I would have preferred to comment on the announcement post directly or even by email, but this seems to be the most direct way of being heard on the matter. Before I get started, I get wanting to change the license to reflect changes in a legal, commercial, and technological environment. A document like this should be a living document, much like a nation's constitution. These changes should continue to reflect the spirit of the initial document whilst reflecting the desired changes.
The "draft" 1.1 OGL didn't do that. I also wanted to give detail on my thoughts on this statement point by point, for the little it's worth.
When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products.
I buy this being part of your overall values, based on recent actions. What I don't buy is that the OGL was designed to deal with this at all. Why? To my knowledge, there's no clause that deals with this. You could very easily have done that without burning down your customer/fan base. No one would have really cared much if you'd added a clause dealing with this, which I'll talk about a bit later.
EDIT: Gonna eat some humble pie on this point; that's there in some of the comments and a couple of the clauses. I still think the suggestions I make later that involve including specific examples of the more or less blatant stuff that might trigger these provisions is better than the two clauses that are there.
Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements.
In which case, why didn't you also address this in the "draft"? Also, wouldn't that mean you could technically create such material under the fan content policy, thus sidestepping the OGL entirely? Again, no one would have cared if you'd included a clause specifying that such material was not allowed under any previous or current version of the license, any future versions of the license, or the fan content policy.
EDIT: ...And this one too, buuut I'm still not sure exactly how much protection is offered by the stuff that does address this. For some cryto bros, I'm sure it doesn't matter to them.
And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.
Such as? The third party publishers in the space are hardly major corporations; I'm not sure how many of them are even incorporated! Further, $750000 of revenue does not strike me as particularly major. These publishers are not your competitors, they closer to "co-opetitors", meaning that their operation and continued operation provided a competitive advantage for you. How does that work - they're making our money that we should be making? By providing a rich selection of additional materials that people can use with your work that may not have existed with your actual competitors (e.g. Paizo, Chaosium, Modiphius, Catalyst, etc.), meaning that if they need a resource to run a game in your system, they can find it. It maybe slim, but it's a competitive advantage nonetheless. You make more money with them than you would without them, especially amongst the 20% of the player base actually buying stuff.
Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.
That isn't how it the "draft" looked. At best, it displayed a very short-sighted version of those two goals; at worst, like a naked cash grab and nuking of competition that isn't actually competition (as per discussion of co-opetition above).
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.
So why did you give them 14 days? That wasn't enough time to do that and makes it look like a strongarm tactic. Did you guys think no one would feel pressured? Did you care?
In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content...
As regards the hateful and discriminatory bit, either it didn't or no one took issue with that part. However, like I said earlier, the royalty didn't affect major corporations. YOU are the major corporation in this space; you're the biggest game in town! Who else was even close? Again, the language didn't do what you're telling us it was supposed to do.
It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.
Admittedly, it probably doesn't. It is important to your most passionate fans and most loyal customers - the folks who were buying stuff, though. It also encourages piracy and permanently leaving the community in favour of other systems, where before they might have chosen to play those systems in addition to your products.
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.
It absolutely is possible to do that; rather it was possible. I did have some thoughts, though, and I'll go through that later.
The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
So will you be trying to smash other companies with VTTs some other way? Come on, guys. Clarifying the rest of this, without using legal language, is probably okay if true. Not sure if is, though.
What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds.
It sure read like it did exactly that. Also, I doubt you have the goodwill left for anyone to buy that.
Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities.
Was there a precedent for that? Doesn't matter, because it didn't read like it did this either.
As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create.
Wouldn't normal copyright law address that risk? Or is it just because you're operating in the US, where regulations are Communism or something?
Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.
Look mate, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining, okay?
A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.
Anyone who was looking at this in those terms but has any sense will see this as winning a skirmish (battle at most). You should be getting it right - maybe the next one should be a "draft" as well, but give folks more than 30 days to respond, as that seems like a more fair timeframe.
Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that.
Like I said, longer timeframes and more transparency are needed going forward.
We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles.
I had some thoughts on this.
Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
Guys, some people are a dot - they're gone. I'm willing to hear you out, and I and many people who care about this will be paying attention to everything you release on this. We will be watching.
Anyway, I had some thoughts on what you might do going forward.
Firstly, you should publicly release the next "draft". If you wanna fix this, transparency is key going forward. No redactions, no cheeky one public version and one other version, none of that - just release the draft so we can all see it.
Secondly, some people are only willing to accept 1.0a, but with 'perpetual' replaced with 'irrevocable' (and future changes to legal language that do the same thing), so that should be your base. That said, I know there's some other stuff you want to do, and some of that sounds okay to me.
Thirdly, be specific. If you wanted to be able to tell people making hateful things with your IP to go **** themselves with a running chainsaw (which I believe is more formally called a Cease and Desist notice), you should include it. For example, something like:
"Hateful and discriminatory material is not covered by this license. We reserve the right to commence legal proceedings against any individual or company that produces such material. For the purposes of this clause, hateful and discriminatory material is material that includes active promotion or excessive portrayal of the following:
Sexism: [Detailed definition for the purposes of the clause]
Example 1
Example 2
Exception 1
Racism: [Detailed definition for the purposes of the clause]
Example 1
Example 2
Exception 1
Homophobia: [Detailed definition for the purposes of the clause]
Example 1
Example 2
Exception 1"
And so on until everything is covered. Specificity, guys.
If you're concerned about blockchain stuff, how about something like: "The use of our Intellectual Property for the purposes of Blockchain technologies (i.e. web3, blockchain games, and Non-Fungible Tokens) is not covered by this version of the Open Gaming License, any previous versions of the Open Gaming License, any future versions of the Open Gaming License, or the Fan Content Policy. We reserve the right to commence legal proceedings against anyone who produces material using our Intellectual Property involving these technologies."
As for major corporations, that depends on context, but a reminder of relevant copywrite laws should be fine.
Finally, changing or revoking agreements with 30 days' notice isn't great. 90 would be better.
Remember: transparency and specificity are the keys going forward.
That wasn't an apology at all, that was them trying to put themselves in a better light, and they only did this because people are unsubscribing. Nice deception check wizards, rolled another one
It sure wasn't. I went into detail with some of the stuff I picked up on and included some suggestions to move forward. They'll do the exact opposite and that would be a mistake.
That reminded me of Thor: Ragnarok, when The Grandmaster (Goldblum) realized how bad he screwed up, surrounded by the angry mob and was like "I played a big part in your revolution. Gotta have someone to overthrow, right? Let's call it a tie."
This was a non-apology, where an apology was the only correct response.
Corpo double talk, while still planning to release a new OGL, with zero heart put into any of this... feels bad.
I am so sad that the company I've patronized for 25 years is turning into this. It's a wild implosion to see.
The level of ineptitude reminds me of MySpace after Tom sold.
There wasn't one in the one that leaked a few days ago, which is the one I was referring to. I had a suggestion for that near the end.
If you mean the 1.1 leak, yes it did - Section VII-H and VII-I.
You have to remember this is a community of people who dont even read the rules to their own game which is why they get them wrong half the time, they cant also be bothered to read legal documents before typing about how bad they are.
Cool. I missed that part. I can see why that got lost in the shuffle. How about the rest of the stuff in the statement, though?
I'm not claiming to agree with every justification/excuse they wrote. I agree with the discrimination clause, the NFT/web3/etc clause, and the efforts to not subsidize the competition - that's it. When they say things like "they always intended community feedback" that's definitely spin. But corporate spin is for me a fact of life, it's not something I'm going to abandon a product that meets my needs for purely on its own.
Competition is one thing, but putting clauses that mess with third party publishers isn't that, at least as far as I can tell - those firms being there is likely a net positive.
Competition is one thing, but putting clauses that mess with third party publishers isn't that, at least as far as I can tell - those firms being there is likely a net positive.
They are up to a point. Giving small creators a leg up or onramp is one thing, jumpstarting the next Paizo is quite another.
FFS, if you are going to comment, educate yourself on some things. There is so much bad with this analysis other than confirmation bias of “I dont like WoTC because..it’s like a company” its ridiculous. I could go over more points, but let me show this one
“
Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities.
Was there a precedent for that? Doesn't matter, because it didn't read like it did this either.
As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create.
Wouldn't normal copyright law address that risk? Or is it just because you're operating in the US, where regulations are Communism or something?”
One, there is precedent. What they are addressing is Joe Bob has a module out with an evil necromancies. WoTC puts out one with an evil necromancies. Joe Bob sues, using a lawyer who will work for part of the settlement, saying they are taking his IP. It’s dumb because it’s a trope that has been around since at last the 1920s. WoTC then has to either 1) take to court. Pay lawyers.. They will win, however, that’s after a bunch money spent on legal work. If they are lucky it’s thrown out early. Some might move to discovery. Then …wait for next person to do the same the next product you put out 2) Pay settlement a bit less than the legal fees to get it tossed out of court. Expect this every time you put out a new product. Have to work that into cost of product. Prices go up.
And yes, IT HAS HAPPENED. Everyone remember the move “Underworld”? . White Wolf, the game company, tried to sue the producers because they had a vampire-werewolf war. They said they came up with it. They lost, but it cost the producers of Underworld a stupid amount of time and money to fight it.
Competition is one thing, but putting clauses that mess with third party publishers isn't that, at least as far as I can tell - those firms being there is likely a net positive.
They are up to a point. Giving small creators a leg up or onramp is one thing, jumpstarting the next Paizo is quite another.
I'm a little confused on that point, didn't that have something to do with the GSL as well? As far as I can find, it seems that that was part of the reason Paizo became the competitor it did and is. That one's a bit before my time, so if you know of somewhere I can find something out about that, I'd appreciate it.
Man, I'm not saying it's bad because they're a company. I am saying some of the stuff seems incredibly short-sighted, such as treating companies in the space whose activities are, to some degree, beneficial to WotC as major competitors and Corporations, when many just aren't. In fact, their best-known competition with a similar product is, by revenue, way smaller. I don't have a problem with companies making money; it's what they do. This seems like the worst and most difficult decision. Like, I was thinking that the monetisation would be normal things like more film and TV licensing, or product lines. Y'know, the sort of stuff they were moving towards, but more - because that would be the simplest solution to the issue, right? Not trying to tweak legal stuff almost immediately.
"One, there is precedent. What they are addressing is Joe Bob has a module out with an evil necromancies. WoTC puts out one with an evil necromancies. Joe Bob sues, using a lawyer who will work for part of the settlement, saying they are taking his IP. It’s dumb because it’s a trope that has been around since at last the 1920s. WoTC then has to either 1) take to court. Pay lawyers.. They will win, however, that’s after a bunch money spent on legal work. If they are lucky it’s thrown out early. Some might move to discovery. Then …wait for next person to do the same the next product you put out 2) Pay settlement a bit less than the legal fees to get it tossed out of court. Expect this every time you put out a new product. Have to work that into cost of product. Prices go up."
I had figured they had lawyers on retainer for that, but I'm not sure if that helps costs much. I'm also not seeing much that helps with that in the case that such a claim comes from someone outside of the space that wasn't under covered under the license. A reasonable person operating under the license could come to a different conclusion and worry about that; a few did come to a different conclusion after receiving it.
(Edited because holy run-on sentence)
"And yes, IT HAS HAPPENED. Everyone remember the move “Underworld”? . White Wolf, the game company, tried to sue the producers because they had a vampire-werewolf war. They said they came up with it. They lost, but it cost the producers of Underworld a stupid amount of time and money to fight it."
Wait, really? I never heard about that at all, that's wild.
Competition is one thing, but putting clauses that mess with third party publishers isn't that, at least as far as I can tell - those firms being there is likely a net positive.
They are up to a point. Giving small creators a leg up or onramp is one thing, jumpstarting the next Paizo is quite another.
I'm a little confused on that point, didn't that have something to do with the GSL as well? As far as I can find, it seems that that was part of the reason Paizo became the competitor it did and is. That one's a bit before my time, so if you know of somewhere I can find something out about that, I'd appreciate it.
I would have preferred to comment on the announcement post directly or even by email, but this seems to be the most direct way of being heard on the matter. Before I get started, I get wanting to change the license to reflect changes in a legal, commercial, and technological environment. A document like this should be a living document, much like a nation's constitution. These changes should continue to reflect the spirit of the initial document whilst reflecting the desired changes.
The "draft" 1.1 OGL didn't do that. I also wanted to give detail on my thoughts on this statement point by point, for the little it's worth.
I buy this being part of your overall values, based on recent actions. What I don't buy is that the OGL was designed to deal with this at all. Why? To my knowledge, there's no clause that deals with this. You could very easily have done that without burning down your customer/fan base. No one would have really cared much if you'd added a clause dealing with this, which I'll talk about a bit later.
EDIT: Gonna eat some humble pie on this point; that's there in some of the comments and a couple of the clauses. I still think the suggestions I make later that involve including specific examples of the more or less blatant stuff that might trigger these provisions is better than the two clauses that are there.
In which case, why didn't you also address this in the "draft"? Also, wouldn't that mean you could technically create such material under the fan content policy, thus sidestepping the OGL entirely? Again, no one would have cared if you'd included a clause specifying that such material was not allowed under any previous or current version of the license, any future versions of the license, or the fan content policy.
EDIT: ...And this one too, buuut I'm still not sure exactly how much protection is offered by the stuff that does address this. For some cryto bros, I'm sure it doesn't matter to them.
Such as? The third party publishers in the space are hardly major corporations; I'm not sure how many of them are even incorporated! Further, $750000 of revenue does not strike me as particularly major. These publishers are not your competitors, they closer to "co-opetitors", meaning that their operation and continued operation provided a competitive advantage for you. How does that work - they're making our money that we should be making? By providing a rich selection of additional materials that people can use with your work that may not have existed with your actual competitors (e.g. Paizo, Chaosium, Modiphius, Catalyst, etc.), meaning that if they need a resource to run a game in your system, they can find it. It maybe slim, but it's a competitive advantage nonetheless. You make more money with them than you would without them, especially amongst the 20% of the player base actually buying stuff.
That isn't how it the "draft" looked. At best, it displayed a very short-sighted version of those two goals; at worst, like a naked cash grab and nuking of competition that isn't actually competition (as per discussion of co-opetition above).
So why did you give them 14 days? That wasn't enough time to do that and makes it look like a strongarm tactic. Did you guys think no one would feel pressured? Did you care?
As regards the hateful and discriminatory bit, either it didn't or no one took issue with that part. However, like I said earlier, the royalty didn't affect major corporations. YOU are the major corporation in this space; you're the biggest game in town! Who else was even close? Again, the language didn't do what you're telling us it was supposed to do.
Admittedly, it probably doesn't. It is important to your most passionate fans and most loyal customers - the folks who were buying stuff, though. It also encourages piracy and permanently leaving the community in favour of other systems, where before they might have chosen to play those systems in addition to your products.
It absolutely is possible to do that; rather it was possible. I did have some thoughts, though, and I'll go through that later.
So will you be trying to smash other companies with VTTs some other way? Come on, guys. Clarifying the rest of this, without using legal language, is probably okay if true. Not sure if is, though.
It sure read like it did exactly that. Also, I doubt you have the goodwill left for anyone to buy that.
Was there a precedent for that? Doesn't matter, because it didn't read like it did this either.
Wouldn't normal copyright law address that risk? Or is it just because you're operating in the US, where regulations are Communism or something?
Look mate, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining, okay?
Anyone who was looking at this in those terms but has any sense will see this as winning a skirmish (battle at most). You should be getting it right - maybe the next one should be a "draft" as well, but give folks more than 30 days to respond, as that seems like a more fair timeframe.
Like I said, longer timeframes and more transparency are needed going forward.
I had some thoughts on this.
Guys, some people are a dot - they're gone. I'm willing to hear you out, and I and many people who care about this will be paying attention to everything you release on this. We will be watching.
Anyway, I had some thoughts on what you might do going forward.
Firstly, you should publicly release the next "draft". If you wanna fix this, transparency is key going forward. No redactions, no cheeky one public version and one other version, none of that - just release the draft so we can all see it.
Secondly, some people are only willing to accept 1.0a, but with 'perpetual' replaced with 'irrevocable' (and future changes to legal language that do the same thing), so that should be your base. That said, I know there's some other stuff you want to do, and some of that sounds okay to me.
Thirdly, be specific. If you wanted to be able to tell people making hateful things with your IP to go **** themselves with a running chainsaw (which I believe is more formally called a Cease and Desist notice), you should include it. For example, something like:
"Hateful and discriminatory material is not covered by this license. We reserve the right to commence legal proceedings against any individual or company that produces such material. For the purposes of this clause, hateful and discriminatory material is material that includes active promotion or excessive portrayal of the following:
And so on until everything is covered. Specificity, guys.
If you're concerned about blockchain stuff, how about something like: "The use of our Intellectual Property for the purposes of Blockchain technologies (i.e. web3, blockchain games, and Non-Fungible Tokens) is not covered by this version of the Open Gaming License, any previous versions of the Open Gaming License, any future versions of the Open Gaming License, or the Fan Content Policy. We reserve the right to commence legal proceedings against anyone who produces material using our Intellectual Property involving these technologies."
As for major corporations, that depends on context, but a reminder of relevant copywrite laws should be fine.
Finally, changing or revoking agreements with 30 days' notice isn't great. 90 would be better.
Remember: transparency and specificity are the keys going forward.
That wasn't an apology at all, that was them trying to put themselves in a better light, and they only did this because people are unsubscribing. Nice deception check wizards, rolled another one
UwU
It sure wasn't. I went into detail with some of the stuff I picked up on and included some suggestions to move forward. They'll do the exact opposite and that would be a mistake.
That reminded me of Thor: Ragnarok, when The Grandmaster (Goldblum) realized how bad he screwed up, surrounded by the angry mob and was like "I played a big part in your revolution. Gotta have someone to overthrow, right? Let's call it a tie."
This was a non-apology, where an apology was the only correct response.
Corpo double talk, while still planning to release a new OGL, with zero heart put into any of this... feels bad.
I am so sad that the company I've patronized for 25 years is turning into this. It's a wild implosion to see.
The level of ineptitude reminds me of MySpace after Tom sold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWaq6pQQW4
Pretty good breakdown of the statement and the lies contained therein.
"There's no clause that deals with this"
...That's a pretty good reason for them to rescind the existing license and make such a clause (in the new one.)
There wasn't one in the one that leaked a few days ago, which is the one I was referring to. I had a suggestion for that near the end.
If you mean the 1.1 leak, yes it did - Section VII-H and VII-I.
Cool. I missed that part. I can see why that got lost in the shuffle. How about the rest of the stuff in the statement, though?
You have to remember this is a community of people who dont even read the rules to their own game which is why they get them wrong half the time, they cant also be bothered to read legal documents before typing about how bad they are.
I'm not claiming to agree with every justification/excuse they wrote. I agree with the discrimination clause, the NFT/web3/etc clause, and the efforts to not subsidize the competition - that's it. When they say things like "they always intended community feedback" that's definitely spin. But corporate spin is for me a fact of life, it's not something I'm going to abandon a product that meets my needs for purely on its own.
Competition is one thing, but putting clauses that mess with third party publishers isn't that, at least as far as I can tell - those firms being there is likely a net positive.
They are up to a point. Giving small creators a leg up or onramp is one thing, jumpstarting the next Paizo is quite another.
FFS, if you are going to comment, educate yourself on some things. There is so much bad with this analysis other than confirmation bias of “I dont like WoTC because..it’s like a company” its ridiculous. I could go over more points, but let me show this one
“
Was there a precedent for that? Doesn't matter, because it didn't read like it did this either.
Wouldn't normal copyright law address that risk? Or is it just because you're operating in the US, where regulations are Communism or something?”
One, there is precedent. What they are addressing is Joe Bob has a module out with an evil necromancies. WoTC puts out one with an evil necromancies. Joe Bob sues, using a lawyer who will work for part of the settlement, saying they are taking his IP. It’s dumb because it’s a trope that has been around since at last the 1920s. WoTC then has to either
1) take to court. Pay lawyers.. They will win, however, that’s after a bunch money spent on legal work. If they are lucky it’s thrown out early. Some might move to discovery. Then …wait for next person to do the same the next product you put out
2) Pay settlement a bit less than the legal fees to get it tossed out of court. Expect this every time you put out a new product. Have to work that into cost of product. Prices go up.
And yes, IT HAS HAPPENED. Everyone remember the move “Underworld”? . White Wolf, the game company, tried to sue the producers because they had a vampire-werewolf war. They said they came up with it. They lost, but it cost the producers of Underworld a stupid amount of time and money to fight it.
I'm a little confused on that point, didn't that have something to do with the GSL as well? As far as I can find, it seems that that was part of the reason Paizo became the competitor it did and is. That one's a bit before my time, so if you know of somewhere I can find something out about that, I'd appreciate it.
Man, I'm not saying it's bad because they're a company. I am saying some of the stuff seems incredibly short-sighted, such as treating companies in the space whose activities are, to some degree, beneficial to WotC as major competitors and Corporations, when many just aren't. In fact, their best-known competition with a similar product is, by revenue, way smaller. I don't have a problem with companies making money; it's what they do. This seems like the worst and most difficult decision. Like, I was thinking that the monetisation would be normal things like more film and TV licensing, or product lines. Y'know, the sort of stuff they were moving towards, but more - because that would be the simplest solution to the issue, right? Not trying to tweak legal stuff almost immediately.
"One, there is precedent. What they are addressing is Joe Bob has a module out with an evil necromancies. WoTC puts out one with an evil necromancies. Joe Bob sues, using a lawyer who will work for part of the settlement, saying they are taking his IP. It’s dumb because it’s a trope that has been around since at last the 1920s. WoTC then has to either
1) take to court. Pay lawyers.. They will win, however, that’s after a bunch money spent on legal work. If they are lucky it’s thrown out early. Some might move to discovery. Then …wait for next person to do the same the next product you put out
2) Pay settlement a bit less than the legal fees to get it tossed out of court. Expect this every time you put out a new product. Have to work that into cost of product. Prices go up."
I had figured they had lawyers on retainer for that, but I'm not sure if that helps costs much. I'm also not seeing much that helps with that in the case that such a claim comes from someone outside of the space that wasn't under covered under the license. A reasonable person operating under the license could come to a different conclusion and worry about that; a few did come to a different conclusion after receiving it.
(Edited because holy run-on sentence)
"And yes, IT HAS HAPPENED. Everyone remember the move “Underworld”? . White Wolf, the game company, tried to sue the producers because they had a vampire-werewolf war. They said they came up with it. They lost, but it cost the producers of Underworld a stupid amount of time and money to fight it."
Wait, really? I never heard about that at all, that's wild.
Here's a decent summary of the OGL/GSL stuff: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48760/roleplaying-games/open-gaming-license-a-brief-history
The details on the GSL and why it was such a bad idea are in part 2.
Thanks for that!