
1.0 cannot be changed my dude. Neither can 1.0a. I'm not certain you are grasping how revisions work. As a general concept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We're getting so hung up on whether they can do it, when the simple truth is they shouldn't even be threatening to.
Because you now own their immortal soul? Because you benefited from something they did two editions ago in an edition now effectively being run by a completely different company, likely with sufficiently different text that it is arguably immune from any changes to 1.0 anyway?
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Not entirely true. They can use the mechanics. They cannot use all the text descriptions, particularly the flavour text.
Actually, they *can* use all the text descriptions *except* the flavour text.
“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
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Actually, I'm certain they can even say "compatible with D&D". Saying your product is "compatible with" another's product doesn't violate trademark even if you name the trademark. Yoi just can't imply your product is a part of the same trakemark without permission, such as "a D&D adventure".
Also, they can use all those other things you mention too, because you can't copyright names or single words. Wizards can claim ownership over a lot of things they can't own.
“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.
Just being able to keep your business as-is isn't exactly a great gift from Wizards; that's the status quo. You are acting like we should be grateful for Wizards agreeing to give us some of the rights they previously wanted to take away back is a win-win, but it's not the whole deal here. It's not all of the rights that we are currently enjoying, we're still losing in the new 1.2 OGL for a variety of reasons.
Once again, Wizards is the one showing up and insisting things need to change for no reason. Acting like everyone is crazy for wanting things to stay the way they've been for decades now is a bit irrational to me, and I'm not sure why you're doing it. We still have the Constitution and that's hundreds of years old; sure there are amendments, but it's still the same old constitution, and when they want to make changes about it people discuss it at length because it's important. This is a similar kind of document for this hobby, the end result will fundamentally change the landscape of the game - honestly all of WotC's actions and choices thus far have already done so. Forcing people to give up their rights and sign a new OGL for no reason other than you're just sick of hearing about it isn't the best argument on why we should agree to a change that, frankly from all accounts, is entirely something that was meant to be optional for us to agree to adapt to or not.
The creators of the original OGL said it was made the way it was so that if ther was ever a new OGL that the players didn't like, they wouldn't have to adapt to it, they could keep -this- OGL and simply choose not to use the new one. Well, we're choosing not to use the new one. Why this is somehow offending or upsetting to you I have no idea.
Wow, hammer, nail, head! This is the point all along. All WotC is doing is insuring a litigious future.
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.
You made some claims with no evidence. Who are making NFTs that WoTC needs to worry about? Don't Trademark laws already apply? What exactly is it about VTTs that you think makes the old OGL null and void, or that the old (and still operating) OGL doesn't handle? We've had VTTs for a while. Where are the legal clashes you would think to find? How has WoTC been harmed by VTTs with the present OGL?
Their new OGL has zip to do with Ernie Gygax. - What business will they be able to maintain? Publishing their OLD 5E OGL works? 6E compatible materials will require the new OGL and it is still rather restrictive. I am fully aware that WoTC is going to create a new OGL. Doesn't mean critics should let up on them. They still haven't pulled the trigger. The "nicer" we are, the less the new OGL will be different in its many problematic areas that were leaked.
The OGL itself even says this. Quote:
This is why they were so insistent on claiming they were unauthorizing 1.0a despite the fact that 1.0a doesn't have any mechanism to become de-authorized. They have to sell that lie or we'll just keep legally using the version we want.
Once it is published and authorized, that's that. It is. Currently that refers to 1.0 and 1.0a.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
WOTC obviously believe one of three things. That (1) they can legally deauthorise the old OGL, that (2) no one will have the money or desire to challenge them in court, or that (3) they'll win if someone does.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that they want everyone on the new OGL as it will give them more control over the D&D game. Some people think they'll be ridiculously punitive, others think they won't, and others still (myself included) am ok with it as long as they create some sort of review/appeal system, provide some clarity around VTT (which their FAQ suggests they're working on) and something a bit stronger for TPP that can prove that their property has been usurped. And most of the reason is money. No surprises there. D&D is so much more popular now than it was when the original OGL was written, so the losses and gains are much more significant. I doubt anyone back in the early 2000's saw this RPG boom coming. Not like this, anyway. But if they want everyone on the new OGL, they have to deauthorise the old one. Otherwise, what's the point of all of this?
Yeah, you can argue that they should make a better OGL that all the TPP will want to move to, but what could be better than the deal they're currently on? They pay nothing and get to do pretty much whatever they want, right? Honestly, it seems to me like the old OGL is pretty skewed towards TPP and not the company that created it.
I think you are ignoring 20+ years of history. 3rd parties feed sales to WoTC. 4E had a restrictive OGL and was designed for VTT. It flopped. 5E opened up again and it surged in sales. A rising tide lifts all boats. The OGL would never have been offered in the first place if WoTC hadn't seen a benefit in it.
As a company filled with a bunch of different people, WOTC staff probably believes all 3 of those things in some unknowable ratio and also a bunch of other things too... because, again, it is a collection of individuals and not a thinking creature itself. TLDR: WOTC does "believe" anything. It is a company. It has no belief structure.
Some of them want that, some probably don't. They staff over a thousand people. The odds they're all aligned in a single belief about anything is remarkably silly.
You talk about WOTC like it is a single person.
The point? Well, its a bit bold to assume there even is one coherent point to all of this.
For example, they've found themselves into a related cluster%^. They've already dumped money into dndbeyond for some reason. They bought this site for 140 mil. Crazy. I mean that. If WotC was a single person like you talk about, they'd be insane.
They were already developing a digital marketplace... their own. So now they've dumped millions to buy this one, and so what happens with the one in work? Their other digital market plans?
They're not acting rationally. Why? Because they're not one person.
WotC goals and direction can and will change on a dime based on whoever is holding the reigns at any one particular moment. It can happen often, it will happen repeatedly, it has happened many...many time already throughout its past. You gotta stop expecting their actions to have a coherent plan the likes a single person might hatch. A company this size simply doesn't...cannot operate like that. They're a collection of people all making choices and taking actions with different goals and desires. It'll always be messier than you think.
Post-hoc assigning some rationale to their behavior isn't warranted.
That's because you don't understand why the OGL was originally released. You're fond of assigning rationale like WotC is a thinking being, so try it again with this question: Why would WotC go the great lengths to dream up the OGL, create it, and release it, if it doesn't benefit them to do so? Why would they have ever created this thing in the first place if it was always the better deal for the TPP?? Even by your own line of thinking this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
We've heard from the actual people who wrote it at the time, and for some of us who were around at the time we saw the effect it had for WotC directly. It was a slam dunk win for WotC. They won everything when they released the OGL.
Why? Because people can publish TPP content regardless of the OGL. People were publishing it before the OGL, and they're publish it after the OGL. D&D doesn't own the fantasy RPG genre. You can publish whatever you want. As long as it isn't copy-written expression, and I assure you, you could absolutely publish TPP materials that are compatible with D&D without ever infringing on WotC copywrite. That's straightforward.
So why then, did anyone ever use the OGL if they didn't need to use the OGL? Why accept the not-so-great terms outlined in the OGL if you could always just publish whatever you wanted to anyway? Why follow any rules dictated to you by WotC if you didn't have to?
Easy. Security. By agreeing to and following the rules of the OGL it made it clear that WotC wasn't going to play dirty. That, for a small time TPP was everything. A lawsuit, even one they were objectively correct about, could ruin a small TPP. So the security of knowing there was this safe little sandbox in which if you played nice in, and followed the rules, no big ol' bullies would come by and take your lunch money... that was everything.
But now there is a bully on the field again. They're telling everyone to get out of the sandbox, and never come back. To instead head over to that other sandbox where you have to pay to enter and they can still take your lunch if they want. People are justifiably upset.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Oh, for sure they saw benefit in increasing third party content. And I think they still see benefit in it. I don't think they want to eliminate all the TPP, they just want more control over the content that third parties want to put out there. They want everyone to fall under the D&D umbrella because it makes their brand stronger but they also want to protect (in their minds) the brand as well.
Your reading appears to be "no mechanism = they can't do it," when it could just as easily be interpreted as "no mechanism = all they need to do is say it." The very first sentence of 1.0a states it's their license, after all.
Yes, and as long as you abide by the guidelines of the present OGL, it is PERPETUAL.
Perpetual in licenses just means no defined end date. Think "permanent until dispelled" duration in the game itself, it can still be ended externally.
Like spells, licenses only do what they say they do.
It doesn't say "perpetual until revoked" it just says "perpetual". It lacks a means to end it, and it provides an explanation for why that is.
Because you can use any version of it you prefer. If they update it, you can use the updated version or a previous one.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Which does not necessarily mean irrevokable. There is reason to think WotC meant it to be irrevokable, but intent is relevant but not controlling in contract law.
You want me to cite a case in which the court doesn't accept a bunch of made up nonsense that wasn't included in a license? Seriously? I know what my signature says but, no. Go do your own homework.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It doesn't say it is revocable.
It does say it is perpetual.
It also very clearly says you can choose to continue using other versions even if they release a new one.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We're getting so hung up on whether they can do it, when the simple truth is they shouldn't even be threatening to.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
1.0 cannot be changed my dude. Neither can 1.0a. I'm not certain you are grasping how revisions work. As a general concept.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Actually, they *can* use all the text descriptions *except* the flavour text.
“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
Actually, I'm certain they can even say "compatible with D&D". Saying your product is "compatible with" another's product doesn't violate trademark even if you name the trademark. Yoi just can't imply your product is a part of the same trakemark without permission, such as "a D&D adventure".
Also, they can use all those other things you mention too, because you can't copyright names or single words. Wizards can claim ownership over a lot of things they can't own.
“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