Exactly. I am pretty sure this is a C-Suite thing. Hasbro is and controls the C-Suite. Hasbro appoints heads of WotC. I do not believe this problem is driven by the likes of Chris Perkins, Jeremy Crawford and the heaps of nice people that drive the creative side (at least I hope not). We need to keep that in mind and (I believe) direct our ire at the Hasbro C-Suite and WotC senior managers who preside over this aspect of the business.
On that note I'd love to see a Reddit-driven campaign to voice displeasure against Hasbro via their share price. You want to get their attention, that's how you do it.
I get what Caerwyn is trying to say, especially where "journalistic integrity" is concerned, but I feel like Caerwyn is arguing strictly from a semantic point of view and not a realistic one.
Caerwyn: Yes, you are technically correct when you say we have no "smoking gun" kind of evidence to support the claim that the leaked draft is real or final, however short of an admission from WotC at this point I am not sure what would suffice.
That said, I also don't think it matters. At this point, arguing the truth-value of the draft vs final is irrelevant because the entire community has already reacted on the basis of the assumption that it either is a true, final version, or even if it's not, there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the idea that doing nothing while we wait for word from WotC is worse than preparing for the possibility it is true.
Yes, you are technically correct (to some people the best kind of correct) but it really doesn't matter anymore. It just seems now like Grandpa Simpson yelling at the clouds because your assertions about journalistic integrity or the status of the leaked document won't stop anything that is happening now.
The reason to continue arguing this point is because it is worthwhile and possibly correct. Not just technically correct, but the notion that these unverified leaks are nothing but unverified leaks could be correct without a technically attached. Sure, you guys can continue to protest over this leaked document, but it is unreasonable to get mad when other people remind you of the full facts of the situation.
There isn't that much evidence here, circumstantial or otherwise. Most of what is going on is just speculation. The facts we do have are that Wizards of the Coast hasn't officially responded to this new installment of previous concerns, and that people keep claiming there are many people verifying this when there really aren't that many. We have one random anonymous website who has a document that might be the draft, and we have one person on Twitter (Griffon's Saddlebag) who has talked about not being able to open up publicly on the situation due to limitations (likely NDAs) and then publicly alleged that the leaked Open Game License is real. So that makes what he's saying very confusing and not fully credible to say the least.
But anyways, I am concerned about the situation too. The leaked version of the OGL would be a disaster if it were real, but the argument that reminding people that it might not be real at this point is somehow bad just... Doesn't make sense to me.
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
No. Updating the OGL is described in the OGL. It cannot be revoked.
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
They can release new versions, but you can continue to use older versions that were released as authorized. 1.0 and 1.0a.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I hate this. If you become popular off of D&D Homebrew, Then you have to pay Either WOTC Or Hasbro a percentage of your earnings, Even though You made the homebrew.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." -Sun Tzu
You would think that they would have realised how this would go down with the fans (customers)...all they needed to do was look at their own history. TSR flopped when they tried to control the market...3rd ed was successful, in large part due to the OGL...4th ed flopped because they tried to make it too restrictive...5th ed, go back to the OGL, huge success...
I have no problem with WOTC asking a modest royalty from 3PP, but the percentage they want is beyond the pale. And while I don't agree with the new termination and rewrite clauses - they don't affect me. The biggest issue that I have with 1.1 is the clause surrounding third party IP...WOTC is saying we want to have control over our product/market and monetise our property, but if you want to play in our sandbox, you give up any such rights to your own IP. Completely hypocritical.
IF, and this is a big IF, this WERE "totallyf ake, fabricated, unverified, rumor, nothing to do with reality!"... WOTC/Hasbro COULD have said that at literally ANY time in the past week. Indeed: their legal department would probably REQUIRE them to do so: since this has already cost them money and public good will. The fact that they've said NOTHING ought to tell you something; it means that, even IF this leak wasn't "the real version"... which again: big IF... it was close enough to something real that they are having to just sit and swivel; because the only move they'd have otherwise is confirmation.
... And corporations aren't your friends; be eternally suspicious of amoral money machines that pretend to care.
No. Updating the OGL is described in the OGL. It cannot be revoked.
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
They can release new versions, but you can continue to use older versions that were released as authorized. 1.0 and 1.0a.
That's the problem...because the word irrevocable is not used, it leaves an opening to make the argument, regardless of what has been said over the years outside the language of the OGL 1.0a. The language of 1.1 purports to deauthorise prior versions, therefore a strict reading of the language means you can no longer use 1.0 and 1.0a...they are no longer "authorised".
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
No. Updating the OGL is described in the OGL. It cannot be revoked.
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
They can release new versions, but you can continue to use older versions that were released as authorized. 1.0 and 1.0a.
It can certainly be revoked, or close enough to it not to matter. They can just alter what they put in the srd when 1D&D comes out and revoke it through the back door. That's basically what we saw that happen in 4e when they just switched everything they printed to the gsl instead of the ogl. People were free to keep making things under the ogl, as long as they were, basically, the 3.5 mechanics, and we got pathfinder. But they would have had to use the gsl to make 4e content, and pretty much no one did.
IF, and this is a big IF, this WERE "totallyf ake, fabricated, unverified, rumor, nothing to do with reality!"... WOTC/Hasbro COULD have said that at literally ANY time in the past week. Indeed: their legal department would probably REQUIRE them to do so: since this has already cost them money and public good will. The fact that they've said NOTHING ought to tell you something; it means that, even IF this leak wasn't "the real version"... which again: big IF... it was close enough to something real that they are having to just sit and swivel; because the only move they'd have otherwise is confirmation.
... And corporations aren't your friends; be eternally suspicious of amoral money machines that pretend to care.
Companies like to take their time to respond to these things.
It can certainly be revoked, or close enough to it not to matter. They can just alter what they put in the srd when 1D&D comes out and revoke it through the back door. That's basically what we saw that happen in 4e when they just switched everything they printed to the gsl instead of the ogl. People were free to keep making things under the ogl, as long as they were, basically, the 3.5 mechanics, and we got pathfinder. But they would have had to use the gsl to make 4e content, and pretty much no one did.
That's not revoking. That's simply not using.
The specific problem Wizards has is: if One D&D is backwards compatible, and the 5e SRD remains out there under the 1.0a OGL, third party producers will just continue to produce products using the 5e SRD, ignoring the new license, and hey, Wizards says it's usable with One D&D, so you can claim it's compatible. Basically, if they want people to switch to a new license, they have a couple choices:
They can invalidate the old license (this gets the current kerfuffle)
They can break edition compatibility (risks splitting the market)
They can make the new license actually appealing (risks people using it and actually making money).
It can certainly be revoked, or close enough to it not to matter. They can just alter what they put in the srd when 1D&D comes out and revoke it through the back door. That's basically what we saw that happen in 4e when they just switched everything they printed to the gsl instead of the ogl. People were free to keep making things under the ogl, as long as they were, basically, the 3.5 mechanics, and we got pathfinder. But they would have had to use the gsl to make 4e content, and pretty much no one did.
That's not revoking. That's simply not using.
The specific problem Wizards has is: if One D&D is backwards compatible, and the 5e SRD remains out there under the 1.0a OGL, third party producers will just continue to produce products using the 5e SRD, ignoring the new license, and hey, Wizards says it's usable with One D&D, so you can claim it's compatible. Basically, if they want people to switch to a new license, they have a couple choices:
They can invalidate the old license (this gets the current kerfuffle)
They can break edition compatibility (risks splitting the market)
They can make the new license actually appealing (risks people using it and actually making money).
There's a fourth option--they keep the terms of 1.0 for all products released prior to 1.1, then make 1.1 the only version authorized moving forward, starting day of release. This would be most in line with their statements and promises surrounding 1.0 (which could all give rise to the longtime bane of Wizards'--Promissory Estoppel), would satisfy existing creators who would feel secure in their existing content and ability to republish it, and would ensure that, moving forward, folks would use the new version.
It can certainly be revoked, or close enough to it not to matter. They can just alter what they put in the srd when 1D&D comes out and revoke it through the back door. That's basically what we saw that happen in 4e when they just switched everything they printed to the gsl instead of the ogl. People were free to keep making things under the ogl, as long as they were, basically, the 3.5 mechanics, and we got pathfinder. But they would have had to use the gsl to make 4e content, and pretty much no one did.
That's not revoking. That's simply not using.
The specific problem Wizards has is: if One D&D is backwards compatible, and the 5e SRD remains out there under the 1.0a OGL, third party producers will just continue to produce products using the 5e SRD, ignoring the new license, and hey, Wizards says it's usable with One D&D, so you can claim it's compatible. Basically, if they want people to switch to a new license, they have a couple choices:
They can invalidate the old license (this gets the current kerfuffle)
They can break edition compatibility (risks splitting the market)
They can make the new license actually appealing (risks people using it and actually making money).
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
No. Updating the OGL is described in the OGL. It cannot be revoked.
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
They can release new versions, but you can continue to use older versions that were released as authorized. 1.0 and 1.0a.
It can certainly be revoked, or close enough to it not to matter. They can just alter what they put in the srd when 1D&D comes out and revoke it through the back door. That's basically what we saw that happen in 4e when they just switched everything they printed to the gsl instead of the ogl. People were free to keep making things under the ogl, as long as they were, basically, the 3.5 mechanics, and we got pathfinder. But they would have had to use the gsl to make 4e content, and pretty much no one did.
If that's what they were teying to do here no one would be flipping out. It isn't. They're trying to revoke the old OGL. Which they cannot do.
It'd be like if they released 4th edition then sued anyone who continued to make content for 3.5...
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.
Exactly what it says on the tin. Who is to blame for the current OGL situation? Is it Hasbro? Higher ups at WotC who have nothing to do with the creation of D&D content? Or the names and faces we are familiar with?
Cynthia Williams is at the top of the list. When they first brought her on I knew it was bad news for D&D. When you bring a suit who has never played any TTRPG before on board who was in charge of microtransactions for Microsoft, it could only end in disaster. Then there is the name..Williams, was that not warning enough?
I get what Caerwyn is trying to say, especially where "journalistic integrity" is concerned, but I feel like Caerwyn is arguing strictly from a semantic point of view and not a realistic one.
Caerwyn: Yes, you are technically correct when you say we have no "smoking gun" kind of evidence to support the claim that the leaked draft is real or final, however short of an admission from WotC at this point I am not sure what would suffice.
That said, I also don't think it matters. At this point, arguing the truth-value of the draft vs final is irrelevant because the entire community has already reacted on the basis of the assumption that it either is a true, final version, or even if it's not, there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the idea that doing nothing while we wait for word from WotC is worse than preparing for the possibility it is true.
Yes, you are technically correct (to some people the best kind of correct) but it really doesn't matter anymore. It just seems now like Grandpa Simpson yelling at the clouds because your assertions about journalistic integrity or the status of the leaked document won't stop anything that is happening now.
The reason to continue arguing this point is because it is worthwhile and possibly correct. Not just technically correct, but the notion that these unverified leaks are nothing but unverified leaks could be correct without a technically attached. Sure, you guys can continue to protest over this leaked document, but it is unreasonable to get mad when other people remind you of the full facts of the situation.
There isn't that much evidence here, circumstantial or otherwise. Most of what is going on is just speculation. The facts we do have are that Wizards of the Coast hasn't officially responded to this new installment of previous concerns, and that people keep claiming there are many people verifying this when there really aren't that many. We have one random anonymous website who has a document that might be the draft, and we have one person on Twitter (Griffon's Saddlebag) who has talked about not being able to open up publicly on the situation due to limitations (likely NDAs) and then publicly alleged that the leaked Open Game License is real. So that makes what he's saying very confusing and not fully credible to say the least.
But anyways, I am concerned about the situation too. The leaked version of the OGL would be a disaster if it were real, but the argument that reminding people that it might not be real at this point is somehow bad just... Doesn't make sense to me.
I am still with you in the wait-and-see camp.
But I have to admit, now that in the past few days both Kobold and MCDM have announced they are going to be making their own systems (each independently). It certainly seems like more data pointing toward the leak being genuine, or very close to it.
I agree, and I also think this is why the extremely short turnaround time on signing the new agreement. They were hoping to have it implemented and the majority of creators locked in before there was time for the frustration to build. This Gizmodo leak was the perfect weapon to ruin this plan. The leak gave all of the creators time to review it, consult attorneys, publish reactions, and mobilize their fanbase. This is exactly what WotC DIDN'T want to happen. But here we are. And honestly, I place even more blame on them with this in mind because it makes it even more like they were trying to slide this by and "get one over" on the third party creators.
What Wizards doesn't seem to understand is that the ONLY reason they are the most popular TTRPG is because of the OGL and the ubiquity of that system with all of the third party content. They made it easy for others to create additional content for the system. This drives a lot of folks to buy into the system that WotC has built. The source materials, DND Beyond subscriptions, minis, etc. Take away the OGL and drive truly creative publishers to other systems or force them to create their own and they cannibalize your player base.
This is like 4e but worse. When 4e was a complete cluster, at least publishers could just stick with the previous version of the OGL from 3e. This time they're taking the 5e one away while making something way worse? Horrible. So short sighted. If they really do go through with this, I'll finish the current long running campaign I'm in and then I'm moving to a new system.
Honestly I think I would blame Cynthia WIlliams and Chris Cocks- The Micro transaction people form microsoft who just came to the company and became head of it all...and led the fireside discussion on increasing profits of MtG and D&D....D&D can only do so much they are owned by WoTC who is owned by Hasbro and those people said they are increasing profits 150%...this is how they are going to do that.
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
When WotC created the license they were of the opinion it was forever. Part of the FAQ they released said that. It was always their intention that the OGL would protect the game from bad faith from whoever owned it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Exactly. I am pretty sure this is a C-Suite thing. Hasbro is and controls the C-Suite. Hasbro appoints heads of WotC. I do not believe this problem is driven by the likes of Chris Perkins, Jeremy Crawford and the heaps of nice people that drive the creative side (at least I hope not). We need to keep that in mind and (I believe) direct our ire at the Hasbro C-Suite and WotC senior managers who preside over this aspect of the business.
On that note I'd love to see a Reddit-driven campaign to voice displeasure against Hasbro via their share price. You want to get their attention, that's how you do it.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
The reason to continue arguing this point is because it is worthwhile and possibly correct. Not just technically correct, but the notion that these unverified leaks are nothing but unverified leaks could be correct without a technically attached. Sure, you guys can continue to protest over this leaked document, but it is unreasonable to get mad when other people remind you of the full facts of the situation.
There isn't that much evidence here, circumstantial or otherwise. Most of what is going on is just speculation. The facts we do have are that Wizards of the Coast hasn't officially responded to this new installment of previous concerns, and that people keep claiming there are many people verifying this when there really aren't that many. We have one random anonymous website who has a document that might be the draft, and we have one person on Twitter (Griffon's Saddlebag) who has talked about not being able to open up publicly on the situation due to limitations (likely NDAs) and then publicly alleged that the leaked Open Game License is real. So that makes what he's saying very confusing and not fully credible to say the least.
But anyways, I am concerned about the situation too. The leaked version of the OGL would be a disaster if it were real, but the argument that reminding people that it might not be real at this point is somehow bad just... Doesn't make sense to me.
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. Updating the OGL is described in the OGL. It cannot be revoked.
They can release new versions, but you can continue to use older versions that were released as authorized. 1.0 and 1.0a.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I hate this. If you become popular off of D&D Homebrew, Then you have to pay Either WOTC Or Hasbro a percentage of your earnings, Even though You made the homebrew.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." -Sun Tzu
You would think that they would have realised how this would go down with the fans (customers)...all they needed to do was look at their own history. TSR flopped when they tried to control the market...3rd ed was successful, in large part due to the OGL...4th ed flopped because they tried to make it too restrictive...5th ed, go back to the OGL, huge success...
I have no problem with WOTC asking a modest royalty from 3PP, but the percentage they want is beyond the pale. And while I don't agree with the new termination and rewrite clauses - they don't affect me. The biggest issue that I have with 1.1 is the clause surrounding third party IP...WOTC is saying we want to have control over our product/market and monetise our property, but if you want to play in our sandbox, you give up any such rights to your own IP. Completely hypocritical.
Re: Boring Bard
IF, and this is a big IF, this WERE "totallyf ake, fabricated, unverified, rumor, nothing to do with reality!"... WOTC/Hasbro COULD have said that at literally ANY time in the past week. Indeed: their legal department would probably REQUIRE them to do so: since this has already cost them money and public good will. The fact that they've said NOTHING ought to tell you something; it means that, even IF this leak wasn't "the real version"... which again: big IF... it was close enough to something real that they are having to just sit and swivel; because the only move they'd have otherwise is confirmation.
... And corporations aren't your friends; be eternally suspicious of amoral money machines that pretend to care.
No. Updating the OGL is described in the OGL. It cannot be revoked.
They can release new versions, but you can continue to use older versions that were released as authorized. 1.0 and 1.0a.
That's the problem...because the word irrevocable is not used, it leaves an opening to make the argument, regardless of what has been said over the years outside the language of the OGL 1.0a.
The language of 1.1 purports to deauthorise prior versions, therefore a strict reading of the language means you can no longer use 1.0 and 1.0a...they are no longer "authorised".
It can certainly be revoked, or close enough to it not to matter. They can just alter what they put in the srd when 1D&D comes out and revoke it through the back door. That's basically what we saw that happen in 4e when they just switched everything they printed to the gsl instead of the ogl. People were free to keep making things under the ogl, as long as they were, basically, the 3.5 mechanics, and we got pathfinder. But they would have had to use the gsl to make 4e content, and pretty much no one did.
Companies like to take their time to respond to these things.
[REDACTED]
That's not revoking. That's simply not using.
The specific problem Wizards has is: if One D&D is backwards compatible, and the 5e SRD remains out there under the 1.0a OGL, third party producers will just continue to produce products using the 5e SRD, ignoring the new license, and hey, Wizards says it's usable with One D&D, so you can claim it's compatible. Basically, if they want people to switch to a new license, they have a couple choices:
There's a fourth option--they keep the terms of 1.0 for all products released prior to 1.1, then make 1.1 the only version authorized moving forward, starting day of release. This would be most in line with their statements and promises surrounding 1.0 (which could all give rise to the longtime bane of Wizards'--Promissory Estoppel), would satisfy existing creators who would feel secure in their existing content and ability to republish it, and would ensure that, moving forward, folks would use the new version.
That is what I would do if I were in their shoes.
Good point. That's an important distinction.
If that's what they were teying to do here no one would be flipping out. It isn't. They're trying to revoke the old OGL. Which they cannot do.
It'd be like if they released 4th edition then sued anyone who continued to make content for 3.5...
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.
Cynthia Williams is at the top of the list. When they first brought her on I knew it was bad news for D&D. When you bring a suit who has never played any TTRPG before on board who was in charge of microtransactions for Microsoft, it could only end in disaster. Then there is the name..Williams, was that not warning enough?
I am still with you in the wait-and-see camp.
But I have to admit, now that in the past few days both Kobold and MCDM have announced they are going to be making their own systems (each independently). It certainly seems like more data pointing toward the leak being genuine, or very close to it.
I agree, and I also think this is why the extremely short turnaround time on signing the new agreement. They were hoping to have it implemented and the majority of creators locked in before there was time for the frustration to build. This Gizmodo leak was the perfect weapon to ruin this plan. The leak gave all of the creators time to review it, consult attorneys, publish reactions, and mobilize their fanbase. This is exactly what WotC DIDN'T want to happen. But here we are. And honestly, I place even more blame on them with this in mind because it makes it even more like they were trying to slide this by and "get one over" on the third party creators.
What Wizards doesn't seem to understand is that the ONLY reason they are the most popular TTRPG is because of the OGL and the ubiquity of that system with all of the third party content. They made it easy for others to create additional content for the system. This drives a lot of folks to buy into the system that WotC has built. The source materials, DND Beyond subscriptions, minis, etc. Take away the OGL and drive truly creative publishers to other systems or force them to create their own and they cannibalize your player base.
This is like 4e but worse. When 4e was a complete cluster, at least publishers could just stick with the previous version of the OGL from 3e. This time they're taking the 5e one away while making something way worse? Horrible. So short sighted. If they really do go through with this, I'll finish the current long running campaign I'm in and then I'm moving to a new system.
Honestly I think I would blame Cynthia WIlliams and Chris Cocks- The Micro transaction people form microsoft who just came to the company and became head of it all...and led the fireside discussion on increasing profits of MtG and D&D....D&D can only do so much they are owned by WoTC who is owned by Hasbro and those people said they are increasing profits 150%...this is how they are going to do that.
WWW.WERERATSTUDIOS.COM
DND PODCAST - THE CHICAGO TABLE -
www.thomaskiserart.com
For the most part they were reboots.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
When WotC created the license they were of the opinion it was forever. Part of the FAQ they released said that. It was always their intention that the OGL would protect the game from bad faith from whoever owned it.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder