There is no going back to 1.0a. That is just not happening, so asking for that is the same as asking WotC to disband, they will never do that. Best case scenario is a good 2.0. And the only way to get that is by showing WotC we will leave if we don't get it, NOT by telling WotC we will never come back. D&D is not the whole hobby but it IS 90% of it. I have a group of hardcore gamers who have been gaming for 10 years plus and none of them want to switch to something else. We've tried, but 5e is what we want.
Why do you think there is no going back? Did the building housing all of the OGL 1.0a go up in flames? Perhaps the words were made illegal by congress? WotC can go back to 1.0a if they feel they will be more successful with it. So let them choose.
Is there, though? That sounds a lot like civility politics to me. Like the backlash isn't acceptable unless it doesn't inconvenience anyone or annoy anyone. The real jerks are the ones complaining, kind of thing.
We're talking about people's jobs here. You understand that spewing vitriol *is* the nice option.
There's a difference between angry "I'm pissed off and I want this to change" invective and spiteful "All I care about is that you fail" invective. Virtually everything I've seen since the statement was released has been the latter sort.
The former invective is productive. It moves the case forward. It lets Wizards know that the speaker is still invested and can be salvaged if they about-face and stop being ****ups.
Nobody gives a shit about the latter invective. It's pointless noise that exists solely to spread sour moods and make the entire process more difficult.
Many people no longer wish for Wizards to correct this mistake. They'd rather watch the whole game burn up and die so they can dance on the ashes and crow about how they were too smart to be fooled by Wizards' lame dumb attempt to fix things. I don't give one soggy ferret fart about those people's wrong bad opinion - and yes, I will go right out and say that spiteful "All I want is for Wizards to fail" bullshit is a Wrong Bad Opinion. The game deserves better than to burn up and die out of misguided spite.
I'm pissed off. I want this situation to change. I want Wizards to stop trying to be our buddies with idiotic "we all win" crap and to get to work on printing a document that doesn' make everyone who looks at it cry. If they do that? I will be mollified. For all its warts I still like and am invested in this system and this service and I don't want to see them fail.
The people who do can pound sand. And I won't regret telling them to do exactly that.
+1. Glad to see some sense.
I totally agree. If they fix things, I will bring back my sub. I'm not asking to burn WotC to the ground. I am asking for them to abandon a course of action that I find abhorrent.
There is no going back to 1.0a. That is just not happening, so asking for that is the same as asking WotC to disband, they will never do that. Best case scenario is a good 2.0. And the only way to get that is by showing WotC we will leave if we don't get it, NOT by telling WotC we will never come back. D&D is not the whole hobby but it IS 90% of it. I have a group of hardcore gamers who have been gaming for 10 years plus and none of them want to switch to something else. We've tried, but 5e is what we want.
Why do you think there is no going back? Did the building housing all of the OGL 1.0a go up in flames? Perhaps the words were made illegal by congress? WotC can go back to 1.0a if they feel they will be more successful with it. So let them choose.
It is the lack of transparency, the destruction of goodwill implied in the OGL 1.0a. That is destroyed. Nobody is going to trust any new OGL that comes from WotC. The 3rd party producers will never be the same again, no matter how WotC backtracks now. It is too late, people see the future of D&DOne and it sucks.
As someone who bought the starter set about very recently, completely unaware of this issue, ''Rabid Hyenas'' are precisely the users who brought me attention to what is an anti-consumer company. As a 30yo software dev with a stable partner (10+ years) and no kids, I'm a BIG spender on my hobbies. I spend money on things I don't even use most of the time, just because I like how a book cover looks on my library. We are halfway through the started kit, and before reading this thread, I legitimately had every single official 5e D&D book already ordered on Amazon. After reading this thread, I have cancelled my Amazon order, and I'm looking into other publishers.
I can assure you, forums/twitter on fire are useful to affecting their bottomline.
Curious exactly which 3rd party content you are worried about protecting? And since you are barely started playing, it seems, having just the starter kit, how you are so quick to jump on the bandwagon?
Not saying that you are necessarily wrong, just that it sounds a bit knee jerk.
At current time, any 3rd party content, considering the leaks state that they can make any changes with a 30 day notice.
Having seen the same story of a company turning against it's own community, these kinds of threads are only ever beneficial to said company, and never to the community. The only reason this thread even exists in the first place is because WOTC was caught pants down with a paper on hand saying "sign within 10 days or else" and handing it to publishers. If they were never caught, these contracts, or most of them, would have been signed and no ''concessions'' would have been made in which to ignore the ''we can change whatever we like'' clauses. This was a ''done deal''. Players just fortuitously sneezed at the right time when they were being shot behind their back, dodging the bullet to the head.
A company as big as WOTC does not care for civil argumentation, or argumentation at all. It only cares about bottomlines. People unsubbing affects this. Forums on fire turning away potential newcomers, thus affecting projections affect this. MSM and influencers outside of the usual sphere of the game noticing the burning forums/twitter mentions makes even more people notice, influencing newcomers and existing players alike. The more this goes on, what do you think are the odds that top results in people's google/yt searches for ''should I play D&D in 2023" will be about how WOTC is trying to screw up an agreement that helps the community?
That does not answer my question. 3rd party producers trying to turn a profit off secondary products are not the majority of 'The Community'
Nor does the lynch mob reaction answer my question.
WotC are not going to show up at your door with a search warrant to make sure your local campaign is using only products they approve of. No judge in the world would grant such a warrant, nor would any such wild homebrew chase be anything resembling profitable.
I think you have misinterpreted your own question. You asked what third party works he was trying to protect. He's not. He is saying if a company doesn't deal in good faith with its customers, it is anti-consumer. Not anti-Kolath. It doesn't matter if a specific consumer decides they don't care what the company does or says, or if they raise their prices to $30 per month (check recent reports about the WotC VP confirming that). So asking what third parties he's protecting is like saying "I know you said you don't want to pay for apples, but which orange products are you trying to help the sales for? It's a question that builds its' own straw man to attack.
There is no going back to 1.0a. That is just not happening, so asking for that is the same as asking WotC to disband, they will never do that. Best case scenario is a good 2.0. And the only way to get that is by showing WotC we will leave if we don't get it, NOT by telling WotC we will never come back. D&D is not the whole hobby but it IS 90% of it. I have a group of hardcore gamers who have been gaming for 10 years plus and none of them want to switch to something else. We've tried, but 5e is what we want.
Why do you think there is no going back? Did the building housing all of the OGL 1.0a go up in flames? Perhaps the words were made illegal by congress? WotC can go back to 1.0a if they feel they will be more successful with it. So let them choose.
It is the lack of transparency, the destruction of goodwill implied in the OGL 1.0a. That is destroyed. Nobody is going to trust any new OGL that comes from WotC. The 3rd party producers will never be the same again, no matter how WotC backtracks now. It is too late, people see the future of D&DOne and it sucks.
The main reason for them to go back to 1.0a would be that it's a clear indication of surrender and concession. It would also reestablish a line in the sand that people can watch for them to cross.
It doesn't "fix" things entirely - but it would de-escalate the situation and give them a more firm foundation to try and move forward with.
None of this, "We both won" BS. WotC is losing here - there are no winning outcomes for them on this path - and they need to acknowledge that.
Let’s repeat this again: They are not going back to 1.0. They should not. It is one of the worst written legal documents I have ever seen, and I have seen contracts that were so poorly written entire terms were tossed out by a judge.
It does not clearly define the scope of each time one enters into the 1.0 contract. It uses legally significant terms it fails to define in the definitions paragraph. It implies certain terms it does not actually spell out. It does not clearly define what constitutes a breach. It does not clearly define what mediums of content it covers. Its ambiguity would make it an effective shield for folks wanting to release hate speech under it.
It should never have been released in its present form in the first place and an update is long overdue. Ambiguity is bad for everyone, content creators and Wizards alike, and the document is simply replete with poorly-written, ambiguous terms.
Now, what form that update takes is cause for legitimate debate. But anyone who is advocating for the current 1.0 to remain is being foolish - it doesn’t behoove anyone to leave something so clearly important to many people to such a so clearly poorly written document.
I've heard from multiple lawyers now that as a legal document, the 1.0 Open Game License "kinda sucks". It's easy for laypeople to read, but that comes at the cost of being basically useless as legal text. I can guarantee that even Darling Wonderchild Paizo and their so-incredible ORC will be a much more competently assembled legal document.
The fact that nobody has used the OGL to basically try and defraud Wizards outright is kind of a miracle, the way I've heard it from legal professionals. It's the legal equivalent of a third-grade pinky swear, and has about as much weight. Is it a good idea? Absolutely! But good ideas executed poorly are rife to turn into bad ideas.
Let’s repeat this again: They are not going back to 1.0. They should not. It is one of the worst written legal documents I have ever seen, and I have seen contracts that were so poorly written entire terms were tossed out by a judge.
It does not clearly define the scope of each time one enters into the 1.0 contract. It uses legally significant terms it fails to define in the definitions paragraph. It implies certain terms it does not actually spell out. It does not clearly define what constitutes a breach. It does not clearly define what mediums of content it covers. Its ambiguity would make it an effective shield for folks wanting to release hate speech under it.
It should never have been released in its present form in the first place and an update is long overdue. Ambiguity is bad for everyone, content creators and Wizards alike, and the document is simply replete with poorly-written, ambiguous terms.
Now, what form that update takes is cause for legitimate debate. But anyone who is advocating for the current 1.0 to remain is being foolish - it doesn’t behoove anyone to leave something so clearly important to many people to such a so clearly poorly written document.
Obviously, you are correct. For the past 20 years it has enabled.... wait...
As someone who bought the starter set about very recently, completely unaware of this issue, ''Rabid Hyenas'' are precisely the users who brought me attention to what is an anti-consumer company. As a 30yo software dev with a stable partner (10+ years) and no kids, I'm a BIG spender on my hobbies. I spend money on things I don't even use most of the time, just because I like how a book cover looks on my library. We are halfway through the started kit, and before reading this thread, I legitimately had every single official 5e D&D book already ordered on Amazon. After reading this thread, I have cancelled my Amazon order, and I'm looking into other publishers.
I can assure you, forums/twitter on fire are useful to affecting their bottomline.
Curious exactly which 3rd party content you are worried about protecting? And since you are barely started playing, it seems, having just the starter kit, how you are so quick to jump on the bandwagon?
Not saying that you are necessarily wrong, just that it sounds a bit knee jerk.
At current time, any 3rd party content, considering the leaks state that they can make any changes with a 30 day notice.
Having seen the same story of a company turning against it's own community, these kinds of threads are only ever beneficial to said company, and never to the community. The only reason this thread even exists in the first place is because WOTC was caught pants down with a paper on hand saying "sign within 10 days or else" and handing it to publishers. If they were never caught, these contracts, or most of them, would have been signed and no ''concessions'' would have been made in which to ignore the ''we can change whatever we like'' clauses. This was a ''done deal''. Players just fortuitously sneezed at the right time when they were being shot behind their back, dodging the bullet to the head.
A company as big as WOTC does not care for civil argumentation, or argumentation at all. It only cares about bottomlines. People unsubbing affects this. Forums on fire turning away potential newcomers, thus affecting projections affect this. MSM and influencers outside of the usual sphere of the game noticing the burning forums/twitter mentions makes even more people notice, influencing newcomers and existing players alike. The more this goes on, what do you think are the odds that top results in people's google/yt searches for ''should I play D&D in 2023" will be about how WOTC is trying to screw up an agreement that helps the community?
That does not answer my question. 3rd party producers trying to turn a profit off secondary products are not the majority of 'The Community'
Nor does the lynch mob reaction answer my question.
WotC are not going to show up at your door with a search warrant to make sure your local campaign is using only products they approve of. No judge in the world would grant such a warrant, nor would any such wild homebrew chase be anything resembling profitable.
I think you have misinterpreted your own question. You asked what third party works he was trying to protect. He's not. He is saying if a company doesn't deal in good faith with its customers, it is anti-consumer. Not anti-Kolath. It doesn't matter if a specific consumer decides they don't care what the company does or says, or if they raise their prices to $30 per month (check recent reports about the WotC VP confirming that). So asking what third parties he's protecting is like saying "I know you said you don't want to pay for apples, but which orange products are you trying to help the sales for? It's a question that builds its' own straw man to attack.
The OGL is not an agreement with the customers, though. Who in bloody blazes checks the licensing before they buy a game to play it? Seriously???
And if you are not worried about 3rd party producers, then in what way do you think it would affect you in the slightest?
I didn't misinterpret my own question. I asked the question I asked and know what I meant by it.
In that case, I think you were making a bad faith argument.
Let’s repeat this again: They are not going back to 1.0. They should not. It is one of the worst written legal documents I have ever seen, and I have seen contracts that were so poorly written entire terms were tossed out by a judge.
It does not clearly define the scope of each time one enters into the 1.0 contract. It uses legally significant terms it fails to define in the definitions paragraph. It implies certain terms it does not actually spell out. It does not clearly define what constitutes a breach. It does not clearly define what mediums of content it covers. Its ambiguity would make it an effective shield for folks wanting to release hate speech under it.
It should never have been released in its present form in the first place and an update is long overdue. Ambiguity is bad for everyone, content creators and Wizards alike, and the document is simply replete with poorly-written, ambiguous terms.
Now, what form that update takes is cause for legitimate debate. But anyone who is advocating for the current 1.0 to remain is being foolish - it doesn’t behoove anyone to leave something so clearly important to many people to such a so clearly poorly written document.
Obviously, you are correct. For the past 20 years it has enabled.... wait...
I am glad we can agree on something - it is obvious to anyone who has ever looked at 1.0 that it is a terrible document. Several weeks of folks clamouring about what what 1.0 does or does not say really prove just how awful it is from a legal perspective.
I've heard from multiple lawyers now that as a legal document, the 1.0 Open Game License "kinda sucks". It's easy for laypeople to read, but that comes at the cost of being basically useless as legal text. I can guarantee that even Darling Wonderchild Paizo and their so-incredible ORC will be a much more competently assembled legal document.
The fact that nobody has used the OGL to basically try and defraud Wizards outright is kind of a miracle, the way I've heard it from legal professionals. It's the legal equivalent of a third-grade pinky swear, and has about as much weight. Is it a good idea? Absolutely! But good ideas executed poorly are rife to turn into bad ideas.
The law in the United States does not allow protection for rules. It does allow protection for creative expression but it can't be simply using common terminology to describe it. What does this mean? You can't prohibit use of an Acid Arrow spell that has a specified range and dice to roll, etc. You CAN prohibit the use of the fictional character name Melf and any flavor text ('the arrow streaks to the target and melts through armor to cause...') The OGL restricted some use of items permitted by fair use. That's what it did for WotC. And for creators, it gave them an assurance that WotC was not going to take them to court as long as they didn't break the rules.
Wizards has copyright over the specific text it printed in regards to spells. That would be covered under normal copyright laws, anything that veered too close would be subject to lawsuit.
The issue is the line "And for creators, it gave them an assurance that WotC was not going to take them to court as long as they didn't break the rules." Because to the best of my current understanding, OGL 1.0 doesn't really explain what the rules are. The whole system is propped up on precedent and best-guess understanding of what hasn't garnered a lawsuit yet, but the document does not actually describe the rules it purports to lay down, ne?
As someone who bought the starter set about very recently, completely unaware of this issue, ''Rabid Hyenas'' are precisely the users who brought me attention to what is an anti-consumer company. As a 30yo software dev with a stable partner (10+ years) and no kids, I'm a BIG spender on my hobbies. I spend money on things I don't even use most of the time, just because I like how a book cover looks on my library. We are halfway through the started kit, and before reading this thread, I legitimately had every single official 5e D&D book already ordered on Amazon. After reading this thread, I have cancelled my Amazon order, and I'm looking into other publishers.
I can assure you, forums/twitter on fire are useful to affecting their bottomline.
Curious exactly which 3rd party content you are worried about protecting? And since you are barely started playing, it seems, having just the starter kit, how you are so quick to jump on the bandwagon?
Not saying that you are necessarily wrong, just that it sounds a bit knee jerk.
At current time, any 3rd party content, considering the leaks state that they can make any changes with a 30 day notice.
Having seen the same story of a company turning against it's own community, these kinds of threads are only ever beneficial to said company, and never to the community. The only reason this thread even exists in the first place is because WOTC was caught pants down with a paper on hand saying "sign within 10 days or else" and handing it to publishers. If they were never caught, these contracts, or most of them, would have been signed and no ''concessions'' would have been made in which to ignore the ''we can change whatever we like'' clauses. This was a ''done deal''. Players just fortuitously sneezed at the right time when they were being shot behind their back, dodging the bullet to the head.
A company as big as WOTC does not care for civil argumentation, or argumentation at all. It only cares about bottomlines. People unsubbing affects this. Forums on fire turning away potential newcomers, thus affecting projections affect this. MSM and influencers outside of the usual sphere of the game noticing the burning forums/twitter mentions makes even more people notice, influencing newcomers and existing players alike. The more this goes on, what do you think are the odds that top results in people's google/yt searches for ''should I play D&D in 2023" will be about how WOTC is trying to screw up an agreement that helps the community?
That does not answer my question. 3rd party producers trying to turn a profit off secondary products are not the majority of 'The Community'
Nor does the lynch mob reaction answer my question.
WotC are not going to show up at your door with a search warrant to make sure your local campaign is using only products they approve of. No judge in the world would grant such a warrant, nor would any such wild homebrew chase be anything resembling profitable.
I think you have misinterpreted your own question. You asked what third party works he was trying to protect. He's not. He is saying if a company doesn't deal in good faith with its customers, it is anti-consumer. Not anti-Kolath. It doesn't matter if a specific consumer decides they don't care what the company does or says, or if they raise their prices to $30 per month (check recent reports about the WotC VP confirming that). So asking what third parties he's protecting is like saying "I know you said you don't want to pay for apples, but which orange products are you trying to help the sales for? It's a question that builds its' own straw man to attack.
The OGL is not an agreement with the customers, though. Who in bloody blazes checks the licensing before they buy a game to play it? Seriously???
And if you are not worried about 3rd party producers, then in what way do you think it would affect you in the slightest?
I didn't misinterpret my own question. I asked the question I asked and know what I meant by it.
In that case, I think you were making a bad faith argument.
In what way? If you are having trouble understanding my argument, can you narrow down what part of it so I can try to clarify?
Here is how I understand your argument:
Ford is going to make their cars so they can only use BP brand gasoline. I object that they are anti-consumer because that means BP will raise prices above other sources due to a unique higher demand. Ford releases a statement that says this was all a misunderstanding. They intended all along to ask us which gas brand we wanted and thanks for the feedback, we regret the fear and panic that we caused our customers but this was all caused by a few loud voices over-reacting. They further say they will reconsider which gas stations they will be exclusive to. I say I'm angry that Ford is anti-consumer because they lied about their intent and they seem to be planning the same thing with slightly different details. You ask what other gas station I am trying to protect. I say I'm angry that Ford is anti-consumer. You say but WHICH third party gas are you protecting? I say you are making a bad faith argument and you say "Hey, the gas tank is not an agreement between Ford and the consumer'.
Re: the OGL needs revision -- it was my understanding that it was basically intended as a way of saying, "neither of us knows exactly how it would go if we rolled initiative, so let's just agree not to fight." Wizards used to be happy letting people do their thing, but now they aren't anymore. Now they feel pretty confident they can win that fight (I'm not sure I agree), or they feel backed into a corner because they can't come up with better ways to increase their profits (this seems impossibly stupid, so it's probably the real answer), so they're drawing swords.
Re: the OGL needs revision -- it was my understanding that it was basically intended as a way of saying, "neither of us knows exactly how it would go if we rolled initiative, so let's just agree not to fight." Wizards used to be happy letting people do their thing, but now they aren't anymore. Now they feel pretty confident they can win that fight (I'm not sure I agree), or they feel backed into a corner because they can't come up with better ways to increase their profits (this seems impossibly stupid, so it's probably the real answer), so they're drawing swords.
Recent events forced Wizards’ hand on this. As Yeuri has noted, they have gotten really lucky so far - but any streak of luck eventually runs out. Specifically:
- The past year saw a major rise in NFTs and unscrupulous individuals making NFTs with other people’s property. Someone could, conceivably make some kind of clip art of “D&D Rules NFTs” with content covered by the OGL (it’s not like artistic quality matters to those folks) and the legal status of those NFTs are not really clear under the poorly written OGL 1.0.
- Ernest Gygax made a racist game. I can guarantee you that Wizards’ lawyers looked at this situation, thanked their lucky stars Gygax was dumb enough to violate clear trademark laws, then read OGL 1.0 and had a “oh, damn, if he had done this under the OGL, it, we would be in trouble, we need to rewrite this garbage right away!”
- Amazon recently got more involved with D&D through their distribution of Vox Machina, likely making Wizards concerned that Amazon or someone like it could try to use the vague nature of OGL 1.0 to their advantage.
- A new edition is coming out, and it is better to get these things settled before the edition drops, rather than during or after.
Honestly, I’m not even sure they think they can “win” this fight - not truly. But it is a fight they had to fight at some point, and now, when most of the bad press will wash away by OneD&D’s release, is really the best time to do so.
Why is this toxic thread still running? There are no "rabid hyenas".
There very much were. Things have died down a bit, but there are still people whos only goal is to troll Wizards into closing their account. There are also people who don't see that third party creators are being left behind by unreasonable demands and a vague hope that ORC will be the best thing ever and will come very soon. And outside of this forum there are people canceling others for playing D&D. Not buying, just playing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Canceling subscriptions is a GREAT way to get Wizard's attention. What the OP is talking about are the people who are saying there's nothing Wizards can do that will ever redeem themselves and that they will never receive another penny from said people.
When Wizards finally releases the new OGL, some of us will actually take a look and re-evaluate the situation. Maybe Wizards will not deserve another penny, and maybe they will have bent enough to the community's outrage to deserve a second change. I won't know until I see the document.
But I agree with the OP... If you're done with Wizards and there's nothing they can do to change you mind, then leave. Go with God; I hope you find what you're looking for.
The WotC today isn't the same as the WotC 20 years ago. And it isn't the same WotC that might exist 20 years from now.
People come, people go. Management changes. Owners change. Guiding principles and business strategies change.
Saying you won't give WotC another cent doesn't mean you'll never for any reason ever forever never again give WotC another cent. It means you won't give the current incarnation of WotC money.
It means they as a company need to change for you to be willing to fund them. They need to change strategies, and probably a good chunk of management. They need to become the company we thought we had been supporting. One that cares about the hobby, and community. Once upon a time it did.
If it can again, it can get cash again. If it cannot become the WotC that values these things, then it can't.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why do you think there is no going back? Did the building housing all of the OGL 1.0a go up in flames? Perhaps the words were made illegal by congress? WotC can go back to 1.0a if they feel they will be more successful with it. So let them choose.
I totally agree. If they fix things, I will bring back my sub. I'm not asking to burn WotC to the ground. I am asking for them to abandon a course of action that I find abhorrent.
It is the lack of transparency, the destruction of goodwill implied in the OGL 1.0a. That is destroyed. Nobody is going to trust any new OGL that comes from WotC.
The 3rd party producers will never be the same again, no matter how WotC backtracks now. It is too late, people see the future of D&DOne and it sucks.
I think you have misinterpreted your own question. You asked what third party works he was trying to protect. He's not. He is saying if a company doesn't deal in good faith with its customers, it is anti-consumer. Not anti-Kolath. It doesn't matter if a specific consumer decides they don't care what the company does or says, or if they raise their prices to $30 per month (check recent reports about the WotC VP confirming that). So asking what third parties he's protecting is like saying "I know you said you don't want to pay for apples, but which orange products are you trying to help the sales for? It's a question that builds its' own straw man to attack.
The main reason for them to go back to 1.0a would be that it's a clear indication of surrender and concession. It would also reestablish a line in the sand that people can watch for them to cross.
It doesn't "fix" things entirely - but it would de-escalate the situation and give them a more firm foundation to try and move forward with.
None of this, "We both won" BS. WotC is losing here - there are no winning outcomes for them on this path - and they need to acknowledge that.
Let’s repeat this again: They are not going back to 1.0. They should not. It is one of the worst written legal documents I have ever seen, and I have seen contracts that were so poorly written entire terms were tossed out by a judge.
It does not clearly define the scope of each time one enters into the 1.0 contract. It uses legally significant terms it fails to define in the definitions paragraph. It implies certain terms it does not actually spell out. It does not clearly define what constitutes a breach. It does not clearly define what mediums of content it covers. Its ambiguity would make it an effective shield for folks wanting to release hate speech under it.
It should never have been released in its present form in the first place and an update is long overdue. Ambiguity is bad for everyone, content creators and Wizards alike, and the document is simply replete with poorly-written, ambiguous terms.
Now, what form that update takes is cause for legitimate debate. But anyone who is advocating for the current 1.0 to remain is being foolish - it doesn’t behoove anyone to leave something so clearly important to many people to such a so clearly poorly written document.
I've heard from multiple lawyers now that as a legal document, the 1.0 Open Game License "kinda sucks". It's easy for laypeople to read, but that comes at the cost of being basically useless as legal text. I can guarantee that even Darling Wonderchild Paizo and their so-incredible ORC will be a much more competently assembled legal document.
The fact that nobody has used the OGL to basically try and defraud Wizards outright is kind of a miracle, the way I've heard it from legal professionals. It's the legal equivalent of a third-grade pinky swear, and has about as much weight. Is it a good idea? Absolutely! But good ideas executed poorly are rife to turn into bad ideas.
Please do not contact or message me.
KrispyXIV
They think they are winning because they plan to jack the cost of a monthly sub WAY up and make more money with a smaller subscriber-base.
Obviously, you are correct. For the past 20 years it has enabled.... wait...
In that case, I think you were making a bad faith argument.
I am glad we can agree on something - it is obvious to anyone who has ever looked at 1.0 that it is a terrible document. Several weeks of folks clamouring about what what 1.0 does or does not say really prove just how awful it is from a legal perspective.
The law in the United States does not allow protection for rules. It does allow protection for creative expression but it can't be simply using common terminology to describe it. What does this mean? You can't prohibit use of an Acid Arrow spell that has a specified range and dice to roll, etc. You CAN prohibit the use of the fictional character name Melf and any flavor text ('the arrow streaks to the target and melts through armor to cause...') The OGL restricted some use of items permitted by fair use. That's what it did for WotC. And for creators, it gave them an assurance that WotC was not going to take them to court as long as they didn't break the rules.
Why is this toxic thread still running? There are no "rabid hyenas".
Wizards has copyright over the specific text it printed in regards to spells. That would be covered under normal copyright laws, anything that veered too close would be subject to lawsuit.
The issue is the line "And for creators, it gave them an assurance that WotC was not going to take them to court as long as they didn't break the rules." Because to the best of my current understanding, OGL 1.0 doesn't really explain what the rules are. The whole system is propped up on precedent and best-guess understanding of what hasn't garnered a lawsuit yet, but the document does not actually describe the rules it purports to lay down, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Here is how I understand your argument:
Ford is going to make their cars so they can only use BP brand gasoline. I object that they are anti-consumer because that means BP will raise prices above other sources due to a unique higher demand. Ford releases a statement that says this was all a misunderstanding. They intended all along to ask us which gas brand we wanted and thanks for the feedback, we regret the fear and panic that we caused our customers but this was all caused by a few loud voices over-reacting. They further say they will reconsider which gas stations they will be exclusive to. I say I'm angry that Ford is anti-consumer because they lied about their intent and they seem to be planning the same thing with slightly different details. You ask what other gas station I am trying to protect. I say I'm angry that Ford is anti-consumer. You say but WHICH third party gas are you protecting? I say you are making a bad faith argument and you say "Hey, the gas tank is not an agreement between Ford and the consumer'.
Thank you. The title of this thread is a disgusting example of dehumanization.
Please?
Re: the OGL needs revision -- it was my understanding that it was basically intended as a way of saying, "neither of us knows exactly how it would go if we rolled initiative, so let's just agree not to fight." Wizards used to be happy letting people do their thing, but now they aren't anymore. Now they feel pretty confident they can win that fight (I'm not sure I agree), or they feel backed into a corner because they can't come up with better ways to increase their profits (this seems impossibly stupid, so it's probably the real answer), so they're drawing swords.
Recent events forced Wizards’ hand on this. As Yeuri has noted, they have gotten really lucky so far - but any streak of luck eventually runs out. Specifically:
- The past year saw a major rise in NFTs and unscrupulous individuals making NFTs with other people’s property. Someone could, conceivably make some kind of clip art of “D&D Rules NFTs” with content covered by the OGL (it’s not like artistic quality matters to those folks) and the legal status of those NFTs are not really clear under the poorly written OGL 1.0.
- Ernest Gygax made a racist game. I can guarantee you that Wizards’ lawyers looked at this situation, thanked their lucky stars Gygax was dumb enough to violate clear trademark laws, then read OGL 1.0 and had a “oh, damn, if he had done this under the OGL, it, we would be in trouble, we need to rewrite this garbage right away!”
- Amazon recently got more involved with D&D through their distribution of Vox Machina, likely making Wizards concerned that Amazon or someone like it could try to use the vague nature of OGL 1.0 to their advantage.
- A new edition is coming out, and it is better to get these things settled before the edition drops, rather than during or after.
Honestly, I’m not even sure they think they can “win” this fight - not truly. But it is a fight they had to fight at some point, and now, when most of the bad press will wash away by OneD&D’s release, is really the best time to do so.
There very much were. Things have died down a bit, but there are still people whos only goal is to troll Wizards into closing their account. There are also people who don't see that third party creators are being left behind by unreasonable demands and a vague hope that ORC will be the best thing ever and will come very soon. And outside of this forum there are people canceling others for playing D&D. Not buying, just playing.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
The WotC today isn't the same as the WotC 20 years ago. And it isn't the same WotC that might exist 20 years from now.
People come, people go. Management changes. Owners change. Guiding principles and business strategies change.
Saying you won't give WotC another cent doesn't mean you'll never for any reason ever forever never again give WotC another cent. It means you won't give the current incarnation of WotC money.
It means they as a company need to change for you to be willing to fund them. They need to change strategies, and probably a good chunk of management. They need to become the company we thought we had been supporting. One that cares about the hobby, and community. Once upon a time it did.
If it can again, it can get cash again. If it cannot become the WotC that values these things, then it can't.
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.