OneD&D will be unsupported by major 3PP. Just accept it.
I think ultimately those 3PP will care more about the size of the audience/recognition/bottom line they can reach via WotC's platform, than the bruised feelings they got from the initial controversy. Which is not to say that I think ORC won't be used or successful, but making products that are fully compatible with 5e and 1DnD will necessitate the OGL.
This is a starting point and a very positive step, and much better than the last couple weeks had led me to expect.
The test will be how well WotC shows what it has learned in the draft to be released in the next few days, and how much it takes feedback to heart in the promised process.
First, we have a real apology. There is an admission of mistakes made and harm done, paired with a commitment to do better. I had expected more corporate pseudo-apologies with no accountability. It's not a bent-knee confession of all sins, but that's not a reasonable expectation.
Second, we have a process which could lead to positive changes. Not just to the rollback of harmful changes, but possibly to changes that are good for the community. What's good for the community and what's good for Hasbro's long-term bottom line have extremely high overlap, and the current statement sounds as if someone who understands that is finally getting to do the talking.
If they had handled the OGL with this collaborative model from the start, with a focus on banning predatory NFTs or harmful content, then we would have healthy debate and some heated argument, but none of the damage to the brand and the threat to small creators and businesses that has happened. Much of that damage is already irrevocable. Competitors are stepping up and gaining visibility and traction in ways they wouldn't have otherwise. These unforced errors are going to cost Hasbro millions of dollars, no going back.
But if they do a good job with license revisions--and make clear that the license cannot be revoked at will, but rather will remain in place--then maybe D&D can win back its community after all. I'll be attending to what well-informed creators and lawyers are saying, and if the response is positive, I'm hoping I'll feel comfortable renewing my DDB subscription.
Kyle is a breath of fresh air. They should have led with him. And it's welcome that the process is becoming more transparent and also involving some manner of feedback from the community.
Edit: Not to overstate it tho. The first message was insultingly tone-deaf. This one was great in comparison and a step in the right direction, but fundamentally it has changed nothing.
I find this new statement more hopeful. Yes he called it a draft which we know is an obvious lie but I don't thing he was givin any choice in that matter. What he outlined if it becomes truth gives me some hope that they are listening and he is able to push back aginst the suits that pushed 1.1 out in the first place
No sane person should want 1.0 to remain. Ambiguity befits nobody as it renders the future unknowable and unpredictable—which is exactly what you do not want when you are trying to build a business based on someone else’s property. You should want clear rules - something you can point to and say “okay, here are the lines, as long as I stay within these clear lines, I have protection from Wizards.” You don’t get those lines with 1.0, even though they would make everyone’s lives better.
Now, creators should fight to get the best possible terms under an OGL 2.0 - that’s just good contract negotiation. But they would be foolish to fight for 1.0 - that would just be squandering an opportunity to get an actually useful legal document, instead of the incompetently produced garbage Wizards presently released.
If they won't even just leave users of 1.0 alone, the idea that they're going to improve and lock it down with a "clearly legally irrevocable" (however you want to parse that) 2.0 is just wishful thinking at this point. Now that they've made their intentions clear, letting 1.0a remain as is is as good as its going to get.
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.
Yea, its tentatove at best. More transparency would be lovely but u til then/ or never at all....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
I find this new statement more hopeful. Yes he called it a draft which we know is an obvious lie but I don't thing he was givin any choice in that matter. What he outlined if it becomes truth gives me some hope that they are listening and he is able to push back aginst the suits that pushed 1.1 out in the first place
Again, just because you don't understand what a contract "draft" is doesn't mean that what they said was a lie. All contracts are drafts until they are executed (signed). until then, there is always the possibility for change from negotiations, change in positions, and yes, open revolt from a fan community. He is not lying to call the various versions of the OGL leaked a "draft" as it is literally that unless you are viewing a signed copy. Sincerely, someone who actually drafts contracts as part of my job.
As others have said, I won't believe a single word apology or attempted reconciliation until there are legally binding and irrevocable guarantees put in place to protect content creators of all sorts from every bit of BS that the leaked version of updated OGL was going after.
Problem is, the OGL 1.0a was already supposed to be irrevocable, as testified to by people who were there when it was written. Yet here we are, decades later.
Them stamping "irrevocable" all over a document is no longer a guarantee of anything at this point. It's unbelievable how short-sighted they were to go after the original OGL; it pretty much destroys all faith in them for the rest on eternity.
There did it because OGL 1.0 did not have that language in it. They want a revision to the OGL? Cool, make it irrevocable.
They did it because they wanted to go back on their prior promises. Which suggests there's no way in heck they're going to make an improved version of it. The OGL 1.0a may not be perfect, but at this point, it's clearly NOT going to be improved.
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.
Nailed it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
I'll just wait until an actual legal document is released. Corporate spokes people that are really only beholden to shareholders will way whatever is needed in order to stem the tide of cancelations.
And in the end, this all means nothing if there's wording that they can change whatever they want in the future with only 30 days notice.
Again, just because you don't understand what a contract "draft" is doesn't mean that what they said was a lie. All contracts are drafts until they are executed (signed). until then, there is always the possibility for change from negotiations, change in positions, and yes, open revolt from a fan community. He is not lying to call the various versions of the OGL leaked a "draft" as it is literally that unless you are viewing a signed copy. Sincerely, someone who actually drafts contracts as part of my job.
The problem is that people interpret 'draft' as indicating intent ("We always meant to revise it, honest!") and it really just means "not yet published/signed, so we can still revise it if we need to".
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.
The response answers none of the real issues those of us cancelling are concerned about. I don't understand how anyone here sees any of this in a remotely positive light.
The single biggest issue was the attempt, by deception, to get creators to sign a document that revoked their otherwise irrevocable rights under the original OGL. That issue has yet to be answered.
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
Please.
They could have used any number of words to describe what they handed content creators, besides a term that colloquially suggests that perhaps what was seen was NOT what was intended to be signed. They didn't, they chose to use the word "draft" for the sole reason of it sounding less demanding, and to gaslight their fans. They're not being open and transparent, trying to use the best technical term for the document (other than "document")--they are being duplicitous and manipulative. And so long as they continue to be, the fan base will react accordingly.
I find this new statement more hopeful. Yes he called it a draft which we know is an obvious lie but I don't thing he was givin any choice in that matter. What he outlined if it becomes truth gives me some hope that they are listening and he is able to push back aginst the suits that pushed 1.1 out in the first place
Again, just because you don't understand what a contract "draft" is doesn't mean that what they said was a lie. All contracts are drafts until they are executed (signed).
You can repeat "but they're not lying!" all you want. It doesn't change anything. We all know why they chose to use that word to describe this new license to their non-lawyer fans. Frankly, they'll probably continue, even though they should probably stop because their intent is so obvious, and that very attitude is why I continue having serious doubts that this fiasco will end positively.
As others have said, I won't believe a single word apology or attempted reconciliation until there are legally binding and irrevocable guarantees put in place to protect content creators of all sorts from every bit of BS that the leaked version of updated OGL was going after.
Problem is, the OGL 1.0a was already supposed to be irrevocable, as testified to by people who were there when it was written. Yet here we are, decades later.
Them stamping "irrevocable" all over a document is no longer a guarantee of anything at this point. It's unbelievable how short-sighted they were to go after the original OGL; it pretty much destroys all faith in them for the rest on eternity.
There did it because OGL 1.0 did not have that language in it. They want a revision to the OGL? Cool, make it irrevocable.
They did it because they wanted to go back on their prior promises. Which suggests there's no way in heck they're going to make an improved version of it. The OGL 1.0a may not be perfect, but at this point, it's clearly NOT going to be improved.
Irrevocable means they can’t remove it once entered into it; it doesn’t mean they can never change the offer for folks moving forward. 1.0 is not some esoteric document conveying rights to the aether - it is a contract, and you don’t get the benefit of a contract unless you enters into it. Even if they had said “this is irrevocable in 1.0”, if Johnny never entered into the contract, Wizards could still say “okay, we are rescinding our offer of 1.0 and any future person has to use 2.0” and Johnny couldn’t retroactively say “but I want to enter into 1.0 now.”
You all keep talking like it means “if they said this, they would never be able to change OGL 1.0”, but repeating it over and over again does not make it correct.
No sane person should want 1.0 to remain. Ambiguity befits nobody as it renders the future unknowable and unpredictable—which is exactly what you do not want when you are trying to build a business based on someone else’s property. You should want clear rules - something you can point to and say “okay, here are the lines, as long as I stay within these clear lines, I have protection from Wizards.” You don’t get those lines with 1.0, even though they would make everyone’s lives better.
Now, creators should fight to get the best possible terms under an OGL 2.0 - that’s just good contract negotiation. But they would be foolish to fight for 1.0 - that would just be squandering an opportunity to get an actually useful legal document, instead of the incompetently produced garbage Wizards presently released.
If they won't even just leave users of 1.0 alone, the idea that they're going to improve and lock it down with a "clearly legally irrevocable" (however you want to parse that) 2.0 is just wishful thinking at this point. Now that they've made their intentions clear, letting 1.0a remain as is is as good as its going to get.
Except it’s pointless to make changes if 1.0a continues to apply to new content, and there are reasonable points they might want to make changes to account for. As much as people are putting the original OGL on a pedestal, it was a napkin contract written when D&D was a niche hobby. The situation has dramatically changed, and it’s not nearly so offensive and unreasonable as some people make out for the license to change based on the new situation. I’m not saying WotC deserves a blank check to make any changes they want, but it could be time to phase out the letter of the old agreement if we can preserve the core spirit of supplement and accessory content creation being protected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think ultimately those 3PP will care more about the size of the audience/recognition/bottom line they can reach via WotC's platform, than the bruised feelings they got from the initial controversy. Which is not to say that I think ORC won't be used or successful, but making products that are fully compatible with 5e and 1DnD will necessitate the OGL.
This is a promise of a good start. We’ll see where it goes from here.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr9WDUCK5aQ
This is a starting point and a very positive step, and much better than the last couple weeks had led me to expect.
The test will be how well WotC shows what it has learned in the draft to be released in the next few days, and how much it takes feedback to heart in the promised process.
First, we have a real apology. There is an admission of mistakes made and harm done, paired with a commitment to do better. I had expected more corporate pseudo-apologies with no accountability. It's not a bent-knee confession of all sins, but that's not a reasonable expectation.
Second, we have a process which could lead to positive changes. Not just to the rollback of harmful changes, but possibly to changes that are good for the community. What's good for the community and what's good for Hasbro's long-term bottom line have extremely high overlap, and the current statement sounds as if someone who understands that is finally getting to do the talking.
If they had handled the OGL with this collaborative model from the start, with a focus on banning predatory NFTs or harmful content, then we would have healthy debate and some heated argument, but none of the damage to the brand and the threat to small creators and businesses that has happened. Much of that damage is already irrevocable. Competitors are stepping up and gaining visibility and traction in ways they wouldn't have otherwise. These unforced errors are going to cost Hasbro millions of dollars, no going back.
But if they do a good job with license revisions--and make clear that the license cannot be revoked at will, but rather will remain in place--then maybe D&D can win back its community after all. I'll be attending to what well-informed creators and lawyers are saying, and if the response is positive, I'm hoping I'll feel comfortable renewing my DDB subscription.
Kyle is a breath of fresh air. They should have led with him. And it's welcome that the process is becoming more transparent and also involving some manner of feedback from the community.
Edit: Not to overstate it tho. The first message was insultingly tone-deaf. This one was great in comparison and a step in the right direction, but fundamentally it has changed nothing.
I find this new statement more hopeful. Yes he called it a draft which we know is an obvious lie but I don't thing he was givin any choice in that matter. What he outlined if it becomes truth gives me some hope that they are listening and he is able to push back aginst the suits that pushed 1.1 out in the first place
If they won't even just leave users of 1.0 alone, the idea that they're going to improve and lock it down with a "clearly legally irrevocable" (however you want to parse that) 2.0 is just wishful thinking at this point. Now that they've made their intentions clear, letting 1.0a remain as is is as good as its going to get.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
Again, just because you don't understand what a contract "draft" is doesn't mean that what they said was a lie. All contracts are drafts until they are executed (signed). until then, there is always the possibility for change from negotiations, change in positions, and yes, open revolt from a fan community. He is not lying to call the various versions of the OGL leaked a "draft" as it is literally that unless you are viewing a signed copy. Sincerely, someone who actually drafts contracts as part of my job.
seems like an olive branch, we need to give them time to make good choices in the spirit of the game
hoping they make good choices and profits will follow
They did it because they wanted to go back on their prior promises. Which suggests there's no way in heck they're going to make an improved version of it. The OGL 1.0a may not be perfect, but at this point, it's clearly NOT going to be improved.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Nailed it
Cancelled Master Tier Subscription because of OGL 1.1
I'll just wait until an actual legal document is released. Corporate spokes people that are really only beholden to shareholders will way whatever is needed in order to stem the tide of cancelations.
And in the end, this all means nothing if there's wording that they can change whatever they want in the future with only 30 days notice.
The problem is that people interpret 'draft' as indicating intent ("We always meant to revise it, honest!") and it really just means "not yet published/signed, so we can still revise it if we need to".
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.
this^
The response answers none of the real issues those of us cancelling are concerned about. I don't understand how anyone here sees any of this in a remotely positive light.
The single biggest issue was the attempt, by deception, to get creators to sign a document that revoked their otherwise irrevocable rights under the original OGL. That issue has yet to be answered.
Bingo. Continuing to use weasel words, whether "technically correct" or not, speaks volumes.
Please.
They could have used any number of words to describe what they handed content creators, besides a term that colloquially suggests that perhaps what was seen was NOT what was intended to be signed. They didn't, they chose to use the word "draft" for the sole reason of it sounding less demanding, and to gaslight their fans. They're not being open and transparent, trying to use the best technical term for the document (other than "document")--they are being duplicitous and manipulative. And so long as they continue to be, the fan base will react accordingly.
You can repeat "but they're not lying!" all you want. It doesn't change anything. We all know why they chose to use that word to describe this new license to their non-lawyer fans. Frankly, they'll probably continue, even though they should probably stop because their intent is so obvious, and that very attitude is why I continue having serious doubts that this fiasco will end positively.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Irrevocable means they can’t remove it once entered into it; it doesn’t mean they can never change the offer for folks moving forward. 1.0 is not some esoteric document conveying rights to the aether - it is a contract, and you don’t get the benefit of a contract unless you enters into it. Even if they had said “this is irrevocable in 1.0”, if Johnny never entered into the contract, Wizards could still say “okay, we are rescinding our offer of 1.0 and any future person has to use 2.0” and Johnny couldn’t retroactively say “but I want to enter into 1.0 now.”
You all keep talking like it means “if they said this, they would never be able to change OGL 1.0”, but repeating it over and over again does not make it correct.
this battle isn't over! wizards won't drown us out via the unearthed arcana ogl!
Except it’s pointless to make changes if 1.0a continues to apply to new content, and there are reasonable points they might want to make changes to account for. As much as people are putting the original OGL on a pedestal, it was a napkin contract written when D&D was a niche hobby. The situation has dramatically changed, and it’s not nearly so offensive and unreasonable as some people make out for the license to change based on the new situation. I’m not saying WotC deserves a blank check to make any changes they want, but it could be time to phase out the letter of the old agreement if we can preserve the core spirit of supplement and accessory content creation being protected.