Who's really the one to put ogl at the feet of? DND team at WOTC? WOTC? Hasbro?
What have the done to reverse course other than lip service?
They put the 5e SRD in Creative Commons, remember? Unlike the OGL, this is a license that neither WotC nor Hasbro control, has been tested in court, is truly irrevocable, is much clearer in how it can be used, and gives both WotC and the smaller publishers using it stronger legal recourses and protections.
Personally, I've been using 5.5e to refer to it so far. WotC can call it 'The Dungeons and the Dragons: Tokyo Drift', and I'm still ultimately going to default to whatever shorthand the community consensus decides it is. Whether that is R5e, or 5.5e, or 6e, or anything else remains to be seen.
I alternate between 5.5e, 5R, 1DnD and One depending on whichever one I feel like typing that day. The one I never use for it is 6e.
Kind of reminds me of how when MicroSoft named the Xbox One, in hopes that the video gaming community would refer to it as "The One" (Similar to how the previous Xbox 360 was referred to as "The Three-Sixty"). Instead, everyone collectively agreed to call it "Xbone."
They backed down on the OGL thing, and releasing under Creative Commons was a nice gesture that showed that they wanted to reassure the community no further shenanigans like this would happen again in the future.
I do know one person who switched to DMing Pathfinder and hasn’t switched back, but that’s because they’ve decided they really like Pathfinder, not because they’re still upset over OGL.
I am warily keeping an eye on OneD&D now. I’m hoping they’ll listen to feedback and fix some of the more unpopular aspects of some of the playtest content. In particular, the mess they made of the Druid’s wildshape and the restricting Tiny size wildshapes to level 11. I’m optimistic that that was just playtest stuff and they will listen to feedback and change it. I know two people who really like druids, and they are both pretty concerned about the changes proposed in the playtest rules.
Thinking about doing a bad thing with OGL and then being convinced not to is not going to make me leave forever. And thinking about ruining druids but changing their minds and not doing it also wouldn’t make me leave. But if they actually go through with the planned changes to wildshape, then I would not use OneD&D in any game I run. Might still try it as a player, but when I’m the DM we’d be sticking to 5e or trying out other systems.
Given that 5e classes are still valid...why would 1D&D class screwups put you off? Just let players choose which they want to use. I really didn't like the proposed changes to Druids and it bothered me that they thought it was worth trying...but worst case scenario, I let Druids use 5e versions instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In particular, the mess they made of the Druid’s wildshape and the restricting Tiny size wildshapes to level 11. I’m optimistic that that was just playtest stuff and they will listen to feedback and change it.
That was two druids ago, have you seen the most recent playtest?
In particular, the mess they made of the Druid’s wildshape and the restricting Tiny size wildshapes to level 11. I’m optimistic that that was just playtest stuff and they will listen to feedback and change it.
That was two druids ago, have you seen the most recent playtest?
Ooh, I had not - that looks much better!!
I’m glad to see they listened to feedback on that too.
What they almost did with OGL still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth knowing that they’d even think of trying it. But the fact that they listened to complaints and didn’t go through with it does restore some respect there. As long as they never try to pull something like that again.
And the druid thing doesn’t leave a bad taste at all. It was playtest content, people didn’t like it, they changed it, problem solved. Exactly how playtesting is supposed to work.
At the local gaming cafe, I really don't know how many were even aware of the OGL, but I am confident to say that 5e has gone from 80% of all games played to more like 60%, even 50%. I know of a Warhammer Fantasy table, two PF2e, one PF1e table, plus my AD&D 1e table, all that run regularly, and there are likely more I don't know of. Pre-Covid there were no PF or AD&D games there. I would love to see even more games tried. My 1e table is trying out an OSE funnel on Sat, and there is someone in the local Discord trying to get a 3rd PF2e table up and running.
Oh, and of the 5e tables at the cafe, I know at least 2 that are NOT going anywhere near 6e when it comes out. Any of that material is being banned. But then, 6e is ultimately not going to be conducive to in-person sessions, as opposed to virtual sessions, so I don't think wotc really cares that much about that.
Has this been because of a loss of 5E tables or jsut an increase on the others?
p0ersonally i dont care about the OGL. In my opinion it was teh worst and best thing ever to happen to D&D. For 3rd edition it created a whole lot of junk to be published with a handful of gems. It also created a good amount of deferent genres that still survive today. I am a firm believer of "the owner of the product deserves to be paid something if others create of off their work"
A lot of the reason I (and my players) didn't care that much about the whole mess is that... I didn't expect better of them, or of any other RPG company. They're companies, not friends. Paizo is no more your friend than WotC; CC/BY is a vastly superior license for downstream creators than ORC.
Exactly. People were praising these other companies for t5hjeir announcments and saying "this is how a compnay should be run!" at teh end of the day those companies were jsut taking advantage of the blood in the water and trying to catch some fish while hoping the bait gets eaten up completly. Their whole intention is to make money. first and foremost.
As long as they never try to pull something like that again.
They couldn't even if they wanted to, because the SRD is in Creative Commons now, there's no going back. Maybe they do end up deauthorizing the OGL at some point in the future anyway (or trying to) - but even if they do, everyone who was relying on the OGL for {insert product} can just switch to that, as long as they follow the (imo much more robust on both sides) rules for that license.
p0ersonally i dont care about the OGL. In my opinion it was teh worst and best thing ever to happen to D&D. For 3rd edition it created a whole lot of junk to be published with a handful of gems. It also created a good amount of deferent genres that still survive today. I am a firm believer of "the owner of the product deserves to be paid something if others create of off their work"
I agree with this to a point. A royalty or similar payment is reasonable if you're making millions off someone else's IP. But that should only be for the big players/rivals in an industry.
p0ersonally i dont care about the OGL. In my opinion it was teh worst and best thing ever to happen to D&D. For 3rd edition it created a whole lot of junk to be published with a handful of gems. It also created a good amount of deferent genres that still survive today. I am a firm believer of "the owner of the product deserves to be paid something if others create of off their work"
The major issue IMO, is the first OGL promised it was in perpetuity and then they tried to reneg on it. You can't create a contract between your company and 3rd party creators, and then try to unilaterally change that contract after people have built their careers based on the terms of that contract. If they had just changed the contract for the new revision there would have been a significantly different response, disappointment for sure and people would have voted with their feet when it came to the new version but there wouldn't have been the boycott.
p0ersonally i dont care about the OGL. In my opinion it was teh worst and best thing ever to happen to D&D. For 3rd edition it created a whole lot of junk to be published with a handful of gems. It also created a good amount of deferent genres that still survive today. I am a firm believer of "the owner of the product deserves to be paid something if others create of off their work"
The major issue IMO, is the first OGL promised it was in perpetuity and then they tried to reneg on it. You can't create a contract between your company and 3rd party creators, and then try to unilaterally change that contract after people have built their careers based on the terms of that contract. If they had just changed the contract for the new revision there would have been a significantly different response, disappointment for sure and people would have voted with their feet when it came to the new version but there wouldn't have been the boycott.
This kind of mistaken legal analysis of the original OGL is part of why folks were so upset.
OGL 1.0 was not a contact - it was an offer of a contract. An offer of a contract holds no legal weight until accepted—in OGL 1.0’s case, the act of publishing material under OGL 1.0 constituted acceptance of the terms for that product and thus was the moment a contract was created.
Wizards never tried to unilaterally change the terms of a contract—they never even hinted that any existing OGL 1.0 license rights would be modified in any way. What they did attempt to do was change their offer—they wanted to introduce a new OGL which would apply to any future content. That is something they absolutely can do—you have a unilateral right to revoke or change your offer up until the moment there is acceptance.
The problem came because laypeople fundamentally did not understand what OGL 1.0 was—they thought it was a statement of rights they, as players, were entitled to, rather than the offer of rights, which had to be accepted pursuant to its terms to actually confer any rights or obligations between the parties.
p0ersonally i dont care about the OGL. In my opinion it was teh worst and best thing ever to happen to D&D. For 3rd edition it created a whole lot of junk to be published with a handful of gems. It also created a good amount of deferent genres that still survive today. I am a firm believer of "the owner of the product deserves to be paid something if others create of off their work"
The OGL appears to have had a few purposes. Several of which it failed at, and some of which probably came from different people.
TSR was notorious for suing fans. This was non-productive, and Wizards needed at least a truce and a fan content policy that allowed ordinary fans to share their work. It accomplished this, though it was more than was needed for that end.
Historically speaking, adventures sell a whole lot worse than sourcebooks. Farming out the adventure creation to third parties while keeping a monopoly on the core books seemed like a good idea. However, the way they tried to do this (involving, for example, not putting rules for rolling up stats in the SRD) was entirely inadequate for this goal... so it failed.
At least some people appear to have been enamored by GPL-style copyleft, which is a sticky license so if someone uses your IP, they have to release all their connected IP. However, the way the OGL permitted designating product identity effectively sabotaged this goal. The ORC is the spiritual successor to this goal. Personally, I'm reasonably confident that much of the success of the OGL was because it failed at copyleft; a copyleft license effectively sabotages the ability of a downstream creator to make money unless they manage to work around the copyleft.
p0ersonally i dont care about the OGL. In my opinion it was teh worst and best thing ever to happen to D&D. For 3rd edition it created a whole lot of junk to be published with a handful of gems. It also created a good amount of deferent genres that still survive today. I am a firm believer of "the owner of the product deserves to be paid something if others create of off their work"
The OGL appears to have had a few purposes. Several of which it failed at, and some of which probably came from different people.
TSR was notorious for suing fans. This was non-productive, and Wizards needed at least a truce and a fan content policy that allowed ordinary fans to share their work. It accomplished this, though it was more than was needed for that end.
Historically speaking, adventures sell a whole lot worse than sourcebooks. Farming out the adventure creation to third parties while keeping a monopoly on the core books seemed like a good idea. However, the way they tried to do this (involving, for example, not putting rules for rolling up stats in the SRD) was entirely inadequate for this goal... so it failed.
At least some people appear to have been enamored by GPL-style copyleft, which is a sticky license so if someone uses your IP, they have to release all their connected IP. However, the way the OGL permitted designating product identity effectively sabotaged this goal. The ORC is the spiritual successor to this goal. Personally, I'm reasonably confident that much of the success of the OGL was because it failed at copyleft; a copyleft license effectively sabotages the ability of a downstream creator to make money unless they manage to work around the copyleft.
What most people fail to realize is that the OGL covers 5e. It does not cover any new material. If 3rd party creators start producing products based on the 2024 releases, wotc will unleash their lawyers again.
What most people fail to realize is that the OGL covers 5e. It does not cover any new material. If 3rd party creators start producing products based on the 2024 releases, wotc will unleash their lawyers again.
WotC has said they'll put out a new SRD. I see no reason at this time to assume they won't.
What most people fail to realize is that the OGL covers 5e. It does not cover any new material. If 3rd party creators start producing products based on the 2024 releases, wotc will unleash their lawyers again.
SRD 5.1 is current 5e, there will be a new one for 2024 5.5e that third-party creators can use. This is not new information.
p0ersonally i dont care about the OGL. In my opinion it was teh worst and best thing ever to happen to D&D. For 3rd edition it created a whole lot of junk to be published with a handful of gems. It also created a good amount of deferent genres that still survive today. I am a firm believer of "the owner of the product deserves to be paid something if others create of off their work"
The OGL appears to have had a few purposes. Several of which it failed at, and some of which probably came from different people.
TSR was notorious for suing fans. This was non-productive, and Wizards needed at least a truce and a fan content policy that allowed ordinary fans to share their work. It accomplished this, though it was more than was needed for that end.
Historically speaking, adventures sell a whole lot worse than sourcebooks. Farming out the adventure creation to third parties while keeping a monopoly on the core books seemed like a good idea. However, the way they tried to do this (involving, for example, not putting rules for rolling up stats in the SRD) was entirely inadequate for this goal... so it failed.
At least some people appear to have been enamored by GPL-style copyleft, which is a sticky license so if someone uses your IP, they have to release all their connected IP. However, the way the OGL permitted designating product identity effectively sabotaged this goal. The ORC is the spiritual successor to this goal. Personally, I'm reasonably confident that much of the success of the OGL was because it failed at copyleft; a copyleft license effectively sabotages the ability of a downstream creator to make money unless they manage to work around the copyleft.
What most people fail to realize is that the OGL covers 5e. It does not cover any new material. If 3rd party creators start producing products based on the 2024 releases, wotc will unleash their lawyers again.
Right, because their last attempt at that went so well for them. If the issue of their proposed change to the original OGL had gone to court, they'd have won the case. Now, their market share would have taken a heavy hit from all the people jumping ship either out of protest to the changes or because the various influencers who pounced on the initial juicy gossip would have more than doubled down on all that in the interim- not to mention Paizo would undoubtedly take the opportunity to play white knight again, but the courts upholding their right to retract an offer going forward would have been all but certain. If they wanted to have this fight, they'd have had it out. The only reason they backed down was because of the PR furor that got stirred up, and if they try anything that gets made out to be that aggressive again, they'll have the same result.
This "oh, just you wait" stance people have taken honestly comes across as ridiculous; the original OGL was already put up on a pedestal as some kind of pinnacle of a licensing agreement (it wasn't, it was a quick and dirty napkin contract they wrote up before they realized just how much the game would blow up and they risked some sensationalist running a "D&D product with an official license from WotC promotes X bad thing" headline), and the agreement that would have codified the same basic rights and allowed content creators to use D&D's trademarked logo on their product as long as they didn't make the news as the aforementioned kind of product a la Gygax's stunt with Star Frontiers. It would have been a win for both sides, but instead the anti-WotC crowd beat their chests until that got nixed and we returned to the status quo, and yet we still get arguments that basically seem like they can't accept that they won already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They put the 5e SRD in Creative Commons, remember? Unlike the OGL, this is a license that neither WotC nor Hasbro control, has been tested in court, is truly irrevocable, is much clearer in how it can be used, and gives both WotC and the smaller publishers using it stronger legal recourses and protections.
I alternate between 5.5e, 5R, 1DnD and One depending on whichever one I feel like typing that day. The one I never use for it is 6e.
Kind of reminds me of how when MicroSoft named the Xbox One, in hopes that the video gaming community would refer to it as "The One" (Similar to how the previous Xbox 360 was referred to as "The Three-Sixty"). Instead, everyone collectively agreed to call it "Xbone."
Free Content: [Basic Rules],
[Phandelver],[Frozen Sick],[Acquisitions Inc.],[Vecna Dossier],[Radiant Citadel], [Spelljammer],[Dragonlance], [Prisoner 13],[Minecraft],[Star Forge], [Baldur’s Gate], [Lightning Keep], [Stormwreck Isle], [Pinebrook], [Caverns of Tsojcanth], [The Lost Horn], [Elemental Evil].Free Dice: [Frostmaiden],
[Flourishing], [Sanguine],[Themberchaud], [Baldur's Gate 3], [Lego].They backed down on the OGL thing, and releasing under Creative Commons was a nice gesture that showed that they wanted to reassure the community no further shenanigans like this would happen again in the future.
I do know one person who switched to DMing Pathfinder and hasn’t switched back, but that’s because they’ve decided they really like Pathfinder, not because they’re still upset over OGL.
I am warily keeping an eye on OneD&D now. I’m hoping they’ll listen to feedback and fix some of the more unpopular aspects of some of the playtest content. In particular, the mess they made of the Druid’s wildshape and the restricting Tiny size wildshapes to level 11. I’m optimistic that that was just playtest stuff and they will listen to feedback and change it. I know two people who really like druids, and they are both pretty concerned about the changes proposed in the playtest rules.
Thinking about doing a bad thing with OGL and then being convinced not to is not going to make me leave forever. And thinking about ruining druids but changing their minds and not doing it also wouldn’t make me leave. But if they actually go through with the planned changes to wildshape, then I would not use OneD&D in any game I run. Might still try it as a player, but when I’m the DM we’d be sticking to 5e or trying out other systems.
Given that 5e classes are still valid...why would 1D&D class screwups put you off? Just let players choose which they want to use. I really didn't like the proposed changes to Druids and it bothered me that they thought it was worth trying...but worst case scenario, I let Druids use 5e versions instead.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That was two druids ago, have you seen the most recent playtest?
Ooh, I had not - that looks much better!!
I’m glad to see they listened to feedback on that too.
What they almost did with OGL still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth knowing that they’d even think of trying it. But the fact that they listened to complaints and didn’t go through with it does restore some respect there. As long as they never try to pull something like that again.
And the druid thing doesn’t leave a bad taste at all. It was playtest content, people didn’t like it, they changed it, problem solved. Exactly how playtesting is supposed to work.
Has this been because of a loss of 5E tables or jsut an increase on the others?
p0ersonally i dont care about the OGL. In my opinion it was teh worst and best thing ever to happen to D&D. For 3rd edition it created a whole lot of junk to be published with a handful of gems. It also created a good amount of deferent genres that still survive today. I am a firm believer of "the owner of the product deserves to be paid something if others create of off their work"
Exactly. People were praising these other companies for t5hjeir announcments and saying "this is how a compnay should be run!" at teh end of the day those companies were jsut taking advantage of the blood in the water and trying to catch some fish while hoping the bait gets eaten up completly. Their whole intention is to make money. first and foremost.
They couldn't even if they wanted to, because the SRD is in Creative Commons now, there's no going back. Maybe they do end up deauthorizing the OGL at some point in the future anyway (or trying to) - but even if they do, everyone who was relying on the OGL for {insert product} can just switch to that, as long as they follow the (imo much more robust on both sides) rules for that license.
I agree with this to a point. A royalty or similar payment is reasonable if you're making millions off someone else's IP. But that should only be for the big players/rivals in an industry.
The major issue IMO, is the first OGL promised it was in perpetuity and then they tried to reneg on it. You can't create a contract between your company and 3rd party creators, and then try to unilaterally change that contract after people have built their careers based on the terms of that contract. If they had just changed the contract for the new revision there would have been a significantly different response, disappointment for sure and people would have voted with their feet when it came to the new version but there wouldn't have been the boycott.
This kind of mistaken legal analysis of the original OGL is part of why folks were so upset.
OGL 1.0 was not a contact - it was an offer of a contract. An offer of a contract holds no legal weight until accepted—in OGL 1.0’s case, the act of publishing material under OGL 1.0 constituted acceptance of the terms for that product and thus was the moment a contract was created.
Wizards never tried to unilaterally change the terms of a contract—they never even hinted that any existing OGL 1.0 license rights would be modified in any way. What they did attempt to do was change their offer—they wanted to introduce a new OGL which would apply to any future content. That is something they absolutely can do—you have a unilateral right to revoke or change your offer up until the moment there is acceptance.
The problem came because laypeople fundamentally did not understand what OGL 1.0 was—they thought it was a statement of rights they, as players, were entitled to, rather than the offer of rights, which had to be accepted pursuant to its terms to actually confer any rights or obligations between the parties.
The OGL appears to have had a few purposes. Several of which it failed at, and some of which probably came from different people.
What most people fail to realize is that the OGL covers 5e. It does not cover any new material. If 3rd party creators start producing products based on the 2024 releases, wotc will unleash their lawyers again.
WotC has said they'll put out a new SRD. I see no reason at this time to assume they won't.
SRD 5.1 is current 5e, there will be a new one for 2024 5.5e that third-party creators can use. This is not new information.
Right, because their last attempt at that went so well for them. If the issue of their proposed change to the original OGL had gone to court, they'd have won the case. Now, their market share would have taken a heavy hit from all the people jumping ship either out of protest to the changes or because the various influencers who pounced on the initial juicy gossip would have more than doubled down on all that in the interim- not to mention Paizo would undoubtedly take the opportunity to play white knight again, but the courts upholding their right to retract an offer going forward would have been all but certain. If they wanted to have this fight, they'd have had it out. The only reason they backed down was because of the PR furor that got stirred up, and if they try anything that gets made out to be that aggressive again, they'll have the same result.
This "oh, just you wait" stance people have taken honestly comes across as ridiculous; the original OGL was already put up on a pedestal as some kind of pinnacle of a licensing agreement (it wasn't, it was a quick and dirty napkin contract they wrote up before they realized just how much the game would blow up and they risked some sensationalist running a "D&D product with an official license from WotC promotes X bad thing" headline), and the agreement that would have codified the same basic rights and allowed content creators to use D&D's trademarked logo on their product as long as they didn't make the news as the aforementioned kind of product a la Gygax's stunt with Star Frontiers. It would have been a win for both sides, but instead the anti-WotC crowd beat their chests until that got nixed and we returned to the status quo, and yet we still get arguments that basically seem like they can't accept that they won already.