What this thing tells me is that they know we're watching, and personally I take heart in that. They keep tightening the language around their intentions for the OGL 1.0a, and they keep doing that because they hear the people seeing through their attempts at misdirection.
What it is is a step in the right direction. What it is not is a legally binding release of a new, trustworthy, airtight open license.
No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
1.0 is a terrible legal document for all involved, effectively being the legal equivalent of Calvinball. As this entire affair has shown, its numerous ambiguities, failure to define its basic scope, and general failure to even define what exactly is covered once a party enters into it is bad for not just Wizards, but bad for creators as well.
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.
I've been doing some listening and reading on this situation, and it seems like actual attorneys agree on this point (that the original OGL ain't all that.) In fact, some of them have been saying the gaming community would've been better off without it, as many of the things it purports to allow are already legally allowable.
As for this latest statement: it's clearly a vast improvement over the previous one. It's a bit odd to me that it's not coming from Cynthia Williams, where the buck actually stops, but Kyle and/or his copywriters did good here. Obviously, the proof is in the actual actions and documents.
Those demanding that 1.0a be kept alive to allow people to produce 5E-friendly content into the future are dreaming. It will not happen. WOTC, not unreasonably, wants to prevent another Pathfinder/Paizo situation happening when OneD&D goes live, and they're not wanting to essentially provide legal cover for direct competition.
This is a big time ask, but I'd strongly urge everyone who's concerned about this to check out these three reactions to the sitch, from actual attorneys:
It's a matter of trust. Third party publishers need to be able to trust the partner they have. They can't do that anymore. Trust once destroyed is very difficult to get back. I think that there will be a mass exodus of 3rd party publishers no matter what Hasbro does. Damage has been done. And if anyone's been keeping tabs on the recent quality of content being produced by WoTC, it makes the game even less appealing when you are losing all the high quality content coming from other sources.
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.
I think you are missing the point.
Regardless of how legally binding the contract is or isn't, whether that was good or bad, whether that was even legally possible or not, the intention behind the license was crystal clear.
That violation of their previous intention is what the issue is, and why this is such a big deal, and why they screwed up so monumentally.
If someone thinks they won the lottery, and in a fit of gift-giving frenzy gives away their car, and then they discover they didn't really win, maybe they actually have a legal right to reclaim the car. It might even be necessary to maintain their household. But doing so is going to impact their reputation negatively, and for good reason, for quite some time.
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.
Yup. It's not about wanting to win back your trust and sympathy - it's about winning back your money, after the damage is done already. The next 4 weeks (taking the survey to the dumpster etc.) is also imho nothing but stalling to cement strategies and hoping enough grass will grow over the mess made, relying on the short attention span of the interwebs.
I've been doing some listening and reading on this situation, and it seems like actual attorneys agree on this point (that the original OGL ain't all that.) In fact, some of them have been saying the gaming community would've been better off without it, as many of the things it purports to allow are already legally allowable.
My admittedly amateur understanding is that OGL 1.0a was effectively a legal affirmation from WotC that they would not pursue litigation against third-party material, which small businesses and individuals would not be able to afford to challenge in court. The importance of it at the time of conception was twofold: firstly, nothing like this had ever been challenged in court (and that's still the case), so there was no precedent to discourage litigation; and secondly, it was a firm reversal of TSR's litigious reputation in the 1990s.
The new statement is a start. But it still has not addressed to core issue. OGL 1.0 is not on the table. Either it stays or many people go. (Or best case of all, sign the ORC)
1.0 is a terrible legal document for all involved, effectively being the legal equivalent of Calvinball. As this entire affair has shown, its numerous ambiguities, failure to define its basic scope, and general failure to even define what exactly is covered once a party enters into it is bad for not just Wizards, but bad for creators as well.
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.
The contract negotiation should be they sign the ORC like everyone else is most likely going to. They can keep their grubby mitts off of 3PP material. They may have walked that back for now but I wont believe they wouldn't try to slip it in later if the language allows them too.
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.
Yet that doesn't change what I pointed out. If they're not willing to just leave it alone, even if it requires making NEW content that 1.0a doesn't apply to, then the idea that they're going to improve on it AND make it "clearly legally irrevocable" is wishful thinking.
I'm not saying there's a good solution at this point: just that even if simply leaving 1.0a alone has a snowball's chance of happening, the idea of "fixing" it has even less of a chance than that, so there's no reason to promote the latter over the former.
1.0 is a terrible legal document for all involved, effectively being the legal equivalent of Calvinball. As this entire affair has shown, its numerous ambiguities, failure to define its basic scope, and general failure to even define what exactly is covered once a party enters into it is bad for not just Wizards, but bad for creators as well.
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.
I've been doing some listening and reading on this situation, and it seems like actual attorneys agree on this point (that the original OGL ain't all that.) In fact, some of them have been saying the gaming community would've been better off without it, as many of the things it purports to allow are already legally allowable.
As for this latest statement: it's clearly a vast improvement over the previous one. It's a bit odd to me that it's not coming from Cynthia Williams, where the buck actually stops, but Kyle and/or his copywriters did good here. Obviously, the proof is in the actual actions and documents.
Those demanding that 1.0a be kept alive to allow people to produce 5E-friendly content into the future are dreaming. It will not happen. WOTC, not unreasonably, wants to prevent another Pathfinder/Paizo situation happening when OneD&D goes live, and they're not wanting to essentially provide legal cover for direct competition.
This is a big time ask, but I'd strongly urge everyone who's concerned about this to check out these three reactions to the sitch, from actual attorneys:
Just to point out Opening Arguments podcast is an a take on the situation looking at the situation by analyzing the OGL 1.0, the 1.1 (not-draft or whatever), and Linda Codega's initial article in a total vaccum with absolutely no interest in the situation of 3pp today, or the history of the OGL, or anything beyond the words of those documents. As they mentioned on Twitter they weren't interested in D&D per se they're interested in legal documents. The only thing I got out of that waste of time (I don't know if part 2 was a follow up so I can't speak to that) is that he read the OGL 1.1 would only 'deauthorize' the OGL 1.0 for the new licensee which was an interesting take I hadn't heard from lawyers more abreast of the situation. The rest of it is a total waste of time unless you're interested in what the take an outsider lawyer or executive who has no interest or care about how the TTRPG industry works or its history might have (which considering some of the decisions made by Hasbro's suits may be important) OR you're really interested in anlayzing an io9 article like it's a carefully drafted legal document and mischaracterizing a ton of stuff while doing so. I'd also say Legal Eagle specifically says "The benefit of the OGL, whether it's 1.0 or 1.1, is that it provides certainty. So there's that." which actually jives with what Ryan Dancey stated in his interview. Whether you agree with his take, or a similar take by Cory Doctrow, is up to you.
If you want much more interesting and knowledgeable takes on the OGL I'd suggest Roll For Combat's interviews with Ryan Dancey (the 'father' of the OGL while an exec at Hasbro in 99/00) and Bob Tarantino who wrote a thesis on the OGL as well as Roll For Law's analysis. (the interviews are long but you can find shorter clips on YouTube)
Edited to add: I did appreciate and like LE's video but he was focusing on just one aspect of the OGL (what it covers legaly and the legal ambiguity of TTRPG IP in general) specifically.
guys don't fall for it, they never saw any of our reviews related to onednd, they just try to prevent us from talking eachother because now "we can directly talk to them"
after all... thats why stupid things like rogue and spiritual weapon got nerfed and not fireball.
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.
Yet that doesn't change what I pointed out. If they're not willing to just leave it alone, even if it requires making NEW content that 1.0a doesn't apply to, then the idea that they're going to improve on it AND make it "clearly legally irrevocable" is wishful thinking.
I'm not saying there's a good solution at this point: just that even if simply leaving 1.0a alone has a snowball's chance of happening, the idea of "fixing" it has even less of a chance than that, so there's no reason to promote the latter over the former.
The point being, if they are determined to pursue changes, they need to phase out the original. And, regardless of how much people put the original on a pedestal, it’s an ambiguous piece, particularly now that D&D’s scope and image have grown so much. Just leaving the original agreement in place untouched only guarantees that sooner or later they’ll be forced to revisit the issue, so it’s just putting off for tomorrow. I agree that they tried to overreach in the initial drafts (yes, that is the correct term until the document goes into effect), but this no compromise position people are taking up is not a solution, just a delay. Better to try and sort things out now while the community’s willingness to walk away is fresh in their minds.
guys don't fall for it, they never saw any of our reviews related to onednd, they just try to prevent us from talking eachother because now "we can directly talk to them"
after all... thats why stupid things like rogue and spiritual weapon got nerfed and not fireball.
check dndshorts. back on the duty.
Oh yes, DND Shorts. Great if you want to watch a rant with a backdrop of funny animations. I appreciate his desire to bring attention to the issue, but his videos have been total soapbox pieces playing on “the greedy corpos are after everything you hold dear” bit rather than actually breaking down and discussing the issue.
Yet that doesn't change what I pointed out. If they're not willing to just leave it alone, even if it requires making NEW content that 1.0a doesn't apply to, then the idea that they're going to improve on it AND make it "clearly legally irrevocable" is wishful thinking.
I'm not saying there's a good solution at this point: just that even if simply leaving 1.0a alone has a snowball's chance of happening, the idea of "fixing" it has even less of a chance than that, so there's no reason to promote the latter over the former.
The point being, if they are determined to pursue changes, they need to phase out the original. And, regardless of how much people put the original on a pedestal, it’s an ambiguous piece, particularly now that D&D’s scope and image have grown so much. Just leaving the original agreement in place untouched only guarantees that sooner or later they’ll be forced to revisit the issue, so it’s just putting off for tomorrow. I agree that they tried to overreach in the initial drafts (yes, that is the correct term until the document goes into effect), but this no compromise position people are taking up is not a solution, just a delay. Better to try and sort things out now while the community’s willingness to walk away is fresh in their minds.
My only point is: it's more of a solution than actually expecting a beneficially-"fixed" new iteration of the license. Whether the best choice long-term or not, it's far more likely that the can can be kicked down the road a bit longer than that anything good will come from 1.1+. It's entirely understandable that people would push for the short-term status quo (even if it's looking like the end result will be something else entirely.)
Yet that doesn't change what I pointed out. If they're not willing to just leave it alone, even if it requires making NEW content that 1.0a doesn't apply to, then the idea that they're going to improve on it AND make it "clearly legally irrevocable" is wishful thinking.
I'm not saying there's a good solution at this point: just that even if simply leaving 1.0a alone has a snowball's chance of happening, the idea of "fixing" it has even less of a chance than that, so there's no reason to promote the latter over the former.
The point being, if they are determined to pursue changes, they need to phase out the original. And, regardless of how much people put the original on a pedestal, it’s an ambiguous piece, particularly now that D&D’s scope and image have grown so much. Just leaving the original agreement in place untouched only guarantees that sooner or later they’ll be forced to revisit the issue, so it’s just putting off for tomorrow. I agree that they tried to overreach in the initial drafts (yes, that is the correct term until the document goes into effect), but this no compromise position people are taking up is not a solution, just a delay. Better to try and sort things out now while the community’s willingness to walk away is fresh in their minds.
My only point is: it's more of a solution than actually expecting a beneficially-"fixed" new iteration of the license. Whether the best choice long-term or not, it's far more likely that the can can be kicked down the road a bit longer than that anything good will come from 1.1+. It's entirely understandable that people would push for the short-term status quo (even if it's looking like the end result will be something else entirely.)
That kind of attitude is just going to leave us perpetually circling the issue rather than resolving it. Plus, the change is happening in any case, so it’s only a question of if you want to attempt to weigh in, or simply resign yourself to whatever follows.
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.
I think you are missing the point.
Regardless of how legally binding the contract is or isn't, whether that was good or bad, whether that was even legally possible or not, the intention behind the license was crystal clear.
That violation of their previous intention is what the issue is, and why this is such a big deal, and why they screwed up so monumentally.
If someone thinks they won the lottery, and in a fit of gift-giving frenzy gives away their car, and then they discover they didn't really win, maybe they actually have a legal right to reclaim the car. It might even be necessary to maintain their household. But doing so is going to impact their reputation negatively, and for good reason, for quite some time.
The intention was that of the guy previously in charge. Presumably he learned his lesson for the next license he authors.
I dunno, looks like someone who has a background in game development and has just recently moved into this position. Probably around the time WOTC were looking at making games and other media-based properties. He inherited D&D and was probably looking to tighten up the OGL to allow them to leverage D&D as a media property... and totally mis-read the room.
That's my take anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What this thing tells me is that they know we're watching, and personally I take heart in that. They keep tightening the language around their intentions for the OGL 1.0a, and they keep doing that because they hear the people seeing through their attempts at misdirection.
What it is is a step in the right direction. What it is not is a legally binding release of a new, trustworthy, airtight open license.
No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
I've been doing some listening and reading on this situation, and it seems like actual attorneys agree on this point (that the original OGL ain't all that.) In fact, some of them have been saying the gaming community would've been better off without it, as many of the things it purports to allow are already legally allowable.
As for this latest statement: it's clearly a vast improvement over the previous one. It's a bit odd to me that it's not coming from Cynthia Williams, where the buck actually stops, but Kyle and/or his copywriters did good here. Obviously, the proof is in the actual actions and documents.
Those demanding that 1.0a be kept alive to allow people to produce 5E-friendly content into the future are dreaming. It will not happen. WOTC, not unreasonably, wants to prevent another Pathfinder/Paizo situation happening when OneD&D goes live, and they're not wanting to essentially provide legal cover for direct competition.
This is a big time ask, but I'd strongly urge everyone who's concerned about this to check out these three reactions to the sitch, from actual attorneys:
Legal Eagle's take on the OGL
Opening Arguments: the OGL, Part 1
Opening Arguments: OGL, Part 2
this we'll Liston to feedback stuff is false as no-one is reading it even if they request to
It's a matter of trust. Third party publishers need to be able to trust the partner they have. They can't do that anymore. Trust once destroyed is very difficult to get back. I think that there will be a mass exodus of 3rd party publishers no matter what Hasbro does. Damage has been done. And if anyone's been keeping tabs on the recent quality of content being produced by WoTC, it makes the game even less appealing when you are losing all the high quality content coming from other sources.
I think you are missing the point.
Regardless of how legally binding the contract is or isn't, whether that was good or bad, whether that was even legally possible or not, the intention behind the license was crystal clear.
That violation of their previous intention is what the issue is, and why this is such a big deal, and why they screwed up so monumentally.
If someone thinks they won the lottery, and in a fit of gift-giving frenzy gives away their car, and then they discover they didn't really win, maybe they actually have a legal right to reclaim the car. It might even be necessary to maintain their household. But doing so is going to impact their reputation negatively, and for good reason, for quite some time.
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
Yup. It's not about wanting to win back your trust and sympathy - it's about winning back your money, after the damage is done already. The next 4 weeks (taking the survey to the dumpster etc.) is also imho nothing but stalling to cement strategies and hoping enough grass will grow over the mess made, relying on the short attention span of the interwebs.
My admittedly amateur understanding is that OGL 1.0a was effectively a legal affirmation from WotC that they would not pursue litigation against third-party material, which small businesses and individuals would not be able to afford to challenge in court. The importance of it at the time of conception was twofold: firstly, nothing like this had ever been challenged in court (and that's still the case), so there was no precedent to discourage litigation; and secondly, it was a firm reversal of TSR's litigious reputation in the 1990s.
The contract negotiation should be they sign the ORC like everyone else is most likely going to. They can keep their grubby mitts off of 3PP material. They may have walked that back for now but I wont believe they wouldn't try to slip it in later if the language allows them too.
Yet that doesn't change what I pointed out. If they're not willing to just leave it alone, even if it requires making NEW content that 1.0a doesn't apply to, then the idea that they're going to improve on it AND make it "clearly legally irrevocable" is wishful thinking.
I'm not saying there's a good solution at this point: just that even if simply leaving 1.0a alone has a snowball's chance of happening, the idea of "fixing" it has even less of a chance than that, so there's no reason to promote the latter over the former.
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
I just watched some updates from The Rules Lawyer and DnD Shorts. I think I am done with WoTC for awhile, maybe forever.
I will take my books and move on to Google Sheets and I also bought quite a bit of C&C just now too.
We are going to finish out our campaign in 5e over the next few months, but I really think that's it unless they do some sort of massive turnaround.
Just to point out Opening Arguments podcast is an a take on the situation looking at the situation by analyzing the OGL 1.0, the 1.1 (not-draft or whatever), and Linda Codega's initial article in a total vaccum with absolutely no interest in the situation of 3pp today, or the history of the OGL, or anything beyond the words of those documents. As they mentioned on Twitter they weren't interested in D&D per se they're interested in legal documents. The only thing I got out of that waste of time (I don't know if part 2 was a follow up so I can't speak to that) is that he read the OGL 1.1 would only 'deauthorize' the OGL 1.0 for the new licensee which was an interesting take I hadn't heard from lawyers more abreast of the situation. The rest of it is a total waste of time unless you're interested in what the take an outsider lawyer or executive who has no interest or care about how the TTRPG industry works or its history might have (which considering some of the decisions made by Hasbro's suits may be important) OR you're really interested in anlayzing an io9 article like it's a carefully drafted legal document and mischaracterizing a ton of stuff while doing so. I'd also say Legal Eagle specifically says "The benefit of the OGL, whether it's 1.0 or 1.1, is that it provides certainty. So there's that." which actually jives with what Ryan Dancey stated in his interview. Whether you agree with his take, or a similar take by Cory Doctrow, is up to you.
If you want much more interesting and knowledgeable takes on the OGL I'd suggest Roll For Combat's interviews with Ryan Dancey (the 'father' of the OGL while an exec at Hasbro in 99/00) and Bob Tarantino who wrote a thesis on the OGL as well as Roll For Law's analysis. (the interviews are long but you can find shorter clips on YouTube)
Ryan Dancey interview
Bob Tarantino (probably the most useful)
Roll of Law (copyrightable game mechanics)
Roll Of Law (breakdown of OGL 1.1)
Edited to add: I did appreciate and like LE's video but he was focusing on just one aspect of the OGL (what it covers legaly and the legal ambiguity of TTRPG IP in general) specifically.
guys don't fall for it, they never saw any of our reviews related to onednd, they just try to prevent us from talking eachother because now "we can directly talk to them"
after all... thats why stupid things like rogue and spiritual weapon got nerfed and not fireball.
check dndshorts. back on the duty.
The point being, if they are determined to pursue changes, they need to phase out the original. And, regardless of how much people put the original on a pedestal, it’s an ambiguous piece, particularly now that D&D’s scope and image have grown so much. Just leaving the original agreement in place untouched only guarantees that sooner or later they’ll be forced to revisit the issue, so it’s just putting off for tomorrow. I agree that they tried to overreach in the initial drafts (yes, that is the correct term until the document goes into effect), but this no compromise position people are taking up is not a solution, just a delay. Better to try and sort things out now while the community’s willingness to walk away is fresh in their minds.
Just going to leave this right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr9WDUCK5aQ
You be there judge.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
My response to the response:
"Hey, did you know World of Darkness has been releasing new sourcebooks for it's d10 system? I'm kinda hype, ngl."
Oh yes, DND Shorts. Great if you want to watch a rant with a backdrop of funny animations. I appreciate his desire to bring attention to the issue, but his videos have been total soapbox pieces playing on “the greedy corpos are after everything you hold dear” bit rather than actually breaking down and discussing the issue.
My only point is: it's more of a solution than actually expecting a beneficially-"fixed" new iteration of the license. Whether the best choice long-term or not, it's far more likely that the can can be kicked down the road a bit longer than that anything good will come from 1.1+. It's entirely understandable that people would push for the short-term status quo (even if it's looking like the end result will be something else entirely.)
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
That kind of attitude is just going to leave us perpetually circling the issue rather than resolving it. Plus, the change is happening in any case, so it’s only a question of if you want to attempt to weigh in, or simply resign yourself to whatever follows.
The intention was that of the guy previously in charge. Presumably he learned his lesson for the next license he authors.
Let's see who we are dealing with:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/gamesmith/
I dunno, looks like someone who has a background in game development and has just recently moved into this position. Probably around the time WOTC were looking at making games and other media-based properties. He inherited D&D and was probably looking to tighten up the OGL to allow them to leverage D&D as a media property... and totally mis-read the room.
That's my take anyway.