Im still annoyed with the continue use of past tense for OGL 1.a, "you HAVE..." here and the same in the previous response. That doesn't say future developing or developed products will be fine, just ALREADY
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
There will be no changes. You will not monetize D&D further. Your entire suit department will resign. The next leaders will respect the OGL1.0a, the players and all the content creators and not bring up this kind of nonsense anymore.
You think this is negotiable? It isn't. End of message.
Well said and I will add. If WotC/hasbro thought any of the listed below was acceptable, they would be wrong.
- $30 a month for dndbeyond subscription per player
- deauthorized OGL 1.0a
- homebrew banned at base tier
- stripped down gameplay for AI -DMs.
If that was wotc/hasbro ideas for the future combined with their other released OGL dialogue they are doing more harm than this new survey could ever hope to fix.
Poorly drafted my behind. It's been hailed as a very clear, succinct, and clear contract for decades (look up the case law and prior publications).
It wasn't until the greed of WOTC and Hasbro did the fanboys start to say it was poorly drafted.
Even in this communication they're lying to us. They're still calling it a draft and they have yet to state that their attempt to de-auth 1.0a is no longer the goal.
There will be no changes. You will not monetize D&D further. Your entire suit department will resign. The next leaders will respect the OGL1.0a, the players and all the content creators and not bring up this kind of nonsense anymore.
You think this is negotiable? It isn't. End of message.
Well said and I will add. If WotC/hasbro thought any of the listed below was acceptable, they would be wrong.
- $30 a month for dndbeyond subscription per player
- deauthorized OGL 1.0a
- homebrew banned at base tier
- stripped down gameplay for AI -DMs.
If that was wotc/hasbro ideas for the future combined with their other released OGL dialogue they are doing more harm than this new survey could ever hope to fix.
I too find it deplorable that WotC / Hasbro would release an OGL that charged royalties from the homebrews they would be banning. Don't ask me for a source as I keep repeating these totally valid sensible rumors that only contradict with that thing we know (OGL 1.1) was actually reported on.
Poorly drafted my behind. It's been hailed as a very clear, succinct, and clear contract for decades (look up the case law and prior publications).
It wasn't until the greed of WOTC and Hasbro did the fanboys start to say it was poorly drafted.
Even in this communication they're lying to us. They're still calling it a draft and they have yet to state that their attempt to de-auth 1.0a is no longer the goal.
OGL 1.1 existed for decades? Quite the succinct and well made legal document I say!
The first problem is that I just do not like any of the ODL's they have put out ever. They require you to submit financial statements so they can choose if they want to dip into your till. They require that you submit your content to them for editorial control. They are using the terms inclusive and objectionable to reach this goal. They define and control the specific meanings, which change according to each community and nation.
All of this on top of all normal copywrite and publishing laws and standards which they could have easily used instead of any OGL.
The new one just got more heavy handed and onerous.
Now on to what might happen to D&D beyond and your content on it, both paid for and contributed. What happens to this site one D&DOne is put out? Will they keep the 5e site just the way it is and make a whole new one for the new 6e game or will they tank everything here now and just go with the new 6e?
I appreciate Kyle’s mea culpa. But, he and D&D Beyond get it wrong again on two fronts:
One, stop calling it a draft. It had a scheduled release date, NDAs, and contracts. It was a final document.
Two, don’t revise the OGL 1.0a at all. The trust was broken when WotC decided to break with over 20 years of open gaming precedent that was always understood to be irrevocable.
Any change or update to the OGL must make 1.0a irrevocable or the community can’t trust D&D anymore. Your press release today says you get it and you know you messed up, but I’m not sure you really do.
The only reason you started to care was because your community started to hit your pockets with cancelled subscriptions. Only when cancellations started mounting did your community hear from you.
I’m not saying trust can’t be rebuilt. I’m saying you’ve got a long way to go. You can start by acknowledging 1.1 wasn’t a draft. I’m looking forward to Friday. D&D has a long road ahead before trust is restored. It’s sad. I’ve been playing and loving this game for almost 40 years. I started playing as a teenager with AD&D.
Im still annoyed with the continue use of past tense for OGL 1.a, "you HAVE..." here and the same in the previous response. That doesn't say future developing or developed products will be fine, just ALREADY
Well, "That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." means that you can continue publishing derivatives, republishing, creating versions, etc...
So not if they don't cheat dirty, in principle there should be no problem.
But that's something I want to be very attentive to when they release the 2.0 draft, that it doesn't say anything about it overriding 1.0a or anything like that.
Do you want to make a new OGL? Let them do it I dont have a problem with that. By 1.0a it should stay as it is, and forever. If not, we will still have a problem.
I hope the survey serves to make that clear to WoTC.
One, stop calling it a draft. It had a scheduled release date, NDAs, and contracts. It was a final document.
People seem to have a hard grasping that negotiations weren't taking place in a big board room, with Hasbro's executives and lawyers sitting across a table from the 10 Biggest Third-Party Partners or whatever like in the movies
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is a good statement that should satisfy a lot of the outstanding anger. It:
1. Reaffirms commitments from the first statement;
2. Offers a full apology for both the drafts and the delays with responding;
3. Addresses the issue with modification the first statement did not address, and addressed it by committing to future comments rather than unilateral revisions;
4. Is letting folks know they’ll be able to to directly communicate with Wizards and provide feedback;
5. Clarifies what will not be covered by the OGL update; and
6. Specifically provides a delivery date for the actual text of the next draft of the document.
All of those items are things folks have been clamouring for since the prior statement, and represent solid positions on Wizards’ front. Certainly worth waiting until Friday to have the full document to know more, of course, but this was strong step in the right direction.
Agreed, this was a step... and just by virtue of being something, I'd guess you could say it's a step in the right direction. There are still waaaaay too many uncertainties in both this and the previous statements, so in my opinion it's still early to really call it a good step. But it is something.
Agreed
Well, yes and no. They're still calling it a draft. And that's only true insofar as all documents/contracts drafted are actually drafts. This "draft" arrived as a signable document, i.e. a contract with a deadline. So, sure, I'll take what I can get, but it' sorta feels like an underhanded apology. Not really taking full blame. Granted, that might just be me being sensitive.
Agreed
This is still up in the air, and, what's more, it'll probably require people to actually retain or renew their DNDb-accounts (likely not their subs). Which is something they're looking at and want people to do I guess. Then again, I don't see another way of doing it really.
Not sure if I'm following you here, but yes, as far as saying what will not be impacted by the changes. But this is also a non-statement. Are these bullet-points all-inclusive? Do they come with caveats? What are the requirements?
The biggest issue however, is that this statement is still skirting around the OGL 1.0a. Sure, they mention that it previous publications will still be covered by the earlier version of the OGL. But they're trying their goddamned hardest to "de-authorize" the previous OGL for NEW publications. Which most everyone is agreed on, they can't. And I think this is their main goal to be honest. So far they've taken a step back on most issues, but this one. So, in signing this new OGL, you would basically sign away your right to use the old OGL for new publications. My guess is they've realized they either can't revoke the previous OGL, or they've decided that there's a significant risk of losing that battle in court. And so they'd rather publishers sign away that right.
Basically, until they say that "Yes, everyone can keep using the old OGL, for both old and new publications, as intended. It's irrevocable." they're gonna have a hard time regaining any trust. If they want to include a new OGL with the new edition and tie it to DND-Beyond, that's fine. That's not the issue. But, they need to completely take their hands off the old OGL.
Furthermore, there's no mention of if and how they'll be able to change the new OGL. The language of "owning your content with no license-back requirements" was there in the previous "draft", so that's not saying much.
Agreed. And this is great.
Time will tell if this is an honest effort to mend the situation. RIght now with everything still being as vague as it is, I'm leaning towards this being purely damage-control or them buying time, maybe for an upcoming financial report. Another thing that stuck out is that this statement is from Kyle Brink. That's a person. You can either take that as making the statement more intimate, genuine or personal. Or, for those of us that are a bit more... pessimistic... you might look at it as a way to humanize the "corpospeak" and for Wotc to distance themselves... It's now Kyle saying these things... not Wotc. But again, that all depends on your perspective.
All that being said, this is one time where I wholeheartedly agree with you. All we can do now is wait and see, even if we still need to remind everyone of the issues, to keep the pressure up.
Poorly drafted my behind. It's been hailed as a very clear, succinct, and clear contract for decades (look up the case law and prior publications).
It wasn't until the greed of WOTC and Hasbro did the fanboys start to say it was poorly drafted.
Even in this communication they're lying to us. They're still calling it a draft and they have yet to state that their attempt to de-auth 1.0a is no longer the goal.
OGL 1.1 existed for decades? Quite the succinct and well made legal document I say!
Are you being daft?
I'm talking about 1.0a and anyone with a smidge or lateral or normal thinking capacity would know that. It had clear and concise language and expressed its intent.
-----
This statement is a step in right direction. It unfortunately too late and still has instances of them lying to us and handwave their still visible attempts at revoking the 1.0a (which they cannot do). This will still have to go to court because they are still moving full steam ahead with their attempt. I don't know why they insist because it could go VERY badly for them.
I'm for sure willing to reserve my judgement until I see what they come up with, but what they mean by "continue to be licensed" is that things that are already made by third parties will continue to be licensed under 1.0a, not that future 3.5 and 5e 3rd party content will be licensed under such. That, to my understanding, would be licensed under the new OGL, which I find unacceptable at this point.
Yeah. This sums up my feelings as well. All this past tense, "...you HAVE/ ALREADY..." not FUTURE 3.5 or 5e. Sneaky sneaky
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. Must read: Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you publish under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
1) "Inclusive play environment" which means it will have the content control provisions that are aimed at NuTSR et al.;
2) "limiting OGL to TTRPGs" which means 1.0a is guaranteed to be deauthorized (or at least they'll attempt to do so), since they will not want any license that can apply to anything except TTRPGs.
I don't expect either of these to change.
The three things I was against - the royalty, licenseback, and the 30-day change notice - will be what I'm fighting to keep out of 2.0, and 2/3 of them are confirmed to be out already.
Honestly, everyone demanding a bent knee apology needs to get real; shaded apologies are part of life. Wizards isn’t the first corporation to issue one, and they sure ain’t gonna be the last. Look at the terms in the next few days and either give your feedback or walk, but the self-righteous demanding of everything you want served up on a silver platter is just not productive.
Multiple industry professionals have confirmed it was not a draft. Drafts don't have dates they go into effect. WotC is lying. A contract that is indented to be signed isn't a draft. Some people did sign these contracts they sent out.
WotC is still heavily intent on lying and obscuring their shady dealings as much as possible. They're trying to see how much carrot it will take for us to give in and forget and just buy their stuff and watch their movie.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Im still annoyed with the continue use of past tense for OGL 1.a, "you HAVE..." here and the same in the previous response. That doesn't say future developing or developed products will be fine, just ALREADY
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
Well said and I will add. If WotC/hasbro thought any of the listed below was acceptable, they would be wrong.
- $30 a month for dndbeyond subscription per player
- deauthorized OGL 1.0a
- homebrew banned at base tier
- stripped down gameplay for AI -DMs.
If that was wotc/hasbro ideas for the future combined with their other released OGL dialogue they are doing more harm than this new survey could ever hope to fix.
Poorly drafted my behind. It's been hailed as a very clear, succinct, and clear contract for decades (look up the case law and prior publications).
It wasn't until the greed of WOTC and Hasbro did the fanboys start to say it was poorly drafted.
Even in this communication they're lying to us. They're still calling it a draft and they have yet to state that their attempt to de-auth 1.0a is no longer the goal.
I too find it deplorable that WotC / Hasbro would release an OGL that charged royalties from the homebrews they would be banning. Don't ask me for a source as I keep repeating these totally valid sensible rumors that only contradict with that thing we know (OGL 1.1) was actually reported on.
And that's the short of simple of it!
OGL 1.1 existed for decades? Quite the succinct and well made legal document I say!
Just to vent...
The first problem is that I just do not like any of the ODL's they have put out ever.
They require you to submit financial statements so they can choose if they want to dip into your till.
They require that you submit your content to them for editorial control. They are using the terms inclusive and objectionable to reach this goal. They define and control the specific meanings, which change according to each community and nation.
All of this on top of all normal copywrite and publishing laws and standards which they could have easily used instead of any OGL.
The new one just got more heavy handed and onerous.
Now on to what might happen to D&D beyond and your content on it, both paid for and contributed.
What happens to this site one D&DOne is put out? Will they keep the 5e site just the way it is and make a whole new one for the new 6e game or will they tank everything here now and just go with the new 6e?
I appreciate Kyle’s mea culpa. But, he and D&D Beyond get it wrong again on two fronts:
One, stop calling it a draft. It had a scheduled release date, NDAs, and contracts. It was a final document.
Two, don’t revise the OGL 1.0a at all. The trust was broken when WotC decided to break with over 20 years of open gaming precedent that was always understood to be irrevocable.
Any change or update to the OGL must make 1.0a irrevocable or the community can’t trust D&D anymore. Your press release today says you get it and you know you messed up, but I’m not sure you really do.
The only reason you started to care was because your community started to hit your pockets with cancelled subscriptions. Only when cancellations started mounting did your community hear from you.
I’m not saying trust can’t be rebuilt. I’m saying you’ve got a long way to go. You can start by acknowledging 1.1 wasn’t a draft. I’m looking forward to Friday. D&D has a long road ahead before trust is restored. It’s sad. I’ve been playing and loving this game for almost 40 years. I started playing as a teenager with AD&D.
Well, "That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." means that you can continue publishing derivatives, republishing, creating versions, etc...
So not if they don't cheat dirty, in principle there should be no problem.
But that's something I want to be very attentive to when they release the 2.0 draft, that it doesn't say anything about it overriding 1.0a or anything like that.
Do you want to make a new OGL? Let them do it I dont have a problem with that. By 1.0a it should stay as it is, and forever. If not, we will still have a problem.
I hope the survey serves to make that clear to WoTC.
Um... what case law?
People seem to have a hard grasping that negotiations weren't taking place in a big board room, with Hasbro's executives and lawyers sitting across a table from the 10 Biggest Third-Party Partners or whatever like in the movies
It was absolutely a draft
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is still the same but with a sacrificial lamb who said "we are sorry"
We wont touch your old 5e stuff (but we for sure will with all the new things you create)
It was not a draft (funny enough you can see who signed it - because they are damn silent on twitter regarding that matter)
Hasbro is pro NFTs so what was that smokescreen all about?
I feel so sorry for Kyle who was for sure forced to publish that stuff.
Agreed, this was a step... and just by virtue of being something, I'd guess you could say it's a step in the right direction. There are still waaaaay too many uncertainties in both this and the previous statements, so in my opinion it's still early to really call it a good step. But it is something.
The biggest issue however, is that this statement is still skirting around the OGL 1.0a. Sure, they mention that it previous publications will still be covered by the earlier version of the OGL. But they're trying their goddamned hardest to "de-authorize" the previous OGL for NEW publications. Which most everyone is agreed on, they can't. And I think this is their main goal to be honest. So far they've taken a step back on most issues, but this one. So, in signing this new OGL, you would basically sign away your right to use the old OGL for new publications. My guess is they've realized they either can't revoke the previous OGL, or they've decided that there's a significant risk of losing that battle in court. And so they'd rather publishers sign away that right.
Basically, until they say that "Yes, everyone can keep using the old OGL, for both old and new publications, as intended. It's irrevocable." they're gonna have a hard time regaining any trust. If they want to include a new OGL with the new edition and tie it to DND-Beyond, that's fine. That's not the issue. But, they need to completely take their hands off the old OGL.
Furthermore, there's no mention of if and how they'll be able to change the new OGL. The language of "owning your content with no license-back requirements" was there in the previous "draft", so that's not saying much.
Time will tell if this is an honest effort to mend the situation. RIght now with everything still being as vague as it is, I'm leaning towards this being purely damage-control or them buying time, maybe for an upcoming financial report. Another thing that stuck out is that this statement is from Kyle Brink. That's a person. You can either take that as making the statement more intimate, genuine or personal. Or, for those of us that are a bit more... pessimistic... you might look at it as a way to humanize the "corpospeak" and for Wotc to distance themselves... It's now Kyle saying these things... not Wotc. But again, that all depends on your perspective.
All that being said, this is one time where I wholeheartedly agree with you. All we can do now is wait and see, even if we still need to remind everyone of the issues, to keep the pressure up.
Are you being daft?
I'm talking about 1.0a and anyone with a smidge or lateral or normal thinking capacity would know that. It had clear and concise language and expressed its intent.
-----
This statement is a step in right direction. It unfortunately too late and still has instances of them lying to us and handwave their still visible attempts at revoking the 1.0a (which they cannot do). This will still have to go to court because they are still moving full steam ahead with their attempt. I don't know why they insist because it could go VERY badly for them.
*not a lawyer, not legal advice*
There were publications (legal journals, etc.) on the praise for the success of the OGL itself.
Actual case decisions--none that I am aware of
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
Only 1 way:
This:
Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
Must read:
Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you publish under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
Look how easy!
let's try to avoid attacking others in here. constructive debate is fine, but it doesn't need to get personal
They've stated their core goals for the new OGL:
1) "Inclusive play environment" which means it will have the content control provisions that are aimed at NuTSR et al.;
2) "limiting OGL to TTRPGs" which means 1.0a is guaranteed to be deauthorized (or at least they'll attempt to do so), since they will not want any license that can apply to anything except TTRPGs.
I don't expect either of these to change.
The three things I was against - the royalty, licenseback, and the 30-day change notice - will be what I'm fighting to keep out of 2.0, and 2/3 of them are confirmed to be out already.
Honestly, everyone demanding a bent knee apology needs to get real; shaded apologies are part of life. Wizards isn’t the first corporation to issue one, and they sure ain’t gonna be the last. Look at the terms in the next few days and either give your feedback or walk, but the self-righteous demanding of everything you want served up on a silver platter is just not productive.
Multiple industry professionals have confirmed it was not a draft. Drafts don't have dates they go into effect. WotC is lying. A contract that is indented to be signed isn't a draft. Some people did sign these contracts they sent out.
WotC is still heavily intent on lying and obscuring their shady dealings as much as possible. They're trying to see how much carrot it will take for us to give in and forget and just buy their stuff and watch their movie.