YouTuber DND_Shorts is reporting via Twitter that he has received a message from inside WotC. THIS HAS NOT BEEN CORROBORATED, so take it as you will. If true, however, it's pretty dour.
"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?
So I have to ask how are we still talking about this here?
Is the staff here secretly on our side or something?
You would be shocked to learn how little impact the DDB forums have when it comes to trying to sway corporate opinion. It's pretty much the same handful of people making continuous thread and keeping them bumped in a sea of millions of subscribers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
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.
I have never seen racism in a 3rd party released content.
So you haven't noticed anything "TSR" is doing?
NuTSR weren't doing anything under the OGL, they weren't even doing something they legally had the rights to go near. They were straight up doing something they shouldn't have been doing. The OGL doesn't enter into that, WotC are suing them, and they have every right to do so. They would even if the content weren't offensive, because NuTSR don't own the rights to the IP they were trying to release products for.
Clearly there are executives at WOTC who do not understand that D&D is not a video game. (Can we say Microsoft?) We sit around a table and create stories together. We are a community that has grown significantly during the age of 5e. That growth has been fueled in no small part by the third party creators whose ability to work and create was guaranteed by 01a. Clearly the existence of these creators has not hurt Hasbro's bottom line. As a Hasbro stock holder, yes I bought a few shares a couple of years ago under the thinking of "wouldn't it be cool to own a small bit of D&D" I am appalled at the short sightedness and sheer stupidity of what they are doing. (See below)
What they have done is to shoot the golden goose, and in fact they picked it up and shoved it into a wood chipper. They have destroyed the unwritten trust that existed between them and our community and in doing so they have probably doomed One-D&D. I certainly have no intention of spending a lot of money on the next version, at least not while the foolishness of OGL 1.1 is in place.
I've gone beyond that. I sold my Hasbro stock yesterday. My intentions is to use the proceeds to support the efforts of my favorite creators.
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.
Yes, as much I love that the EFF chimed in, they did gloss over the fact that clarity has value. All parties agreeing on what is allowed and what is not has definite value in and of itself. Risk is a cost.
Plus, there is the difference between using uncopyrightable game mechanics and using "tieflings." So there is more than just uncopyrightable game mechanics in the SRD and certainly much more than that in the wealth of 23 years of OGC (because the OGL covers so very much more content than just WotC's SRDs, but execs seem to keep forgetting that and assuming it's only about them).
5: Recapturing Lost Revenue: This is the most disingenuous. D&D (the part that WOTC owns) grew 33% in 2020 to $800 million. So it grew by $200 million. There was maybe $50 million in kickstarters at the very high end that WotC wants 20% ($10 million) of. Would D&D have had that $200 million growth without those kickstarters. Probably not. So WotC is going after the peanuts that the small guy is making because its lion-share of the pie isn't big enough.
What should surprise me most about this thread is that so many people don't believe in a personal right to freedom of speech. The founders of the US believed (and I believe) that people are born with an inherent right to freedom of speech. Saying "freedom of speech doesn't apply because muh private company" is ignoring the principal. The Slaughter person believes in the principal. Most of you here, don't appear to.
Besides, do you really think Hasbro/WotC care about so called "hate speech"? No, they care about fear of mob cancellation after some so-called "journalist" on twitter writes a click-bait article about how some 3rd party creator is an ist-phobe. (All the ists, all the phobes) Hate speech is a term that journalists use to generate clicks. It's a non-issue for 99.9% of grown-ups.
But back to my first sentence, I'm not really surprised at all.
5: Recapturing Lost Revenue: This is the most disingenuous. D&D (the part that WOTC owns) grew 33% in 2020 to $800 million. So it grew by $200 million. There was maybe $50 million in kickstarters at the very high end that WotC wants 20% ($10 million) of. Would D&D have had that $200 million growth without those kickstarters. Probably not. So WotC is going after the peanuts that the small guy is making because its lion-share of the pie isn't big enough.
This is why people are mad.
Colville had a great take on exactly this about a year ago
Paraphrasing "There are two wolves in every company. One who knows that producing niche content is not cost effective and so happily leaves it to third parties, the other who is usually a CEO type person, sees a 2 Million Kickstarter and asks why they didn't produce the product that made the 2 million"
Literally none of your reasons address the majority of the problems with the new proposed OGL. They could have made an update to the OGl that would be perfectly accepted WITHOUT being called evil, moneygrubbing bastards for doing so - however, they ALSO included a lot of horribly draconian and overreaching rules that give them far too much power over people who want to use the OGL, AND simultaneously pulling the rug out from under businesses that have been using the OGL for over twenty years! Do you really have no idea what that means for those people? those companies?
Why are they suddenly deciding that they get to own everything and use it without paying for it created by people using this new OGL, when that's not in any way how regular open gaming licenses like this would ever work? How does that honestly sit right with you? Like genuinely explain how it doesn't bother you that if I went and made my own campaign book, put hundreds of hours into it, paid for the art, the publishing, and started selling it - that somehow Wizards would be able to tell me to stop for no real reason at all (because the language in the new OGL is purposefully vague and up to interpretation so they can point at virtually anything and say that qualifies and have it killed) and then take my content that I generated and sell it themselves, and I'd just be SOL. Like, you realize that's what you're saying by supporting this new OGL right?
There's nothing in this new OGL that a reasonable person would defend, especially not without knowing the history of D&D and why the current OGL exists in it's actual format. Are you aware of what happened with D&D 4?
What should surprise me most about this thread is that so many people don't believe in a personal right to freedom of speech. The founders of the US believed (and I believe) that people are born with an inherent right to freedom of speech. Saying "freedom of speech doesn't apply because muh private company" is ignoring the principal. The Slaughter person believes in the principal. Most of you here, don't appear to.
Besides, do you really think Hasbro/WotC care about so called "hate speech"? No, they care about fear of mob cancellation after some so-called "journalist" on twitter writes a click-bait article about how some 3rd party creator is an ist-phobe. (All the ists, all the phobes) Hate speech is a term that journalists use to generate clicks. It's a non-issue for 99.9% of grown-ups.
But back to my first sentence, I'm not really surprised at all.
You're wrong. The provisions regarding content moderation are entirely principled in action and no rational person would have a problem with them.
What I find telling about you is that you feel that 99.9% of people agree with you while you're simultaneously surprised that people here support that provision. Figure it out bud.
I'm in the minority that think maybe asking companies who make millions off of D&D to kick some back to WotC is not terrible. But it needs to be based on profit, not revenue, and it needs to be higher than $750k. And WotC getting a license to everything forever? Abso-freaken-lutely not.
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
I'm in the minority that think maybe asking companies who make millions off of D&D to kick some back to WotC is not terrible. But it needs to be based on profit, not revenue, and it needs to be higher than $750k. And WotC getting a license to everything forever? Abso-freaken-lutely not.
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1
In general there are two classes of arguments that are somewhat separable.
I don't think there's any dispute that Wizards is free to release One D&D under any license terms it wants, and if we don't like them, we can respond by not buying or creating for it. However, the core questions are:
Does Wizards have the ability to retract the content it has already released, in ways that strongly implied that the release was intended to be permanent, and which a lot of people have relied on that assumption? Legally, this is probably an 'interesting' (expensive) question, but ethically I would say they don't have a case.
Is the 1.1 'OGL' actually a reasonable choice for a would-be creator? I would argue that it isn't. It's true that the vast majority of creators aren't going to reach the $750k revenue threshold, and absent further malicious behavior by Wizards, they won't be much harmed by it. However, it gives Wizards a lot of opportunities to be malicious, and if you do luck out and make something huge, you're going to need to bargain with Wizards to really take advantage, and you'll be doing so under very unfavorable conditions because you're already under the 1.1 license.
Literally none of your reasons address the majority of the problems with the new proposed OGL. They could have made an update to the OGl that would be perfectly accepted WITHOUT being called evil, moneygrubbing bastards for doing so - however, they ALSO included a lot of horribly draconian and overreaching rules that give them far too much power over people who want to use the OGL, AND simultaneously pulling the rug out from under businesses that have been using the OGL for over twenty years! Do you really have no idea what that means for those people? those companies?
Why are they suddenly deciding that they get to own everything and use it without paying for it created by people using this new OGL, when that's not in any way how regular open gaming licenses like this would ever work? How does that honestly sit right with you? Like genuinely explain how it doesn't bother you that if I went and made my own campaign book, put hundreds of hours into it, paid for the art, the publishing, and started selling it - that somehow Wizards would be able to tell me to stop for no real reason at all (because the language in the new OGL is purposefully vague and up to interpretation so they can point at virtually anything and say that qualifies and have it killed) and then take my content that I generated and sell it themselves, and I'd just be SOL. Like, you realize that's what you're saying by supporting this new OGL right?
There's nothing in this new OGL that a reasonable person would defend, especially not without knowing the history of D&D and why the current OGL exists in it's actual format. Are you aware of what happened with D&D 4?
Are you aware of what's happening in this thread? Nobody is talking about or defending the about the "proposed OGL." This is a discussion on the flaws of OGL 1.0(a?).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
What should surprise me most about this thread is that so many people don't believe in a personal right to freedom of speech. The founders of the US believed (and I believe) that people are born with an inherent right to freedom of speech. Saying "freedom of speech doesn't apply because muh private company" is ignoring the principal. The Slaughter person believes in the principal. Most of you here, don't appear to.
Besides, do you really think Hasbro/WotC care about so called "hate speech"? No, they care about fear of mob cancellation after some so-called "journalist" on twitter writes a click-bait article about how some 3rd party creator is an ist-phobe. (All the ists, all the phobes) Hate speech is a term that journalists use to generate clicks. It's a non-issue for 99.9% of grown-ups.
But back to my first sentence, I'm not really surprised at all.
THIS JUST IN
DnDBeyond user found to believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America wanted to take away the people's ability to tell each other to shut up. Bystanders are encouraged to take action immediately, up to and including pointing and/or laughing.
Seriously. If someone insults you in your home, you can kick them out. Unless, of course, you believe they are born with an inherent right to freedom of speech, in which case they can stay as long as they like. This is the same situation- their property, their ability to restrict how racist you can be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I'm in the minority that think maybe asking companies who make millions off of D&D to kick some back to WotC is not terrible. But it needs to be based on profit, not revenue, and it needs to be higher than $750k. And WotC getting a license to everything forever? Abso-freaken-lutely not.
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1
No I'm all for them to make money on third parties on working off their product however let's do some cold hard maths
Do a run this year where you sell 750k and 10% of that is profit for 75k which to be honest is not unreasonable in this day and age. Now let's say I had a really good year and instead of 750k I make 850k 85 k is profit but I now have to pay 25k to WOTC so I've made 100k more but lost 15 k out of it. Now let's take this further and I and a massive year of 1,550,000 USE
my profit is 155K here's and I now have to pay WOTC 200K so because of my success I now owe WOTC 45K and I'm out of business.
Not only that they can change the ogl with 7 days notice and you have to report to them if you make 50k and can see all the figures.so.let's say 6 month in they see that they can make a cash grab they can now say it's 80& of revenue over 100k. The agreement also.says you cannot take them to court and they can forbid you from selling your stuff and you cannot stop them from selling yours and they don't have to pay you a cent.
Now imagine if they make a run on Critical Role and stop them selling Taldori and then sell it under the WOTC brand , critical role can do nothing if they have agreed to this they have to pulp their stock of the books and WOTC can print a new version for themselves
Is this fair in any way. It's not a cut of the pie it's the fact that they can at the push of a button have the whole can lot of content
Do a run this year where you sell 750k and 10% of that is profit for 75k which to be honest is not unreasonable in this day and age. Now let's say I had a really good year and instead of 750k I make 850k 85 k is profit
That's really not the way it works. Profits aren't a fixed percentage -- 10% may be average, but really successful products will be well over that, marginal products will be close to 0%, and failed products a net loss. If your managed $850k because a bunch of products were unexpectedly successful, you're not going to acquire an additional $90k in expenses.
Now, what it does do is mean you want to limit your annual production -- if you get an opportunity for a $100k product, but you're already close to the $750k limit, you're going to pass on that product -- but you're not going to accidentally lose money because your products were unexpectedly successful.
YouTuber DND_Shorts is reporting via Twitter that he has received a message from inside WotC. THIS HAS NOT BEEN CORROBORATED, so take it as you will. If true, however, it's pretty dour.
https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1613576298114449409?cxt=HHwWgoDQsYLGyeQsAAAA
"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?
So I have to ask how are we still talking about this here?
Is the staff here secretly on our side or something?
You would be shocked to learn how little impact the DDB forums have when it comes to trying to sway corporate opinion. It's pretty much the same handful of people making continuous thread and keeping them bumped in a sea of millions of subscribers.
NuTSR weren't doing anything under the OGL, they weren't even doing something they legally had the rights to go near. They were straight up doing something they shouldn't have been doing. The OGL doesn't enter into that, WotC are suing them, and they have every right to do so. They would even if the content weren't offensive, because NuTSR don't own the rights to the IP they were trying to release products for.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Clearly there are executives at WOTC who do not understand that D&D is not a video game. (Can we say Microsoft?) We sit around a table and create stories together. We are a community that has grown significantly during the age of 5e. That growth has been fueled in no small part by the third party creators whose ability to work and create was guaranteed by 01a. Clearly the existence of these creators has not hurt Hasbro's bottom line. As a Hasbro stock holder, yes I bought a few shares a couple of years ago under the thinking of "wouldn't it be cool to own a small bit of D&D" I am appalled at the short sightedness and sheer stupidity of what they are doing. (See below)
What they have done is to shoot the golden goose, and in fact they picked it up and shoved it into a wood chipper. They have destroyed the unwritten trust that existed between them and our community and in doing so they have probably doomed One-D&D. I certainly have no intention of spending a lot of money on the next version, at least not while the foolishness of OGL 1.1 is in place.
I've gone beyond that. I sold my Hasbro stock yesterday. My intentions is to use the proceeds to support the efforts of my favorite creators.
John
Yes, as much I love that the EFF chimed in, they did gloss over the fact that clarity has value. All parties agreeing on what is allowed and what is not has definite value in and of itself. Risk is a cost.
Plus, there is the difference between using uncopyrightable game mechanics and using "tieflings." So there is more than just uncopyrightable game mechanics in the SRD and certainly much more than that in the wealth of 23 years of OGC (because the OGL covers so very much more content than just WotC's SRDs, but execs seem to keep forgetting that and assuming it's only about them).
5: Recapturing Lost Revenue: This is the most disingenuous. D&D (the part that WOTC owns) grew 33% in 2020 to $800 million. So it grew by $200 million. There was maybe $50 million in kickstarters at the very high end that WotC wants 20% ($10 million) of. Would D&D have had that $200 million growth without those kickstarters. Probably not. So WotC is going after the peanuts that the small guy is making because its lion-share of the pie isn't big enough.
This is why people are mad.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
What should surprise me most about this thread is that so many people don't believe in a personal right to freedom of speech. The founders of the US believed (and I believe) that people are born with an inherent right to freedom of speech. Saying "freedom of speech doesn't apply because muh private company" is ignoring the principal. The Slaughter person believes in the principal. Most of you here, don't appear to.
Besides, do you really think Hasbro/WotC care about so called "hate speech"? No, they care about fear of mob cancellation after some so-called "journalist" on twitter writes a click-bait article about how some 3rd party creator is an ist-phobe. (All the ists, all the phobes) Hate speech is a term that journalists use to generate clicks. It's a non-issue for 99.9% of grown-ups.
But back to my first sentence, I'm not really surprised at all.
Are you affiliated with or paid by WotC or Hasbro?
Colville had a great take on exactly this about a year ago
Paraphrasing "There are two wolves in every company. One who knows that producing niche content is not cost effective and so happily leaves it to third parties, the other who is usually a CEO type person, sees a 2 Million Kickstarter and asks why they didn't produce the product that made the 2 million"
Literally none of your reasons address the majority of the problems with the new proposed OGL. They could have made an update to the OGl that would be perfectly accepted WITHOUT being called evil, moneygrubbing bastards for doing so - however, they ALSO included a lot of horribly draconian and overreaching rules that give them far too much power over people who want to use the OGL, AND simultaneously pulling the rug out from under businesses that have been using the OGL for over twenty years! Do you really have no idea what that means for those people? those companies?
Why are they suddenly deciding that they get to own everything and use it without paying for it created by people using this new OGL, when that's not in any way how regular open gaming licenses like this would ever work? How does that honestly sit right with you? Like genuinely explain how it doesn't bother you that if I went and made my own campaign book, put hundreds of hours into it, paid for the art, the publishing, and started selling it - that somehow Wizards would be able to tell me to stop for no real reason at all (because the language in the new OGL is purposefully vague and up to interpretation so they can point at virtually anything and say that qualifies and have it killed) and then take my content that I generated and sell it themselves, and I'd just be SOL. Like, you realize that's what you're saying by supporting this new OGL right?
There's nothing in this new OGL that a reasonable person would defend, especially not without knowing the history of D&D and why the current OGL exists in it's actual format. Are you aware of what happened with D&D 4?
You're wrong. The provisions regarding content moderation are entirely principled in action and no rational person would have a problem with them.
What I find telling about you is that you feel that 99.9% of people agree with you while you're simultaneously surprised that people here support that provision. Figure it out bud.
I'm in the minority that think maybe asking companies who make millions off of D&D to kick some back to WotC is not terrible. But it needs to be based on profit, not revenue, and it needs to be higher than $750k. And WotC getting a license to everything forever? Abso-freaken-lutely not.
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
In general there are two classes of arguments that are somewhat separable.
I don't think there's any dispute that Wizards is free to release One D&D under any license terms it wants, and if we don't like them, we can respond by not buying or creating for it. However, the core questions are:
Are you aware of what's happening in this thread? Nobody is talking about or defending the about the "proposed OGL." This is a discussion on the flaws of OGL 1.0(a?).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
THIS JUST IN
DnDBeyond user found to believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America wanted to take away the people's ability to tell each other to shut up. Bystanders are encouraged to take action immediately, up to and including pointing and/or laughing.
Seriously. If someone insults you in your home, you can kick them out. Unless, of course, you believe they are born with an inherent right to freedom of speech, in which case they can stay as long as they like. This is the same situation- their property, their ability to restrict how racist you can be.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
No I'm all for them to make money on third parties on working off their product however let's do some cold hard maths
Do a run this year where you sell 750k and 10% of that is profit for 75k which to be honest is not unreasonable in this day and age. Now let's say I had a really good year and instead of 750k I make 850k 85 k is profit but I now have to pay 25k to WOTC so I've made 100k more but lost 15 k out of it. Now let's take this further and I and a massive year of 1,550,000 USE
my profit is 155K here's and I now have to pay WOTC 200K so because of my success I now owe WOTC 45K and I'm out of business.
Not only that they can change the ogl with 7 days notice and you have to report to them if you make 50k and can see all the figures.so.let's say 6 month in they see that they can make a cash grab they can now say it's 80& of revenue over 100k. The agreement also.says you cannot take them to court and they can forbid you from selling your stuff and you cannot stop them from selling yours and they don't have to pay you a cent.
Now imagine if they make a run on Critical Role and stop them selling Taldori and then sell it under the WOTC brand , critical role can do nothing if they have agreed to this they have to pulp their stock of the books and WOTC can print a new version for themselves
Is this fair in any way. It's not a cut of the pie it's the fact that they can at the push of a button have the whole can lot of content
Okay, after further review. I am now in agreement that the OGL needs to change.
Not to OGL 1.1, but just toss it in the trash and relicense D&D under the new license that is being created for #OpenDnD.
Otherwise, D&D can rot in every single one of the Nine Hells!
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
That's really not the way it works. Profits aren't a fixed percentage -- 10% may be average, but really successful products will be well over that, marginal products will be close to 0%, and failed products a net loss. If your managed $850k because a bunch of products were unexpectedly successful, you're not going to acquire an additional $90k in expenses.
Now, what it does do is mean you want to limit your annual production -- if you get an opportunity for a $100k product, but you're already close to the $750k limit, you're going to pass on that product -- but you're not going to accidentally lose money because your products were unexpectedly successful.
They are smart enough to do that and i hope they do break off and make their own system, but i doubt it.