I agree that Hasbro should get a small share of the profit others make from using the OGL, based on the IP that Hasbro owns.
I don't, because:
1) When good stuff is made and sold/streamed, DnD becomes more popular and more core books are sold, thus increasing Wizards/Hasbro profit already. This is exactly what the OGL 1.0 was designed to do - a collaborative win/win for everyone involved. Changing that dynamic means the end of it all. Creators go from implicitly promoting Wizard's DnD products for free (in a mutually beneficial arrangement - i.e. quid pro quo) to then also padding Wizards/Hasbro's bottom line. Does Nike demand/deserve a portion of the salary/winnings of every athlete that wears their gear? If they wrote up some document asserting that, what do you think would happen? Wizards already has a monopoly on publishing the core rules (and whatever content they make for the game themselves). That is the benefit they get from their IP through the OGL.
2) I don't see Wizards paying royalties to Tolkien and all the other sources whose material DnD sprang from.
3) Any percentage at all would require the same onerous, intrusive bookkeeping from creators that 1.1 is demanding.
Also, 4) Third party content was developed under a perpetual, royalty-free license offered by Wizards, who told nervous third-party developers that it was safe to develop content under that license because Wizards would not and could not enforce a more-restrictive license in the future.
Like, the whole argument about whether publishers are entitled to royalties is missing the point. Of course publishers are generally entitled to ask for royalties! But when Wizards bought TSR, they were buying a dying company. Wizards offered a free license specifically to induce third-party publishers to invest their own time and money into developing content that would revitalize the community around their product and increase the value of the D&D IP.
That license was a form of consideration. Not just the money third parties might have already made on the license, but the license itself. Remember: there's no guarantee that any third party resource will be successful, so those companies are taking a risk by developing it. Their compensation for that risk is the value of the IP they develop, including its future revenues. And Wizards is now trying to renege on that deal and take back that consideration, after the third parties have already made significant investments under those terms.
How many of you own actual physical copies of all the music you consume? Or have at least purchased any digital copies from the artists themselves directly through sites like bandcamp?
<Snip>
I am not defending the leaked Open Game License 1.1. I and others like me are merely explaining that the version we are going off at this point is nothing but an unverified leak, and that the clauses Wizards of the Coast has officially talked about aren't that bad. As such, your post is irrelevant since it is asking questions about misconceived versions of others actual viewpoints.
Frankly, at this point, it is very clear which way Occam's Razor is slicing.
Assuming that Linda Codega did get a copy of it (as well as numerous YouTubers) and then an "anonymous website" wrote up an entire document that matched the leaked information and totally faked the rest, but Gizmodo and everyone else who saw it previously (including WotC!) all decided to just stay quiet and not point out that the made-up document is fake is getting into very silly conspiracy theory land.
At this point in time, the situation isn't nearly as clear as some are arguing it is. What I am saying is not that I know the outcome of this, merely that it is still very possible that the leaks are incorrect or false. I doubt the matching would necessarily be coincidental, anonymous websites could easily design things to match the rumors already. You may well be right, and I may well be wrong, but dismissing my concerns as a "conspiracy theory" is quite hurtful.
A number of 3PPs have now stated that this "draft" of the CGL 1.1 was received with a contract for them to sign.
This is an excellent (long) video where Stephen Glicker ( long time 3PP) discusses the now publicly available CGL 1.1 (after having spoken to his lawyer). He knows and works with many people in the industry, including writers from Paizo (and the OG Pathfinder), WotC, and EN World. From some of these people he learned that the "draft" CGL 1.1 was received with a contract.
You talk about lots of different sources verifying this and only list one. Who are all the 3PP who are saying things such as this?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Kobold Press has been and always will be committed to open gaming and the tabletop community. Our goal is to continue creating the best materials for players and game masters alike... As we look ahead, it becomes even more important for our actions to represent our values. While we wait to see what the future holds, we are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.
All Kobolds look forward to the continued evolution of tabletop gaming. We aim to play our part in making the game better for everyone. Rest assured, Kobold Press intends to maintain a strong presence in the tabletop RPG community. We are not going anywhere.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
At this point in time, the situation isn't nearly as clear as some are arguing it is. What I am saying is not that I know the outcome of this, merely that it is still very possible that the leaks are incorrect or false.
Naw mate. If your company was on fire, in a PR sense, because a leak. But that leak was fake? Immediately you'd have a public statement same day. Fast.
They haven't responded in many days now. That's all the confirmation you need.
I doubt the matching would necessarily be coincidental, anonymous websites could easily design things to match the rumors already. You may well be right, and I may well be wrong, but dismissing my concerns as a "conspiracy theory" is quite hurtful.
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
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.
At this point in time, the situation isn't nearly as clear as some are arguing it is. What I am saying is not that I know the outcome of this, merely that it is still very possible that the leaks are incorrect or false.
Naw mate. If your company was on fire, in a PR sense, because a leak. But that leak was fake? Immediately you'd have a public statement same day. Fast.
They haven't responded in many days now. That's all the confirmation you need.
I doubt the matching would necessarily be coincidental, anonymous websites could easily design things to match the rumors already. You may well be right, and I may well be wrong, but dismissing my concerns as a "conspiracy theory" is quite hurtful.
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
That is not all the confirmation needed, not by a long shot. Everything WotC says can be used in a court of law so they have to be really careful what they say, and it's always best to say nothing in a legal sense. It's bad PR but making a legal mistake is much worse. Paizo and CR are also saying nothing. On the other hand, the leak isn't fake, but it most likely isn't the final version either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Man it sounds like some of you can't accept the fact you're getting stabbed in the back until the coroner report comes in.
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.
Or maybe we're just waiting for the official release of 1.1. I'm not saying that pushback isn't justified. The 1.1 as we saw it is bad and needs to change, literally no one is defending it. What we are saying is that, while pushback can be helpful, further hate on WotC is as yet unwarranted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
At this point in time, the situation isn't nearly as clear as some are arguing it is. What I am saying is not that I know the outcome of this, merely that it is still very possible that the leaks are incorrect or false.
Naw mate. If your company was on fire, in a PR sense, because a leak. But that leak was fake? Immediately you'd have a public statement same day. Fast.
They haven't responded in many days now. That's all the confirmation you need.
I doubt the matching would necessarily be coincidental, anonymous websites could easily design things to match the rumors already. You may well be right, and I may well be wrong, but dismissing my concerns as a "conspiracy theory" is quite hurtful.
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
That is not all the confirmation needed, not by a long shot. Everything WotC says can be used in a court of law so they have to be really careful what they say, and it's always best to say nothing in a legal sense. It's bad PR but making a legal mistake is much worse. Paizo and CR are also saying nothing. On the other hand, the leak isn't fake, but it most likely isn't the final version either.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
There is a difference between complete silence and acknowledging something that is happening without making full on legal statements about it. Normally, complete silence is because it was true. (caught red handed) If false statements were being said, a lack of silence on the matter would be less damning unless that lack of silence was confirming the situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I would like to point out that the vast majority of content published under the OGL was not published by Wizards of the Coast. Most Open Game Content in the OGL 1.0a is not Dungeons and Dragons. The System Reference Document is just one document published under the OGL 1.0a. People on this sub talk like OGL is all about the SRD. It is not. It isn't about Dungeons and Dragons either. This is mostly about third party creators who published their game systems under this licence. If I created a system then its mine. Its mine do to with as I please. Mine to make NFTs out of. Mine to build a reputation around. Mine to seak royalties with. The OGL 1.0a gives WotC a license to our systems. If they like a rule we published they can use that rule. They can for example rename race to ancestry becuase Pathfinder 2E was published under the OGL 1.0a. It doesn't give them a moral right to exploit those systems. They don't have a moral right to prevent a Pathfinder 2E video game. Or suddenly start using Mutants and Masterminds art. WotC doesn't have a moral right to charge a royalty to use someone elses books.
At this point in time, the situation isn't nearly as clear as some are arguing it is. What I am saying is not that I know the outcome of this, merely that it is still very possible that the leaks are incorrect or false.
Naw mate. If your company was on fire, in a PR sense, because a leak. But that leak was fake? Immediately you'd have a public statement same day. Fast.
They haven't responded in many days now. That's all the confirmation you need.
I doubt the matching would necessarily be coincidental, anonymous websites could easily design things to match the rumors already. You may well be right, and I may well be wrong, but dismissing my concerns as a "conspiracy theory" is quite hurtful.
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
That is not all the confirmation needed, not by a long shot. Everything WotC says can be used in a court of law so they have to be really careful what they say, and it's always best to say nothing in a legal sense. It's bad PR but making a legal mistake is much worse. Paizo and CR are also saying nothing. On the other hand, the leak isn't fake, but it most likely isn't the final version either.
Okay, I have to ask... do you work for WotC? Maybe you're related to someone who works there?
Oh, oh no... I just realized... Are you... are you in a safe place? Is someone from WotC there now making you type these things? If they are, let us know by replying with some kind of snarky comeback where you tell us that there is no way for the draft to be real, and that we are all just worried that the sky is falling. That way we will know that we should send help.
Honestly, though, if you spent even a fraction of time watching some of the youtube videos made by creators in the industry, reading the articles (like on EN World), or recognizing that it's more likely it's real than that there is a conspiracy against WotC, you might understand the seriousness of this. Anything else at this point just seems like being wilfully obtuse.
I read every article and watched a lot of videos. All they show is that we don't have all the facts yet. Like I said, the pushback is justified, the hate is not, not yet anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
The 1.1 as reported could be both true and not a big issue, practically speaking, in the long run. WotC said they’re reaching out to the people and companies this will really majorly impact (the 750k+ club), and that if anyone should start getting to that level, they’ll reach out to them, too. So they put this out, with its unusually high royalty, and that’s basically the starting point for their negotiations. They say, we can take 25% over 750, or we can make a separate deal. And we haven’t heard from the major publishers because they’re still at the table. I mean, that all sounds a lot like “nice subclass you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.” But that’s just how negotiations work. You ask for more than you want, and WotC is in the position of strength.
I think the real tell will be in the coming weeks, if paizo, mcdm, et al, start putting out releases about how they’ve reached (undisclosed) terms with wizards, and how they’re excited about the new products they’ll be working on, and a profitable future relationship. Or, if we don’t see those, that could be telling as well.
In short, the 1.1 is just for us plebes, while big players get their own deals.
WotC said they’re reaching out to the people and companies this will really majorly impact (the 750k+ club).
No, the OGL 1.1 affects the entire community. They play it like it only affects the big 3PP, but that isn't even remotely true. This even affects non-content creators. The bottom line is, it will impact all D&D players and all players of anything that is impacted by the OGL 1.1. (ie, other games can be impacted too)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
To start, here is what this thread is not about: It is not about the contents of the alleged draft OGL 1.1.It is not about wild speculation.It is not about unproductive commentary like “Wizards is doing this because they are evil.”If you want to engage in that or respond to any posts others make about that, there are a dozen or so other threads to choose from.
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.
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
Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their branding.
As folks likely know, content published under the OGL must contain various notices of the use of Wizards’ intellectual property.This very easily could result in racist content that is directly tied to Wizards of the Coast - something which both reflects poorly on the game and on the player base itself.Wizards has expressed a desire to change the OGL to better limit hate speech and bigotry published under their brand.
Recent events have put this weakness of the current OGL to the forefront of Wizards’ mind.Ernest Gygax - one of D&D’s founders, son of Gary, and original player of Tenser (which is an anagram for Ernest) - is presently being sued for taking Wizards intellectual property and tarnishing the brand by releasing racist content under that brand name.Specifically, he is trying to publish a new version of Star Frontiers, which Wizards owns and which Wizards still licenses the same of pdfs of old rule books for, with content like “Races in SFNG [Star Frontiers: New Genesis] are not unlike races in the real world. Some are better at certain things than others, and some races are superior than others” (actual quote) and worse.
That lawsuit has exposed an inherent weakness in OGL 1.0 - Star Frontiers has a substantial amount of protection from folks who would illegally use Wizards’ IP for racist purposes, but OGL 1.0 opens up publication of D&D-tied content with similarly horrific language contained within.
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have not had a major figure like Ernest Gygax attempt to abuse OGL 1.0 in this manner.It likely was not even a major concern in their mind when OGL 1.0 was drafted.But the existence of one such instance indicates the possibilities of others, and luck is hardly the shield explicit contractual language would be.Rather than risk another Star Frontiers situation, but this time with content Wizards has freely given the community, updating the OGL to prevent this kind of third-party content is the most sensible course of action.
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.
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.
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).
D&D is and always has been the largest tabletop RPG - the data saying Pathfinder sold more than D&D 4e is incomplete - it looks only at local game store sales, which are stores frequented by folks already inclined toward gaming.It ignores big box stores, major bookstore chains, and Amazon, all of which are more frequented by folks who are more casual gamers. Casual gamers are going to gravitate toward the name they recognise, and no name in the industry is more recognisable than Dungeons & Dragons.Additionally, the LGS data misses the subscription service D&D Insider, which provided the totality of 4e content online. As such, the LGS sales data misses two major chunks of 4e sales, both of which would put 4e above Pathfinder for the general populations
Why is that relevant?The major third party creators want to make products compatible with D&D - it is better to take a small chunk out of a big pie, than a slightly larger chunk out of a small pie. They have grown to the size they have specifically because they are relying on Wizards’ intellectual property and (more importantly) Wizards’ unrivalled popularity and brand recognition within the industry.
They are successful because of Wizards and the OGL while simultaneously siphoning customers to their products and away from Wizards’, and Wizards wants to reclaim a portion of those lost profits, receiving some compensation for the fact those third-parties would not be as large as they are if they had relied on non-Wizards intellectual property.
Now, there is legitimate reason for controversy on this point - it can be argued that those third parties are providing advertising and increase Wizards’ prestige and encourage folks who might not otherwise buy D&D product to buy official content.That is a legitimate topic of conversation, and one you can bet Wizards is discussing and negotiating with the twenty or so third party sellers at a sufficiently large scale for royalties to kick in. It is not something we on the forums can really discuss, as it would involve complex financial records and data we simply do not have access to.
TL;DR:The world has changed a lot since OGL 1.0, in terms of the game’s popularity, threats which did not exist or were not apparent at the time of OGL 1.0 (NFTs, major content producers creating racist content with Wizards’ intellectual property, ultra-corporations setting their eyes on D&D content), and a rise of third party sales unprecedented by early editions.
OGL 1.0 does not address the realities of the world we live in and needs to be updated.The exact shape of the update is still to be decided—and what form that update should take is one I am sure folks will be debating on other threads up to and beyond the OGL 1.1 release.
First, your opinion (and Wizards/Hasbro) that the OGL needed to change is just that, an opinion. It's not fact. The OGL has been contributing to Wizards/Hasbro's bottom line for 22 years. But let's address your points.
Reason One: NTF's
This is already covered under copyright law. None of the DnD trade dress or brand identity is included in the OGL. Anyone who mints DnD NTF's is already violating copyrgith law. Also, a year ago, Habsro couldn't mint NTF's fast enough. One of my other hobbies in collecting Transformers, and I was watching the broadcast when they started selling Transfortmers NTF's. Hasbro doesn't give a damn about NTF's other than as an excuse.
Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their branding.
Again, already covered under copyright law, as none of the DnD trade dress or brand identity is included in the OGL. If anyone sticks a Wizard/Hasbro brand on a 3PP Wizard/Hasbro can sing the "We Will Sue You" Chorus loudly, and no one will object.
Reason Three: Data collection.
Just because Wizards/Hasbro *wants* access to other companies proprietary data, just because it will help them make a profit, does not mean they are *entitled* to it. Corporations are *NOT* entitled to anything just because it will improve their bottom line. Third Party Publishers have every right to *not* share data with Wizards/Habsro.
Reason Four: “Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties.
False premise. Since you can not legally copyright game mechanics, Amazon could already produce a product which is functionally identical to 5e, change the names of a hand full of monsters, subclasses and spells, and release it. Amazon could also release an original game system which only bares a passing resemblence to 5e and use their market dominance, along with their partnership with Critical Role, to steam roll Wizards/Hasbro. The OGL makes it easier to dublicate 5e (or 3.5e, or 3e) game mechanics because you can copy and past from the SRD, but at the end of the day, there is very, very little in the SRD, othet than a hand full of spells, creature names and stat blocks that is actually copyrightable matierial.
Reason Five: Recapturing Lost Revenue.
False premise. You're operating from the assumption that if people didn't buy 3rd party products, they would instead purchase official Wizards/Habsro products. The problem with this is, 3rd party products are commonly things Wizards/Hasbro doesn't make. Show me a Wizard/Hasbro product that offers a setting like Grim Hollow or Dungeons of Drakkenheim. Show me a Wizards/Hasbro product that offers a setting like StarFinder, or WayStar. Show me a Wizards/Hasbro product that offers what Stibbles’ Codex of Companions or The Seeker's Guide to Twisted Taverns, or Battlezoo Ancestries: Dragons. You can't, because these products aren't like anything Wizards/Hasbro has produced. Are their 3rd party products that compete directly with Wizards/Hasbro products? Yes. But that still doesn't mean that Wizards/Hasbro lost a sale because someone bought an adventure from a different company. People buy adventures because they want to play them. If they don't buy an adventure from Wizards/Hasbro, it's because that adventure doesn't appeal to them. The lack of adventures from 3rd parties won't result in more sales for Wizards/Hasbro, it will result in more homebrew adventures. And beyond adventures, there's not much in the way of third party products that are in direct competition with Wizards/Hasbro products.
"But wait!" you say. "What about Pathfinder/Old School Essentials/Dungeon Crawl Classics/Some other OGL game?" That directly competes.
Not really. People who play Pathfinder play because they don't want what 5e is offering. They want a crunchier system. Pathfinder, at the very worst, competes with DnD 3.5. There is, I think, one 5e clone out there called Level Up: 5th Edition Advanced. Even that doesn't really compete in the same place, because it adds considerable crunch to the game.
Also, finally, Wizards/Hasbro isn't entitled to sales just because they want them. People are allowed to want to play in settings Wizards/Hasbro doesn't offer, in adventures Wizards/Hasvro didn't write, and with rulesets other than the ones written by Wizards/Hasro.
WotC said they’re reaching out to the people and companies this will really majorly impact (the 750k+ club).
No, the OGL 1.1 affects the entire community. They play it like it only affects the big 3PP, but that isn't even remotely true. This even affects non-content creators. The bottom line is, it will impact all D&D players and all players of anything that is impacted by the OGL 1.1. (ie, other games can be impacted too)
Yea, it affects everyone, I never said otherwise. But it mostly (majorly was the words I used, I suppose) affects big 3pp. They see business models disintegrate and lose their jobs. The rest of us lose optional add-ons in a game. They’ve got a much bigger stake in this.
Yea, it affects everyone, I never said otherwise. But it mostly (majorly was the words I used, I suppose) affects big 3pp. They see business models disintegrate and lose their jobs. The rest of us lose optional add-ons in a game. They’ve got a much bigger stake in this.
I don't know that I agree with that. This isn't just about losing a few options to me. This is about losing entire systems and decimating a hobby I've been invested in since the 90s. It's not just going to hurt the publishers, it's going to devastate the entire hobby. Not just people who play 5e or will play 6e, but the rest of us too.
WotC said they’re reaching out to the people and companies this will really majorly impact (the 750k+ club).
No, the OGL 1.1 affects the entire community. They play it like it only affects the big 3PP, but that isn't even remotely true. This even affects non-content creators. The bottom line is, it will impact all D&D players and all players of anything that is impacted by the OGL 1.1. (ie, other games can be impacted too)
Yea, it affects everyone, I never said otherwise. But it mostly (majorly was the words I used, I suppose) affects big 3pp. They see business models disintegrate and lose their jobs. The rest of us lose optional add-ons in a game. They’ve got a much bigger stake in this.
If the worst case happens it will result in a lot of extra work that I wasn't expecting to do. I have to replace the product I have released with new editions. I have to find new sources to replace the ones I relied on for 13 years. My best year was 3K. A lot of my friends who are publishers are in the same boat. So it absolutely affects us as badly as the big 3PP especially considering I have a staff of one, myself.
The only conclusion I can draw from the information available to us at this time is that Wizards - or rather, Hasbro - actively desires the complete cessation of all third-party content. Any businessman worth his criminal portfolio would be able to see that terms this harsh would destroy the thriving third-party ecosystem that has made D&D the de facto industry standard for tabletop gaming. What this says to me is that Hasbro is targeting the casual markets at the explicit expense of the core fanbase for the product, because that is how Hasbro operates. Why sell a fifty-dollar game book to a hundred thousand people from a dedicated gaming store when you can sell a five-dollar D&D Brand Travel Game to ten million people from Target? Hasbro is not interested in serving a dedicated gaming fanbase, that is not their business model and never has been. Hasbro is interested in selling inexpensive products to the largest possible number of people, regardless of whether those products will be used.
Wizards, despite my hatred of the company, is not stupid enough to pull this sort of move. Hasbro, on the other hand? This fits them to a T. Hasbro does not tolerate OGL-style third-party usage of their IP, at all. I can imagine this is a directive from on high, and Wizards is not permitted to back off of it even though the D&D team knows full well how toxic this move is for their brand.
I'm quoting this again because I think it's a perfect summation of what's going on. This stinks to the heavens of corporate greed, shortsightedness, and tunnel vision. This is Hasbro execs saying WE SHOULD BE EARNING ALL THE MONEY and not giving a **** about the community, fans and third party creators, who've helped make 5E the gigantic success (and moneymaker) that it is.
The draconian terms of the new OGL are, really, just breathtaking in their naked greed and complete disrespect and dismissal of the fanbase and creators who were instrumental in the success of D&D.
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
<Snip>
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
In the very same post, you argue that speculation is near equivalent to conspiracy theories and then explain that the fact that Wizards of the Coast hasn't responded to your speculation makes it automatically true. First of all, I am not spreading conspiracy theories, all I'm saying is that it's possible that the one anonymous website's "leaks" could still be unintentional errors or perhaps even deliberate lies. I'm pretty sure at least that there are one or more people on the internet who would be willing to create a website and tailor it to rumors in order to deceive. If you think that the believe that there are at least a few malevolent people online is a "conspiracy theory", then I honestly don't know what to say.
Also, you are badly misinterpreting my whole point; What I am saying is that we can't be fully sure that the leaked Open Game License 1.1 is the correct version. I'm not saying that you guys are wrong to be concerned about this, merely that we don't know how big of a deal it is at this point in time. Another odd thing about your post is that you seem to think that Wizards of the Coast not verifying something automatically means it's true. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You are right that this instance of silence does make the situation more concerning, but there are numerous good reasons for why Wizards of the Coast haven't responded just yet. (Caerwyn outlined several of those reasons HERE.)
The notion that unverified rumors are true if they aren't denied is commonly used to argue that actual conspiracy theories are true when they clearly aren't. So please forgive me if that argument doesn't change my mind. Oh, and by the way, Wizards couldn't deny the rumors by saying that the Open Game License is going to stay exactly the same, because they literally outlined how it is being tweaked on the front page of the very website you are debating on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
<Snip>
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
In the very same post, you argue that speculation is near equivalent to conspiracy theories and then explain that the fact that Wizards of the Coast hasn't responded to your speculation makes it automatically true.
No. I don't.
First of all, I am not spreading conspiracy theories, all I'm saying is that it's possible that the one anonymous website's "leaks" could still be unintentional errors or perhaps even deliberate lies. I'm pretty sure at least that there are one or more people on the internet who would be willing to create a website and tailor it to rumors in order to deceive. If you think that the believe that there are at least a few malevolent people online is a "conspiracy theory", then I honestly don't know what to say.
That is literally a theory about a conspiracy. Literally. Literally you're telling us your conspiracy theory.
Also, you are badly misinterpreting my whole point; What I am saying is that we can't be fully sure that the leaked Open Game License 1.1 is the correct version. I'm not saying that you guys are wrong to be concerned about this, merely that we don't know how big of a deal it is at this point in time. Another odd thing about your post is that you seem to think that Wizards of the Coast not verifying something automatically means it's true. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You are right that this instance of silence does make the situation more concerning, but there are numerous good reasons for why Wizards of the Coast haven't responded just yet. (Caerwyn outlined several of those reasons HERE.)
Naw. If this was a fake leak they'd have already something. They haven't.
The notion that unverified rumors are true if they aren't denied is commonly used to argue that actual conspiracy theories are true when they clearly aren't. So please forgive me if that argument doesn't change my mind. Oh, and by the way, Wizards couldn't deny the rumors by saying that the Open Game License is going to stay exactly the same, because they literally outlined how it is being tweaked on the front page of the very website you are debating on.
Right, because the leak is true. It's plainly obvious.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also, 4) Third party content was developed under a perpetual, royalty-free license offered by Wizards, who told nervous third-party developers that it was safe to develop content under that license because Wizards would not and could not enforce a more-restrictive license in the future.
Like, the whole argument about whether publishers are entitled to royalties is missing the point. Of course publishers are generally entitled to ask for royalties! But when Wizards bought TSR, they were buying a dying company. Wizards offered a free license specifically to induce third-party publishers to invest their own time and money into developing content that would revitalize the community around their product and increase the value of the D&D IP.
That license was a form of consideration. Not just the money third parties might have already made on the license, but the license itself. Remember: there's no guarantee that any third party resource will be successful, so those companies are taking a risk by developing it. Their compensation for that risk is the value of the IP they develop, including its future revenues. And Wizards is now trying to renege on that deal and take back that consideration, after the third parties have already made significant investments under those terms.
I am not defending the leaked Open Game License 1.1. I and others like me are merely explaining that the version we are going off at this point is nothing but an unverified leak, and that the clauses Wizards of the Coast has officially talked about aren't that bad. As such, your post is irrelevant since it is asking questions about misconceived versions of others actual viewpoints.
At this point in time, the situation isn't nearly as clear as some are arguing it is. What I am saying is not that I know the outcome of this, merely that it is still very possible that the leaks are incorrect or false. I doubt the matching would necessarily be coincidental, anonymous websites could easily design things to match the rumors already. You may well be right, and I may well be wrong, but dismissing my concerns as a "conspiracy theory" is quite hurtful.
You talk about lots of different sources verifying this and only list one. Who are all the 3PP who are saying things such as this?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.EN World is reporting that Kobold Press is beginning work on a new Fantasy TTRPG rule set that will be Open Source and Royalty Free.
https://www.enworld.org/threads/ogl-kobold-press-raising-our-flag-for-new-open-rpg.694324/
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Naw mate. If your company was on fire, in a PR sense, because a leak. But that leak was fake? Immediately you'd have a public statement same day. Fast.
They haven't responded in many days now. That's all the confirmation you need.
I mean, if you have a theory, that there is a conspiracy...which, is what you're suggesting. Isn't it? Some nefarious shadowy figures conspired to make hasbro look bad? Idk. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
If it was a fake leak they could clear it up in less than 5 minutes. They could tweet "Fake leak, no changes planned to ogl for 6e" EZ.
But enough sources have confirmed it, and their silence confirms it.
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.
That is not all the confirmation needed, not by a long shot. Everything WotC says can be used in a court of law so they have to be really careful what they say, and it's always best to say nothing in a legal sense. It's bad PR but making a legal mistake is much worse. Paizo and CR are also saying nothing. On the other hand, the leak isn't fake, but it most likely isn't the final version either.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Man it sounds like some of you can't accept the fact you're getting stabbed in the back until the coroner report comes in.
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.
Or maybe we're just waiting for the official release of 1.1. I'm not saying that pushback isn't justified. The 1.1 as we saw it is bad and needs to change, literally no one is defending it. What we are saying is that, while pushback can be helpful, further hate on WotC is as yet unwarranted.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
There is a difference between complete silence and acknowledging something that is happening without making full on legal statements about it. Normally, complete silence is because it was true. (caught red handed) If false statements were being said, a lack of silence on the matter would be less damning unless that lack of silence was confirming the situation.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
If it was an internal draft, they can't say anything. The only thing this silence confirms is that it is not a fake.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Reason #4. Explotation
I would like to point out that the vast majority of content published under the OGL was not published by Wizards of the Coast. Most Open Game Content in the OGL 1.0a is not Dungeons and Dragons. The System Reference Document is just one document published under the OGL 1.0a. People on this sub talk like OGL is all about the SRD. It is not. It isn't about Dungeons and Dragons either. This is mostly about third party creators who published their game systems under this licence. If I created a system then its mine. Its mine do to with as I please. Mine to make NFTs out of. Mine to build a reputation around. Mine to seak royalties with. The OGL 1.0a gives WotC a license to our systems. If they like a rule we published they can use that rule. They can for example rename race to ancestry becuase Pathfinder 2E was published under the OGL 1.0a. It doesn't give them a moral right to exploit those systems. They don't have a moral right to prevent a Pathfinder 2E video game. Or suddenly start using Mutants and Masterminds art. WotC doesn't have a moral right to charge a royalty to use someone elses books.
I read every article and watched a lot of videos. All they show is that we don't have all the facts yet. Like I said, the pushback is justified, the hate is not, not yet anyway.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
The 1.1 as reported could be both true and not a big issue, practically speaking, in the long run. WotC said they’re reaching out to the people and companies this will really majorly impact (the 750k+ club), and that if anyone should start getting to that level, they’ll reach out to them, too.
So they put this out, with its unusually high royalty, and that’s basically the starting point for their negotiations. They say, we can take 25% over 750, or we can make a separate deal. And we haven’t heard from the major publishers because they’re still at the table.
I mean, that all sounds a lot like “nice subclass you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.” But that’s just how negotiations work. You ask for more than you want, and WotC is in the position of strength.
I think the real tell will be in the coming weeks, if paizo, mcdm, et al, start putting out releases about how they’ve reached (undisclosed) terms with wizards, and how they’re excited about the new products they’ll be working on, and a profitable future relationship. Or, if we don’t see those, that could be telling as well.
In short, the 1.1 is just for us plebes, while big players get their own deals.
No, the OGL 1.1 affects the entire community. They play it like it only affects the big 3PP, but that isn't even remotely true. This even affects non-content creators. The bottom line is, it will impact all D&D players and all players of anything that is impacted by the OGL 1.1. (ie, other games can be impacted too)
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
First, your opinion (and Wizards/Hasbro) that the OGL needed to change is just that, an opinion. It's not fact. The OGL has been contributing to Wizards/Hasbro's bottom line for 22 years. But let's address your points.
Reason One: NTF's
This is already covered under copyright law. None of the DnD trade dress or brand identity is included in the OGL. Anyone who mints DnD NTF's is already violating copyrgith law. Also, a year ago, Habsro couldn't mint NTF's fast enough. One of my other hobbies in collecting Transformers, and I was watching the broadcast when they started selling Transfortmers NTF's. Hasbro doesn't give a damn about NTF's other than as an excuse.
Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their branding.
Again, already covered under copyright law, as none of the DnD trade dress or brand identity is included in the OGL. If anyone sticks a Wizard/Hasbro brand on a 3PP Wizard/Hasbro can sing the "We Will Sue You" Chorus loudly, and no one will object.
Reason Three: Data collection.
Just because Wizards/Hasbro *wants* access to other companies proprietary data, just because it will help them make a profit, does not mean they are *entitled* to it. Corporations are *NOT* entitled to anything just because it will improve their bottom line. Third Party Publishers have every right to *not* share data with Wizards/Habsro.
Reason Four: “Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties.
False premise. Since you can not legally copyright game mechanics, Amazon could already produce a product which is functionally identical to 5e, change the names of a hand full of monsters, subclasses and spells, and release it. Amazon could also release an original game system which only bares a passing resemblence to 5e and use their market dominance, along with their partnership with Critical Role, to steam roll Wizards/Hasbro. The OGL makes it easier to dublicate 5e (or 3.5e, or 3e) game mechanics because you can copy and past from the SRD, but at the end of the day, there is very, very little in the SRD, othet than a hand full of spells, creature names and stat blocks that is actually copyrightable matierial.
Reason Five: Recapturing Lost Revenue.
False premise. You're operating from the assumption that if people didn't buy 3rd party products, they would instead purchase official Wizards/Habsro products. The problem with this is, 3rd party products are commonly things Wizards/Hasbro doesn't make. Show me a Wizard/Hasbro product that offers a setting like Grim Hollow or Dungeons of Drakkenheim. Show me a Wizards/Hasbro product that offers a setting like StarFinder, or WayStar. Show me a Wizards/Hasbro product that offers what Stibbles’ Codex of Companions or The Seeker's Guide to Twisted Taverns, or Battlezoo Ancestries: Dragons. You can't, because these products aren't like anything Wizards/Hasbro has produced. Are their 3rd party products that compete directly with Wizards/Hasbro products? Yes. But that still doesn't mean that Wizards/Hasbro lost a sale because someone bought an adventure from a different company. People buy adventures because they want to play them. If they don't buy an adventure from Wizards/Hasbro, it's because that adventure doesn't appeal to them. The lack of adventures from 3rd parties won't result in more sales for Wizards/Hasbro, it will result in more homebrew adventures. And beyond adventures, there's not much in the way of third party products that are in direct competition with Wizards/Hasbro products.
"But wait!" you say. "What about Pathfinder/Old School Essentials/Dungeon Crawl Classics/Some other OGL game?" That directly competes.
Not really. People who play Pathfinder play because they don't want what 5e is offering. They want a crunchier system. Pathfinder, at the very worst, competes with DnD 3.5. There is, I think, one 5e clone out there called Level Up: 5th Edition Advanced. Even that doesn't really compete in the same place, because it adds considerable crunch to the game.
Also, finally, Wizards/Hasbro isn't entitled to sales just because they want them. People are allowed to want to play in settings Wizards/Hasbro doesn't offer, in adventures Wizards/Hasvro didn't write, and with rulesets other than the ones written by Wizards/Hasro.
So, all of your points are wrong.
Yea, it affects everyone, I never said otherwise. But it mostly (majorly was the words I used, I suppose) affects big 3pp. They see business models disintegrate and lose their jobs. The rest of us lose optional add-ons in a game. They’ve got a much bigger stake in this.
I don't know that I agree with that. This isn't just about losing a few options to me. This is about losing entire systems and decimating a hobby I've been invested in since the 90s. It's not just going to hurt the publishers, it's going to devastate the entire hobby. Not just people who play 5e or will play 6e, but the rest of us too.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
If the worst case happens it will result in a lot of extra work that I wasn't expecting to do. I have to replace the product I have released with new editions. I have to find new sources to replace the ones I relied on for 13 years. My best year was 3K. A lot of my friends who are publishers are in the same boat. So it absolutely affects us as badly as the big 3PP especially considering I have a staff of one, myself.
Robert Conley
Bat in the Attic Games.
I'm quoting this again because I think it's a perfect summation of what's going on. This stinks to the heavens of corporate greed, shortsightedness, and tunnel vision. This is Hasbro execs saying WE SHOULD BE EARNING ALL THE MONEY and not giving a **** about the community, fans and third party creators, who've helped make 5E the gigantic success (and moneymaker) that it is.
The draconian terms of the new OGL are, really, just breathtaking in their naked greed and complete disrespect and dismissal of the fanbase and creators who were instrumental in the success of D&D.
In the very same post, you argue that speculation is near equivalent to conspiracy theories and then explain that the fact that Wizards of the Coast hasn't responded to your speculation makes it automatically true. First of all, I am not spreading conspiracy theories, all I'm saying is that it's possible that the one anonymous website's "leaks" could still be unintentional errors or perhaps even deliberate lies. I'm pretty sure at least that there are one or more people on the internet who would be willing to create a website and tailor it to rumors in order to deceive. If you think that the believe that there are at least a few malevolent people online is a "conspiracy theory", then I honestly don't know what to say.
Also, you are badly misinterpreting my whole point; What I am saying is that we can't be fully sure that the leaked Open Game License 1.1 is the correct version. I'm not saying that you guys are wrong to be concerned about this, merely that we don't know how big of a deal it is at this point in time. Another odd thing about your post is that you seem to think that Wizards of the Coast not verifying something automatically means it's true. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You are right that this instance of silence does make the situation more concerning, but there are numerous good reasons for why Wizards of the Coast haven't responded just yet. (Caerwyn outlined several of those reasons HERE.)
The notion that unverified rumors are true if they aren't denied is commonly used to argue that actual conspiracy theories are true when they clearly aren't. So please forgive me if that argument doesn't change my mind. Oh, and by the way, Wizards couldn't deny the rumors by saying that the Open Game License is going to stay exactly the same, because they literally outlined how it is being tweaked on the front page of the very website you are debating on.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.No. I don't.
That is literally a theory about a conspiracy. Literally. Literally you're telling us your conspiracy theory.
Naw. If this was a fake leak they'd have already something. They haven't.
Right, because the leak is true. It's plainly obvious.
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.