Just because we stopped WotC from changing or deauthorizing OGL 1.0(a) does not mean that future editions will be safe. One D&D has not been announced to fall under OGL1.0(a), nor under CC. I'm not even sure if they said that the future edition will have an SRD at all.
If we, and they, want this golden age of D&D to continue, the game must remain as open as 5e will now be forever even into future editions. That is what it will take to regain my trust and subscription: a vow for every future edition to have an SRD to enter into Creative Commons or to add to the OGL or another open license they do not control (such as the ORC, should it be one the community can stand behind).
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
I was going to make a new thread but this seems like a good place for it - building on the above post.
If you look at the SRD (either version), it clearly discusses race, ability scores, and character generation in the same terms as 2014: racial ASI, uses the term "race" (instead of "species" or whichever nomenclature they land on), and so on. And it seems a good certainty that the next version/update to the game will do away with racially-based ASIs and the term race itself (note that this is not a bid to reopen those raging debates).
So my thinking is that Hasbro/WOTC caved so quickly due to two factors: the immediate pressure of mass unsubscribes and global bad press - and knowing that the rules set that comes out in 2024 is not going to be covered by 1.0a and the SRD. It seems indisputable at this point, given the significant differences in character creation we know are coming. Wizbro seems to be banking on the vast majority of customers leaving 5E behind and joining up with OneD&D (and, presumably, snagging a lot of new customers with a sexy new branded and official VTT).
I think we could easily be looking at a 4E situation all over again, despite the intensity of the last 4 weeks. Wizbro tipped their hand with the leaked draft contracts; I fully expect OneD&D/6E to NOT be covered by the OGL or SRD, but will instead of have new, far more restrictive licenses and/or contracts.
WotC did exactly what you asked for. It's a little unreasonable to expect them to do more. Especially considering that WotC is, in fact, a for-profit company.
One D&D, as it currently looks in the playtest, is very similar to 5e and is backwards compatible. If that's the case, then a more restrictive licensing structure doesn't really make sense - 3rd parties will still be able to publish One D&D compatible things. Other OGL products have dropped the term "race" for "lineage" or "ancestry", so I just don't see it. You could make what we've seen of One D&D using the OGL right now - look at "Level Up", for example.
One D&D, as it currently looks in the playtest, is very similar to 5e and is backwards compatible. If that's the case, then a more restrictive licensing structure doesn't really make sense - 3rd parties will still be able to publish One D&D compatible things. Other OGL products have dropped the term "race" for "lineage" or "ancestry", so I just don't see it. You could make what we've seen of One D&D using the OGL right now - look at "Level Up", for example.
I hope you're right! I have no idea if the differences between 5E and whatever is next will both fall under the OGL even if terms and rules in the games change.
Whatever they do with the next edition has to succeed or fail on it's own, with whatever WotC decides to do. They have made no promises about the next edition to break, they have not lied to us about it (yet), nor have they tried to stongarm 3rd party creators. If WotC managed to produce material or a VTT so good the existing ones are abandoned to where they are no longer economical is one thing, trying to force the issue through sketchy (at best) legal processes is another.
I cannot see in any way that they are obligated to continue with the OGL with a new edition.
If they decide not to use the OGL for the next edition, or heavily modify it such that it discourages 3rd party creators will either affect their success or it won't. The market and their ability to produce good content should be the sole decider.
Hopefully they will reflect on the community wishes and on 4e (as, if i understand it right, the lack of 3rd party support at least partially impacted on it's relative lack of success).
Let's fight that fight if it comes. Being pissed about something that might happen doesn't do anyone any good. They know how powerful and organized the community is now. Let's give them the opportunity to regain our trust.
Not altering an existing deal for an existing product, and submitting themselves to the same deal while creating a new product are two completely different things. They can, and will create a new license for the new iteration (aka OneD&D) of the game, only thing anyone can hope is they've learned a bit or two from the OGL desaster, and it will be more cooperative than their last drafts. If we don't like the new business model that will probably come with all that, we (again) can vote with our wallets. Until then cautious observation will be the way to go for me.
Yeah, no. It's reasonable to want a consistent license for something after it's been published, but for WotC to say "we can never ever publish anything under any other license for all of time" would be just about the stupidest thing ever. Things change. Perpetual (and irrevocable) licenses don't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I fully expect stuff going forward to not be under the OGL, but I'm also not that beat up about it. Why?
The fight we just won leaves us with a thriving community of 3rd party 5e content. 5e can continue to grow and evolve on its own with or without WotC.
It will be on them to design a system that is attractive enough to pull us away from what we already have. If it's not worth the switch, we just won't switch.
Don't look at it like OneD&D is threatening this "golden age." It's more that the golden age is threatening OneD&D. The ball is in their court to win us over, and we lose nothing if they don't succeed.
In all honesty, I hope that the Open Game License is modified when 1DD releases. Namely, I think it's important to have some sort of clause to stop hate and bigotry in third-party works. This doesn't necessarily have to be a morality clause, but there should at least be something to help prevent hate.
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.
In all honesty, I hope that the Open Game License is modified when 1DD releases. Namely, I think it's important to have some sort of clause to stop hate and bigotry in third-party works. This doesn't necessarily have to be a morality clause, but there should at least be something to help prevent hate.
Kiss a lot of 3PP goodbye by default I imagine if they do that including, IMO likely, a lot of LGBTQ content. Especially if ORC and other open licenses with other good systems are in full gear by then.
This entire conversation strikes me as an excuse for some people to "keep fighting" a fight that is essentially over. You're welcome to do what you want with your money, but the actual thing that we were fighting over is dead. Would it be short sighted to attempt to push 3rd party content creators out of 6.0 when they don't have the library of modules and lore to justify a new system? Probably... But if they do anyway, I don't care. If they manage to 'stick things out' for 5-10 years creating new content for 6.0, to the point that they can say "we've created the entire system ourselves and it's all ours!" They can license it, or not, as they see fit. People will use it, or not, as they see fit.
Personally, I'd like to see wizards restructure, such that each "plane" of Dnd lore got it's own production team in charge of producing, say, 3 products per year? A book, a movie, and a module. That would be cool.
In all honesty, I hope that the Open Game License is modified when 1DD releases. Namely, I think it's important to have some sort of clause to stop hate and bigotry in third-party works. This doesn't necessarily have to be a morality clause, but there should at least be something to help prevent hate.
Such a clause is entirely unworkable from a business perspective. Licensing agreements need to be ROCK SOLID and leaving any kind of "hey, there's this off-chance that we will revoke your contract and leave you holding the bag" clause just doesn't work. Nobody is going to invest 1000s of hours and $100,000s into a project that they don't own. Not unless Wizards is going to put up the money to fund the project or otherwise re-imburse them for the work they're putting in. If wizards wants to pull that lever, than fine. Otherwise, 86% of 3rd party publishers have spoken.
Such a clause is entirely unworkable from a business perspective. Licensing agreements need to be ROCK SOLID and leaving any kind of "hey, there's this off-chance that we will revoke your contract and leave you holding the bag" clause just doesn't work.
That's not really true, it's not terribly rare to bet your entire business on uncertain things (most notably, 'will the public actually like this product') and this would just be Yet One More Risk, but it's certainly not a risk you'd take without an actual good reason to take it.
I would point out that major distribution networks already have acceptable content rules in place, so finding yourself banished to the backwaters of the internet is already a significant risk.
This is exactly why I was hoping they would replace 1.0a with something better and agreeable to 3PPs so that the next SRD would more likely be released under that than under some unknown draconic OGL of the future.
Such a clause is entirely unworkable from a business perspective. Licensing agreements need to be ROCK SOLID and leaving any kind of "hey, there's this off-chance that we will revoke your contract and leave you holding the bag" clause just doesn't work.
That's not really true, it's not terribly rare to bet your entire business on uncertain things (most notably, 'will the public actually like this product') and this would just be Yet One More Risk, but it's certainly not a risk you'd take without an actual good reason to take it.
I would point out that major distribution networks already have acceptable content rules in place, so finding yourself banished to the backwaters of the internet is already a significant risk.
What does one have to do with the other? If D&D beyond wants to get into the publishing business, then fine. To my knowledge, WotC doesn't have a Youtube-like property, and we aren't talking about publishing under their name or trademark. As for the first point: Accounting for the market, gauging interest, securing funding with a business plan, etc. That's business. This isn't that.
This is the arbitrary. This is playing Russian roulette and calling it a business model. This is dozens of IPs vanishing overnight and becoming unprintable because wizards of the coast has decided that tusks on Orcs is too racist.
The point is: you're already betting your business on people agreeing you don't engage in various sorts of conduct. Now, you might trust Wizards less (as their incentives are somewhat different), but that's an entirely separate argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just because we stopped WotC from changing or deauthorizing OGL 1.0(a) does not mean that future editions will be safe. One D&D has not been announced to fall under OGL1.0(a), nor under CC. I'm not even sure if they said that the future edition will have an SRD at all.
If we, and they, want this golden age of D&D to continue, the game must remain as open as 5e will now be forever even into future editions. That is what it will take to regain my trust and subscription: a vow for every future edition to have an SRD to enter into Creative Commons or to add to the OGL or another open license they do not control (such as the ORC, should it be one the community can stand behind).
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
I was going to make a new thread but this seems like a good place for it - building on the above post.
If you look at the SRD (either version), it clearly discusses race, ability scores, and character generation in the same terms as 2014: racial ASI, uses the term "race" (instead of "species" or whichever nomenclature they land on), and so on. And it seems a good certainty that the next version/update to the game will do away with racially-based ASIs and the term race itself (note that this is not a bid to reopen those raging debates).
So my thinking is that Hasbro/WOTC caved so quickly due to two factors: the immediate pressure of mass unsubscribes and global bad press - and knowing that the rules set that comes out in 2024 is not going to be covered by 1.0a and the SRD. It seems indisputable at this point, given the significant differences in character creation we know are coming. Wizbro seems to be banking on the vast majority of customers leaving 5E behind and joining up with OneD&D (and, presumably, snagging a lot of new customers with a sexy new branded and official VTT).
I think we could easily be looking at a 4E situation all over again, despite the intensity of the last 4 weeks. Wizbro tipped their hand with the leaked draft contracts; I fully expect OneD&D/6E to NOT be covered by the OGL or SRD, but will instead of have new, far more restrictive licenses and/or contracts.
WotC did exactly what you asked for. It's a little unreasonable to expect them to do more. Especially considering that WotC is, in fact, a for-profit company.
[REDACTED]
One D&D, as it currently looks in the playtest, is very similar to 5e and is backwards compatible. If that's the case, then a more restrictive licensing structure doesn't really make sense - 3rd parties will still be able to publish One D&D compatible things. Other OGL products have dropped the term "race" for "lineage" or "ancestry", so I just don't see it. You could make what we've seen of One D&D using the OGL right now - look at "Level Up", for example.
I hope you're right! I have no idea if the differences between 5E and whatever is next will both fall under the OGL even if terms and rules in the games change.
Whatever they do with the next edition has to succeed or fail on it's own, with whatever WotC decides to do. They have made no promises about the next edition to break, they have not lied to us about it (yet), nor have they tried to stongarm 3rd party creators. If WotC managed to produce material or a VTT so good the existing ones are abandoned to where they are no longer economical is one thing, trying to force the issue through sketchy (at best) legal processes is another.
I cannot see in any way that they are obligated to continue with the OGL with a new edition.
If they decide not to use the OGL for the next edition, or heavily modify it such that it discourages 3rd party creators will either affect their success or it won't. The market and their ability to produce good content should be the sole decider.
Hopefully they will reflect on the community wishes and on 4e (as, if i understand it right, the lack of 3rd party support at least partially impacted on it's relative lack of success).
Let's fight that fight if it comes. Being pissed about something that might happen doesn't do anyone any good. They know how powerful and organized the community is now. Let's give them the opportunity to regain our trust.
Not altering an existing deal for an existing product, and submitting themselves to the same deal while creating a new product are two completely different things. They can, and will create a new license for the new iteration (aka OneD&D) of the game, only thing anyone can hope is they've learned a bit or two from the OGL desaster, and it will be more cooperative than their last drafts. If we don't like the new business model that will probably come with all that, we (again) can vote with our wallets. Until then cautious observation will be the way to go for me.
Of course, but I am sure they have learned the lesson. It`s that or a MASSIVE migration to PF2 now that they have their own DnDB, Demiplane.
This remains to be seen when ONED&D and its terms and conditions is released. ATM i don't trust WotC to not try and pull another sneaky one.
Edit: typos
Yeah, no. It's reasonable to want a consistent license for something after it's been published, but for WotC to say "we can never ever publish anything under any other license for all of time" would be just about the stupidest thing ever. Things change. Perpetual (and irrevocable) licenses don't.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I fully expect stuff going forward to not be under the OGL, but I'm also not that beat up about it. Why?
Don't look at it like OneD&D is threatening this "golden age." It's more that the golden age is threatening OneD&D. The ball is in their court to win us over, and we lose nothing if they don't succeed.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
In all honesty, I hope that the Open Game License is modified when 1DD releases. Namely, I think it's important to have some sort of clause to stop hate and bigotry in third-party works. This doesn't necessarily have to be a morality clause, but there should at least be something to help prevent hate.
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.Kiss a lot of 3PP goodbye by default I imagine if they do that including, IMO likely, a lot of LGBTQ content. Especially if ORC and other open licenses with other good systems are in full gear by then.
This entire conversation strikes me as an excuse for some people to "keep fighting" a fight that is essentially over. You're welcome to do what you want with your money, but the actual thing that we were fighting over is dead. Would it be short sighted to attempt to push 3rd party content creators out of 6.0 when they don't have the library of modules and lore to justify a new system? Probably... But if they do anyway, I don't care. If they manage to 'stick things out' for 5-10 years creating new content for 6.0, to the point that they can say "we've created the entire system ourselves and it's all ours!" They can license it, or not, as they see fit. People will use it, or not, as they see fit.
Personally, I'd like to see wizards restructure, such that each "plane" of Dnd lore got it's own production team in charge of producing, say, 3 products per year? A book, a movie, and a module. That would be cool.
Such a clause is entirely unworkable from a business perspective. Licensing agreements need to be ROCK SOLID and leaving any kind of "hey, there's this off-chance that we will revoke your contract and leave you holding the bag" clause just doesn't work. Nobody is going to invest 1000s of hours and $100,000s into a project that they don't own. Not unless Wizards is going to put up the money to fund the project or otherwise re-imburse them for the work they're putting in. If wizards wants to pull that lever, than fine. Otherwise, 86% of 3rd party publishers have spoken.
That's not really true, it's not terribly rare to bet your entire business on uncertain things (most notably, 'will the public actually like this product') and this would just be Yet One More Risk, but it's certainly not a risk you'd take without an actual good reason to take it.
I would point out that major distribution networks already have acceptable content rules in place, so finding yourself banished to the backwaters of the internet is already a significant risk.
This is exactly why I was hoping they would replace 1.0a with something better and agreeable to 3PPs so that the next SRD would more likely be released under that than under some unknown draconic OGL of the future.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What does one have to do with the other? If D&D beyond wants to get into the publishing business, then fine. To my knowledge, WotC doesn't have a Youtube-like property, and we aren't talking about publishing under their name or trademark. As for the first point: Accounting for the market, gauging interest, securing funding with a business plan, etc. That's business. This isn't that.
This is the arbitrary. This is playing Russian roulette and calling it a business model. This is dozens of IPs vanishing overnight and becoming unprintable because wizards of the coast has decided that tusks on Orcs is too racist.
The point is: you're already betting your business on people agreeing you don't engage in various sorts of conduct. Now, you might trust Wizards less (as their incentives are somewhat different), but that's an entirely separate argument.