Thanks @Headless! Good catch on the online / VTT stuff. I'd been toying with another edit to add that but the post's already so long :p
You're correct that it's a key point because unlike print / pdf content the OGL language shows intent to dominate the online space, which is the whole walled garden / microtransactions concern via DnD Beyond. Although there's zero detail this OGL certainly clears the ground for them to take out anyone they don't want there.
I saw elsewhere that Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds have cut custom deals with WotC (these guys were already reselling official content so might just be respecting those deals). Where that leaves Foundry, Owlbear Rodeo and Arkenforge I really don't know. Even if they don't actively drive them into the sea, having no license to do what you're doing is a powerful disincentive to invest / innovate. They could simply be left to wither.
There's something weirdly generic about a lot of the WotC content, as thought it's been designed by committee. I'm not a fan of Forgotten Realms for this very reason.
I tried a Hitpoint Press kickstarter a couple of years back (Aetherra) and was quite impressed.
Second, freedom of speech meaning I (or anyone else) can write an maximumly offensive adventure using D&D name and content and drop it on an Internet and there is nothing WotC or anyone can do about that. It only becomes a real problem if I attempt to monetize it.
I think the rest of your post begins to show an understanding of why Wizards might be inclined to make the changes, so I am not going to respond and engage in circular discussions - there is enough back and forth going nowhere on other threads.
However, I did want to take a moment to address this because it is simply wrong. Monetising racism is clearly worse than not; but whether monetised or not, Wizards is still harmed. As Yurei noted above, OGL content, whether commercial or not, has D&D’s name slapped on it—and having your name even associated with racist content can be horrific for a brand, generating bad press. Even if the racist is not profiting from Wizards’ IP, they are still financially harming Wizards by virtue of linking Wizards and racism. You’d end up seeing all kinds of articles decrying Wizards for not better preventing the content; all kinds of accusations that they are tacitly endorsing the content by not taking action. You’d then have to have a legal fight - one which would be expensive (litigation is hardly cheep) and which would be made more difficult because the racist would use Wizards’ own OGL as a shield.
That is all bad for Wizards, and putting a big “don’t attach our brand name to racism” hole in the shield makes it easier for Wizards to respond to allegations they are not doing enough (“thanks for letting us know about it - they are in violation of these specific terms, so we already have a plan in place for this exact kind of situation.”) and makes their job in litigation easier.
I agree, but nothing can prevent it if someone wants to write it and post it somewhere on the Internet.
I certainly won't use it, though David Duke and his minions might.
"Stopping people from writing things on the internet" isn't the point. Removing access to their license so they don't have to review everything a bad actor puts out in order to C&D them is. That person can still write whatever they want without said license.
This was a canard; a distraction. This is a non-problem. Nobody was making D&D NFTs; nobody of any size anyway. The trend is more or less dead at this point, and WotC is using a boogeyman to try and scare you into line.
Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their branding.
Hasbro doesn't get to legislate taste; people are allowed to make horrible products, you are allowed not to patronize them. Using official D&D branding is already a violation of existing copyright law; that's what that little "R" in a circle (registered trademark sign) means next to the big "DUNGEONS & DRAGONS" on book covers. This is another boogeyman; notice that both of these first two are appealing to your emotions and not your reason.
Reason Three: Data collection.
There are enough Corporations trying ti filch my personal information without WOTC joining the queue. They want data: do market research like everybody else, not establish the D&D inquisition.
Reason Four: “Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties.
Wizard's IP... as if 90 percent of it wasn't stolen from Lord of the Rings, Celtic/Germanic mythology and the public domain to start with. Or did you think they came up with Halflings all on their own? TSR/WOtC didn't even come up with the idea of most of their rules to start with: 1.0 D&D was adapted from Chainmail.
Reason Five: Recapturing Lost Revenue.
Ah "Lost revenue"; the same argument games companies put forth to say "every copy of a game pirated is a lost sale!"... and has been debunked so many times it's hard to keep track. Hasbro just wants to make more money than already owning the most successful TTRPG (not for long by the looks of it) on Earth does. And to do it they are turning small businesses and players alike upside down and shaking them for all they're worth.
1) Even if you're right about #1, it's far from the only derivative instrument that could be made from WotC's IP. Best to have a license that nips all that in the bud explicitly.
2) They do get to legislate taste when it involves their licenses. You're welcome to write/post whatever game you want without using a WotC license.
3) Market research is not nearly timely or precise enough to provide the feedback they'll need in the current era.
4) If everything is so derivative, why have an OGL at all? Just make your own fantasy world, clearly it's easy to do right?
5) I agree that going after small creators with hefty royalties is bad. But major competitors making millions off WotC's license is something they would reasonably want to prevent. They literally have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to prevent that sort of thing.
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?
Because I can think of little more hypocritical than not caring that artists are not being paid accordingly—showing you've actually very little regard for people's intellectual property—and then invoking the rhetoric of intellectual property just to defend a conglomerate the size of Hasbro pulling the livelihoods of writers, illustrators, and other creatives responsible for other games right out from under them.
I barely own physical copies of anything anymore. I game through Steam/PS+, I license books through DDB and Audible, and yes, I pay for music subscriptions. In all cases I'm paying the market rate and not resorting to piracy.
I don't know why people keep saying Critical Role is OGL. It is not. It is under the Fan Content policy, which isn't being changed. Stranger Things also. And let's face it, Paizo is absolutely not generating any kind of customer for D&D.
While I'm sure Mercer & Co. have hammered out a private agreement with WOTC, at least parts of CR are most certainly OGL - especially the Tal'Dorei Reborn book they just published, for profit, under their own imprint.
Also, the podcast/YouTube thing is clearly making a profit for them, so I suspect it, too, is no longer considered to be covered by the Fan Content Policy - but I'm not an attorney, so I could be really wrong about that.
Only if their podcast or youtube is paywalled. If it is freely available but supported by ads/patreon/merchandise, all that is protected by the FCP.
But I agree with the first part of your statement, Mercer and Co. almost certainly have a custom deal with WotC (which is likely what allowed WotC to publish EGtW, allowed for the creation of Vox Machina etc.)
"Stopping people from writing things on the internet" isn't the point. Removing access to their license so they don't have to review everything a bad actor puts out in order to C&D them is. That person can still write whatever they want without said license.
That's backwards. Under the current license, if someone puts out something like d20 RaHoWa (look it up if you really want to know), Wizards has no control, and thus no liability. Under the new license, if something horrible slips through, which I guarantee is going to happen, it's their fault.
Honestly I'm shocked that no one is looking at the video game aspect of this either. Solasta was made using the SRD without getting a license from WotC, and I'm sure that gals the hell out of the business folks who think they deserve a cut of that game. That game coming out kinda showed that the OGL and SRD could be used for almost any games media and Dungeons and Dragons could be referenced indirectly in marketing materials.
Wizards knew there would be changes and issues. The documented decision making process is handling those issues would occur OUTSIDE the confines of the OGL. So said the man who WROTE and is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF the OGL, Ryan Dancey.
The OGL doesn't need to be changed. NFTs are a red herring, they are already covered under existing copyright law. Racism was a problem but that was addressed through trade dress originally (D20 logo license).
Nope, WotC needs to change, not the OGL. Not that they can legally revoke OGL 1.0a any way. SRD 5.1 is FOREVER released under OGL1.0a. If WotC doesn't like it, they need a new SRD and a new license, just like they did with 4th edition. If they try to go down the road they are going, it goes to court and I doubt seriously WotC will like the outcome of that because it could go to what they can actually copyright and they may be left with nothing but trademarks.
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.
After watching and digesting the 2 hour podcast yesterday featuring Ryan Dancey, I have changed my opinion on the need for OGL 1.1, as written. Given the onerous terms and ownership issues with OGL 1.1, no one should sign. And I agree that the primary question, legally, in all of this is “Does WotC has the legal right to unauthorize OGL 1.0a”. After listening to Dancey, I don’t think they do.
Having said that, I also believe that there may be a need for a new OGL - they even referred to a new license contract being sent around by the lawyer who wrote the original OGL1.0a. This isn’t for the benefit of WotC though, nor is it for their harm. Dancey made a convincing argument about how the OGL benefitted and potentially saved WotC during 4e, with Pathfinder keeping players in the hobby during a poorly visioned version of D&D.
I disagree strongly with this. Updating the OGL is purely for economic strangling of 3rd party content, and WOTC/Hasbro tries to use hide behind these excuses. I have never seen a WOTC related NFT be ut MTG or D&D. I have never seen racism in a 3rd party released content.
Reason 4 are just wrong. WOTC has earned so much by growing the community and everyone I know who have started to play D&D (over 20 people) have started due to exposure from 3rd party content such as content creators and later bought products from WOTC.
As a player and consumer of both D&D and MTG of over 7 years, which have bought a LOT of products for both franchises I will NEVER buy a product from WOTC EVER again if the OGL gets edited in ANY way other than it's original 1.0a version.
As a DM of 2 different groups consisting consisting of 12 people I will bring my players over to none WOTC systems, and rather make my completely homebrewed offline system than to support WOTC with a single dollar if WOTC disrupts the integrity of the OGL 1.0a in any way. #OpenDnD
After watching and digesting the 2 hour podcast yesterday featuring Ryan Dancey, I have changed my opinion on the need for OGL 1.1, as written. Given the onerous terms and ownership issues with OGL 1.1, no one should sign. And I agree that the primary question, legally, in all of this is “Does WotC has the legal right to unauthorize OGL 1.0a”. After listening to Dancey, I don’t think they do.
Having said that, I also believe that there may be a need for a new OGL - they even referred to a new license contract being sent around by the lawyer who wrote the original OGL1.0a. This isn’t for the benefit of WotC though, nor is it for their harm. Dancey made a convincing argument about how the OGL benefitted and potentially saved WotC during 4e, with Pathfinder keeping players in the hobby during a poorly visioned version of D&D.
I think the primary question is "Do the 3PP actually need OGL at all" (See the EFF stance below, the funny part is, that deauthorizing 1.0 would mean that you are no longer bound by it which would (in many cases) actually give you more rights than being bound by it). It would be hilarious if wotc just shot itself in the leg by the 1.1 and the whole OGL(the old one) would be exposed as just a PR stunt that made you give up rights you already had without giving you anything in return.
After watching and digesting the 2 hour podcast yesterday featuring Ryan Dancey, I have changed my opinion on the need for OGL 1.1, as written. Given the onerous terms and ownership issues with OGL 1.1, no one should sign. And I agree that the primary question, legally, in all of this is “Does WotC has the legal right to unauthorize OGL 1.0a”. After listening to Dancey, I don’t think they do.
Having said that, I also believe that there may be a need for a new OGL - they even referred to a new license contract being sent around by the lawyer who wrote the original OGL1.0a. This isn’t for the benefit of WotC though, nor is it for their harm. Dancey made a convincing argument about how the OGL benefitted and potentially saved WotC during 4e, with Pathfinder keeping players in the hobby during a poorly visioned version of D&D.
4E didn't have the OGL they were using the GSL which poison pilled the OGL. So NOBODY made 4E content but wizards and that's kinda what killed it.
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 also agree that the OGL needed to be structured to better allow for integration of 3rd party content into D&D beyond. We've all wanted this for a long time.
However, you can't whitewash the way they did it by arguing that OGL1.0a needed to be replaced.
10% royalty on all profit above 50k, and I'm right there with Hasbro. Allow Hasbro to take their share in kind with online distribution rights (determined somehow).
What they are proposing is stupid, short sighted and greedy.
Why did the OGL need an update to better integrate content into DND Beyond?
Actually, fun note on the topic: are you aware that DND Beyond was created using the existing OGL, and then later purchased by Wizards? Or that virtually all of the other interactive web-based products to support online play have been created by third parties? Or that all similar future development will be prohibited by OGL 1.1? Like, not just royalty sharing-- third parties will simply be prohibited from making things like npc generators, encounter managers, new or special-use character sheet management systems, VTTs, etc., unless they negotiate separate license agreements.
I'm sure that'll be great for the hobby!
Good feedback! I went back and started doing more research on the topic, which mainly involved reading the OGL, the first few pages of the SRD (you really need to consider both) and listened to the two hour conversation with Ryan Dancey on Youtube from 1/11/23. It changed my mind - the current OGL is more than acceptable for the gaming hobby.
I will ad, though, that I think that the OGL will need to be amended at some point in the future to deal with unexpected items that arose in the 23 years since it was originally written. Short term cash flow grabs by Hasbro do not constitute one of these items.
After watching and digesting the 2 hour podcast yesterday featuring Ryan Dancey, I have changed my opinion on the need for OGL 1.1, as written. Given the onerous terms and ownership issues with OGL 1.1, no one should sign. And I agree that the primary question, legally, in all of this is “Does WotC has the legal right to unauthorize OGL 1.0a”. After listening to Dancey, I don’t think they do.
Having said that, I also believe that there may be a need for a new OGL - they even referred to a new license contract being sent around by the lawyer who wrote the original OGL1.0a. This isn’t for the benefit of WotC though, nor is it for their harm. Dancey made a convincing argument about how the OGL benefitted and potentially saved WotC during 4e, with Pathfinder keeping players in the hobby during a poorly visioned version of D&D.
I think the primary question is "Do the 3PP actually need OGL at all" (See the EFF stance below, the funny part is, that deauthorizing 1.0 would mean that you are no longer bound by it which would (in many cases) actually give you more rights than being bound by it). It would be hilarious if wotc just shot itself in the leg by the 1.1 and the whole OGL(the old one) would be exposed as just a PR stunt that made you give up rights you already had without giving you anything in return.
I don’t necessarily agree. I believe that OGL1.0a, while not necessarily legally required for 3PP, adds a very significant amount of value to 3PP and they would be hurt if OGL 1.0a goes away.
While I agree that while 3PP probably does not need the OGL legally, the beauty of the OGL is that it allows smaller 3PP in a safe environment where they don’t have to worry about the threat of lawsuits. These companies can’t afford to fight Hasbro (or any of the other big gaming companies) simply due to limited resources and the opportunity cost of fighting litigation. The OGL and SRD system provides strong clarity around what an IP holder deems is off limits and what is usable for 3PP. Yes, the 3PP might be legally allowed to use more than whats in the SRD, but at cost of increased risk and legal costs.
Additionally, a great item that Dancey touched on is that a gaming system becomes more valuable the more that people use it. The OGL allows all parties to take advantage of this, without fear of legal reprisal. A lot of the massive 3PP that focus on 5e content owe their existence to the OGL1.0 and the D&D market that was opened up to them.
While I agree that while 3PP probably does not need the OGL legally, the beauty of the OGL is that it allows smaller 3PP in a safe environment where they don’t have to worry about the threat of lawsuits. These companies can’t afford to fight Hasbro (or any of the other big gaming companies) simply due to limited resources and the opportunity cost of fighting litigation. The OGL and SRD system provides strong clarity around what an IP holder deems is off limits and what is usable for 3PP. Yes, the 3PP might be legally allowed to use more than whats in the SRD, but at cost of increased risk and legal costs.
Well, yes. Up until now, there was this "gentlemen agreement" of "trust us, use OGL, save on the lawyer costs, and we won't try to sue you (for something that you have right to do)". But now, with 1.1, wotc has pretty much lost this "trustworthy gentleman" status and there is no reason for 3PP to trust them anymore and nothing to gain from 1.1 (and quite a lot to lose actually).
After watching and digesting the 2 hour podcast yesterday featuring Ryan Dancey, I have changed my opinion on the need for OGL 1.1, as written. Given the onerous terms and ownership issues with OGL 1.1, no one should sign. And I agree that the primary question, legally, in all of this is “Does WotC has the legal right to unauthorize OGL 1.0a”. After listening to Dancey, I don’t think they do.
Having said that, I also believe that there may be a need for a new OGL - they even referred to a new license contract being sent around by the lawyer who wrote the original OGL1.0a. This isn’t for the benefit of WotC though, nor is it for their harm. Dancey made a convincing argument about how the OGL benefitted and potentially saved WotC during 4e, with Pathfinder keeping players in the hobby during a poorly visioned version of D&D.
4E didn't have the OGL they were using the GSL which poison pilled the OGL. So NOBODY made 4E content but wizards and that's kinda what killed it.
OGL was for 3E in the 90s.
4e would have been garbage even with 3PP support. At its core, it was a system that valued class balance over fun gameplay, and was designed from the ground up to chase the MMO trend that was peaking at the time. The GSL certainly didn't do it any favors, but it would have failed even without trying to update that.
Lawyers don't tend to make 90-page fake drafts for funsies.
This was very likely intended for review and release prior to its leak...and the fact that Kickstarter confirmed the terms lends credence to that fact.
"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?
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.
"Hate?" Provocative choice of words. It invokes images of torch-bearing mobs lynching puppies and the like. As if Wizards and Hasbro were mere innocent, defenceless, fragile beings instead of immortal multinational LLCs with revenues in the $billions$ and more lawyers than they could stuff into a 10x10 room. And strangley, all this anger, hate, or whatever you want to call it hasn't actually harmed a single living thing. Even if the fanciful scenario you describe is true, that all this is just some elaborate hoax (perpetrated by Russian bots, perhaps?), and Wizards has somehow legally tied it's own hands in such tight knots that it can't open a mouth to say a word in response... So what? What's the righteous cause you are white-knighting (and white-knuckling) here? What is your angle? Why is this so very important to you? I just don't see it.
And in the meantime, back in the real world - where real people's dreams, labours, and livelihoods are at stake - Hasbro/Wizards would love nothing more that to receive mere "push-back". That, they can easily ignore. Rage from the united game community they cannot.
“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.
Thanks @Headless! Good catch on the online / VTT stuff. I'd been toying with another edit to add that but the post's already so long :p
You're correct that it's a key point because unlike print / pdf content the OGL language shows intent to dominate the online space, which is the whole walled garden / microtransactions concern via DnD Beyond. Although there's zero detail this OGL certainly clears the ground for them to take out anyone they don't want there.
I saw elsewhere that Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds have cut custom deals with WotC (these guys were already reselling official content so might just be respecting those deals). Where that leaves Foundry, Owlbear Rodeo and Arkenforge I really don't know. Even if they don't actively drive them into the sea, having no license to do what you're doing is a powerful disincentive to invest / innovate. They could simply be left to wither.
CoC is a great system. Fun and fast :)
There's something weirdly generic about a lot of the WotC content, as thought it's been designed by committee. I'm not a fan of Forgotten Realms for this very reason.
I tried a Hitpoint Press kickstarter a couple of years back (Aetherra) and was quite impressed.
"Stopping people from writing things on the internet" isn't the point. Removing access to their license so they don't have to review everything a bad actor puts out in order to C&D them is. That person can still write whatever they want without said license.
1) Even if you're right about #1, it's far from the only derivative instrument that could be made from WotC's IP. Best to have a license that nips all that in the bud explicitly.
2) They do get to legislate taste when it involves their licenses. You're welcome to write/post whatever game you want without using a WotC license.
3) Market research is not nearly timely or precise enough to provide the feedback they'll need in the current era.
4) If everything is so derivative, why have an OGL at all? Just make your own fantasy world, clearly it's easy to do right?
5) I agree that going after small creators with hefty royalties is bad. But major competitors making millions off WotC's license is something they would reasonably want to prevent. They literally have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to prevent that sort of thing.
I barely own physical copies of anything anymore. I game through Steam/PS+, I license books through DDB and Audible, and yes, I pay for music subscriptions. In all cases I'm paying the market rate and not resorting to piracy.
Which would solve nothing with regards to protecting the IP or subsidizing the competition.
Only if their podcast or youtube is paywalled. If it is freely available but supported by ads/patreon/merchandise, all that is protected by the FCP.
But I agree with the first part of your statement, Mercer and Co. almost certainly have a custom deal with WotC (which is likely what allowed WotC to publish EGtW, allowed for the creation of Vox Machina etc.)
That's backwards. Under the current license, if someone puts out something like d20 RaHoWa (look it up if you really want to know), Wizards has no control, and thus no liability. Under the new license, if something horrible slips through, which I guarantee is going to happen, it's their fault.
Honestly I'm shocked that no one is looking at the video game aspect of this either. Solasta was made using the SRD without getting a license from WotC, and I'm sure that gals the hell out of the business folks who think they deserve a cut of that game. That game coming out kinda showed that the OGL and SRD could be used for almost any games media and Dungeons and Dragons could be referenced indirectly in marketing materials.
Wizards knew there would be changes and issues. The documented decision making process is handling those issues would occur OUTSIDE the confines of the OGL. So said the man who WROTE and is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF the OGL, Ryan Dancey.
The OGL doesn't need to be changed. NFTs are a red herring, they are already covered under existing copyright law. Racism was a problem but that was addressed through trade dress originally (D20 logo license).
Nope, WotC needs to change, not the OGL. Not that they can legally revoke OGL 1.0a any way. SRD 5.1 is FOREVER released under OGL1.0a. If WotC doesn't like it, they need a new SRD and a new license, just like they did with 4th edition. If they try to go down the road they are going, it goes to court and I doubt seriously WotC will like the outcome of that because it could go to what they can actually copyright and they may be left with nothing but trademarks.
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.
After watching and digesting the 2 hour podcast yesterday featuring Ryan Dancey, I have changed my opinion on the need for OGL 1.1, as written. Given the onerous terms and ownership issues with OGL 1.1, no one should sign. And I agree that the primary question, legally, in all of this is “Does WotC has the legal right to unauthorize OGL 1.0a”. After listening to Dancey, I don’t think they do.
Having said that, I also believe that there may be a need for a new OGL - they even referred to a new license contract being sent around by the lawyer who wrote the original OGL1.0a. This isn’t for the benefit of WotC though, nor is it for their harm. Dancey made a convincing argument about how the OGL benefitted and potentially saved WotC during 4e, with Pathfinder keeping players in the hobby during a poorly visioned version of D&D.
I disagree strongly with this. Updating the OGL is purely for economic strangling of 3rd party content, and WOTC/Hasbro tries to use hide behind these excuses. I have never seen a WOTC related NFT be ut MTG or D&D. I have never seen racism in a 3rd party released content.
Reason 4 are just wrong. WOTC has earned so much by growing the community and everyone I know who have started to play D&D (over 20 people) have started due to exposure from 3rd party content such as content creators and later bought products from WOTC.
As a player and consumer of both D&D and MTG of over 7 years, which have bought a LOT of products for both franchises I will NEVER buy a product from WOTC EVER again if the OGL gets edited in ANY way other than it's original 1.0a version.
As a DM of 2 different groups consisting consisting of 12 people I will bring my players over to none WOTC systems, and rather make my completely homebrewed offline system than to support WOTC with a single dollar if WOTC disrupts the integrity of the OGL 1.0a in any way. #OpenDnD
I think the primary question is "Do the 3PP actually need OGL at all" (See the EFF stance below, the funny part is, that deauthorizing 1.0 would mean that you are no longer bound by it which would (in many cases) actually give you more rights than being bound by it). It would be hilarious if wotc just shot itself in the leg by the 1.1 and the whole OGL(the old one) would be exposed as just a PR stunt that made you give up rights you already had without giving you anything in return.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
Well said!
4E didn't have the OGL they were using the GSL which poison pilled the OGL. So NOBODY made 4E content but wizards and that's kinda what killed it.
OGL was for 3E in the 90s.
Good feedback! I went back and started doing more research on the topic, which mainly involved reading the OGL, the first few pages of the SRD (you really need to consider both) and listened to the two hour conversation with Ryan Dancey on Youtube from 1/11/23. It changed my mind - the current OGL is more than acceptable for the gaming hobby.
I will ad, though, that I think that the OGL will need to be amended at some point in the future to deal with unexpected items that arose in the 23 years since it was originally written. Short term cash flow grabs by Hasbro do not constitute one of these items.
I don’t necessarily agree. I believe that OGL1.0a, while not necessarily legally required for 3PP, adds a very significant amount of value to 3PP and they would be hurt if OGL 1.0a goes away.
While I agree that while 3PP probably does not need the OGL legally, the beauty of the OGL is that it allows smaller 3PP in a safe environment where they don’t have to worry about the threat of lawsuits. These companies can’t afford to fight Hasbro (or any of the other big gaming companies) simply due to limited resources and the opportunity cost of fighting litigation. The OGL and SRD system provides strong clarity around what an IP holder deems is off limits and what is usable for 3PP. Yes, the 3PP might be legally allowed to use more than whats in the SRD, but at cost of increased risk and legal costs.
Additionally, a great item that Dancey touched on is that a gaming system becomes more valuable the more that people use it. The OGL allows all parties to take advantage of this, without fear of legal reprisal. A lot of the massive 3PP that focus on 5e content owe their existence to the OGL1.0 and the D&D market that was opened up to them.
Well, yes. Up until now, there was this "gentlemen agreement" of "trust us, use OGL, save on the lawyer costs, and we won't try to sue you (for something that you have right to do)". But now, with 1.1, wotc has pretty much lost this "trustworthy gentleman" status and there is no reason for 3PP to trust them anymore and nothing to gain from 1.1 (and quite a lot to lose actually).
4e would have been garbage even with 3PP support. At its core, it was a system that valued class balance over fun gameplay, and was designed from the ground up to chase the MMO trend that was peaking at the time. The GSL certainly didn't do it any favors, but it would have failed even without trying to update that.
So you haven't noticed anything "TSR" is doing?
Lawyers don't tend to make 90-page fake drafts for funsies.
This was very likely intended for review and release prior to its leak...and the fact that Kickstarter confirmed the terms lends credence to that fact.
Looks like WotC is releasing a video at 3pm EST today to address CGL 1.1. Roll for Combat YouTube channel is going to cover it.
https://twitter.com/RollForCombat/status/1613566977490001928
"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?
"Hate?" Provocative choice of words. It invokes images of torch-bearing mobs lynching puppies and the like. As if Wizards and Hasbro were mere innocent, defenceless, fragile beings instead of immortal multinational LLCs with revenues in the $billions$ and more lawyers than they could stuff into a 10x10 room. And strangley, all this anger, hate, or whatever you want to call it hasn't actually harmed a single living thing. Even if the fanciful scenario you describe is true, that all this is just some elaborate hoax (perpetrated by Russian bots, perhaps?), and Wizards has somehow legally tied it's own hands in such tight knots that it can't open a mouth to say a word in response... So what? What's the righteous cause you are white-knighting (and white-knuckling) here? What is your angle? Why is this so very important to you? I just don't see it.
And in the meantime, back in the real world - where real people's dreams, labours, and livelihoods are at stake - Hasbro/Wizards would love nothing more that to receive mere "push-back". That, they can easily ignore. Rage from the united game community they cannot.
Rage away, folks.
“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