I also note that for someone claiming to be open and looking for feedback, they didnt allow comments on that thread.
Nor should they - there are forums where folks can demonstrate their lack of reading comprehension, and, with the exception of a few posts actively promoting racism or saying nothing but swear words, the clear direction from Beyond to the moderator staff has been to let folks provide as much feedback - constructive or not - as they would wish.
You don’t let people rant on your PR post - especially when it is clear so many people are going to read “hey, sorry about that, tossing our lawyers under the bus for their negotiation tactics. By the way, we are going to give you what you want on your points of contention (licensing back, royalties, narrowing the scope just to written text, preserving existing 1.0 rights)” and still angrily rant about the exact things you already are committing to fix. That’s just basic common sense - when there’s plenty of other places folks can be open, you don’t need to also let those who will never be satisfied rant on official statements as well.
I also note that for someone claiming to be open and looking for feedback, they didnt allow comments on that thread.
Nor should they - there are forums where folks can demonstrate their lack of reading comprehension, and, with the exception of a few posts actively promoting racism or saying nothing but swear words, the clear direction from Beyond to the moderator staff has been to let folks provide as much feedback - constructive or not - as they would wish.
You don’t let people rant on your PR post - especially when it is clear so many people are going to read “hey, sorry about that, tossing our lawyers under the bus for their negotiation tactics. By the way, we are going to give you what you want on your points of contention (licensing back, royalties, narrowing the scope just to written text, preserving existing 1.0 rights)” and still angrily rant about the exact things you already are committing to fix. That’s just basic common sense - when there’s plenty of other places folks can be open, you don’t need to also let those who will never be satisfied rant on official statements as well.
They didn't address the primary issue with their version of the OGL - there are absolutely zero protections ensuring that the document is static, and can't be further changed at their whim. 30 days notice, and we're back to 1.1 or worse.
This is exactly the problem that 1.0a solved by allowing people to use any version of the OGL that had ever been authorized - it can't be a trap, because you aren't locked into the desires of whatever the new manager for the day wants to do with the OGL.
Unless they do that, and provide assurances (such as handing the license to a neutral third party, or labeling it as irrevocable) the rest of the text is absolutely worthless smoke and mirrors. They addressed nothing if you are actually paying attention.
Well, since we still lack an official document outlining what will and will not be covered, doomspeak isn't any more helpful than joyspeak, celebrating a massive victory. What we DO know, is that they heard the fan base and are going to change the new OGL. Maybe the newer revision will be upped to boards for perusal before being sent to folks with a "sign here" line (as ANY contract written has, first draft OR final draft) That's the biggest angst I see from a lot of folks out of touch with contract negotiations and how they run. Every "draft" includes a "sign here" line, so when it's agreed to, it can be finalized then and there. A recent contract the company I work for signed went through 15 revisions before coming to life. EVERY copy sent back and forth has the "sign here" line.
I want to see the newest proposal before assuming the devil walks among us. I lack the time, energy or interest to run around screaming the sky is falling without anything valid to support it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Every "draft" includes a "sign here" line, so when it's agreed to, it can be finalized then and there. A recent contract the company I work for signed went through 15 revisions before coming to life. EVERY copy sent back and forth has the "sign here" line.
But that company most likely wasn't given one week(?) to sign up to the "draft" version.
Every "draft" includes a "sign here" line, so when it's agreed to, it can be finalized then and there. A recent contract the company I work for signed went through 15 revisions before coming to life. EVERY copy sent back and forth has the "sign here" line.
In a 1:1 contract, not for a 1:everyone licensing agreement or standard contract. Nope, just a lie.
They've done too much already. We don't want an apology or excuses. We don't want them to do anything at this point. Offer a sincere apology, acknowledge you messed up, and drop this entirely. Don't touch the OGL. As lawyers have pointed out, it already covers the issues that WoTC are saying they are trying to address fine enough already. We're not stupid.
Every "draft" includes a "sign here" line, so when it's agreed to, it can be finalized then and there. A recent contract the company I work for signed went through 15 revisions before coming to life. EVERY copy sent back and forth has the "sign here" line.
But that company most likely wasn't given one week(?) to sign up to the "draft" version.
Each draft had the same signing language, indicating it should be signed and returned within 3 business days. In several exchanges, documents were not returned within the time allotted and nobody got their shit in a knot about it. Calls/e-mails of "Did you forget" or such, but both sides knew this was going to be paperwork tennis for a while before getting finalized. Again, for folks who haven't been in the midst of large companies bouncing contracts back and forth it all looks shady. The reality is it's more just inefficient posturing until you get to the meat. Sadly, it's tons of reading to find them, but several folks have already stated similar experiences, some as the ones writing/amending and some as simple observers.
IMO it isn't pretty, isn't overly efficient and wastes a lot of time bouncing papers back and forth for weeks. Unfortunately, it seems more and more commonplace these days. No different to buying a used car. Price as listed $15k and your opening offer is $8k. No, you have NO expectation of getting it for that, but start much lower than you are willing to go, to allow for some give and take.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Every "draft" includes a "sign here" line, so when it's agreed to, it can be finalized then and there. A recent contract the company I work for signed went through 15 revisions before coming to life. EVERY copy sent back and forth has the "sign here" line.
But that company most likely wasn't given one week(?) to sign up to the "draft" version.
Each draft had the same signing language, indicating it should be signed and returned within 3 business days. In several exchanges, documents were not returned within the time allotted and nobody got their shit in a knot about it. Calls/e-mails of "Did you forget" or such, but both sides knew this was going to be paperwork tennis for a while before getting finalized. Again, for folks who haven't been in the midst of large companies bouncing contracts back and forth it all looks shady. The reality is it's more just inefficient posturing until you get to the meat. Sadly, it's tons of reading to find them, but several folks have already stated similar experiences, some as the ones writing/amending and some as simple observers.
IMO it isn't pretty, isn't overly efficient and wastes a lot of time bouncing papers back and forth for weeks. Unfortunately, it seems more and more commonplace these days. No different to buying a used car. Price as listed $15k and your opening offer is $8k. No, you have NO expectation of getting it for that, but start much lower than you are willing to go, to allow for some give and take.
Again, you are doing it that way in a 1:1 negotiation maybe, but not with a 1:n standard license or other contract. In 1:n you draft internally and send out only the final version.
They've done too much already. We don't want an apology or excuses. We don't want them to do anything at this point. Offer a sincere apology, acknowledge you messed up, and drop this entirely. Don't touch the OGL. As lawyers have pointed out, it already covers the issues that WoTC are saying they are trying to address fine enough already. We're not stupid.
Too late for that. With a bunch of 3PP announcing ORC, WotC no longer have anything to lose by dropping OGL 1.0a, nobody is going to stick with it long-term anyway.
They've done too much already. We don't want an apology or excuses. We don't want them to do anything at this point. Offer a sincere apology, acknowledge you messed up, and drop this entirely. Don't touch the OGL. As lawyers have pointed out, it already covers the issues that WoTC are saying they are trying to address fine enough already. We're not stupid.
Too late for that. With a bunch of 3PP announcing ORC, WotC no longer have anything to lose by dropping OGL 1.0a, nobody is going to stick with it long-term anyway.
Releasing 2.0 as 1.0a with irrevocable added, nothing else, and for the open game content part adding OneDnD might be enough. Providing both OneDnD and 5e as open game content in that version would likely do it. WotC still has a brand recognition advantage. But much less and DnD might just die.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Idk if it's been discussed, but it looks like the majority of home brewers never needed the OGL in the first place.
The OGL wasn't "needed", but it existed to provide assurance that WotC wasn't going to sue you for creating content - their predecessor, TSR, was notorious sue happy. Despite the fact that in theory their law suit wasn't valid, their strategy was to force a settlement or concession due to the cost of fighting them in court. In theory, a small producer may have had the right to make content, but that didn't matter if TSR could bankrupt them in court.
When WotC got DND, they released the OGL as a way to provide assurance to third party creators that they weren't going to sue them - make your products under the OGL, and it was as simple as that. You're good to go, no muss no fuss. It was a peace treaty.
The NEW OGL 1.1, and 2.0, reads like a threat or promise to sue unless you adhere to their terms... which is the exact opposite of the entire purpose of OGL 1.0a. And a gross miscalculation on a huge number of fronts. Most relevantly to that video, the market isn't the same as it was when OGL 1.0a released - this time, WotC has the risk that someone may actually go to court, and WotC may discover find precedent established that the mechanics of DnD aren't copyrightable at all.
That doesn't seem like a risk a smart company would take, but here we are.
The only way OGL 1.1/2.0 would have worked out for them was if people just rolled over and gave up, but that didn't happen. Its mind boggling they don't see that just turning around and walking away is their best strategic move.
Too late for that. With a bunch of 3PP announcing ORC, WotC no longer have anything to lose by dropping OGL 1.0a, nobody is going to stick with it long-term anyway.
ORC is irrelevant -- it gives you the same legal protections as not using a license at all. And, mind you, there's quite a bit you can do without using a license, probably 80-90% of the SRD could be used without a license, but correctly filtering out the remaining 10-20% is a challenge.
Seems like people did a great job voicing their objections to the craziness that was leaked. Glad to see WotC didn't just follow through with this. Time will tell how well this position stays in place. I'm still concerned with quality of their past couple books and the future.
I'm sure some people will still say they are the worst and will never give them money again (and I wonder how few of them actually spent money in the past on them)
I have easily spent over a thousand dollars on the Lengedary Bundle, additional books as the came out, and multiple years of a DM sub. Before a walked away from roll20, I had purchased many of the same books again to use on there. This is money that went to WotC, I'm not counting the many more hundreds of dollars spent on third party content. I am pissed because of the amount of time and money I have personally spent on this hobby only for greedy executives to decide they haven't be getting their beaks wet enough. I have zero faith that WotC/Hasbro will not just continue to make the changes they want to make slowly instead of all at once, now.
Too late for that. With a bunch of 3PP announcing ORC, WotC no longer have anything to lose by dropping OGL 1.0a, nobody is going to stick with it long-term anyway.
ORC is irrelevant -- it gives you the same legal protections as not using a license at all. And, mind you, there's quite a bit you can do without using a license, probably 80-90% of the SRD could be used without a license, but correctly filtering out the remaining 10-20% is a challenge.
Thats fine - roll the dice then. Clearly there's value in the license if you or another publisher doesn't want to do that.
Thats fine - roll the dice then. Clearly there's value in the license if you or another publisher doesn't want to do that.
There's value to a license from the source of the IP. If the people behind ORC come up with a completely new, non-derivative game, and it takes the world by storm, then yeah, whatever license they put it under is valuable. At the moment, it's just vaporware. A license has no inherent value -- rather, its value is based on what it licenses.
Too late for that. With a bunch of 3PP announcing ORC, WotC no longer have anything to lose by dropping OGL 1.0a, nobody is going to stick with it long-term anyway.
ORC is irrelevant -- it gives you the same legal protections as not using a license at all. And, mind you, there's quite a bit you can do without using a license, probably 80-90% of the SRD could be used without a license, but correctly filtering out the remaining 10-20% is a challenge.
While we don't have ORC yet it is the lawyer who authored 1.0a. Pretty sure it will have the same concept of open game content and the trailblazing publishers will put the new system pretty completely into that open bucket. Very few people believe you'd could do the same things with or without OGL 1.0/1.0a. I heard that once from a lawyer so far, and that was the one lawyer channel that never looked into this business before, while all others, including several lawyers representing the 3rd parties involved, and the author of the phd thesis on the OGL have a very different view.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
May be backing off, but I doubt it. That announcement was late, and ingenuine. There is so much revisionist history, and blatant falsehood in there.
I also note that for someone claiming to be open and looking for feedback, they didnt allow comments on that thread.
Nor should they - there are forums where folks can demonstrate their lack of reading comprehension, and, with the exception of a few posts actively promoting racism or saying nothing but swear words, the clear direction from Beyond to the moderator staff has been to let folks provide as much feedback - constructive or not - as they would wish.
You don’t let people rant on your PR post - especially when it is clear so many people are going to read “hey, sorry about that, tossing our lawyers under the bus for their negotiation tactics. By the way, we are going to give you what you want on your points of contention (licensing back, royalties, narrowing the scope just to written text, preserving existing 1.0 rights)” and still angrily rant about the exact things you already are committing to fix. That’s just basic common sense - when there’s plenty of other places folks can be open, you don’t need to also let those who will never be satisfied rant on official statements as well.
They didn't address the primary issue with their version of the OGL - there are absolutely zero protections ensuring that the document is static, and can't be further changed at their whim. 30 days notice, and we're back to 1.1 or worse.
This is exactly the problem that 1.0a solved by allowing people to use any version of the OGL that had ever been authorized - it can't be a trap, because you aren't locked into the desires of whatever the new manager for the day wants to do with the OGL.
Unless they do that, and provide assurances (such as handing the license to a neutral third party, or labeling it as irrevocable) the rest of the text is absolutely worthless smoke and mirrors. They addressed nothing if you are actually paying attention.
Well, since we still lack an official document outlining what will and will not be covered, doomspeak isn't any more helpful than joyspeak, celebrating a massive victory. What we DO know, is that they heard the fan base and are going to change the new OGL. Maybe the newer revision will be upped to boards for perusal before being sent to folks with a "sign here" line (as ANY contract written has, first draft OR final draft) That's the biggest angst I see from a lot of folks out of touch with contract negotiations and how they run. Every "draft" includes a "sign here" line, so when it's agreed to, it can be finalized then and there. A recent contract the company I work for signed went through 15 revisions before coming to life. EVERY copy sent back and forth has the "sign here" line.
I want to see the newest proposal before assuming the devil walks among us. I lack the time, energy or interest to run around screaming the sky is falling without anything valid to support it.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
But that company most likely wasn't given one week(?) to sign up to the "draft" version.
In a 1:1 contract, not for a 1:everyone licensing agreement or standard contract. Nope, just a lie.
They've done too much already. We don't want an apology or excuses. We don't want them to do anything at this point. Offer a sincere apology, acknowledge you messed up, and drop this entirely. Don't touch the OGL. As lawyers have pointed out, it already covers the issues that WoTC are saying they are trying to address fine enough already. We're not stupid.
Each draft had the same signing language, indicating it should be signed and returned within 3 business days. In several exchanges, documents were not returned within the time allotted and nobody got their shit in a knot about it. Calls/e-mails of "Did you forget" or such, but both sides knew this was going to be paperwork tennis for a while before getting finalized. Again, for folks who haven't been in the midst of large companies bouncing contracts back and forth it all looks shady. The reality is it's more just inefficient posturing until you get to the meat. Sadly, it's tons of reading to find them, but several folks have already stated similar experiences, some as the ones writing/amending and some as simple observers.
IMO it isn't pretty, isn't overly efficient and wastes a lot of time bouncing papers back and forth for weeks. Unfortunately, it seems more and more commonplace these days. No different to buying a used car. Price as listed $15k and your opening offer is $8k. No, you have NO expectation of getting it for that, but start much lower than you are willing to go, to allow for some give and take.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Again, you are doing it that way in a 1:1 negotiation maybe, but not with a 1:n standard license or other contract. In 1:n you draft internally and send out only the final version.
Too late for that. With a bunch of 3PP announcing ORC, WotC no longer have anything to lose by dropping OGL 1.0a, nobody is going to stick with it long-term anyway.
Releasing 2.0 as 1.0a with irrevocable added, nothing else, and for the open game content part adding OneDnD might be enough. Providing both OneDnD and 5e as open game content in that version would likely do it. WotC still has a brand recognition advantage. But much less and DnD might just die.
Interesting video I found:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZQJQYqhAgY
Idk if it's been discussed, but it looks like the majority of home brewers never needed the OGL in the first place.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
The OGL wasn't "needed", but it existed to provide assurance that WotC wasn't going to sue you for creating content - their predecessor, TSR, was notorious sue happy. Despite the fact that in theory their law suit wasn't valid, their strategy was to force a settlement or concession due to the cost of fighting them in court. In theory, a small producer may have had the right to make content, but that didn't matter if TSR could bankrupt them in court.
When WotC got DND, they released the OGL as a way to provide assurance to third party creators that they weren't going to sue them - make your products under the OGL, and it was as simple as that. You're good to go, no muss no fuss. It was a peace treaty.
The NEW OGL 1.1, and 2.0, reads like a threat or promise to sue unless you adhere to their terms... which is the exact opposite of the entire purpose of OGL 1.0a. And a gross miscalculation on a huge number of fronts. Most relevantly to that video, the market isn't the same as it was when OGL 1.0a released - this time, WotC has the risk that someone may actually go to court, and WotC may discover find precedent established that the mechanics of DnD aren't copyrightable at all.
That doesn't seem like a risk a smart company would take, but here we are.
The only way OGL 1.1/2.0 would have worked out for them was if people just rolled over and gave up, but that didn't happen. Its mind boggling they don't see that just turning around and walking away is their best strategic move.
ORC is irrelevant -- it gives you the same legal protections as not using a license at all. And, mind you, there's quite a bit you can do without using a license, probably 80-90% of the SRD could be used without a license, but correctly filtering out the remaining 10-20% is a challenge.
edit
Word for word I could say the same.
Thats fine - roll the dice then. Clearly there's value in the license if you or another publisher doesn't want to do that.
There's value to a license from the source of the IP. If the people behind ORC come up with a completely new, non-derivative game, and it takes the world by storm, then yeah, whatever license they put it under is valuable. At the moment, it's just vaporware. A license has no inherent value -- rather, its value is based on what it licenses.
While we don't have ORC yet it is the lawyer who authored 1.0a. Pretty sure it will have the same concept of open game content and the trailblazing publishers will put the new system pretty completely into that open bucket. Very few people believe you'd could do the same things with or without OGL 1.0/1.0a. I heard that once from a lawyer so far, and that was the one lawyer channel that never looked into this business before, while all others, including several lawyers representing the 3rd parties involved, and the author of the phd thesis on the OGL have a very different view.