I do think that there should be a way for WotC to receive some compensation from publishers of material for D&D but at the same time this relationship is symbiotic in nature with one benefiting from the other. The 25% number that I have heard bandied about to me seems too much for some publishers and not enough for others and a more industry targeted approach as well as contracts tailored individual company's. The problem with that is of course it can be seen as special treatment for some and burdensome for others (or picking winners and losers in the business space).
I also think that business will react to any proposition's that affect their revenue or suffer for it, so if WotC says if you sell more then 1,000 adventures you pay more then a company might just cap the number of products at 999 as the compensation for every product after the 999th is onerous or perceived as such.
I do also think that many companies see things and say "if we could just do this more money will come in" and it does not turn out that way. For example, I know quite a few people that keep things in their amazon cart because they do not like amazons search algorithm and product placement and that amazon see the info and says to themselves if only people would buy all the stuff in their cart things would be better. To me that is not understanding the issue on amazons part and could lead to missteps on their part.
Nobody is saying anger won't have an effect. But all the posts that say they won't come back no matter what WotC does, and there are a ton of those here and elsewhere, are actually having the OPPOSITE effect.
Actually, those posts serve a very important purpose - pressure.
The longer WotC goes without an actually good response, the more permanent damage becomes apparent to their brand.
Those posts are currently the minority. But the longer they wait - and this is what happened when they waited a week to back down even a little - the worse the permanent damage gets.
It is hardly shocking that someone who read “hey, we are going to fix all four of your points of contention” as not a “good response” also misread this thread.
The very point of this thread is that damage can be effective - irrevocable damage is not. Wizards cares about the person who damaged them but would come back; they don’t care about the “burn every bridge, I won’t come back” posts, because you don’t waste your time appeasing those who are already a lost cause. That’s all the post says - “cross the bridges and leave Wizard island if you want; just be sure not to burn them behind you or you are weakening negotiating power, not strengthening it.”
Nobody is saying anger won't have an effect. But all the posts that say they won't come back no matter what WotC does, and there are a ton of those here and elsewhere, are actually having the OPPOSITE effect.
Actually, those posts serve a very important purpose - pressure.
The longer WotC goes without an actually good response, the more permanent damage becomes apparent to their brand.
Those posts are currently the minority. But the longer they wait - and this is what happened when they waited a week to back down even a little - the worse the permanent damage gets.
It is hardly shocking that someone who read “hey, we are going to fix all four of your points of contention” as not a “good response” also misread this thread.
The very point of this thread is that damage can be effective - irrevocable damage is not. Wizards cares about the person who damaged them but would come back; they don’t care about the “burn every bridge, I won’t come back” posts, because you don’t waste your time appeasing those who are already a lost cause. That’s all the post says - “cross the bridges and leave Wizard island if you want; just be sure not to burn them behind you or you are weakening negotiating power, not strengthening it.”
Nobody is saying anger won't have an effect. But all the posts that say they won't come back no matter what WotC does, and there are a ton of those here and elsewhere, are actually having the OPPOSITE effect.
Actually, those posts serve a very important purpose - pressure.
The longer WotC goes without an actually good response, the more permanent damage becomes apparent to their brand.
Those posts are currently the minority. But the longer they wait - and this is what happened when they waited a week to back down even a little - the worse the permanent damage gets.
It is hardly shocking that someone who read “hey, we are going to fix all four of your points of contention” as not a “good response” also misread this thread.
The very point of this thread is that damage can be effective - irrevocable damage is not. Wizards cares about the person who damaged them but would come back; they don’t care about the “burn every bridge, I won’t come back” posts, because you don’t waste your time appeasing those who are already a lost cause. That’s all the post says - “cross the bridges and leave Wizard island if you want; just be sure not to burn them behind you or you are weakening negotiating power, not strengthening it.”
They didn't fix anything though. The talked about the less important issues, and ignored the big one - if they can change the OGL at will (with 30 days notice), the entire document is a trap.
The entire reason - which has been discussed by its authors - that 1.0a makes it possible to use any version that was authorized was so that the holder of the license had no incentive to change the terms down the line.
The entire post, and talking about 'walking back' certain items is smoke and mirrors - none of those items is locked in place and all can be walked back immediately.
You're literally falling for their easily spotted con.
Nobody is saying anger won't have an effect. But all the posts that say they won't come back no matter what WotC does, and there are a ton of those here and elsewhere, are actually having the OPPOSITE effect.
Actually, those posts serve a very important purpose - pressure.
The longer WotC goes without an actually good response, the more permanent damage becomes apparent to their brand.
Those posts are currently the minority. But the longer they wait - and this is what happened when they waited a week to back down even a little - the worse the permanent damage gets.
It is hardly shocking that someone who read “hey, we are going to fix all four of your points of contention” as not a “good response” also misread this thread.
The very point of this thread is that damage can be effective - irrevocable damage is not. Wizards cares about the person who damaged them but would come back; they don’t care about the “burn every bridge, I won’t come back” posts, because you don’t waste your time appeasing those who are already a lost cause. That’s all the post says - “cross the bridges and leave Wizard island if you want; just be sure not to burn them behind you or you are weakening negotiating power, not strengthening it.”
The didn't fix anything though. The talked about the less important issues, and ignored the big one - if they can change the OGL at will (with 30 days notice), the entire document is a trap.
The entire reason - which has been discussed by its authors - that 1.0a makes it possible to use any version that was authorized was so that the holder of the license had no incentive to change the terms down the line.
The entire post, and talking about 'walking back' certain items is smoke and mirrors - none of those items is locked in place and all can be walked back immediately.
You're literally falling for their easily spotted con.
No - more accurately I just know how to read contracts and you decidedly misread the very terms of 1.0 you are holding up in support. Those terms do not allow you to use any version of the agreement - they allow you to use any content under that agreement. So, if they don’t include 5e open content in 2.0, you can still use that open content because they included it in 1.0, you’ll just be using it under the 2.0 rules moving forward, not the 1.0 ones.
As for the thirty day thing - that’s not the kind of thing that gets discussed in press releases, since modification terms (and it’s clear there needs to be some more definite modification terms than the limited terms in 1.0) can be hard to nail down except through contract drafting.
Until wotc puts 1.0a back in place and into a non profit organization they are just blowing smoke waiting for this to pass.
The hypocrisy of this post is staggering. “I am angry at Wizards for putting forward ridiculous terms in negotiations, so the only way for them to satisfy me is if they meet my equally ridiculous terms of ‘reinstate a flawed document and surrendered their property to a third party.’”
Just as being angry and burning bridges does not help, when the other side is actually at the negotiating table making concessions, unrealistic demands do not help.
No - more accurately I just know how to read contracts and you decidedly misread the very terms of 1.0 you are holding up in support. Those terms do not allow you to use any version of the agreement - they allow you to use any content under that agreement. So, if they don’t include 5e open content in 2.0, you can still use that open content because they included it in 1.0, you’ll just be using it under the 2.0 rules moving forward, not the 1.0 ones.
As for the thirty day thing - that’s not the kind of thing that gets discussed in press releases, since modification terms (and it’s clear there needs to be some more definite modification terms than the limited terms in 1.0) can be hard to nail down except through contract drafting.
I misread what again?
From 1.0a
"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."
And for the record, the intent of this line has been clearly stated by the people involved in writing it multiple times at this point. If you haven't heard it stated, you're maintaining your ignorance willfully. Authorized in this context means "was authorized by Wizards when it was released".
And given that the ability of the license to be further modified is the single most important issue at hand, it absolutely should have been discussed in the press release. Everything else is secondary to that. Its the single item many people actually care about - if they want to self destruct One DnD, thats on them - but what they can't do is invalidate 1.0a.
No - more accurately I just know how to read contracts and you decidedly misread the very terms of 1.0 you are holding up in support. Those terms do not allow you to use any version of the agreement - they allow you to use any content under that agreement. So, if they don’t include 5e open content in 2.0, you can still use that open content because they included it in 1.0, you’ll just be using it under the 2.0 rules moving forward, not the 1.0 ones.
As for the thirty day thing - that’s not the kind of thing that gets discussed in press releases, since modification terms (and it’s clear there needs to be some more definite modification terms than the limited terms in 1.0) can be hard to nail down except through contract drafting.
I misread what again?
From 1.0a
"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."
And for the record, the intent of this line has been clearly stated by the people involved in writing it multiple times at this point. If you haven't heard it stated, you're maintaining your ignorance willfully. Authorized in this context means "was authorized by Wizards when it was released".
And given that the ability of the license to be further modified is the single most important issue at hand, it absolutely should have been discussed in the press release. Everything else is secondary to that. Its the single item many people actually care about - if they want to self destruct One DnD, thats on them - but what they can't do is invalidate 1.0a.
Yes, that - that is what you misread. That specifically says you can use the authorised version - which means they can deauthorise versions - to use content that is covered by any version, whether authorised or not.
The OGL is not a statement of rights - it is a contract, and one you enter into whenever you make something with OGL content and it confers no rights until entered into. Wizards is free to only have one outstanding “authorised version” for the creation of new contracts - and all this language says is “the stuff covered by this version will also be covered by the next version, if you happen to enter into the contract with the next version instead.”
Now, the promises are important - they’re very likely the reason why folks who entered into 1.0 contracts will continue to function under the 1.0 terms with the 1.0 rights. However, even the most elementary understanding of law - and explicit language in 1.0 - allow them to make a new deal for all new creations.
Someone described the whole thing very well yesterday in all the chaos. I forget who, but they described a "vibe shift" in the forums following the announcement.
Prior to the announcement? This place felt like a focused rebellion. People were angry and upset - people were massively angry and upset - but they were directing that fire towards a goal and they were unified in their approach and objective. It felt meaningful, it felt impactful - and clearly it was, because it had much of the impact we desired when the announcement dropped and Wizards announced the abandonment of royalty plans, an abandonment of the intention to make OGL 2.0 retroactively apply to 1.0 products, and a pullback on license-back issues allowing them to steal others' IP - all of which were, prior to the announcement, the primary concerns of that focused rebellion.
Then the announcement dropped and everything changed.
Instantly, the forums went from a focused rebellion to a self-destructive riot, players lashing out in blind spite at anyone and everyone around them. Not just Wizards, but also any player who wasn't Vowing To End D&D Forever. Wizards' misdirections and PR overspins were met with blatant lies and deliberate misunderstandings from the playerbase, and the very major victory we'd just won ended up immediately tarnished by a forumwide - and I can only assume community-wide - tantrum.
It was incredibly disheartening to see.
You know what I felt, when I read that announcement from Wizards? Pride. I was proud of us, because we managed to grab a billion-dollar company by the nose and yank them off course. We had enough impact to cause them to abandon all their most contentious objectives - not one, not two, but ALL OF THEM - and restrict themselves almost entirely to just a legal language update and giving themselves improved ability to deal with hate peddlers and NFT grifters. I was surprised and gratified, and even if the whole "you won, and so did we" thing was in deeply poor taste, I could look past the annoying language choices and see what it was we'd achieved. The battle wasn't over, we'd still need to see the final terms and language before people would make decisions concerning their subs, but **** if we hadn't taken the high ground and made a real difference.
I went to the forums after that with a smile on my face, ready to join in the celebration of what we'd achieved..****y to find a horde of arsonists doing everything in their power to burn the entire place down instead, working to poison everything we'd just won and undo all of our hard-fought gains out of sheer ******* spite.
Yesterday was not a good day for me. Emotionally, anyways. I started this thread to try and be a voice of reason amidst a swamp of decay, and I was ready for what I knew would come of that, but **** me is it exhausting. I may not be around as much today. The hordes of Chaos aren't gonna slay themselves down on Tertium, and crawling through heretic-infested sewers with nothing but a laser carbine, a couple grenades, and not remotely enough light honestly sounds downright relaxing rightabouts now.
Yes, that - that is what you misread. That specifically says you can use the authorised version - which means they can deauthorise versions - to use content that is covered by any version, whether authorised or not..
They can de-authorize it under the terms outlined in the contract. The contract does not provide terms for de-authorization. Since contracts are meaningless if one party can unilaterally effectively change the terms at will, there's barely any chance at all a court will read this as Hasbro having the ability to just unilaterally force a change in terms outside the context of the original contract.
Hasbro is engaged in a malicious misinterpretation of the original text, literally trying to manufacture a loophole in the text dedicated to making sure they can't do what they're trying to do.
And literally the entire team who wrote the original version of the OGL is ready to go to court over it, against them - insisting on continuing with this course is absolutely mad.
They could defuse most of this situation in a moment if they just stopped on this one thing.
At this point, anything short of restoring OGL 1.0a, and putting under legal text that is irrevocable and prepetual, will hurt WoTC. Because nobody trusts WoTC at this point. And the damage suffered to his image is enormous. So the only thing they can do to salvage what's left is drop their pants and legally ensure that what made D&D great will never be taken away from us.
The other option they have is to try to move forward, and for the communication department to do its thing to try to deceive as many fans as possible. I think that this is not going to work for them, because the community is very united under the same flag. But it is an option that they have, and the one that I think they are going to try to exploit.
The problem will come to them if a competitor really appears, like Pathfinder in its day, which offers the D&D fan what they had in the past. If, for example, such an ORC offers an umbrella in which content can be safely developed for one or several successful systems and, furthermore, that content is compatible with several systems; People are going to start playing that. And if known influencers are added, etc... Well, WoTC will have made the same mistake again: Assuming that the D&D acronyms are a sufficient value by themselves, and not what they can offer.
Please. Calm down. Breathe. Have some water. And remember that if you continue to beat the dog over and over again after it's tried and tried to do what you want, eventually the dog will stop caring and bite you.
You can't tell me what to do.
You can't tell me how to feel.
As for "the dog" metaphor, please elaborate. How exactly is the dog going to bite me? Does Hasbro have the power to hurt or harm me? Please elaborate on that threat.
The part where they mention they can 'deauthorize' previous editions IS NOT clear whatsoever in this context. Both Ryan Fancy (the executive at Hasbro and the conceptual parent of the OGL 1.0) said as much as did Bob Tarantino an attorney and PhD who wrote a thesis on the OGL (receipts available if you need them). Dancey stated (and Tarantino and others agreed) that the statement as intended in 2000 and since. was to emphasize that there can't be unauthorized versions of the OGL not authored by WOTC that can be used and considered valid. In addition, when the GSL came out they had a provision that stated that if you published under the GSL you agreed to no longer be bound by the OGL, a statement which everyone agrees with.
Now the Whatever It Is that is circulating specifically said:
A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement.
This did not say the licensee can no longer use the OGL nor that they are no longer authorized to use it but that it is, inherently, unauthorized.
Now to play devils advocate this could just be not well written language in the Whatever It Is but to the community at large it sounded like what it sounded like to the creator of the OGL and someone who literally wrote a dissertation on it: an overreaching attempt that didn't withstand either layman or legal logic as well as going back on 20+ years of statements and actions.
Yes, that - that is what you misread. That specifically says you can use the authorised version - which means they can deauthorise versions - to use content that is covered by any version, whether authorised or not..
They can de-authorize it under the terms outlined in the contract. The contract does not provide terms for de-authorization. Since contracts are meaningless if one party can unilaterally effectively change the terms at will, there's barely any chance at all a court will read this as Hasbro having the ability to just unilaterally force a change in terms outside the context of the original contract.
Hasbro is engaged in a malicious misinterpretation of the original text, literally trying to manufacture a loophole in the text dedicated to making sure they can't do what they're trying to do.
And literally the entire team who wrote the original version of the OGL is ready to go to court over it, against them - insisting on continuing with this course is absolutely mad.
They could defuse most of this situation in a moment if they just stopped on this one thing.
Wrong. OGL only exists as a contract when it is entered into. Until it is entered into, it is an offer, and even a first year law student can tell you that "an offer may be revoked at any time by the person making the offer." They do not need terms saying that they can revoke OGL as an offer, because the law (and basic common sense) already makes that clear.
What you call "malicious representation of original text" and a "loophole" I call "obvious and basic legal doctrines dating back longer than most countries" and "explicitly anticipated by the language of OGL 1.0, which both refers to 'authorized versions' and 'any version' as if they are different entities (which, in legal speak, when you refer to things slightly differently in a contract means those terms within the contract are to be taken differently."
A judge is going to understand that--and a judge is certainly not going to say "Yes, I know you are saying that there are deficiencies in your license that allows folks to take advantage of you in a way that can be harmful to you, but I am going to force you to go back to a revoked offer, especially since you have agreed to honor the commitments made to anyone while still under that now-revoked offer."
Which is why this entire "go back to 1.0" thing is nonsense and not helpful--it isn't going to happen, it shouldn't happen because 1.0 is an objectively terribly written legal document for everyone involved, and the chance anyone can force it to happen is nearly non-existent. Which, again, all goes back to Yeuri's point--when you have someone at the negotiating table trying to give you what you want and they ask for a bit more time to deliver, you let them deliver and see what they say.
Wrong. OGL only exists as a contract when it is entered into. Until it is entered into, it is an offer, and even a first year law student can tell you that "an offer may be revoked at any time by the person making the offer." They do not need terms saying that they can revoke OGL as an offer, because the law (and basic common sense) already makes that clear.
People already entered into 1.0a! Its a standing contract, already used to create products!
THAT is the issue. Its not an offer - its a contract that's been in use and in force for 20+ years.
And despite their apparent assurances that they aren't going to attempt to touch already printed material, they utterly failed to spell out what the conditions of that safe harbor are. Does it require accepting 2.0? If so, we're right back to 'there are no assurances or protections to prevent them from altering the deal further'.
Until they acknowledge they have no ability to actually de-authorize 1.0a, they haven't done anything.
I went to the forums after that with a smile on my face, ready to join in the celebration of what we'd achieved..****y to find a horde of arsonists doing everything in their power to burn the entire place down instead, working to poison everything we'd just won and undo all of our hard-fought gains out of sheer ****ing spite.
I think you know my theory on this already, but burning it all down was probably always the goal of a certain segment of the mob
What's happening on these forums is following a sadly predictable pattern
The best thing you can do right now is to focus your energy on the community that still wants to be here, not the ones that don't
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Wrong. OGL only exists as a contract when it is entered into. Until it is entered into, it is an offer, and even a first year law student can tell you that "an offer may be revoked at any time by the person making the offer." They do not need terms saying that they can revoke OGL as an offer, because the law (and basic common sense) already makes that clear.
People already entered into 1.0a! Its a standing contract, already used to create products!
THAT is the issue. Its not an offer - its a contract that's been in use and in force for 20+ years.
And despite their apparent assurances that they aren't going to attempt to touch already printed material, they utterly failed to spell out what the conditions of that safe harbor are. Does it require accepting 2.0? If so, we're right back to 'there are no assurances or protections to prevent them from altering the deal further'.
Until they acknowledge they have no ability to actually de-authorize 1.0a, they haven't done anything.
1.0 is a contract as it exists with those who have entered into it for the content they entered into it with. And Wizards has committed to honoring those existing contracts. For future content, it is an offer still, and thus confers no legal rights to content not existing yet. As I said explicitly.
But I'll leave it at that--between Yeuri's post, Wizards' responsive posts, OGL 1.0, and my posts, it is clear that you might be reading, but reading alone is not conferring comprehension. In the spirit of this thread, I am just going to prove that, when the other side abjectly refuses to listen, the other person will disengage and just ignore them.
Someone described the whole thing very well yesterday in all the chaos. I forget who, but they described a "vibe shift" in the forums following the announcement.
Prior to the announcement? This place felt like a focused rebellion. People were angry and upset - people were massively angry and upset - but they were directing that fire towards a goal and they were unified in their approach and objective. It felt meaningful, it felt impactful - and clearly it was, because it had much of the impact we desired when the announcement dropped and Wizards announced the abandonment of royalty plans, an abandonment of the intention to make OGL 2.0 retroactively apply to 1.0 products, and a pullback on license-back issues allowing them to steal others' IP - all of which were, prior to the announcement, the primary concerns of that focused rebellion.
Then the announcement dropped and everything changed.
Instantly, the forums went from a focused rebellion to a self-destructive riot, players lashing out in blind spite at anyone and everyone around them. Not just Wizards, but also any player who wasn't Vowing To End D&D Forever. Wizards' misdirections and PR overspins were met with blatant lies and deliberate misunderstandings from the playerbase, and the very major victory we'd just won ended up immediately tarnished by a forumwide - and I can only assume community-wide - tantrum.
It was incredibly disheartening to see.
You know what I felt, when I read that announcement from Wizards? Pride. I was proud of us, because we managed to grab a billion-dollar company by the nose and yank them off course. We had enough impact to cause them to abandon all their most contentious objectives - not one, not two, but ALL OF THEM - and restrict themselves almost entirely to just a legal language update and giving themselves improved ability to deal with hate peddlers and NFT grifters. I was surprised and gratified, and even if the whole "you won, and so did we" thing was in deeply poor taste, I could look past the annoying language choices and see what it was we'd achieved. The battle wasn't over, we'd still need to see the final terms and language before people would make decisions concerning their subs, but **** if we hadn't taken the high ground and made a real difference.
I went to the forums after that with a smile on my face, ready to join in the celebration of what we'd achieved..****y to find a horde of arsonists doing everything in their power to burn the entire place down instead, working to poison everything we'd just won and undo all of our hard-fought gains out of sheer ****ing spite.
Yesterday was not a good day for me. Emotionally, anyways. I started this thread to try and be a voice of reason amidst a swamp of decay, and I was ready for what I knew would come of that, but **** me is it exhausting. I may not be around as much today. The hordes of Chaos aren't gonna slay themselves down on Tertium, and crawling through heretic-infested sewers with nothing but a laser carbine, a couple grenades, and not remotely enough light honestly sounds downright relaxing rightabouts now.
I understand what you're saying, I really do. But really, yesterday's WoTC statement seems very, very ambiguous to me. And on top of that, I think they play with the language to convey the idea that they've listened to the fan, and that they're going to make changes, but in reality it's not going to change much of anything. That their OGL model is that, and they are going to go that way.
And also it doesn't solve one of the biggest problems, which is to withdraw the OGL1.0a when they assured many times that it was a lifetime license. That makes WoTC an untrustworthy company and backstabbers. D&D grew thanks to the OGL. Then it fell, due to its own bugs (which are similar to the current ones, by the way). And it rose with 5e thanks in part that they returned to accept the OGL and third-party content. And now that they're bigger than ever, they want to revoke the OGL? That is acting in bad faith.
So I think the only solution is to legally ensure that OGL 1.0a is an effectively irrevocable and perpetual agreement. And then if they want to create another license for One D&D like they did with 4.0, let them do it. And let's see how they do without the third-party content they had.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do think that there should be a way for WotC to receive some compensation from publishers of material for D&D but at the same time this relationship is symbiotic in nature with one benefiting from the other. The 25% number that I have heard bandied about to me seems too much for some publishers and not enough for others and a more industry targeted approach as well as contracts tailored individual company's. The problem with that is of course it can be seen as special treatment for some and burdensome for others (or picking winners and losers in the business space).
I also think that business will react to any proposition's that affect their revenue or suffer for it, so if WotC says if you sell more then 1,000 adventures you pay more then a company might just cap the number of products at 999 as the compensation for every product after the 999th is onerous or perceived as such.
I do also think that many companies see things and say "if we could just do this more money will come in" and it does not turn out that way. For example, I know quite a few people that keep things in their amazon cart because they do not like amazons search algorithm and product placement and that amazon see the info and says to themselves if only people would buy all the stuff in their cart things would be better. To me that is not understanding the issue on amazons part and could lead to missteps on their part.
It is hardly shocking that someone who read “hey, we are going to fix all four of your points of contention” as not a “good response” also misread this thread.
The very point of this thread is that damage can be effective - irrevocable damage is not. Wizards cares about the person who damaged them but would come back; they don’t care about the “burn every bridge, I won’t come back” posts, because you don’t waste your time appeasing those who are already a lost cause. That’s all the post says - “cross the bridges and leave Wizard island if you want; just be sure not to burn them behind you or you are weakening negotiating power, not strengthening it.”
This👆
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They didn't fix anything though. The talked about the less important issues, and ignored the big one - if they can change the OGL at will (with 30 days notice), the entire document is a trap.
The entire reason - which has been discussed by its authors - that 1.0a makes it possible to use any version that was authorized was so that the holder of the license had no incentive to change the terms down the line.
The entire post, and talking about 'walking back' certain items is smoke and mirrors - none of those items is locked in place and all can be walked back immediately.
You're literally falling for their easily spotted con.
Until wotc puts 1.0a back in place and into a non profit organization they are just blowing smoke waiting for this to pass.
No - more accurately I just know how to read contracts and you decidedly misread the very terms of 1.0 you are holding up in support. Those terms do not allow you to use any version of the agreement - they allow you to use any content under that agreement. So, if they don’t include 5e open content in 2.0, you can still use that open content because they included it in 1.0, you’ll just be using it under the 2.0 rules moving forward, not the 1.0 ones.
As for the thirty day thing - that’s not the kind of thing that gets discussed in press releases, since modification terms (and it’s clear there needs to be some more definite modification terms than the limited terms in 1.0) can be hard to nail down except through contract drafting.
The hypocrisy of this post is staggering. “I am angry at Wizards for putting forward ridiculous terms in negotiations, so the only way for them to satisfy me is if they meet my equally ridiculous terms of ‘reinstate a flawed document and surrendered their property to a third party.’”
Just as being angry and burning bridges does not help, when the other side is actually at the negotiating table making concessions, unrealistic demands do not help.
I misread what again?
From 1.0a
"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."
And for the record, the intent of this line has been clearly stated by the people involved in writing it multiple times at this point. If you haven't heard it stated, you're maintaining your ignorance willfully. Authorized in this context means "was authorized by Wizards when it was released".
And given that the ability of the license to be further modified is the single most important issue at hand, it absolutely should have been discussed in the press release. Everything else is secondary to that. Its the single item many people actually care about - if they want to self destruct One DnD, thats on them - but what they can't do is invalidate 1.0a.
Yes, that - that is what you misread. That specifically says you can use the authorised version - which means they can deauthorise versions - to use content that is covered by any version, whether authorised or not.
The OGL is not a statement of rights - it is a contract, and one you enter into whenever you make something with OGL content and it confers no rights until entered into. Wizards is free to only have one outstanding “authorised version” for the creation of new contracts - and all this language says is “the stuff covered by this version will also be covered by the next version, if you happen to enter into the contract with the next version instead.”
Now, the promises are important - they’re very likely the reason why folks who entered into 1.0 contracts will continue to function under the 1.0 terms with the 1.0 rights. However, even the most elementary understanding of law - and explicit language in 1.0 - allow them to make a new deal for all new creations.
Someone described the whole thing very well yesterday in all the chaos. I forget who, but they described a "vibe shift" in the forums following the announcement.
Prior to the announcement? This place felt like a focused rebellion. People were angry and upset - people were massively angry and upset - but they were directing that fire towards a goal and they were unified in their approach and objective. It felt meaningful, it felt impactful - and clearly it was, because it had much of the impact we desired when the announcement dropped and Wizards announced the abandonment of royalty plans, an abandonment of the intention to make OGL 2.0 retroactively apply to 1.0 products, and a pullback on license-back issues allowing them to steal others' IP - all of which were, prior to the announcement, the primary concerns of that focused rebellion.
Then the announcement dropped and everything changed.
Instantly, the forums went from a focused rebellion to a self-destructive riot, players lashing out in blind spite at anyone and everyone around them. Not just Wizards, but also any player who wasn't Vowing To End D&D Forever. Wizards' misdirections and PR overspins were met with blatant lies and deliberate misunderstandings from the playerbase, and the very major victory we'd just won ended up immediately tarnished by a forumwide - and I can only assume community-wide - tantrum.
It was incredibly disheartening to see.
You know what I felt, when I read that announcement from Wizards? Pride. I was proud of us, because we managed to grab a billion-dollar company by the nose and yank them off course. We had enough impact to cause them to abandon all their most contentious objectives - not one, not two, but ALL OF THEM - and restrict themselves almost entirely to just a legal language update and giving themselves improved ability to deal with hate peddlers and NFT grifters. I was surprised and gratified, and even if the whole "you won, and so did we" thing was in deeply poor taste, I could look past the annoying language choices and see what it was we'd achieved. The battle wasn't over, we'd still need to see the final terms and language before people would make decisions concerning their subs, but **** if we hadn't taken the high ground and made a real difference.
I went to the forums after that with a smile on my face, ready to join in the celebration of what we'd achieved..****y to find a horde of arsonists doing everything in their power to burn the entire place down instead, working to poison everything we'd just won and undo all of our hard-fought gains out of sheer ******* spite.
Yesterday was not a good day for me. Emotionally, anyways. I started this thread to try and be a voice of reason amidst a swamp of decay, and I was ready for what I knew would come of that, but **** me is it exhausting. I may not be around as much today. The hordes of Chaos aren't gonna slay themselves down on Tertium, and crawling through heretic-infested sewers with nothing but a laser carbine, a couple grenades, and not remotely enough light honestly sounds downright relaxing rightabouts now.
Please do not contact or message me.
They can de-authorize it under the terms outlined in the contract. The contract does not provide terms for de-authorization. Since contracts are meaningless if one party can unilaterally effectively change the terms at will, there's barely any chance at all a court will read this as Hasbro having the ability to just unilaterally force a change in terms outside the context of the original contract.
Hasbro is engaged in a malicious misinterpretation of the original text, literally trying to manufacture a loophole in the text dedicated to making sure they can't do what they're trying to do.
And literally the entire team who wrote the original version of the OGL is ready to go to court over it, against them - insisting on continuing with this course is absolutely mad.
They could defuse most of this situation in a moment if they just stopped on this one thing.
At this point, anything short of restoring OGL 1.0a, and putting under legal text that is irrevocable and prepetual, will hurt WoTC. Because nobody trusts WoTC at this point. And the damage suffered to his image is enormous. So the only thing they can do to salvage what's left is drop their pants and legally ensure that what made D&D great will never be taken away from us.
The other option they have is to try to move forward, and for the communication department to do its thing to try to deceive as many fans as possible. I think that this is not going to work for them, because the community is very united under the same flag. But it is an option that they have, and the one that I think they are going to try to exploit.
The problem will come to them if a competitor really appears, like Pathfinder in its day, which offers the D&D fan what they had in the past. If, for example, such an ORC offers an umbrella in which content can be safely developed for one or several successful systems and, furthermore, that content is compatible with several systems; People are going to start playing that. And if known influencers are added, etc... Well, WoTC will have made the same mistake again: Assuming that the D&D acronyms are a sufficient value by themselves, and not what they can offer.
You can't tell me what to do.
You can't tell me how to feel.
As for "the dog" metaphor, please elaborate. How exactly is the dog going to bite me? Does Hasbro have the power to hurt or harm me?
Please elaborate on that threat.
The part where they mention they can 'deauthorize' previous editions IS NOT clear whatsoever in this context. Both Ryan Fancy (the executive at Hasbro and the conceptual parent of the OGL 1.0) said as much as did Bob Tarantino an attorney and PhD who wrote a thesis on the OGL (receipts available if you need them). Dancey stated (and Tarantino and others agreed) that the statement as intended in 2000 and since. was to emphasize that there can't be unauthorized versions of the OGL not authored by WOTC that can be used and considered valid. In addition, when the GSL came out they had a provision that stated that if you published under the GSL you agreed to no longer be bound by the OGL, a statement which everyone agrees with.
Now the Whatever It Is that is circulating specifically said:
A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement.
This did not say the licensee can no longer use the OGL nor that they are no longer authorized to use it but that it is, inherently, unauthorized.
Now to play devils advocate this could just be not well written language in the Whatever It Is but to the community at large it sounded like what it sounded like to the creator of the OGL and someone who literally wrote a dissertation on it: an overreaching attempt that didn't withstand either layman or legal logic as well as going back on 20+ years of statements and actions.
Wrong. OGL only exists as a contract when it is entered into. Until it is entered into, it is an offer, and even a first year law student can tell you that "an offer may be revoked at any time by the person making the offer." They do not need terms saying that they can revoke OGL as an offer, because the law (and basic common sense) already makes that clear.
What you call "malicious representation of original text" and a "loophole" I call "obvious and basic legal doctrines dating back longer than most countries" and "explicitly anticipated by the language of OGL 1.0, which both refers to 'authorized versions' and 'any version' as if they are different entities (which, in legal speak, when you refer to things slightly differently in a contract means those terms within the contract are to be taken differently."
A judge is going to understand that--and a judge is certainly not going to say "Yes, I know you are saying that there are deficiencies in your license that allows folks to take advantage of you in a way that can be harmful to you, but I am going to force you to go back to a revoked offer, especially since you have agreed to honor the commitments made to anyone while still under that now-revoked offer."
Which is why this entire "go back to 1.0" thing is nonsense and not helpful--it isn't going to happen, it shouldn't happen because 1.0 is an objectively terribly written legal document for everyone involved, and the chance anyone can force it to happen is nearly non-existent. Which, again, all goes back to Yeuri's point--when you have someone at the negotiating table trying to give you what you want and they ask for a bit more time to deliver, you let them deliver and see what they say.
WOTC/Hasbro can only understand that which they can quantify, and they are only interested in quantifying money.
....So please, DO cancel your subscriptions - it is the only language corporate understands.
People already entered into 1.0a! Its a standing contract, already used to create products!
THAT is the issue. Its not an offer - its a contract that's been in use and in force for 20+ years.
And despite their apparent assurances that they aren't going to attempt to touch already printed material, they utterly failed to spell out what the conditions of that safe harbor are. Does it require accepting 2.0? If so, we're right back to 'there are no assurances or protections to prevent them from altering the deal further'.
Until they acknowledge they have no ability to actually de-authorize 1.0a, they haven't done anything.
I think you know my theory on this already, but burning it all down was probably always the goal of a certain segment of the mob
What's happening on these forums is following a sadly predictable pattern
The best thing you can do right now is to focus your energy on the community that still wants to be here, not the ones that don't
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
1.0 is a contract as it exists with those who have entered into it for the content they entered into it with. And Wizards has committed to honoring those existing contracts. For future content, it is an offer still, and thus confers no legal rights to content not existing yet. As I said explicitly.
But I'll leave it at that--between Yeuri's post, Wizards' responsive posts, OGL 1.0, and my posts, it is clear that you might be reading, but reading alone is not conferring comprehension. In the spirit of this thread, I am just going to prove that, when the other side abjectly refuses to listen, the other person will disengage and just ignore them.
I understand what you're saying, I really do. But really, yesterday's WoTC statement seems very, very ambiguous to me. And on top of that, I think they play with the language to convey the idea that they've listened to the fan, and that they're going to make changes, but in reality it's not going to change much of anything. That their OGL model is that, and they are going to go that way.
And also it doesn't solve one of the biggest problems, which is to withdraw the OGL1.0a when they assured many times that it was a lifetime license. That makes WoTC an untrustworthy company and backstabbers. D&D grew thanks to the OGL. Then it fell, due to its own bugs (which are similar to the current ones, by the way). And it rose with 5e thanks in part that they returned to accept the OGL and third-party content. And now that they're bigger than ever, they want to revoke the OGL? That is acting in bad faith.
So I think the only solution is to legally ensure that OGL 1.0a is an effectively irrevocable and perpetual agreement. And then if they want to create another license for One D&D like they did with 4.0, let them do it. And let's see how they do without the third-party content they had.