Don't you think the leak comes from WoTC itself? Basically to see how the fan responds to some changes, or even to get used to it. Shit is going to splash anyway. But if you splash a little now, and a little more in the future, the impact is less.
All of this is speculation of course. I have no idea who leaked the document, nor for what purpose.
If the leak was completely false, then I would have expected WotC to be suing for slander considering how bad it has hit their image and reputation.
Libel, not slander, and the law doesn't usually care. Most jurisdictions just call it all defamation.
And so long as the news outlets believed it were true, they're untouchable.
Not exactly, the news outlets had to do their due diligence - a news outlet can't receive and anonymous tip of any old nonsense and then publish it as fact, they have to be able to prove that they reasonably believed it was true. The main exception used for fake news is the "opinion" exemption - you can write any old rubbish as "your opinion" on a topic but if you say "we saw a leaked document from someone close to WotC, then that must be provably true in court." So we can infer whomever passed the leaked document to them plausibly would have had access to the real thing, and the leaked document is sufficiently similar to a real legal document that a company would use.
PS thanks for clarification about libel/slander/defamation I always mix those three up.
What else do you think "believes it was real" meant?
Basic journalistic ethics require corroboration. That means authenticating every lead or piece of hard evidence you come across in your investigation. I don't know a single reputable outlet that would take a risk on just one person's word. The last time that happened, Dan Rather lost his job at CBS because of an overzealous producer. (On-air talent either runs with the story they're assigned or gets replaced. He was caught in a catch-22.)
The Griffon's Saddlebag has made comments online about the leak; claiming it wasn't actually a draft and there were contracts attached. No one else seems to be echoing this, so I'm disinclined to believe it. But if it were true, then the folks at Gizmodo would have a list of people to confirm the authenticity of the alleged leak. And if there were NDAs floating around, which is possible, then signed parties would only speak to the media on the condition of anonymity. Nobody wants to risk getting slapped with a lawsuit. And Gizmodo is HQ'd in New York, which means it has a pretty strong anti-SLAPP statute at its back.
And all that brings me to the Delaware attorney who sent out a letter on Friday; pledging to file suit for anticipatory breach of contract. I applaud their gumption, but I don't think their case has a leg to stand on. There are four elements to prove, the first of which is clearly expressed intent. Circulating a draft proposal among the signatories of an NDA isn't likely to cut the mustard.
The story became real early Thursday. WotC has since been silent on the subject. No statement were issued Friday, over the weekend, or today; that I can tell. Which is not a good look for them, but I also don't think there's a good one to be had. If they refute it too soon and too forcefully, then it looks like they're in panic mode. But saying nothing at all means they don't have a hand on the wheel. The official Discord serve shut down all discussion on the subject; claiming it was either misinformation (i.e. trolling) or pirated material (i.e. trade secrets). And, okay, it was the weekend. The actual bosses who would know were probably out of the office and unavailable. The moderators don't know everything, if anything, and they're probably grossly underpaid for their work. I feel sorry for them.
The big thing lending credence to the Gizmodo article is that as the author was tweeting their thread about it, the Director of Games at Kickstarter, Jon Ritter, Quote Retweeted the bit about Royalties and Kickstarter to say they negotiated down the Preferential Royalty Rate for OGL Kickstarter Campaigns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
@gamephantomdm on twitter twitch.tv/gamephantomdm for me and some friends streaming D&D Wishing for the halcyon days of the WoTC D&D Board and hoping the DnDBeyond Forums can fill the hole in my heart left from the move to Gleemax and then dashing the lot of it for purely social media interaction.
I can't believe anyone on this thread (or anywhere in the D&D / TTRPGs community) believes this leak could/would be fake, at this point.
You sweet, sweet summer children ! How naive can you get ? "Why oooh yes, of course WotC has never even dreamt of doing anything like this ! Which is why some evil journalists wrote a FAKE document, because God knows they have so much time on their little grubby, ink-stained hands", right ? Meanwhile, Hasbro and WotC are SO SHOCKED by this slanderous accusations, they cannot possibly bring themselves to deny it ! THE PAIN IS TOO REAL !!!
Okay, seriously now: how much more self-denial can you people prop yourselves with, here ?
Best face it: these suits don't give a goblin's fart about the community and are prepared to burn it all down (either from sheer stupidity or downright callousness, I don't personally know, nor do I care: same exact result). So as far as I'm concerned (and note that I'm a Pay-to-Play DM here, whose income relies on DnD 5e for about 80% of his games): - finishing my 5e campaigns this year but NOT EVER running another WotC- related game after this. So yes, once these few campaigns are done (in the next 3-8 months, say), I'm exclusively pushing other game systems. If players don't follow, be it ! I'll find another source of income. - as of the end of this month, I'll be downgrading my DDB subscription back to a Free account, then canceling it altogether as soon as my last 5e campaign is done (or likely earlier if the players agree), unless DDB breaks ties with WotC / HASBRO in the meantime - I am already inciting my regular players to abandon anything WotC / HASBRO is involved in and will be spreading the word to other DMs in the community (although I don't reckon they'll need a lot of convincing after this shower of shyte !). - I will NEVER come even close to ONED&D, needless to say. Also I will use all the (small) reach I have to actively damage their reputation and efforts in the foreseeable future.
' Rogues Will Be Rogues ' (Circle of Fives Admission Rules, § 6 par. IV) " Put It Down. Now. Or Be Sorry. " (D. Khar-Errendis' Reported Tips For Curing Soul Ailments And Assorted Bad Behaviours, v. LIV p.XIII) " Tween thisThy and yonThou, shall I prove to Thee that these art what thou dost see ? " (Grimoire of The Great Pananthyr) " This One has said enough. Now, we fight. This way please ?" (8th Grade Bronze Disciple Raulnar Drohjo, Way of the Open Palm)
Fair, more than fair ! Which is why my post was intentionally brutal.
Best a hard wake-up call now, than denial and apathy, imho. Saying that, what most people who love DnD don't realize is, what they love about it isn't the brand: it's the community, the great stories and the general vibe and feeling to be part of something awesome. Or ? Is it just rolling d20s instead of, say d12s or d6s ? Didn't think so either.
Anyone who had this knows what it is, and can recreate it with other games and other systems, as long as all are willing, I think (I hope ?).
Also, things are still playing out, other actors might emerge and offer a new cohesive scene to get into.
Let's wait and watch what happens over the next weeks ! I have hope.
' Rogues Will Be Rogues ' (Circle of Fives Admission Rules, § 6 par. IV) " Put It Down. Now. Or Be Sorry. " (D. Khar-Errendis' Reported Tips For Curing Soul Ailments And Assorted Bad Behaviours, v. LIV p.XIII) " Tween thisThy and yonThou, shall I prove to Thee that these art what thou dost see ? " (Grimoire of The Great Pananthyr) " This One has said enough. Now, we fight. This way please ?" (8th Grade Bronze Disciple Raulnar Drohjo, Way of the Open Palm)
Don't you think the leak comes from WoTC itself? Basically to see how the fan responds to some changes, or even to get used to it. Shit is going to splash anyway. But if you splash a little now, and a little more in the future, the impact is less.
All of this is speculation of course. I have no idea who leaked the document, nor for what purpose.
Nope, companies can find out how the fan responds through various market research companies under the protection of NDAs to avoid a negatively received policy causing wide-spread uproar and reputation damage. Even if the next version of the "OGL" is perfect the fans will remember this and will continue to be less enthusiastic about WotC products. Considering the D&D movie coming out in a couple of months this has the potential to be financially disasterous to WotC if fans refuse to go see the D&D movie in theaters as a result of this.
On the matter of the suits and their behaviors; have any of you seen some of the stories coming out from folks formerly from here at D&D Beyond talking about the WotC purchase of the website and at Geek & Sundry during the days when CR was there. Interactions with unnamed to us suits or managers acting arrogant and dismissive towards them amid their success, saying D&D’s brand is what made Dndbeyond successful and not the fact that the interface here was so nice or that they weote good articles. Or that CR was only so big because it was D&D they played. Or a lack of awareness or acknowledgement of cultural influences and circumstances (Stranger Things & Covid) beyond simply being D&D alone being the secret sauce to success.
I fully believe that kind of mindset lending to the composition of the currently known 1.1 document.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
@gamephantomdm on twitter twitch.tv/gamephantomdm for me and some friends streaming D&D Wishing for the halcyon days of the WoTC D&D Board and hoping the DnDBeyond Forums can fill the hole in my heart left from the move to Gleemax and then dashing the lot of it for purely social media interaction.
I can't believe anyone on this thread (or anywhere in the D&D / TTRPGs community) believes this leak could/would be fake, at this point.
You sweet, sweet summer children ! How naive can you get ? "Why oooh yes, of course WotC has never even dreamt of doing anything like this ! Which is why some evil journalists wrote a FAKE document, because God knows they have so much time on their little grubby, ink-stained hands", right ? Meanwhile, Hasbro and WotC are SO SHOCKED by this slanderous accusations, they cannot possibly bring themselves to deny it ! THE PAIN IS TOO REAL !!!
Okay, seriously now: how much more self-denial can you people prop yourselves with, here ?
Best face it: these suits don't give a goblin's fart about the community and are prepared to burn it all down (either from sheer stupidity or downright callousness, I don't personally know, nor do I care: same exact result). So as far as I'm concerned (and note that I'm a Pay-to-Play DM here, whose income relies on DnD 5e for about 80% of his games): - finishing my 5e campaigns this year but NOT EVER running another WotC- related game after this. So yes, once these few campaigns are done (in the next 3-8 months, say), I'm exclusively pushing other game systems. If players don't follow, be it ! I'll find another source of income. - as of the end of this month, I'll be downgrading my DDB subscription back to a Free account, then canceling it altogether as soon as my last 5e campaign is done (or likely earlier if the players agree), unless DDN breaks ties with WotC in the meantime - I am already inciting my regular players to abandon anything WotC / HASBRO is involved in and will be spreading the words to other DMs in the community (although I don't reckon they'll need a lot of convincing after this sh*t show). - I will NEVER come even close to ONED&D, needless to say. Also I will use all the (small) reach I have to actively damage their reputation and efforts in the foreseeable future.
They want to play tough ? Fine, I'm game.
The thing you have to understand is that the people on this forum are probably some of the more emotionally invested people in D&D, so naturally the people on this forum would (generally speaking) probably be a lot more hesitant to believe that something this community-endangering would really be taking place. And as long as there is even a tiny bit of room to doubt it, that's something to latch onto.
If I may, there's also a lot that's been happening both on stage and behind the curtain.
First, there is a PDF, which appears to be converted from a text document, that has been circulating around for the last day or so. I have a copy. I've read through it. And there are elements of it which are consistent with some reporting. Now, maybe there are other documents─contracts, really─that were previously attached. These could have been separated to protect those parties. And some reporting, mostly by some YouTubers via their channels and social media, have encouraged harassment and spread outright falsehoods. That hurts their credibility, or at least it should. I know not everyone thinks as I do.
Harkening back to the PDF, which is shared on Google Docs (no, I will not link it here), I don't know whose account it is. I don't know the chain of custody. I can't independently verify the document. That said, it looks consistent with the Gizmodo article. And as I've stated previously, there's no rationale for jeopardizing one's career over this. So I, personally, am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And that...sucks.
People with long memories, or just a little patience and an Internet connection, know how overly-litigious TSR was in the '90s. Their conduct both fostered a poor reputation and hurt the hobby. It's one of the reasons why they were in such dire straights to be bought, and it's why the OGL was enacted in the first place. It was both a peace offering and a declaration to be better than their predecessors. Wizards of the Coast is a games company. It's fairly smart and run by competent people who know the industry they work in and its history. They are not without their blind spots, but they are improving. Progress takes time, and as frustrating as it can be we shouldn't be mad with people growing a little slower.
Hasbro...look, D&D wasn't the reason why WotC was bought up. It was over the Pokémon TCG. Both companies wanted it, WotC won the 10-year licence, and Hasbro bought WotC in retaliation. And the PDF I read reeks of corporate interference. This is almost text-book vertical integration. They're just trying to do it with a genie that's been out of the bottle for 23 years. And they're doing it with a stick instead of a carrot, because 20-25% is ludicrous. It's way above the standard rates, and I know I've covered that before, too. And it's even more egregious when the money they stand to gain under such an agreement is a pittance. If true, this is all about control. It is bully behavior, and a lot of people won't stand for it. And if they don't have the money to fight it, they'll move on to something else. They don't need WotC, and WotC doesn't need them. And as true as that is, I think it also misses the bigger picture. A rising tide lifts all ships. The OGL was that rising tide. It wasn't D&D, because when 4th edition came with the GSL and no SRD it lost the lead. Pathfinder debuted in 2010, and in the spring of 2011 it was the top seller. And it stayed that way through most of 2014.
I don't think I need to remind people how Fifth edition came out that fall. That by itself wasn't the fresh air the game needed, though. The next few years saw a lot of collaboration with WotC and the greater industry. Kobold Press worked with them on the Tyranny of Dragons duology. Green Ronin worked on Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and Out of the Abyss. Sasquatch worked on Princes of the Apocalypse. All that was 2014-2015. The SRD 5.0, and later 5.1, both came out in 2016; along with WotC's first wholly in-house adventure for 5E: Curse of Strahd. Just think about the typical production cycle of a book. It might be 18 months. We're talking upwards of three years of collaboration with third parties. The company wanted...needed to rebuild its goodwill.
And if this is all real, then who the heck is calling the shots? Because this does not look like responsible ownership. It looks like an ego trip. Some people, I'm sure, will continue to buy on brand recognition alone. But the brand is only worth something because of the effort put into cultivating a reputation. You can't torpedo that and expect everything to remain the same.
And if I'm wrong, and this isn't ego, then someone out there thinks there are acceptable loses for acquiring and maintaining greater control over the brand. If so, I think they're a damned fool.
I’ve watched a couple of videos about this leaked OGL, which make it seem like D&D is about to end and we’re all doomed, but oh no we don’t need them, but also they’re evil, but also how dare they ask for money etc etc.
Assuming they fix the part about owning hour own content (which seems legally strange if that’s not the case?), whats wrong if big time content creators pay royalties, like musicians do when they sample original songs?
From what I understand about the situation the whole OneD&D was a rules update ánd a step towards broader digital implementation. Having a chance to update the rules, makes it easier when creating a new platform for digital play, and yes, make more money.
So I understand it as follows:
- 5e is 8 years old and needs revision in some ways. OneD&D is a new, community feedback oriented way to make a new ruleset together (with much appreciated changes like races>species etc)
- OneD&D will probably be extended (if they’re smart) with new apps and add-ons to make digital play easy-acces for new players. A WOTC owned Roll20. Buying D&D Beyond fits perfect into that, because they can integrate it in there, and it allows an existing base to expand (you can use your owned content right away, and easier integration means more profit).
- When people create content for this new system, it will probably be like selling add-ons, usable in their new system. If you make a large sum of money from that, they ask for royalties.
What’s so bad about that? (Inb4 Im called naive: yes I am, I’m genuinely asking 😉)
What’s so bad about that? (Inb4 Im called naive: yes I am, I’m genuinely asking 😉)
The core issue that people are concerned with is that they're trying to revoke the existing license that covers 3e, 3.5e, and 5e, and there are an awful lot of people who were relying on that license and assumed that it wasn't subject to summary revocation. If the 1.1 'OGL' only applied to OneD&D, it would affect people's interest in supporting OneD&D but wouldn't be otherwise a big deal.
So content creators which previously did so under the current OGL, made content and (hopefully) made money from that, and now they fear that wotc starts taking a cut + starts using their creations freely? (I can totally understand that fear if that’s the case)
So content creators which previously did so under the current OGL, made content and (hopefully) made money from that, and now they fear that wotc starts taking a cut + starts using their creations freely? (I can totally understand that fear if that’s the case)
There are a bunch of problems with the 1.1 license -- honestly, I think the expectation is that anyone serious is going to negotiate a separate deal with Wizards rather than relying on the 'OGL'.
Okay okay. I’m fairly new to D&D so I have no history with older versions and how they came to be, but do I understand correctly that 3rd party content creators have had a big impact on D&D as a whole? (I saw a video of someone saying 3rd party content creators nowadays make better content then WOTC, but I’ve never used 3rd party content so again, this is a genuine question)
And does the new OGL affect YT’ers and shows like CR, or only the people that create written content like adventurebooks etc?
So content creators which previously did so under the current OGL, made content and (hopefully) made money from that, and now they fear that wotc starts taking a cut + starts using their creations freely? (I can totally understand that fear if that’s the case)
There are a bunch of problems with the 1.1 license -- honestly, I think the expectation is that anyone serious is going to negotiate a separate deal with Wizards rather than relying on the 'OGL'.
They (the 3PP) might want to, but part of 1.1 is separating the wheat from the chaff.
By requiring revenue reporting, WotC knows what to keep an eye on. Not just in terms of what kinds of content the community is thirsty for, but also specific creators to keep an eye on. These are then people they can hire for a time to work on a new in-house project. Or, if it's an actual company with some larger concerns, work out a new custom agreement for a book or three.
Okay okay. I’m fairly new to D&D so I have no history with older versions and how they came to be, but do I understand correctly that 3rd party content creators have had a big impact on D&D as a whole? (I saw a video of someone saying 3rd party content creators nowadays make better content then WOTC, but I’ve never used 3rd party content so again, this is a genuine question)
And does the new OGL affect YT’ers and shows like CR, or only the people that create written content like adventurebooks etc?
Yes, it impacts them if they make any money off of the streaming (except for ad revenue potentially...) or they want to retain their own IP rights exclusively.
- When people create content for this new system, it will probably be like selling add-ons, usable in their new system. If you make a large sum of money from that, they ask for royalties.
What’s so bad about that? (Inb4 Im called naive: yes I am, I’m genuinely asking 😉)
One of things I see from the copy of the document I read is the way the royalties are calculated is really... weird, and the percentage is very high. The royalties are charged on total sales, not total profit, so you get to eat all the expenses and you start hoping that your product *isn't* successful, because there's a weird point where the more you sell, you start to actually *lose* money because the royalty takes away all your profit and more. And if it's a physical product with actual printing and shipping costs, that tipping point happens relatively soon.
The other thing I see, but I might be misunderstanding, is that anything you publish WotC can simply turn it around and republish it as 'official content' and not compensate you for it. The way I read it, under the new license WotC claims the right to reprint, reorganize, and otherwise redo, anything released under that license. And that's retroactive, because I think the second you put something under the new license it supersedes the old license? So if you successfully published anything for older versions of D&D (or anything else under the old license, like Pathfinder 1e, and other games), the second you publish something under the new license, WotC says they effectively own all your old stuff too. Which is the really weird bit, and I swear I must be reading it wrong, as I can't figure out how that would get past an actual lawyer.
One of things I see from the copy of the document I read is the way the royalties are calculated is really... weird, and the percentage is very high. The royalties are charged on total sales, not total profit, so you get to eat all the expenses and you start hoping that your product *isn't* successful, because there's a weird point where the more you sell, you start to actually *lose* money because the royalty takes away all your profit and more.
I suspect that's not actually real -- revenue is generally linear in units sold, whereas costs usually aren't, so even with 25% royalties on the amount above 750k you're likely still making a higher net at $1M than at $750k.
It does cause another type of problem, though: let's say your average product has $250k in sales and you make $25k in profits. If you put out three products a year, you make $75k. If you put out four products, you make $62k, so you're heavily incentivized to delay that fourth product into the next year.
- When people create content for this new system, it will probably be like selling add-ons, usable in their new system. If you make a large sum of money from that, they ask for royalties.
What’s so bad about that? (Inb4 Im called naive: yes I am, I’m genuinely asking 😉)
One of things I see from the copy of the document I read is the way the royalties are calculated is really... weird, and the percentage is very high. The royalties are charged on total sales, not total profit, so you get to eat all the expenses and you start hoping that your product *isn't* successful, because there's a weird point where the more you sell, you start to actually *lose* money because the royalty takes away all your profit and more. And if it's a physical product with actual printing and shipping costs, that tipping point happens relatively soon.
The other thing I see, but I might be misunderstanding, is that anything you publish WotC can simply turn it around and republish it as 'official content' and not compensate you for it. The way I read it, under the new license WotC claims the right to reprint, reorganize, and otherwise redo, anything released under that license. And that's retroactive, because I think the second you put something under the new license it supersedes the old license? So if you successfully published anything for older versions of D&D (or anything else under the old license, like Pathfinder 1e, and other games), the second you publish something under the new license, WotC says they effectively own all your old stuff too. Which is the really weird bit, and I swear I must be reading it wrong, as I can't figure out how that would get past an actual lawyer.
I agree royalties on profit would be better, but it’s too easy to game (no pun intended) that system. Incorporate and pay yourself a salary, there go the profits. If you have an extra good year, give yourself a bonus that brings you under the threshold. I’m not even an accountant, and I know how easy it can be. Someone who knows what they’re doing can probably make it even simpler.
There is no way that I will buy material published under the OGL 1.1 if the leaks are true. I can't imagine that the ludicrous attempt to "revoke" OGL 1.0a will hold up in court, and if they somehow make it work anyway by throwing millions at their lawyers I don't even want to imagine the implications for the future oft TTRPGs and even other areas such as OpensSource Software licences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Don't you think the leak comes from WoTC itself? Basically to see how the fan responds to some changes, or even to get used to it.
Shit is going to splash anyway. But if you splash a little now, and a little more in the future, the impact is less.
All of this is speculation of course. I have no idea who leaked the document, nor for what purpose.
What else do you think "believes it was real" meant?
Basic journalistic ethics require corroboration. That means authenticating every lead or piece of hard evidence you come across in your investigation. I don't know a single reputable outlet that would take a risk on just one person's word. The last time that happened, Dan Rather lost his job at CBS because of an overzealous producer. (On-air talent either runs with the story they're assigned or gets replaced. He was caught in a catch-22.)
The Griffon's Saddlebag has made comments online about the leak; claiming it wasn't actually a draft and there were contracts attached. No one else seems to be echoing this, so I'm disinclined to believe it. But if it were true, then the folks at Gizmodo would have a list of people to confirm the authenticity of the alleged leak. And if there were NDAs floating around, which is possible, then signed parties would only speak to the media on the condition of anonymity. Nobody wants to risk getting slapped with a lawsuit. And Gizmodo is HQ'd in New York, which means it has a pretty strong anti-SLAPP statute at its back.
And all that brings me to the Delaware attorney who sent out a letter on Friday; pledging to file suit for anticipatory breach of contract. I applaud their gumption, but I don't think their case has a leg to stand on. There are four elements to prove, the first of which is clearly expressed intent. Circulating a draft proposal among the signatories of an NDA isn't likely to cut the mustard.
The story became real early Thursday. WotC has since been silent on the subject. No statement were issued Friday, over the weekend, or today; that I can tell. Which is not a good look for them, but I also don't think there's a good one to be had. If they refute it too soon and too forcefully, then it looks like they're in panic mode. But saying nothing at all means they don't have a hand on the wheel. The official Discord serve shut down all discussion on the subject; claiming it was either misinformation (i.e. trolling) or pirated material (i.e. trade secrets). And, okay, it was the weekend. The actual bosses who would know were probably out of the office and unavailable. The moderators don't know everything, if anything, and they're probably grossly underpaid for their work. I feel sorry for them.
Sorry, stream of consciousness kind of took over.
The big thing lending credence to the Gizmodo article is that as the author was tweeting their thread about it, the Director of Games at Kickstarter, Jon Ritter, Quote Retweeted the bit about Royalties and Kickstarter to say they negotiated down the Preferential Royalty Rate for OGL Kickstarter Campaigns.
@gamephantomdm on twitter
twitch.tv/gamephantomdm for me and some friends streaming D&D
Wishing for the halcyon days of the WoTC D&D Board and hoping the DnDBeyond Forums can fill the hole in my heart left from the move to Gleemax and then dashing the lot of it for purely social media interaction.
I can't believe anyone on this thread (or anywhere in the D&D / TTRPGs community) believes this leak could/would be fake, at this point.
You sweet, sweet summer children ! How naive can you get ?
"Why oooh yes, of course WotC has never even dreamt of doing anything like this ! Which is why some evil journalists wrote a FAKE document, because God knows they have so much time on their little grubby, ink-stained hands", right ?
Meanwhile, Hasbro and WotC are SO SHOCKED by this slanderous accusations, they cannot possibly bring themselves to deny it ! THE PAIN IS TOO REAL !!!
Okay, seriously now: how much more self-denial can you people prop yourselves with, here ?
Best face it: these suits don't give a goblin's fart about the community and are prepared to burn it all down (either from sheer stupidity or downright callousness, I don't personally know, nor do I care: same exact result).
So as far as I'm concerned (and note that I'm a Pay-to-Play DM here, whose income relies on DnD 5e for about 80% of his games):
- finishing my 5e campaigns this year but NOT EVER running another WotC- related game after this. So yes, once these few campaigns are done (in the next 3-8 months, say), I'm exclusively pushing other game systems. If players don't follow, be it ! I'll find another source of income.
- as of the end of this month, I'll be downgrading my DDB subscription back to a Free account, then canceling it altogether as soon as my last 5e campaign is done (or likely earlier if the players agree), unless DDB breaks ties with WotC / HASBRO in the meantime
- I am already inciting my regular players to abandon anything WotC / HASBRO is involved in and will be spreading the word to other DMs in the community (although I don't reckon they'll need a lot of convincing after this shower of shyte !).
- I will NEVER come even close to ONED&D, needless to say. Also I will use all the (small) reach I have to actively damage their reputation and efforts in the foreseeable future.
They want to play rough, uh ?
Fine, I'm game.
' Rogues Will Be Rogues ' (Circle of Fives Admission Rules, § 6 par. IV)
" Put It Down. Now. Or Be Sorry. " (D. Khar-Errendis' Reported Tips For Curing Soul Ailments And Assorted Bad Behaviours, v. LIV p.XIII)
" Tween thisThy and yonThou, shall I prove to Thee that these art what thou dost see ? " (Grimoire of The Great Pananthyr)
" This One has said enough. Now, we fight. This way please ?" (8th Grade Bronze Disciple Raulnar Drohjo, Way of the Open Palm)
Fair, more than fair ! Which is why my post was intentionally brutal.
Best a hard wake-up call now, than denial and apathy, imho.
Saying that, what most people who love DnD don't realize is, what they love about it isn't the brand: it's the community, the great stories and the general vibe and feeling to be part of something awesome. Or ? Is it just rolling d20s instead of, say d12s or d6s ? Didn't think so either.
Anyone who had this knows what it is, and can recreate it with other games and other systems, as long as all are willing, I think (I hope ?).
Also, things are still playing out, other actors might emerge and offer a new cohesive scene to get into.
Let's wait and watch what happens over the next weeks ! I have hope.
' Rogues Will Be Rogues ' (Circle of Fives Admission Rules, § 6 par. IV)
" Put It Down. Now. Or Be Sorry. " (D. Khar-Errendis' Reported Tips For Curing Soul Ailments And Assorted Bad Behaviours, v. LIV p.XIII)
" Tween thisThy and yonThou, shall I prove to Thee that these art what thou dost see ? " (Grimoire of The Great Pananthyr)
" This One has said enough. Now, we fight. This way please ?" (8th Grade Bronze Disciple Raulnar Drohjo, Way of the Open Palm)
Nope, companies can find out how the fan responds through various market research companies under the protection of NDAs to avoid a negatively received policy causing wide-spread uproar and reputation damage. Even if the next version of the "OGL" is perfect the fans will remember this and will continue to be less enthusiastic about WotC products. Considering the D&D movie coming out in a couple of months this has the potential to be financially disasterous to WotC if fans refuse to go see the D&D movie in theaters as a result of this.
On the matter of the suits and their behaviors; have any of you seen some of the stories coming out from folks formerly from here at D&D Beyond talking about the WotC purchase of the website and at Geek & Sundry during the days when CR was there. Interactions with unnamed to us suits or managers acting arrogant and dismissive towards them amid their success, saying D&D’s brand is what made Dndbeyond successful and not the fact that the interface here was so nice or that they weote good articles. Or that CR was only so big because it was D&D they played. Or a lack of awareness or acknowledgement of cultural influences and circumstances (Stranger Things & Covid) beyond simply being D&D alone being the secret sauce to success.
I fully believe that kind of mindset lending to the composition of the currently known 1.1 document.
@gamephantomdm on twitter
twitch.tv/gamephantomdm for me and some friends streaming D&D
Wishing for the halcyon days of the WoTC D&D Board and hoping the DnDBeyond Forums can fill the hole in my heart left from the move to Gleemax and then dashing the lot of it for purely social media interaction.
If I may, there's also a lot that's been happening both on stage and behind the curtain.
First, there is a PDF, which appears to be converted from a text document, that has been circulating around for the last day or so. I have a copy. I've read through it. And there are elements of it which are consistent with some reporting. Now, maybe there are other documents─contracts, really─that were previously attached. These could have been separated to protect those parties. And some reporting, mostly by some YouTubers via their channels and social media, have encouraged harassment and spread outright falsehoods. That hurts their credibility, or at least it should. I know not everyone thinks as I do.
Harkening back to the PDF, which is shared on Google Docs (no, I will not link it here), I don't know whose account it is. I don't know the chain of custody. I can't independently verify the document. That said, it looks consistent with the Gizmodo article. And as I've stated previously, there's no rationale for jeopardizing one's career over this. So I, personally, am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And that...sucks.
People with long memories, or just a little patience and an Internet connection, know how overly-litigious TSR was in the '90s. Their conduct both fostered a poor reputation and hurt the hobby. It's one of the reasons why they were in such dire straights to be bought, and it's why the OGL was enacted in the first place. It was both a peace offering and a declaration to be better than their predecessors. Wizards of the Coast is a games company. It's fairly smart and run by competent people who know the industry they work in and its history. They are not without their blind spots, but they are improving. Progress takes time, and as frustrating as it can be we shouldn't be mad with people growing a little slower.
Hasbro...look, D&D wasn't the reason why WotC was bought up. It was over the Pokémon TCG. Both companies wanted it, WotC won the 10-year licence, and Hasbro bought WotC in retaliation. And the PDF I read reeks of corporate interference. This is almost text-book vertical integration. They're just trying to do it with a genie that's been out of the bottle for 23 years. And they're doing it with a stick instead of a carrot, because 20-25% is ludicrous. It's way above the standard rates, and I know I've covered that before, too. And it's even more egregious when the money they stand to gain under such an agreement is a pittance. If true, this is all about control. It is bully behavior, and a lot of people won't stand for it. And if they don't have the money to fight it, they'll move on to something else. They don't need WotC, and WotC doesn't need them. And as true as that is, I think it also misses the bigger picture. A rising tide lifts all ships. The OGL was that rising tide. It wasn't D&D, because when 4th edition came with the GSL and no SRD it lost the lead. Pathfinder debuted in 2010, and in the spring of 2011 it was the top seller. And it stayed that way through most of 2014.
I don't think I need to remind people how Fifth edition came out that fall. That by itself wasn't the fresh air the game needed, though. The next few years saw a lot of collaboration with WotC and the greater industry. Kobold Press worked with them on the Tyranny of Dragons duology. Green Ronin worked on Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and Out of the Abyss. Sasquatch worked on Princes of the Apocalypse. All that was 2014-2015. The SRD 5.0, and later 5.1, both came out in 2016; along with WotC's first wholly in-house adventure for 5E: Curse of Strahd. Just think about the typical production cycle of a book. It might be 18 months. We're talking upwards of three years of collaboration with third parties. The company wanted...needed to rebuild its goodwill.
And if this is all real, then who the heck is calling the shots? Because this does not look like responsible ownership. It looks like an ego trip. Some people, I'm sure, will continue to buy on brand recognition alone. But the brand is only worth something because of the effort put into cultivating a reputation. You can't torpedo that and expect everything to remain the same.
And if I'm wrong, and this isn't ego, then someone out there thinks there are acceptable loses for acquiring and maintaining greater control over the brand. If so, I think they're a damned fool.
I’ve watched a couple of videos about this leaked OGL, which make it seem like D&D is about to end and we’re all doomed, but oh no we don’t need them, but also they’re evil, but also how dare they ask for money etc etc.
Assuming they fix the part about owning hour own content (which seems legally strange if that’s not the case?), whats wrong if big time content creators pay royalties, like musicians do when they sample original songs?
From what I understand about the situation the whole OneD&D was a rules update ánd a step towards broader digital implementation. Having a chance to update the rules, makes it easier when creating a new platform for digital play, and yes, make more money.
So I understand it as follows:
- 5e is 8 years old and needs revision in some ways. OneD&D is a new, community feedback oriented way to make a new ruleset together (with much appreciated changes like races>species etc)
- OneD&D will probably be extended (if they’re smart) with new apps and add-ons to make digital play easy-acces for new players. A WOTC owned Roll20. Buying D&D Beyond fits perfect into that, because they can integrate it in there, and it allows an existing base to expand (you can use your owned content right away, and easier integration means more profit).
- When people create content for this new system, it will probably be like selling add-ons, usable in their new system. If you make a large sum of money from that, they ask for royalties.
What’s so bad about that? (Inb4 Im called naive: yes I am, I’m genuinely asking 😉)
The core issue that people are concerned with is that they're trying to revoke the existing license that covers 3e, 3.5e, and 5e, and there are an awful lot of people who were relying on that license and assumed that it wasn't subject to summary revocation. If the 1.1 'OGL' only applied to OneD&D, it would affect people's interest in supporting OneD&D but wouldn't be otherwise a big deal.
So content creators which previously did so under the current OGL, made content and (hopefully) made money from that, and now they fear that wotc starts taking a cut + starts using their creations freely? (I can totally understand that fear if that’s the case)
There are a bunch of problems with the 1.1 license -- honestly, I think the expectation is that anyone serious is going to negotiate a separate deal with Wizards rather than relying on the 'OGL'.
Okay okay. I’m fairly new to D&D so I have no history with older versions and how they came to be, but do I understand correctly that 3rd party content creators have had a big impact on D&D as a whole? (I saw a video of someone saying 3rd party content creators nowadays make better content then WOTC, but I’ve never used 3rd party content so again, this is a genuine question)
And does the new OGL affect YT’ers and shows like CR, or only the people that create written content like adventurebooks etc?
They (the 3PP) might want to, but part of 1.1 is separating the wheat from the chaff.
By requiring revenue reporting, WotC knows what to keep an eye on. Not just in terms of what kinds of content the community is thirsty for, but also specific creators to keep an eye on. These are then people they can hire for a time to work on a new in-house project. Or, if it's an actual company with some larger concerns, work out a new custom agreement for a book or three.
I find it both genius and kind of gross.
Yes, it impacts them if they make any money off of the streaming (except for ad revenue potentially...) or they want to retain their own IP rights exclusively.
The new OGL only covers PDFs or Printed Documents.
One of things I see from the copy of the document I read is the way the royalties are calculated is really... weird, and the percentage is very high. The royalties are charged on total sales, not total profit, so you get to eat all the expenses and you start hoping that your product *isn't* successful, because there's a weird point where the more you sell, you start to actually *lose* money because the royalty takes away all your profit and more. And if it's a physical product with actual printing and shipping costs, that tipping point happens relatively soon.
The other thing I see, but I might be misunderstanding, is that anything you publish WotC can simply turn it around and republish it as 'official content' and not compensate you for it. The way I read it, under the new license WotC claims the right to reprint, reorganize, and otherwise redo, anything released under that license. And that's retroactive, because I think the second you put something under the new license it supersedes the old license? So if you successfully published anything for older versions of D&D (or anything else under the old license, like Pathfinder 1e, and other games), the second you publish something under the new license, WotC says they effectively own all your old stuff too. Which is the really weird bit, and I swear I must be reading it wrong, as I can't figure out how that would get past an actual lawyer.
I suspect that's not actually real -- revenue is generally linear in units sold, whereas costs usually aren't, so even with 25% royalties on the amount above 750k you're likely still making a higher net at $1M than at $750k.
It does cause another type of problem, though: let's say your average product has $250k in sales and you make $25k in profits. If you put out three products a year, you make $75k. If you put out four products, you make $62k, so you're heavily incentivized to delay that fourth product into the next year.
I agree royalties on profit would be better, but it’s too easy to game (no pun intended) that system. Incorporate and pay yourself a salary, there go the profits. If you have an extra good year, give yourself a bonus that brings you under the threshold.
I’m not even an accountant, and I know how easy it can be. Someone who knows what they’re doing can probably make it even simpler.
There is no way that I will buy material published under the OGL 1.1 if the leaks are true. I can't imagine that the ludicrous attempt to "revoke" OGL 1.0a will hold up in court, and if they somehow make it work anyway by throwing millions at their lawyers I don't even want to imagine the implications for the future oft TTRPGs and even other areas such as OpensSource Software licences.