this mess all started with a leaked draft, what is a draft, a draft is a document that has yet to be finalized and in the case of a corporation still needs to go thru a board of director a legal dept and a couple other dept before being released.
people are complaining that Hasbro and WOtC are trying to boost their profit margin with 3rd party developers. all company's are looking for a profit that's what they are in business for. And if you think otherwise your living in a fairy tale and need to come back to reality.
I'm seeing a lot of mis-information flying about that needs to stop. although i have no proof but seems some of this mis-info points indirectly to a 3rd party developer (i won't mention who)
Some of you are saying you will unsubscribe from Beyond and boycott the movie, that's your propagative whatever rocks your boat. I'm not going anywhere and while I don't have high hopes the movie will be a box office smash i will still watch it
that's my 2 cents. you may not like it and you may flame me I don't care, I'll still sleep good tonight.
I draft as you describe is not something that goes out to parties outside the company for signature, which this died. Not a draft. It was never a draft.
In point of fact, companies do send out drafts for signatures. The company I work at does; there's a standard document for our terms with purchase orders that we send to the vendor. Some vendors simply sign the draft and send it back. Others redline sections, make notes, and send that back for review on our end and it goes back and forth a bit as details are hashed out. I've heard it a lot of different ways about what WotC was doing with 1.1 and will not claim to know their intentions, but it is correct to refer to a copy of an agreement as a "draft" until all parties have agreed to the terms.
this mess all started with a leaked draft, what is a draft, a draft is a document that has yet to be finalized and in the case of a corporation still needs to go thru a board of director a legal dept and a couple other dept before being released.
people are complaining that Hasbro and WOtC are trying to boost their profit margin with 3rd party developers. all company's are looking for a profit that's what they are in business for. And if you think otherwise your living in a fairy tale and need to come back to reality.
I'm seeing a lot of mis-information flying about that needs to stop. although i have no proof but seems some of this mis-info points indirectly to a 3rd party developer (i won't mention who)
Some of you are saying you will unsubscribe from Beyond and boycott the movie, that's your propagative whatever rocks your boat. I'm not going anywhere and while I don't have high hopes the movie will be a box office smash i will still watch it
that's my 2 cents. you may not like it and you may flame me I don't care, I'll still sleep good tonight.
I draft as you describe is not something that goes out to parties outside the company for signature, which this died. Not a draft. It was never a draft.
In point of fact, companies do send out drafts for signatures. The company I work at does; there's a standard document for our terms with purchase orders that we send to the vendor. Some vendors simply sign the draft and send it back. Others redline sections, make notes, and send that back for review on our end and it goes back and forth a bit as details are hashed out. I've heard it a lot of different ways about what WotC was doing with 1.1 and will not claim to know their intentions, but it is correct to refer to a copy of an agreement as a "draft" until all parties have agreed to the terms.
That would only work if everyone that signed these licenses had a unique, individual license that only worked for them, and they had the ability/option to send it back with notes to WotC - that's not the scenario we're talking about here.
If it was just a draft, and they were really going to take feedback or notes, but also they wanted people to sign it - what would they do when the people who had notes wanted changes made? Would they have made an OGL 1.12 that only applies to them?
It's a legally binding contract that has to apply to thousands of businesses and products, it's not just a single individual license that can be easily negotiated on a whim like many other, smaller incidents of the same type of paperwork. If the language in it wasn't finished, or potentially was going to change, then they wouldn't have ever asked any businesses to sign it, or told Kickstarter that they had a sweetheart deal with a lower percentage - it was never a draft, they just want people to think it was because it makes them look less evil. Logically though I don't know how anyone could think it was a draft if people were both forced to sign an NDA to see it, asked to sign it, AND Kickstarter came out and said they had a done-deal percentage arrangement - these things mean that the presented 1.1 OGL was finished, completed, from Wizards perspective.
It's only a draft retroactively because otherwise they'd have to admit they were really going to try and pull this stuff, for realsies.
If the language in it wasn't finished, or potentially was going to change, then they wouldn't have ever asked any businesses to sign it, or told Kickstarter that they had a sweetheart deal with a lower percentage
Sigh. Think this through logically.
We know, for a fact, that Kickstarter was still negotiating and getting a separate deal, because they said so publicly.
Why would they be the only ones? Why wouldn't other third parties also be able to negotiate and get deals unique to them and their specific circumstances?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
this mess all started with a leaked draft, what is a draft, a draft is a document that has yet to be finalized and in the case of a corporation still needs to go thru a board of director a legal dept and a couple other dept before being released.
people are complaining that Hasbro and WOtC are trying to boost their profit margin with 3rd party developers. all company's are looking for a profit that's what they are in business for. And if you think otherwise your living in a fairy tale and need to come back to reality.
I'm seeing a lot of mis-information flying about that needs to stop. although i have no proof but seems some of this mis-info points indirectly to a 3rd party developer (i won't mention who)
Some of you are saying you will unsubscribe from Beyond and boycott the movie, that's your propagative whatever rocks your boat. I'm not going anywhere and while I don't have high hopes the movie will be a box office smash i will still watch it
that's my 2 cents. you may not like it and you may flame me I don't care, I'll still sleep good tonight.
I draft as you describe is not something that goes out to parties outside the company for signature, which this died. Not a draft. It was never a draft.
In point of fact, companies do send out drafts for signatures. The company I work at does; there's a standard document for our terms with purchase orders that we send to the vendor. Some vendors simply sign the draft and send it back. Others redline sections, make notes, and send that back for review on our end and it goes back and forth a bit as details are hashed out. I've heard it a lot of different ways about what WotC was doing with 1.1 and will not claim to know their intentions, but it is correct to refer to a copy of an agreement as a "draft" until all parties have agreed to the terms.
That would only work if everyone that signed these licenses had a unique, individual license that only worked for them, and they had the ability/option to send it back with notes to WotC - that's not the scenario we're talking about here.
If it was just a draft, and they were really going to take feedback or notes, but also they wanted people to sign it - what would they do when the people who had notes wanted changes made? Would they have made an OGL 1.12 that only applies to them?
It's a legally binding contract that has to apply to thousands of businesses and products, it's not just a single individual license that can be easily negotiated on a whim like many other, smaller incidents of the same type of paperwork. If the language in it wasn't finished, or potentially was going to change, then they wouldn't have ever asked any businesses to sign it, or told Kickstarter that they had a sweetheart deal with a lower percentage - it was never a draft, they just want people to think it was because it makes them look less evil. Logically though I don't know how anyone could think it was a draft if people were both forced to sign an NDA to see it, asked to sign it, AND Kickstarter came out and said they had a done-deal percentage arrangement - these things mean that the presented 1.1 OGL was finished, completed, from Wizards perspective.
It's only a draft retroactively because otherwise they'd have to admit they were really going to try and pull this stuff, for realsies.
They could potentially have negotiated, or at least attempted to negotiate, unique terms. Sending the document to be signed is an offer. Unless they said or implied something like "this is our non-negotiable offer", it in itself is not an indication that these are the only terms WotC would accept. I'm not saying no strong-arming was attempted, I do not know one way or the other. But simply presenting someone with a document does not mean those are your final, immovable terms, and it is correct to refer to the proffered document as a draft.
The only bad decision last in gaming are the ones you deem to be bad, all decisions can be good or positive in some ways. In the end it’s only how you see your own decisions.
(I know that I’ve left a lot out however this is only on a technical: I don’t make bad decisions mindset)
Wizards of the Coast is the murderer. They are trying to murder us, the community, by killing the OGL and removing our rights. They are the ones who started this ENTIRE thing, with their actions.
You don't say that leakers are to blame because they told you ahead of time that someone was planning on murdering you - the person to blame is the one who is doing the murder in the first place. Not the informant giving you a heads up about it.
Wizards of the Coast isn't murdering anyone though. They are modifying their License on their intellectual property? Stopping racism and hate is not killing the Open Game License. If they wanted to kill the OGL, they would have just gone on and done it without bothering to ask for our feedback on the contract.
But no, they are taking the advice of many members in the community and working in order to not kill third-party publishing. Updating your License and destroying it are different things. So far at least, Wizards of the Coast hasn't destroyed the Open Game License and has promised to keep it.
So yeah, be upset if someone is trying to kill you. However, no one is trying to do that. What Wizards is actually trying to do is please you and update their own License, while making it still available and helpful for third-party publishers. We're at a "Wait and see" moment right now, where Wizards of the Coast seems to be listening to us, but we don't know for sure whether or not the terms will be alright.
In other words, Wizards of the Coast is not killing anyone or anything. They have explicitly said they will not destroy the OGL. Screaming angrily is not - and will almost never be - justified. Getting riled up and angry is ineffective, calmly thanking Wizards for listening to you and then gently making your proposals is the logical and kind way to proceed. Inventing ridiculous hypothetical situations about murder does not in anyway justify anger and a lack of civility, which you seem to be saying it does.
In all honesty though, I do agree with you that leaking correct and important information is not necessarily a sin. However, if you repeatedly leak things that turn out to be false, then that is when issues start to arise. When you convey highly confidential business plans that could stoke up massive anger, you have a duty to the community to make sure you do not get them upset over nothing. Unfortunately, D&D Shorts' sources have consistently failed in this regard.
I don't know what to tell you bud. I can't hand hold you through this whole thing. I'll end with a few points you'll disregard anyway.
- OGL 1.1 pointed clearly in the same direction that the leakers talk about. Like clear as day..
-Treantmonk was suspicious for the same reasons I keep seeing you and others say over and over. Until he was brought into the fold as a way to ease the community's doubts to the validity of the WotC leakers.. Treantmonk seemed satisfied with the validity of the information, then made his own 'lukewarm' take.
- The 6th leaker, who said the survey stuff was completely left out of the last video.
The leakers basically confirmed what I already thought based on the 1.1.. DnDShorts or not lol.. But i'm prob just thinking irrationally. Like my favorite person in the DnD community.
Ignoring the clear passive aggressiveness that is present in this post, many of your points are speculation at best. Open Game License 1.1 had nothing about loot-boxes or Wizards of the Coast making video games and VTTs. Just because D&D Shorts' (routinely false) "insider leaks" appeal to your preconceived notions of Wizards doesn't necessarily mean that his information is accurate. The fact of the situation is that Shorts has been wrong over and over again, and trusting him at this point is approaching ridiculousness.
Just because one YouTuber believes another Youtuber doesn't mean that both of those people are correct. As I literally just outlined in the post you replied to, there are numerous ways in which the verification process Treantmonk was involved in could be flawed. The fact that D&D Shorts says the 6th leaker was left out doesn't mean this new rumor is true. Shorts has gotten a number of things wrong recently, not just his statements about Wizards of the Coast's feedback surveys, which was followed by a half-apology that shockingly didn't see any accusations of gaslighting...
The mere fact that you think I'm being literal with my analogy about murder proves that you either don't get this stuff on the level we're discussing it or you're being intentionally obtuse in order to troll. Either way I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who's at this understanding level without being really viciously mean, and I am trying to be better about that, so... I think that's all I can let myself say on that.
maybe we need a sports reference in this case: this thing has been a like bad boxing match. The "Draft" of the contract was a sucker punch, By WotC there is no mistaking it for anything but an unexpected attack before the round even starts. the Leak of OGL1.1 was 3pp raising their arms to defend themselves. Round one ended with the announcement the ORC by Paizo Second round began with the poorly worded "we all won" with the subtext that we should all calm down and fall into line but really it is just a feint setting us up for the jab that is the OGL 1.2 and the attempted uppercut to try and cow the VTT makers into ceding the creation of animations into WotC's greedy hands. except for the uppercut missed. WotC can ask the makers to lock animations out of 5e they cannot stop the current crop VTT's from using animations at all They do not own the rights to said animations so they are S.O.L. and on the ropes with the community hammering them left and right. Back to the initial Boxing reference. they sucker punched the community and 3pp we have every reason to be defensive and not trust them. Quit preaching for us to trust them.
Stage one of any debate is to discredit the people you oppose.
Many people in the D&D community don't want to believe that Wizards of the Coast did anything wrong, so the natural instinct is to discredit anyone who suggests otherwise.
Its a natural reaction and I get it, but truth is true whether you believe it or not. What Wizards of the Coast is doing... it has and is happening, this fact doesn't require you to believe it.
Stage one of any debate is to discredit the people you oppose.
Many people in the D&D community don't want to believe that Wizards of the Coast did anything wrong, so the natural instinct is to discredit anyone who suggests otherwise.
Its a natural reaction and I get it, but truth is true whether you believe it or not. What Wizards of the Coast is doing... it has and is happening, this fact doesn't require you to believe it.
This. People found one "inaccuracy" (by relying on a party that is, in fact, a known proven liar) in something that DnD_Shorts was told and they try and paint him as an unreliable over it, despite the fact that later communications address the inaccuracy, omit that source, and describe their methodology in order to support the reliability of other information.
"You can't trust DnD_Shorts! They got one thing wrong, sortof, according to the party we know is dishonest - even in the best case scenario!"
Seriously, best case scenario they sent 1.1 to scare people along with a custom sweetheart deal 'to be negotiated' so that they wouldn't be the ones stuck with the terrible terms in the generic 1.1. Thats intimidation.
They've also misled about the intent and purpose of the original OGL - trying to imply it wasn't intended to include video games and electronic products, despite their own FAQs and the public statements of its authors that if they had wanted to they would have excluded those - since this started.
I have no idea why anyone would take WotC's word for anything over DnDShorts, who at least took steps to address their trustworthiness, when it came into question. WotC hasn't done jack so far to address the fact that they're on shaky legal ground to begin with, and have tried to consistently gaslight people people as to their own motives and the nature of the agreement they're working with.
People shouldn't take Shorts as absolute truth, but acting as if he's not reliable enough to take precautions is silly.
If the language in it wasn't finished, or potentially was going to change, then they wouldn't have ever asked any businesses to sign it, or told Kickstarter that they had a sweetheart deal with a lower percentage
Sigh. Think this through logically.
We know, for a fact, that Kickstarter was still negotiating and getting a separate deal, because they said so publicly.
Why would they be the only ones? Why wouldn't other third parties also be able to negotiate and get deals unique to them and their specific circumstances?
We know for a fact that Kickstarter had a settled, agreed upon lower percentage that they had enough confidence in to tell people without a doubt that they'd be able to get people to only have to pay a 20% revenue, instead of 25%.
If they didn't have that signed and in writing, do you really think they'd have been promising it to people?
Why would they offer anyone else other than another funding platform a similar sweetheart deal if they didn't feel they had to? The only other similar entity I can think of is Gofundme, which isn't nearly as popular with TTRPG funding, that's more for medical bills because this is America, living hellscape of capitalism. Other third party creators aren't offering a platform for people to host TTRPG campaigns and get funding to make them like Kickstarter is, it's kind of unique compared to other 3p creators. Think about it logically.
No company would tell you 'Hey guys, I got you guys a great deal, don't worry about the cost so much!' if they didn't have that deal settled and done. Joannes doesn't tell us that we can buy the latest sewing machine for $500 when the manufacturer hasn't even told them how much the MSRP for each unit is. That's just not how business works, especially at a level where saying 'Oh we got you guys a special 20% deal!' would be so costly if it was wrong.
There are very few third party content creators [honestly I think only Critical Role] that would have enough weight and clout in the community for WotC to warrant a sweetheart deal with - and I suspect they did actually offer them a sweetheart deal, maybe they even signed it who knows, we all know that these contracts also came with NDA's people had to sign so they're not exactly at liberty to tell us. Just another factor on how finalized the contract is, btw.
We know for a fact that Kickstarter had a settled, agreed upon lower percentage that they had enough confidence in to tell people without a doubt that they'd be able to get people to only have to pay a 20% revenue, instead of 25%.
If they didn't have that signed and in writing, do you really think they'd have been promising it to people?
The scariest part to me is that a company like Kickstarter thought 1.1 was "real" enough and final enough to settle for a mere 5% cut in Royalties.
Anyone that believes that 1.1 was a "draft" in the sense of a "incomplete document submitted for feedback and review" should keep that in mind - Kickstarter isn't some small or nobody company, and they sure treated it like it was a done deal.
The "go live" date on the 1.1 "draft" was almost certainly written with intent, and the claim it wasn't intended to be a final document is beyond tenuous. We have every reason to believe Hasbro/WotC intended that to be the real, final version of the new OGL until the leak and outcry made them try to adjust - whatever they claim after the fact.
We know for a fact that Kickstarter had a settled, agreed upon lower percentage that they had enough confidence in to tell people without a doubt that they'd be able to get people to only have to pay a 20% revenue, instead of 25%.
If they didn't have that signed and in writing, do you really think they'd have been promising it to people?
The scariest part to me is that a company like Kickstarter thought 1.1 was "real" enough and final enough to settle for a mere 5% cut in Royalties.
Anyone that believes that 1.1 was a "draft" in the sense of a "incomplete document submitted for feedback and review" should keep that in mind - Kickstarter isn't some small or nobody company, and they sure treated it like it was a done deal.
The "go live" date on the 1.1 "draft" was almost certainly written with intent, and the claim it wasn't intended to be a final document is beyond tenuous. We have every reason to believe Hasbro/WotC intended that to be the real, final version of the new OGL until the leak and outcry made them try to adjust - whatever they claim after the fact.
Exactly! Kickstarter literally negotiated with them and told us from their own PR mouths, in public, that they fought for us to be able to get only 20% screwed instead of 25% screwed. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if they had approached WotC and asked for much less and been denied over and over again, I expect that whoever was negotiating on WotC's behalf was presenting this situation as if it were a done deal, like they were going to be taking 25% no matter what and **** off with any other requests - that is the attitude they had at the beginning of all this, remember? With their whole 'we won too' BS. What children.
Kickstarter is a big deal - significnatly bigger than Gofundme, and you're absolutely right. The fact that they only got it down to 20% is both shocking and telling, in that I think WotC REALLY overestimated just how strongly they'd be able to take the stance of changing to the 1.1. I don't know how anyone could ever think it was a draft, Kickstarter would never in a million years have promised us a lower percentage if they didn't have that absolutely finalized, because if they were wrong and they'd told people that? A HUGE portion of their kickstarting business would have been pissed as hell at them, and they may have even been legally liable in some way by promising one thing and delivering another. Between the social cost of losing reputation and the potential financial cost of having to settle any lawsuits or even pay the 5% themselves in order to cover it for a certain time to 'make up' for their mistake - there's just no way they'd have done that. The risk would have been insanely high if they didn't have it signed and in writing.
Between that and the fact that I saw from other third party people that they 1. had a date to sign it by and 2. were told if they didn't sign it by that date, they would be in violation of copyright law and potentially liable for lawsuits, that tells me that WotC really thought they had a done deal here.
You don't roll up with a rough draft but give people a week to sign it, but also maybe you could still make edits, but also you need 100 different people to sign it and agree to it, and you sent it all to them at the beginning of the week with strict instructions to get it back to you within a week. Like, this whole back and forth idea that people could have asked for changes is just ridiculous on it's face. WotC has been trying to act bigger than it's britches and it's only since the Kyle Brink message that they've SLIGHTLY changed tune, and even then their own 'conversation with the community' about it has been pretty light and opaque from their side of the table. Almost as if they didn't really want to hear what we had to say about it in the first place or something...
We know for a fact that Kickstarter had a settled, agreed upon lower percentage that they had enough confidence in to tell people without a doubt that they'd be able to get people to only have to pay a 20% revenue, instead of 25%.
If they didn't have that signed and in writing, do you really think they'd have been promising it to people?
Yeah, why bother with facts when you can just make stuff up. The actual quote from the Kickstarter exec:
Kickstarter was contacted after WoTC decided to make OGL changes, so we felt the best move was to advocate for creators, which we did. Managed to get lower % plus more being discussed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
That link you posted is a tweet by a KS employee confirming this from Linda Codega, because she was reporting that Kickstarter would be the official preferred funding platform of WotC ~ He confirmed that they had 20%, which is the finance side of things, and his whole 'discussing more' statement can't really be about finances since the 20% was apparently agreed upon by both parties, Wotc and KS. If they were still trying to negotiate them down money wise he probably would have said so, but I think he phrased it the way he did because he wanted it to sound like they were really going to bat for the community.
Just because they advocated for us and were saying they were still asking for more doesn't mean that they also didn't have a done deal, I'd believe much more likely that they were simply presenting it in a way that made them look better or were asking for Wizards for more concessions [but I'm not even sure what those would be, what 'more' is there other than the percentage that they could even be asking for?].
You sure are trusting WotC a lot because one dude from KS said 'Managed to get a lower % plus more being discussed.' that's not a lot of evidence to me to believe that WotC isn't an evil corporation trying to do obviously greedy actions. All it does is confirm that KS managed to get them to agree to 20% instead of 25, that's it. I mean, they went from the current model of OGL which doesn't entitle them to any royalties to asking for 25% of gross revenue from these same projects - and they did it seriously! Not a joke! I'm an illustrator and the kind of royalty contracts that I see are usually like 5% of profits, 2.5% of profits, etc. Never gross revenue. Never anything like 25%. The fact that WotC is doing this with a straight face already is beyond the pale, and I believe that they wanted it to be real and were doing anything they could to make it happen until the community caught wind of it and now they're doing anything they can to try and pretend that their evil scheme wasn't really that evil or that solidified in the first place. I'm not buying it dude, sorry.
Between that and the fact that I saw from other third party people that they 1. had a date to sign it by and 2. were told if they didn't sign it by that date, they would be in violation of copyright law and potentially liable for lawsuits, that tells me that WotC really thought they had a done deal here.
This, everything I have heard is that 1.1 was absolutely not a draft. The only thing that has contested that was Linda Codega's tweet that ogl 1.1 was a draft. Then I saw Linda's interview on Roll for Combat where they say that they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO CALL IT A DRAFT. Meanwhile the host lambastes the 1.1 as NOT A DRAFT.
timestamps acting weird in embed. its short after it starts playing.
This, everything I have heard is that 1.1 was absolutely not a draft. The only thing that has contested that was Linda Codega's tweet that ogl 1.1 was a draft. Then I saw Linda's interview on Roll for Combat where they say that they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO CALL IT A DRAFT. Meanwhile the host lambastes the 1.1 as NOT A DRAFT.
Just a hint: if they're legally obligated to call it a draft, it's a draft. It's just that 'draft' covers a multitude of states, ranging from rough draft to final review, and 1.1 was clearly closer to the latter.
This, everything I have heard is that 1.1 was absolutely not a draft. The only thing that has contested that was Linda Codega's tweet that ogl 1.1 was a draft. Then I saw Linda's interview on Roll for Combat where they say that they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO CALL IT A DRAFT. Meanwhile the host lambastes the 1.1 as NOT A DRAFT.
Just a hint: if they're legally obligated to call it a draft, it's a draft. It's just that 'draft' covers a multitude of states, ranging from rough draft to final review, and 1.1 was clearly closer to the latter.
None of which changes the fact that WotC describing it as a draft was done in a misleading manner, intended to portray it as a non-final document that was intended to be updated based on feedback.
It wasn't- it may have technically been a "draft", but if so it was a final draft intended for people to agree to immediately and have it go into force essentially a week after it wad presented.
The specific wording is ultimately a distraction - they presented 1.1 to creators in such a way that they were being strong armed into capitulation or negotiation, with the understanding that 1.1 was the deal that everyone who didn't beg for better terms was going to be stuck with.
None of which changes the fact that WotC describing it as a draft was done in a misleading manner, intended to portray it as a non-final document that was intended to be updated based on feedback.
I honestly do not care if WotC tries to apply a fig leaf. I do care if they outright lie but... it's not a lie.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hmm
In point of fact, companies do send out drafts for signatures. The company I work at does; there's a standard document for our terms with purchase orders that we send to the vendor. Some vendors simply sign the draft and send it back. Others redline sections, make notes, and send that back for review on our end and it goes back and forth a bit as details are hashed out. I've heard it a lot of different ways about what WotC was doing with 1.1 and will not claim to know their intentions, but it is correct to refer to a copy of an agreement as a "draft" until all parties have agreed to the terms.
That would only work if everyone that signed these licenses had a unique, individual license that only worked for them, and they had the ability/option to send it back with notes to WotC - that's not the scenario we're talking about here.
If it was just a draft, and they were really going to take feedback or notes, but also they wanted people to sign it - what would they do when the people who had notes wanted changes made? Would they have made an OGL 1.12 that only applies to them?
It's a legally binding contract that has to apply to thousands of businesses and products, it's not just a single individual license that can be easily negotiated on a whim like many other, smaller incidents of the same type of paperwork. If the language in it wasn't finished, or potentially was going to change, then they wouldn't have ever asked any businesses to sign it, or told Kickstarter that they had a sweetheart deal with a lower percentage - it was never a draft, they just want people to think it was because it makes them look less evil. Logically though I don't know how anyone could think it was a draft if people were both forced to sign an NDA to see it, asked to sign it, AND Kickstarter came out and said they had a done-deal percentage arrangement - these things mean that the presented 1.1 OGL was finished, completed, from Wizards perspective.
It's only a draft retroactively because otherwise they'd have to admit they were really going to try and pull this stuff, for realsies.
Sigh. Think this through logically.
We know, for a fact, that Kickstarter was still negotiating and getting a separate deal, because they said so publicly.
Why would they be the only ones? Why wouldn't other third parties also be able to negotiate and get deals unique to them and their specific circumstances?
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)
They could potentially have negotiated, or at least attempted to negotiate, unique terms. Sending the document to be signed is an offer. Unless they said or implied something like "this is our non-negotiable offer", it in itself is not an indication that these are the only terms WotC would accept. I'm not saying no strong-arming was attempted, I do not know one way or the other. But simply presenting someone with a document does not mean those are your final, immovable terms, and it is correct to refer to the proffered document as a draft.
I object to this title.
The only bad decision last in gaming are the ones you deem to be bad, all decisions can be good or positive in some ways. In the end it’s only how you see your own decisions.
(I know that I’ve left a lot out however this is only on a technical: I don’t make bad decisions mindset)
When you make a really bad call in business you own it and try to do better or if you can you course correct.
It’s not hard to see this was a stupendously bad call, it’s that simple.
The mere fact that you think I'm being literal with my analogy about murder proves that you either don't get this stuff on the level we're discussing it or you're being intentionally obtuse in order to troll. Either way I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who's at this understanding level without being really viciously mean, and I am trying to be better about that, so... I think that's all I can let myself say on that.
maybe we need a sports reference in this case:
this thing has been a like bad boxing match. The "Draft" of the contract was a sucker punch, By WotC there is no mistaking it for anything but an unexpected attack before the round even starts. the Leak of OGL1.1 was 3pp raising their arms to defend themselves. Round one ended with the announcement the ORC by Paizo Second round began with the poorly worded "we all won" with the subtext that we should all calm down and fall into line but really it is just a feint setting us up for the jab that is the OGL 1.2 and the attempted uppercut to try and cow the VTT makers into ceding the creation of animations into WotC's greedy hands. except for the uppercut missed. WotC can ask the makers to lock animations out of 5e they cannot stop the current crop VTT's from using animations at all They do not own the rights to said animations so they are S.O.L. and on the ropes with the community hammering them left and right. Back to the initial Boxing reference. they sucker punched the community and 3pp we have every reason to be defensive and not trust them. Quit preaching for us to trust them.
Stage one of any debate is to discredit the people you oppose.
Many people in the D&D community don't want to believe that Wizards of the Coast did anything wrong, so the natural instinct is to discredit anyone who suggests otherwise.
Its a natural reaction and I get it, but truth is true whether you believe it or not. What Wizards of the Coast is doing... it has and is happening, this fact doesn't require you to believe it.
This. People found one "inaccuracy" (by relying on a party that is, in fact, a known proven liar) in something that DnD_Shorts was told and they try and paint him as an unreliable over it, despite the fact that later communications address the inaccuracy, omit that source, and describe their methodology in order to support the reliability of other information.
"You can't trust DnD_Shorts! They got one thing wrong, sortof, according to the party we know is dishonest - even in the best case scenario!"
Seriously, best case scenario they sent 1.1 to scare people along with a custom sweetheart deal 'to be negotiated' so that they wouldn't be the ones stuck with the terrible terms in the generic 1.1. Thats intimidation.
They've also misled about the intent and purpose of the original OGL - trying to imply it wasn't intended to include video games and electronic products, despite their own FAQs and the public statements of its authors that if they had wanted to they would have excluded those - since this started.
I have no idea why anyone would take WotC's word for anything over DnDShorts, who at least took steps to address their trustworthiness, when it came into question. WotC hasn't done jack so far to address the fact that they're on shaky legal ground to begin with, and have tried to consistently gaslight people people as to their own motives and the nature of the agreement they're working with.
People shouldn't take Shorts as absolute truth, but acting as if he's not reliable enough to take precautions is silly.
We know for a fact that Kickstarter had a settled, agreed upon lower percentage that they had enough confidence in to tell people without a doubt that they'd be able to get people to only have to pay a 20% revenue, instead of 25%.
If they didn't have that signed and in writing, do you really think they'd have been promising it to people?
Why would they offer anyone else other than another funding platform a similar sweetheart deal if they didn't feel they had to? The only other similar entity I can think of is Gofundme, which isn't nearly as popular with TTRPG funding, that's more for medical bills because this is America, living hellscape of capitalism. Other third party creators aren't offering a platform for people to host TTRPG campaigns and get funding to make them like Kickstarter is, it's kind of unique compared to other 3p creators. Think about it logically.
No company would tell you 'Hey guys, I got you guys a great deal, don't worry about the cost so much!' if they didn't have that deal settled and done. Joannes doesn't tell us that we can buy the latest sewing machine for $500 when the manufacturer hasn't even told them how much the MSRP for each unit is. That's just not how business works, especially at a level where saying 'Oh we got you guys a special 20% deal!' would be so costly if it was wrong.
There are very few third party content creators [honestly I think only Critical Role] that would have enough weight and clout in the community for WotC to warrant a sweetheart deal with - and I suspect they did actually offer them a sweetheart deal, maybe they even signed it who knows, we all know that these contracts also came with NDA's people had to sign so they're not exactly at liberty to tell us. Just another factor on how finalized the contract is, btw.
The scariest part to me is that a company like Kickstarter thought 1.1 was "real" enough and final enough to settle for a mere 5% cut in Royalties.
Anyone that believes that 1.1 was a "draft" in the sense of a "incomplete document submitted for feedback and review" should keep that in mind - Kickstarter isn't some small or nobody company, and they sure treated it like it was a done deal.
The "go live" date on the 1.1 "draft" was almost certainly written with intent, and the claim it wasn't intended to be a final document is beyond tenuous. We have every reason to believe Hasbro/WotC intended that to be the real, final version of the new OGL until the leak and outcry made them try to adjust - whatever they claim after the fact.
Exactly! Kickstarter literally negotiated with them and told us from their own PR mouths, in public, that they fought for us to be able to get only 20% screwed instead of 25% screwed. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if they had approached WotC and asked for much less and been denied over and over again, I expect that whoever was negotiating on WotC's behalf was presenting this situation as if it were a done deal, like they were going to be taking 25% no matter what and **** off with any other requests - that is the attitude they had at the beginning of all this, remember? With their whole 'we won too' BS. What children.
Kickstarter is a big deal - significnatly bigger than Gofundme, and you're absolutely right. The fact that they only got it down to 20% is both shocking and telling, in that I think WotC REALLY overestimated just how strongly they'd be able to take the stance of changing to the 1.1. I don't know how anyone could ever think it was a draft, Kickstarter would never in a million years have promised us a lower percentage if they didn't have that absolutely finalized, because if they were wrong and they'd told people that? A HUGE portion of their kickstarting business would have been pissed as hell at them, and they may have even been legally liable in some way by promising one thing and delivering another. Between the social cost of losing reputation and the potential financial cost of having to settle any lawsuits or even pay the 5% themselves in order to cover it for a certain time to 'make up' for their mistake - there's just no way they'd have done that. The risk would have been insanely high if they didn't have it signed and in writing.
Between that and the fact that I saw from other third party people that they 1. had a date to sign it by and 2. were told if they didn't sign it by that date, they would be in violation of copyright law and potentially liable for lawsuits, that tells me that WotC really thought they had a done deal here.
You don't roll up with a rough draft but give people a week to sign it, but also maybe you could still make edits, but also you need 100 different people to sign it and agree to it, and you sent it all to them at the beginning of the week with strict instructions to get it back to you within a week. Like, this whole back and forth idea that people could have asked for changes is just ridiculous on it's face. WotC has been trying to act bigger than it's britches and it's only since the Kyle Brink message that they've SLIGHTLY changed tune, and even then their own 'conversation with the community' about it has been pretty light and opaque from their side of the table. Almost as if they didn't really want to hear what we had to say about it in the first place or something...
Yeah, why bother with facts when you can just make stuff up. The actual quote from the Kickstarter exec:
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)
That link you posted is a tweet by a KS employee confirming this from Linda Codega, because she was reporting that Kickstarter would be the official preferred funding platform of WotC ~ He confirmed that they had 20%, which is the finance side of things, and his whole 'discussing more' statement can't really be about finances since the 20% was apparently agreed upon by both parties, Wotc and KS. If they were still trying to negotiate them down money wise he probably would have said so, but I think he phrased it the way he did because he wanted it to sound like they were really going to bat for the community.
Just because they advocated for us and were saying they were still asking for more doesn't mean that they also didn't have a done deal, I'd believe much more likely that they were simply presenting it in a way that made them look better or were asking for Wizards for more concessions [but I'm not even sure what those would be, what 'more' is there other than the percentage that they could even be asking for?].
You sure are trusting WotC a lot because one dude from KS said 'Managed to get a lower % plus more being discussed.' that's not a lot of evidence to me to believe that WotC isn't an evil corporation trying to do obviously greedy actions. All it does is confirm that KS managed to get them to agree to 20% instead of 25, that's it. I mean, they went from the current model of OGL which doesn't entitle them to any royalties to asking for 25% of gross revenue from these same projects - and they did it seriously! Not a joke! I'm an illustrator and the kind of royalty contracts that I see are usually like 5% of profits, 2.5% of profits, etc. Never gross revenue. Never anything like 25%. The fact that WotC is doing this with a straight face already is beyond the pale, and I believe that they wanted it to be real and were doing anything they could to make it happen until the community caught wind of it and now they're doing anything they can to try and pretend that their evil scheme wasn't really that evil or that solidified in the first place. I'm not buying it dude, sorry.
This, everything I have heard is that 1.1 was absolutely not a draft. The only thing that has contested that was Linda Codega's tweet that ogl 1.1 was a draft. Then I saw Linda's interview on Roll for Combat where they say that they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO CALL IT A DRAFT. Meanwhile the host lambastes the 1.1 as NOT A DRAFT.
timestamps acting weird in embed. its short after it starts playing.
Just a hint: if they're legally obligated to call it a draft, it's a draft. It's just that 'draft' covers a multitude of states, ranging from rough draft to final review, and 1.1 was clearly closer to the latter.
None of which changes the fact that WotC describing it as a draft was done in a misleading manner, intended to portray it as a non-final document that was intended to be updated based on feedback.
It wasn't- it may have technically been a "draft", but if so it was a final draft intended for people to agree to immediately and have it go into force essentially a week after it wad presented.
The specific wording is ultimately a distraction - they presented 1.1 to creators in such a way that they were being strong armed into capitulation or negotiation, with the understanding that 1.1 was the deal that everyone who didn't beg for better terms was going to be stuck with.
I honestly do not care if WotC tries to apply a fig leaf. I do care if they outright lie but... it's not a lie.