DRAFTS AREN'T PRESENTED TO PARTNERS WITH LEGALY BINDING CONTRACTS! Business 101.
There were better ways to do this. You tried to prevent the rise of any new competitors, but succeeded in driving many of your fanbase to your main rival. I get that you don't want Amazon or some other big player to come into the scene, but then say that. Don't go after your current ecosystem and claim otherwise when you are caught. Plenty of people play D&D that are well versed in the business world.
"Already released" implies they won't make anyone pull existing product from market - that's good. What it doesn't mean is that all those publishers can continue to create new content in support of older editions, or any of the many retroclones, OSR games, etc. That remains to be seen.
I can understand needing to clean up 1.0 to close some of the "loopholes" for NFTs or whatever. A 1.0(b) version. I'm even fine with a new, even tighter 2.0 for OneD&D. One thing that struck me in the leaked draft was it only mentioning the 5.1 SRD. A LOT of OSR stuff was built on the 3.X SRD and needs to be able to continue to reference that.
They can lie all they want and half-ass some cosmetic changes to try and save face without really doing anything (or perhaps working in another loophole so they can change things later once the dust settles), but the truth is that trust is gone. The exodus has already begun. They waited far too long and put in too little effort to try and "fix" things. The whole fauxpology stinks.
I do not care if the spin they are trying to put on this is a blatant lie, so long as the right thing is done in the end. I would say that the right thing includes not only backing down from what they were trying to do with the OGL 1.1, but also some sort of binding assurance that de-authorization of the previous OGLs is not possible.
Hey WotC, or rather specifically the two people at the top that are trying to force this through against the wishes of everyone else in the industry including your own employees. If you want feedback, just show us the full latest version of the document. Don't try to placate us with generic platitudes about how it's about inclusivity and stopping NFTs and how we'll still "own" anything we publish. We already know what your definition of ownership is so spit it out already.
Or don't, it'll be online as soon as the next "draft" is complete anyways
Frankly that's better than people usually get from this sort of statement. Yeah, the PR spin is strong, but the message is also short, to the point, and as frank as a corporate mouthpiece is allowed to be.
If it pans out? Step in the right direction, especially as it seems like they're going to leave anything published under OGL 1.0 alone. That was always one of the biggest sticking points, if not the biggest one - yanking the rug out from under people and Darth Vadering them on deals they built their livelihoods around.
Now, as much as this is going to be taken as corporate apologism - which it isn't - I'ma point out that if everybody sticks to their cancellations and "NEVER ANOTHER CENT" thing out of sheer spite? The message you send to Wotsee and Hasbro is "even if you pull back from something we hate, we're not going to be mollified, so don't bother listening to us." IF they actually do better, and it has yet to be seen what their idea of 'better' is so all due grains of salt here...but if they do better, keep an open mind about the future.
All anyone can ask.
I was never in the “never give them another cent” camp, but I’m also no longer in the “give them the benefit of the doubt” camp, either. They’ve shown that there was no doubt.
You highlighted “if” and that’s where I think I am. At this point, I’m still kind of, well, nervous. And I’m still planning my exit strategy and looking at other systems. Ironically for them, I’m much more interested in what kobold press and mcdm are going to come up with than I would have been last week.
But I’ll look at the new ogl with an open mind. If it’s not crap, they’ll probably win me back. But it’s going to be up to them to earn it, much more than it ever was before.
How do they not realise that they've burned all the faith and goodwill they had? Nobody is going to take anything on trust, especially after telling such blatant lies in their statement. The only way they salvage this is with complete transparency and an irrevocable OGL that contains no unneccesary or underhanded provisions.
Taking the sensationalism out of this, let’s look at what they actually said:
1. They all but confirmed the leaked draft was a real draft, and effectively through their lawyers under the bus by tacitly blaming them for putting forward an extremely strong initial position. From the lawyer perspective, that’s fine and very common among corporate lawyers—they are trained to deal with the other lawyers from other corporations like Kickstarter, who likewise understand “first offer” and “actual intentions” are different (and there’s often off the record jokes about how ridiculous terms are between lawyers, so a lot of animosity dissipation is behind closed doors and never written down). Ultra-aggressive openings are not my general style (though I have used them before), but I also spent half a decade in family law, where the contracts are every bit about emotion as the contents and strong handed tactics could easily backfire. Their attorneys could probably benefit from hiring some folks from non-corporate fields who might have experience with how non-lawyers/non-corporate entities might read offers and legalese.
2. They affirmed that existing 1.0 content will still be covered by 1.0. New content will be covered by 2.0. This makes sense—there are strong legal arguments that 1.0 contracts are perpetual due to Wizards’ past representations, and protecting existing 1.0 rights moving forward is in-line with the expectations of 1.0 content creators. Huge win for 1.0 owners - even if the contract does not say it, promises folks rely on have legal weight (something Wizards is very well versed in, since they shot themselves in the foot with that same equitable doctrine with Magic the Gathering).
3. They are committing to removing the licensing language. They are all but certainly not lying when they say they didn’t intend to actually take folks’ IP - that exact language is standard in many industry contracts (including almost every internet site you use) to prevent malicious lawsuits and provide a shield, not a set of lock picks. However, it is one of those things that lawyers can see the real intent behind, but laypeople do not - and another example of why maybe they need to have a non-corporate lawyer on their staff to ask “um, yeah, so I know what we mean by this, but Joe Six-pack won’t and will get scared.”
4. They are expanding what is covered by OGL 2.0 to include more things that 1.0 included. That also makes a lot of sense - their initial stated plan was to have different contracts to cover those other expressions, which they probably realised was a bit dumb when they realised small-time actors also made content, not just big companies like Role20 which are easy to contract with.
Overall, this is clearly a step in the right direction and one which should at least tie folks over until we see the next round of terms.
And, to those who don’t trust Wizards, trust not in them, but trust in the greed you believe they have. They would not have put out a false information about what they will include in 2.0 because their greed would not let them—you can win back money by fixing errors; but corporations know that the quickest way to lose paying customers forever is to promise change and follow that up with a contradictory offer. Now that this document exists, corporate greed is your unlikely ally forcing Wizards to be held to these representations.
I'm surprised they ditched the royalty entirely but all the rest is definitely expected. 1.0a is still going away and they'll still be replacing it with something that has tighter provisions around medium and content. Fine by me. Glad they responded at last.
If it pans out? Step in the right direction, especially as it seems like they're going to leave anything published under OGL 1.0 alone. That was always one of the biggest sticking points, if not the biggest one - yanking the rug out from under people and Darth Vadering them on deals they built their livelihoods around.
A number of people keep pointing to this and saying "See? we did it, they are going to leave 1.0a products alone!"
No, that's not exactly true. Anything that was already published under 1.0a before the next OGL drops will be allowed to continue to exist and be sold.
HOWEVER... NO ONE will be allowed to make anything new under 1.0a. Anything you make after the new OGL drops will have to be done under the NEW OGL only.
So if we don't like the terms of the final new OGL, and want to make something for an older edition of D&D? NOPE can't do it.
In it's current form THIS IS NOT A WIN.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I'm done. If they keep calling it a draft, when they had it literally sent out to be signed, it's clear that they don't intend to own up to their mistakes. I'm not going to subscribe or buy books until we get honest apologies or at least honesty about the situation.
IF they follow through as promised - and that's a very big "if" - that will count as actual effort to repair the damage.
However.
The problem is the blatant lying in the release. We have 3PP like Griffin's Saddlebags confirming they were asked to sign the so-called "draft" new OGL, BEFORE all of this went public. On one hand: typical corporate spin, to be expected from any large corporation. Heinous but not necessarily dealbreaking by itself.
The issue is the lying compounded with the behavior preceding the lying. They've shown us what they want to do and how they'd rather do it; asking us to simply fold and accept their current word on trust is essentially gaslighting.
But this is how corps work. Here’s probably how it went down:
1) Execs want to shut down potential leakage of money to NFTs and other non-traditional avenues not covered under original OGL.
2) Lawyers do all the work and make a bunch of protective language in new OGL that covers all potential angles
3) Execs think “yo this is slick - print it and send!“
4) Customers actually see how the company could weaponize this in the future and causes public outcry. And don’t get me wrong - some exec eventually *would have* weaponized it in the future, so the outcry is warranted.
5) They’re actually revising it to acquiesce to the community.
It’s easy to think that this is some nefarious plot, but ultimately it’s not about anything more than protecting their IP and opening avenues for profit in the future. And if you played anything from Wizards in the last 20 years, you’ve been supporting this model.
Taking the sensationalism out of this, let’s look at what they actually said:
1. They all but confirmed the leaked draft was a real draft, and effectively through their lawyers under the bus by tacitly blaming them for putting forward an extremely strong initial position. From the lawyer perspective, that’s fine and very common among corporate lawyers—they are trained to deal with the other lawyers from other corporations like Kickstarter, who likewise understand “first offer” and “actual intentions” are different (and there’s often off the record jokes about how ridiculous terms are between lawyers, so a lot of animosity dissipation is behind closed doors and never written down). Ultra-aggressive openings are not my general style (though I have used them before), but I also spent half a decade in family law, where the contracts are every bit about emotion as the contents and strong handed tactics could easily backfire. Their attorneys could probably benefit from hiring some folks from non-corporate fields who might have experience with how non-lawyers/non-corporate entities might read offers and legalese.
2. They affirmed that existing 1.0 content will still be covered by 1.0. New content will be covered by 2.0. This makes sense—there are strong legal arguments that 1.0 contracts are perpetual due to Wizards’ past representations, and protecting existing 1.0 rights moving forward is in-line with the expectations of 1.0 content creators. Huge win for 1.0 owners - even if the contract does not say it, promises folks rely on have legal weight (something Wizards is very well versed in, since they shot themselves in the foot with that same equitable doctrine with Magic the Gathering).
1. They claim in this new statement that their intention all along was to get feedback, which is obviously a lie given that they never publicly released that draft! The only reason we got to see it and "give feedback" was because it was leaked. So, either they are lying about always wanting our feedback, or they leaked it intentionally hoping to get feedback and then admitting to having solicited feedback in an underhanded way!!!
2. Great, those existing products are "safe". That's not entirely the point though. Publishers who want to continue making content for previous editions of D&D should be able to use OGL 1.0a. Anything short of that is not what we want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Taking the sensationalism out of this, let’s look at what they actually said:
1. They all but confirmed the leaked draft was a real draft, and effectively through their lawyers under the bus by tacitly blaming them for putting forward an extremely strong initial position. From the lawyer perspective, that’s fine and very common among corporate lawyers—they are trained to deal with the other lawyers from other corporations like Kickstarter, who likewise understand “first offer” and “actual intentions” are different (and there’s often off the record jokes about how ridiculous terms are between lawyers, so a lot of animosity dissipation is behind closed doors and never written down). Ultra-aggressive openings are not my general style (though I have used them before), but I also spent half a decade in family law, where the contracts are every bit about emotion as the contents and strong handed tactics could easily backfire. Their attorneys could probably benefit from hiring some folks from non-corporate fields who might have experience with how non-lawyers/non-corporate entities might read offers and legalese.
2. They affirmed that existing 1.0 content will still be covered by 1.0. New content will be covered by 2.0. This makes sense—there are strong legal arguments that 1.0 contracts are perpetual due to Wizards’ past representations, and protecting existing 1.0 rights moving forward is in-line with the expectations of 1.0 content creators. Huge win for 1.0 owners - even if the contract does not say it, promises folks rely on have legal weight (something Wizards is very well versed in, since they shot themselves in the foot with that same equitable doctrine with Magic the Gathering).
3. They are committing to removing the licensing language. They are all but certainly not lying when they say they didn’t intend to actually take folks’ IP - that exact language is standard in many industry contracts (including almost every internet site you use) to prevent malicious lawsuits and provide a shield, not a set of lock picks. However, it is one of those things that lawyers can see the real intent behind, but laypeople do not - and another example of why maybe they need to have a non-corporate lawyer on their staff to ask “um, yeah, so I know what we mean by this, but Joe Six-pack won’t and will get scared.”
4. They are expanding what is covered by OGL 2.0 to include more things that 1.0 included. That also makes a lot of sense - their initial stated plan was to have different contracts to cover those other expressions, which they probably realised was a bit dumb when they realised small-time actors also made content, not just big companies like Role20 which are easy to contract with.
Overall, this is clearly a step in the right direction and one which should at least tie folks over until we see the next round of terms.
And, to those who don’t trust Wizards, trust not in them, but trust in the greed you believe they have. They would not have put out a false information about what they will include in 2.0 because their greed would not let them—you can win back money by fixing errors; but corporations know that the quickest way to lose paying customers forever is to promise change and follow that up with a contradictory offer. Now that this document exists, corporate greed is your unlikely ally forcing Wizards to be held to these representations.
It's only a step in the right direction if they take action in the direction they are claiming they are going. This is nothing but words to try to placate the (very legitimate) outcry from the community that they supposedly didn't see coming.
To everyone applauding WotC for talking about how they had to protect against NFTs and publishers using D&D IP in unacceptable ways, they didn't need a new OGL to do that! They have always had IP law on their side to sue anyone who uses their IP in a way they don't like. It's smoke and mirrors!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Taking the sensationalism out of this, let’s look at what they actually said:
1. They all but confirmed the leaked draft was a real draft, and effectively through their lawyers under the bus by tacitly blaming them for putting forward an extremely strong initial position. From the lawyer perspective, that’s fine and very common among corporate lawyers—they are trained to deal with the other lawyers from other corporations like Kickstarter, who likewise understand “first offer” and “actual intentions” are different (and there’s often off the record jokes about how ridiculous terms are between lawyers, so a lot of animosity dissipation is behind closed doors and never written down). Ultra-aggressive openings are not my general style (though I have used them before), but I also spent half a decade in family law, where the contracts are every bit about emotion as the contents and strong handed tactics could easily backfire. Their attorneys could probably benefit from hiring some folks from non-corporate fields who might have experience with how non-lawyers/non-corporate entities might read offers and legalese.
2. They affirmed that existing 1.0 content will still be covered by 1.0. New content will be covered by 2.0. This makes sense—there are strong legal arguments that 1.0 contracts are perpetual due to Wizards’ past representations, and protecting existing 1.0 rights moving forward is in-line with the expectations of 1.0 content creators. Huge win for 1.0 owners - even if the contract does not say it, promises folks rely on have legal weight (something Wizards is very well versed in, since they shot themselves in the foot with that same equitable doctrine with Magic the Gathering).
3. They are committing to removing the licensing language. They are all but certainly not lying when they say they didn’t intend to actually take folks’ IP - that exact language is standard in many industry contracts (including almost every internet site you use) to prevent malicious lawsuits and provide a shield, not a set of lock picks. However, it is one of those things that lawyers can see the real intent behind, but laypeople do not - and another example of why maybe they need to have a non-corporate lawyer on their staff to ask “um, yeah, so I know what we mean by this, but Joe Six-pack won’t and will get scared.”
4. They are expanding what is covered by OGL 2.0 to include more things that 1.0 included. That also makes a lot of sense - their initial stated plan was to have different contracts to cover those other expressions, which they probably realised was a bit dumb when they realised small-time actors also made content, not just big companies like Role20 which are easy to contract with.
Overall, this is clearly a step in the right direction and one which should at least tie folks over until we see the next round of terms.
And, to those who don’t trust Wizards, trust not in them, but trust in the greed you believe they have. They would not have put out a false information about what they will include in 2.0 because their greed would not let them—you can win back money by fixing errors; but corporations know that the quickest way to lose paying customers forever is to promise change and follow that up with a contradictory offer. Now that this document exists, corporate greed is your unlikely ally forcing Wizards to be held to these representations.
I really appreciate this comment on the thread. I love seeing some calm, cool, and collected reason among all the rage.
They didn't address removing the ability to change the agreement at will with 30 days notice, or address what steps they'll be taking to protect the agreement from a future executive deciding to just burn the agreement like they just did.
The part of 1.0a that attempts to protect it from future interference is absolutely foundational to why it works. And it's why the ORC announcement stressed those steps so hard.
"That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized."
You have rolled another "1" on the Deception Check.
Seriously? Is this how stupid Hasbro and WOTC thinks their customer base is?
Anyone that had a part in that reply has to go...If HASBRO and WOTC thinks they lost paying customers before that statement an hour ago just belt in for the ride coming...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of my favorite things about this was the creator of OGL 1.0 was like "Yeah, Hasbro can't revoke it. I didn't put that in the OGL 1.0".
https://gamerant.com/dungeons-dragons-wizards-of-the-coast-former-vice-president-ogl-comments-cant-revoke/
Say it with me now,
DRAFTS AREN'T PRESENTED TO PARTNERS WITH LEGALY BINDING CONTRACTS! Business 101.
There were better ways to do this. You tried to prevent the rise of any new competitors, but succeeded in driving many of your fanbase to your main rival.
I get that you don't want Amazon or some other big player to come into the scene, but then say that. Don't go after your current ecosystem and claim otherwise when you are caught.
Plenty of people play D&D that are well versed in the business world.
Please be better.
"Already released" implies they won't make anyone pull existing product from market - that's good. What it doesn't mean is that all those publishers can continue to create new content in support of older editions, or any of the many retroclones, OSR games, etc. That remains to be seen.
I can understand needing to clean up 1.0 to close some of the "loopholes" for NFTs or whatever. A 1.0(b) version. I'm even fine with a new, even tighter 2.0 for OneD&D. One thing that struck me in the leaked draft was it only mentioning the 5.1 SRD. A LOT of OSR stuff was built on the 3.X SRD and needs to be able to continue to reference that.
Spin, spin, spin.
They can lie all they want and half-ass some cosmetic changes to try and save face without really doing anything (or perhaps working in another loophole so they can change things later once the dust settles), but the truth is that trust is gone. The exodus has already begun. They waited far too long and put in too little effort to try and "fix" things. The whole fauxpology stinks.
I do not care if the spin they are trying to put on this is a blatant lie, so long as the right thing is done in the end. I would say that the right thing includes not only backing down from what they were trying to do with the OGL 1.1, but also some sort of binding assurance that de-authorization of the previous OGLs is not possible.
Hey WotC, or rather specifically the two people at the top that are trying to force this through against the wishes of everyone else in the industry including your own employees. If you want feedback, just show us the full latest version of the document. Don't try to placate us with generic platitudes about how it's about inclusivity and stopping NFTs and how we'll still "own" anything we publish. We already know what your definition of ownership is so spit it out already.
Or don't, it'll be online as soon as the next "draft" is complete anyways
I was never in the “never give them another cent” camp, but I’m also no longer in the “give them the benefit of the doubt” camp, either. They’ve shown that there was no doubt.
You highlighted “if” and that’s where I think I am. At this point, I’m still kind of, well, nervous. And I’m still planning my exit strategy and looking at other systems. Ironically for them, I’m much more interested in what kobold press and mcdm are going to come up with than I would have been last week.
But I’ll look at the new ogl with an open mind. If it’s not crap, they’ll probably win me back. But it’s going to be up to them to earn it, much more than it ever was before.
How do they not realise that they've burned all the faith and goodwill they had? Nobody is going to take anything on trust, especially after telling such blatant lies in their statement. The only way they salvage this is with complete transparency and an irrevocable OGL that contains no unneccesary or underhanded provisions.
Taking the sensationalism out of this, let’s look at what they actually said:
1. They all but confirmed the leaked draft was a real draft, and effectively through their lawyers under the bus by tacitly blaming them for putting forward an extremely strong initial position. From the lawyer perspective, that’s fine and very common among corporate lawyers—they are trained to deal with the other lawyers from other corporations like Kickstarter, who likewise understand “first offer” and “actual intentions” are different (and there’s often off the record jokes about how ridiculous terms are between lawyers, so a lot of animosity dissipation is behind closed doors and never written down). Ultra-aggressive openings are not my general style (though I have used them before), but I also spent half a decade in family law, where the contracts are every bit about emotion as the contents and strong handed tactics could easily backfire. Their attorneys could probably benefit from hiring some folks from non-corporate fields who might have experience with how non-lawyers/non-corporate entities might read offers and legalese.
2. They affirmed that existing 1.0 content will still be covered by 1.0. New content will be covered by 2.0. This makes sense—there are strong legal arguments that 1.0 contracts are perpetual due to Wizards’ past representations, and protecting existing 1.0 rights moving forward is in-line with the expectations of 1.0 content creators. Huge win for 1.0 owners - even if the contract does not say it, promises folks rely on have legal weight (something Wizards is very well versed in, since they shot themselves in the foot with that same equitable doctrine with Magic the Gathering).
3. They are committing to removing the licensing language. They are all but certainly not lying when they say they didn’t intend to actually take folks’ IP - that exact language is standard in many industry contracts (including almost every internet site you use) to prevent malicious lawsuits and provide a shield, not a set of lock picks. However, it is one of those things that lawyers can see the real intent behind, but laypeople do not - and another example of why maybe they need to have a non-corporate lawyer on their staff to ask “um, yeah, so I know what we mean by this, but Joe Six-pack won’t and will get scared.”
4. They are expanding what is covered by OGL 2.0 to include more things that 1.0 included. That also makes a lot of sense - their initial stated plan was to have different contracts to cover those other expressions, which they probably realised was a bit dumb when they realised small-time actors also made content, not just big companies like Role20 which are easy to contract with.
Overall, this is clearly a step in the right direction and one which should at least tie folks over until we see the next round of terms.
And, to those who don’t trust Wizards, trust not in them, but trust in the greed you believe they have. They would not have put out a false information about what they will include in 2.0 because their greed would not let them—you can win back money by fixing errors; but corporations know that the quickest way to lose paying customers forever is to promise change and follow that up with a contradictory offer. Now that this document exists, corporate greed is your unlikely ally forcing Wizards to be held to these representations.
They rolled a 1, but had a modifier of -3.
A number of people keep pointing to this and saying "See? we did it, they are going to leave 1.0a products alone!"
No, that's not exactly true. Anything that was already published under 1.0a before the next OGL drops will be allowed to continue to exist and be sold.
HOWEVER... NO ONE will be allowed to make anything new under 1.0a. Anything you make after the new OGL drops will have to be done under the NEW OGL only.
So if we don't like the terms of the final new OGL, and want to make something for an older edition of D&D? NOPE can't do it.
In it's current form THIS IS NOT A WIN.
"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?
After being lied to our faces..... I'll believe it only after I see it.
I'm done. If they keep calling it a draft, when they had it literally sent out to be signed, it's clear that they don't intend to own up to their mistakes. I'm not going to subscribe or buy books until we get honest apologies or at least honesty about the situation.
But this is how corps work. Here’s probably how it went down:
1) Execs want to shut down potential leakage of money to NFTs and other non-traditional avenues not covered under original OGL.
2) Lawyers do all the work and make a bunch of protective language in new OGL that covers all potential angles
3) Execs think “yo this is slick - print it and send!“
4) Customers actually see how the company could weaponize this in the future and causes public outcry. And don’t get me wrong - some exec eventually *would have* weaponized it in the future, so the outcry is warranted.
5) They’re actually revising it to acquiesce to the community.
It’s easy to think that this is some nefarious plot, but ultimately it’s not about anything more than protecting their IP and opening avenues for profit in the future. And if you played anything from Wizards in the last 20 years, you’ve been supporting this model.
That being said, I’m cautiously optimistic.
1. They claim in this new statement that their intention all along was to get feedback, which is obviously a lie given that they never publicly released that draft! The only reason we got to see it and "give feedback" was because it was leaked. So, either they are lying about always wanting our feedback, or they leaked it intentionally hoping to get feedback and then admitting to having solicited feedback in an underhanded way!!!
2. Great, those existing products are "safe". That's not entirely the point though. Publishers who want to continue making content for previous editions of D&D should be able to use OGL 1.0a. Anything short of that is not what we want.
"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?
It's only a step in the right direction if they take action in the direction they are claiming they are going. This is nothing but words to try to placate the (very legitimate) outcry from the community that they supposedly didn't see coming.
To everyone applauding WotC for talking about how they had to protect against NFTs and publishers using D&D IP in unacceptable ways, they didn't need a new OGL to do that! They have always had IP law on their side to sue anyone who uses their IP in a way they don't like. It's smoke and mirrors!
"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 really appreciate this comment on the thread. I love seeing some calm, cool, and collected reason among all the rage.
They didn't address removing the ability to change the agreement at will with 30 days notice, or address what steps they'll be taking to protect the agreement from a future executive deciding to just burn the agreement like they just did.
The part of 1.0a that attempts to protect it from future interference is absolutely foundational to why it works. And it's why the ORC announcement stressed those steps so hard.
This is worthless.
"That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized."
You have rolled another "1" on the Deception Check.
Seriously? Is this how stupid Hasbro and WOTC thinks their customer base is?
Anyone that had a part in that reply has to go...If HASBRO and WOTC thinks they lost paying customers before that statement an hour ago just belt in for the ride coming...