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.
he's in charge of the books division effectively. not the legal part or the PR part that produced the OGL.
in this case, he's the one they put out in front of the wolves.
They do not look at the surveys, those are used to direct you to a non-public venting hole where you will not be disruptive to the company's gas-lighting.
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.
Ten years ago I would have been inclined to agree with you, but the older I get the more I see benefits to a "kick the can" strategy in certain situations, particularly when other factors will likely wind up changing the playing field entirely. (Obviously not a good idea for building a nest egg, but for confronting a corporate entity whose major point of leverage revolves around their IP, and who will likely be undermined in several years by technological changes anyway? I'm not so sure.)
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.
The fanbase doesn't know the guy previously in charge, and to a large extent doesn't care. The fanbase knows the name of the corporate entity that went along with that intention and formalized it in a license (as good or bad as that license may be.)
You don't have to agree with the fact that this entity's reputation is in tatters due to their incredible mishandling of the situation, and that this has impacted their bottom line.
But it is in tatters, and their bottom line has been impacted, and for good reason, and it appears this will be the case for quite some time.
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.
The fanbase doesn't know the guy previously in charge, and to a large extent doesn't care. The fanbase knows the name of the corporate entity that went along with that intention and formalized it in a license (as good or bad as that license may be.)
You don't have to agree with the fact that this entity's reputation is in tatters due to their incredible mishandling of the situation, and that this has impacted their bottom line.
But it is in tatters, and their bottom line has been impacted, and for good reason, and it appears this will be the case for quite some time.
I have to point out Dancey left in 2002 and was never in charge, there have been multiple statements as well as actions Hasbro has done (and hasn't done) since he left all of which gave a very strong impression that groups have RELIED on for a very long time long after 2002, that OGL was not revocable.
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
It was absolutely a draft
SO WHAT!!! Draft or not it was a giant F U. So much so that the OGL debate has become moot. 3PP aren't waiting to see what WotC says. They're moving on.
In contract terms, everything is a draft until signatures are on the page...source: the 30 contracts I currently have in front of me at my job. In contract negotiations, you send a draft, with dates and signature lines, and the opposite side can 1) sign and accept, 2) counter-offer, or 3) walk away. but it is always a draft until the parties have signed.
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
It was absolutely a draft
SO WHAT!!! Draft or not it was a giant F U. So much so that the OGL debate has become moot. 3PP aren't waiting to see what WotC says. They're moving on.
It wasn't a draft. They sent it to creators to sign and accept
That is exactly how drafts work. You send a version, you say “sign this” and the other side says no, drafts a counteroffer, and says “but we will sign this.” Then they go back and forth like that for a while, each saying “no, but what about this version?” until someone says yes.
"OGL 1.0a is irrevocable." That's what I need to see WotC acknowledge. Until i see it, i have zero trust in this process. Show me WotC lives up to it's commitments or we both are wasting our time.
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.
So take WotC at thier word no matter how unbelievably ridiculous it is but the 3PP are just crying because they're butt hurt??
Since you've obviously never run a business your opinion here is kinda worthless...
Believe it or not 3PP also are businesses that want to make money. If they feel they can still make money with the new OGL, after edits, they will. You don't get far as a company or creator by being thin-skinned.
At this point, trust in the process is so low that it really needs to be a third party that hosts the survey and releases the survey results fully and transparently.
Intentions may or may not be good - but steering the conversation onto a survey platform where we might not actually see the results is problematic.
By the beneficence of the Emperor, Kyle has been the answer to my prayers. I mean sure, I guess WotC could go back on everything they said in this and previous statement, but that would be company suicide at this point. It's not over yet, the draft-counter draft that is normally done by lawyers only is now going to be in part done by the community, but the worst of it is done. The community has shown Hasbro that they can and will try to burn the house down, but it has also shown that there are enough people ready to listen. I am very happy with this turn of events and will be monitoring carefully how the final document turns out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
"OGL 1.0a is irrevocable." That's what I need to see WotC acknowledge. Until i see it, i have zero trust in this process. Show me WotC lives up to it's commitments or we both are wasting our time.
except its not and even lawyers that dont agree with the original leak and say the leak was bad and illegal, say the ogl 1.0a is a bad document and needs rewriting because of how little it actually protects and shit
we need an update/new doc, we just need something that actually outlines our rights and whats protected clearly
That is exactly how drafts work. You send a version, you say “sign this” and the other side says no, drafts a counteroffer, and says “but we will sign this.” Then they go back and forth like that for a while, each saying “no, but what about this version?” until someone says yes.
It isn't a draft either way, but we don't actually know whether or not it was sent with pens attached. The only source that has said anything about this is Griffon's Saddlebag, and he is just reporting rumors and/or information he heard from anonymous sources. All in all, it's possible that those leaks are or incorrect or exaggerated.
Regardless, Caerwyn is right that it was a draft, even if it was sent with a place to put a signature. The fact that Kickstarter was negotiating terms for the License with Wizards proves that it wasn't set in stone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
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.
Irrevocable was not part of legal parlance at the time the agreement was established.
This will go to court and WOTC is risking BIG consequences not only on the 1.0a but also if the legalities continue and question their entire stance of trying to have an iron grip on the rules.
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.
The fanbase doesn't know the guy previously in charge, and to a large extent doesn't care. The fanbase knows the name of the corporate entity that went along with that intention and formalized it in a license (as good or bad as that license may be.)
You don't have to agree with the fact that this entity's reputation is in tatters due to their incredible mishandling of the situation, and that this has impacted their bottom line.
But it is in tatters, and their bottom line has been impacted, and for good reason, and it appears this will be the case for quite some time.
Believe it or not 3PP also are businesses that want to make money. If they feel they can still make money with the new OGL, after edits, they will. You don't get far as a company or creator by being thin-skinned.
Exactly this. It'll start with the Youtubers who are busily promoting alternative systems right now as their views dwindle, then the new OGL terms will come out and they'll do a thinkpiece on that, then the next 1DnD UA or big 5e release comes out and they reluctantly cover that for a spike in viewership, and the 3PP see that and decide maybe this D&D thing isn't over after all, I'll make an adventure or two, some money is better than no money.
Pretty much none of them, even DnD_Shorts, have sworn off D&D content forever.
There seem to be a lot of delusional and misinformed folks, caught up still in their rage and lack of understanding of how contracts work. Several lawyers and folks who work in legal have already explained a few of the points these folks miss. The draft sent had zero ability to do ANYTHING until signed. An NDA is included on MOST legal contractual correspondence for dozens of reasons, none of which I intend to mention, because folks have missed the basics, so details will befuddle them further. The existing OGL has too many holes in it and needs to be reworked to suit today. For those citing history, a club was sufficient for thousands of years, so there was never a need to upgrade weaponry, right?
The existing OGL is going to get flushed or amended and now, instead of nerd-raging over things we don't understand and ragging and ragging about lies and breach of trust and all the other BS, why don't we wait patiently, pretending we're mature, responsible adults, for the next draft? We need to review it carefully, share it with friends and anyone we know who speaks fluent legal-ese to ensure it isn't double talking itself into a mirror of the shitty mess they tried to slip under the radar. We need to be part of the solution now, instead of trying to muddle the problem with foolishness.
I see several people who point out that if THIS had been the first response to the document leak AND had been done sooner, they might not be so buthurt. Well, within THIS document, the man agrees with you on that, so let's leave the horse where it lies and stop beating it already. If you think about it, this whole fiasco will be good for D&D in the longer term, as long as we all remember it. If we do remember, we will be ready to scrutinize anything WotC releases in the future and MAYBE they won't try to slip something under the door next time. To those who will try to mock my optimism, keep in mind you are what you live and I simply refuse to live wrapped up in suspicion and anger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
Why should new creators ever bother to support 6e? It's going to be a closed shop, like 4e was.
And it's only unclear now because Wizards decided to make it so. There is no magic word that makes it so that you always have protection and the legal system often does become pay to win when corporations are involved.
Regarding the “give us the OGL back/keep it open” points, it’s obvious that they still have some kind of changes they’re committed to. Could be that they’re looking to head off something like the situation currently going with Ernest Gygax, which would be difficult to do under the current terms. Could be they’re looking to narrow the scope a bit to exclude things like video games, and frankly I don’t have a dog in that fight. I guess they can try to slip in a “terms subject to change” bit, but that’s just going to return us to the point of people rallying to fight it or just ditching for ORC. Basically yes I expect they’re looking to make some changes, but I think they’ve realized they don’t have a strong footing to push with.
The OGL has nothing to do with the NuTSR situation, they were trying to use a product they had no right to because WotC own the IP for Star Frontier.
And honestly, I don't think WotC can be trusted to create a reasonable understanding of what counts as offensive content.
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.
The size of the audience is far from guaranteed, not everyone moves to the new edition and WotC have done a lot to hurt trust with those who enjoy the hobby as well as third party publishers.
he's in charge of the books division effectively. not the legal part or the PR part that produced the OGL.
in this case, he's the one they put out in front of the wolves.
They do not look at the surveys, those are used to direct you to a non-public venting hole where you will not be disruptive to the company's gas-lighting.
Ten years ago I would have been inclined to agree with you, but the older I get the more I see benefits to a "kick the can" strategy in certain situations, particularly when other factors will likely wind up changing the playing field entirely. (Obviously not a good idea for building a nest egg, but for confronting a corporate entity whose major point of leverage revolves around their IP, and who will likely be undermined in several years by technological changes anyway? I'm not so sure.)
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
Insider leaks already published shows the statement to be bs, SO not really.
The fanbase doesn't know the guy previously in charge, and to a large extent doesn't care. The fanbase knows the name of the corporate entity that went along with that intention and formalized it in a license (as good or bad as that license may be.)
You don't have to agree with the fact that this entity's reputation is in tatters due to their incredible mishandling of the situation, and that this has impacted their bottom line.
But it is in tatters, and their bottom line has been impacted, and for good reason, and it appears this will be the case 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
Links?
I have to point out Dancey left in 2002 and was never in charge, there have been multiple statements as well as actions Hasbro has done (and hasn't done) since he left all of which gave a very strong impression that groups have RELIED on for a very long time long after 2002, that OGL was not revocable.
SO WHAT!!! Draft or not it was a giant F U. So much so that the OGL debate has become moot. 3PP aren't waiting to see what WotC says. They're moving on.
In contract terms, everything is a draft until signatures are on the page...source: the 30 contracts I currently have in front of me at my job. In contract negotiations, you send a draft, with dates and signature lines, and the opposite side can 1) sign and accept, 2) counter-offer, or 3) walk away. but it is always a draft until the parties have signed.
That is exactly how drafts work. You send a version, you say “sign this” and the other side says no, drafts a counteroffer, and says “but we will sign this.” Then they go back and forth like that for a while, each saying “no, but what about this version?” until someone says yes.
"OGL 1.0a is irrevocable." That's what I need to see WotC acknowledge. Until i see it, i have zero trust in this process. Show me WotC lives up to it's commitments or we both are wasting our time.
Believe it or not 3PP also are businesses that want to make money. If they feel they can still make money with the new OGL, after edits, they will. You don't get far as a company or creator by being thin-skinned.
At this point, trust in the process is so low that it really needs to be a third party that hosts the survey and releases the survey results fully and transparently.
Intentions may or may not be good - but steering the conversation onto a survey platform where we might not actually see the results is problematic.
By the beneficence of the Emperor, Kyle has been the answer to my prayers. I mean sure, I guess WotC could go back on everything they said in this and previous statement, but that would be company suicide at this point. It's not over yet, the draft-counter draft that is normally done by lawyers only is now going to be in part done by the community, but the worst of it is done. The community has shown Hasbro that they can and will try to burn the house down, but it has also shown that there are enough people ready to listen. I am very happy with this turn of events and will be monitoring carefully how the final document turns out.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
except its not and even lawyers that dont agree with the original leak and say the leak was bad and illegal, say the ogl 1.0a is a bad document and needs rewriting because of how little it actually protects and shit
we need an update/new doc, we just need something that actually outlines our rights and whats protected clearly
It isn't a draft either way, but we don't actually know whether or not it was sent with pens attached. The only source that has said anything about this is Griffon's Saddlebag, and he is just reporting rumors and/or information he heard from anonymous sources. All in all, it's possible that those leaks are or incorrect or exaggerated.
Regardless, Caerwyn is right that it was a draft, even if it was sent with a place to put a signature. The fact that Kickstarter was negotiating terms for the License with Wizards proves that it wasn't set in stone.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Irrevocable was not part of legal parlance at the time the agreement was established.
This will go to court and WOTC is risking BIG consequences not only on the 1.0a but also if the legalities continue and question their entire stance of trying to have an iron grip on the rules.
(not a lawyer, not legal advice.)
They'll live and so will you.
Exactly this. It'll start with the Youtubers who are busily promoting alternative systems right now as their views dwindle, then the new OGL terms will come out and they'll do a thinkpiece on that, then the next 1DnD UA or big 5e release comes out and they reluctantly cover that for a spike in viewership, and the 3PP see that and decide maybe this D&D thing isn't over after all, I'll make an adventure or two, some money is better than no money.
Pretty much none of them, even DnD_Shorts, have sworn off D&D content forever.
There seem to be a lot of delusional and misinformed folks, caught up still in their rage and lack of understanding of how contracts work. Several lawyers and folks who work in legal have already explained a few of the points these folks miss.
The draft sent had zero ability to do ANYTHING until signed.
An NDA is included on MOST legal contractual correspondence for dozens of reasons, none of which I intend to mention, because folks have missed the basics, so details will befuddle them further.
The existing OGL has too many holes in it and needs to be reworked to suit today. For those citing history, a club was sufficient for thousands of years, so there was never a need to upgrade weaponry, right?
The existing OGL is going to get flushed or amended and now, instead of nerd-raging over things we don't understand and ragging and ragging about lies and breach of trust and all the other BS, why don't we wait patiently, pretending we're mature, responsible adults, for the next draft? We need to review it carefully, share it with friends and anyone we know who speaks fluent legal-ese to ensure it isn't double talking itself into a mirror of the shitty mess they tried to slip under the radar. We need to be part of the solution now, instead of trying to muddle the problem with foolishness.
I see several people who point out that if THIS had been the first response to the document leak AND had been done sooner, they might not be so buthurt. Well, within THIS document, the man agrees with you on that, so let's leave the horse where it lies and stop beating it already. If you think about it, this whole fiasco will be good for D&D in the longer term, as long as we all remember it. If we do remember, we will be ready to scrutinize anything WotC releases in the future and MAYBE they won't try to slip something under the door next time. To those who will try to mock my optimism, keep in mind you are what you live and I simply refuse to live wrapped up in suspicion and anger.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Why should new creators ever bother to support 6e? It's going to be a closed shop, like 4e was.
And it's only unclear now because Wizards decided to make it so. There is no magic word that makes it so that you always have protection and the legal system often does become pay to win when corporations are involved.
The OGL has nothing to do with the NuTSR situation, they were trying to use a product they had no right to because WotC own the IP for Star Frontier.
And honestly, I don't think WotC can be trusted to create a reasonable understanding of what counts as offensive content.
The size of the audience is far from guaranteed, not everyone moves to the new edition and WotC have done a lot to hurt trust with those who enjoy the hobby as well as third party publishers.
I would be absolutely astonished if the survey means anything. The only thing they care about is the people who have cancelled their subscriptions.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder