Thanks for your wild speculation on the event. I find it much less likely than my wild speculation.
Just to clarify, I don't think you were spreading wild speculation. What I do think is that some of the YouTubers talking about this were spreading wild speculation and making assumptions based off their information is faulty to say the least.
You should thank all the YouTubers that feared the worst, because it forced WotC to respond with their actual intent. The last thing you want when someone has power over your future is for them to vague and ambiguous about it. Obviously if WotC says nothing everyone has to suspect the worst. Especially after that investors meeting. It’s easy to become concerned when someone says that something that makes tons of money is under monetized. I start wondering where do they believe they can make more money? I have concerns and I’m only a consumer. I’m sure anyone making a living off of d&d products and content would have more concerns.
No, that's not logical.
It WotC remained silent, then the only reasonable conclusion is the company has nothing to say. Which means nothing changes. SRD 5.1 (including OGL 1.0a) would remain in effect, and, since One D&D is backwards compatible, we can continue using it to write compatible content.
There would be some exceptions, naturally. We know there are new conditions, so a new OGL and SRD would be necessary to use them. Same thing for new versions of monsters, and for designing subclasses using the new 3/6/10/14 schedule. I mean, some classes (barbarian, druid, and wizard) would be unaffected. But most would be off-limits. Technically, you can't even write subclasses for the artificer under the OGL. It's not covered by the SRD5.
Apparently, everyone forgot that 1.0a came out in 2016. We went two years without an OGL for 5th edition. Being loud and making a lot of noise may have forced WotC's hand, and you might think that's a good thing. But I don't. Haste makes waste. Even with almost two years of lead time, forcing them to work ahead of schedule─on your timetable, solely to keep you happy─could result in an inferior product.
Your idea of what is logical and what others think is logical seems to vary. Every since the 1st OGL they have changed their OGL process each edition, and somewhat dramatically. Assuming it would this time be different and basically be the same would not be logical or reasonable to many. Especially when they are vague and have a interview filled with corporate evasions.
The basic point is people look at sets of facts differently. Different ways of looking at things does not make them illogical nor unreasonable.
No one is asking for haste. What they wanted was transparency. Thankfully they got some. People have lives based around supporting the game. They needed to know if they need to pivot to another game or career. The idea that staying quiet means nothing is going to change is ridiculous. If the plan was to force all 3rd party creators to pay royalties or create only through DMs guild the best option as a business is to not tell them until your product is out. The last thing you want to do is tell these 3rd party developers that it might be best to create your own core game over the next two years, because if you decide to use ours we want half.
Also your example of the OGL not being out at the start of 5e is flawed because 4e version of OGL, I don’t know what it was called ,was so bad many weren’t making content for re. So many people are making a living off 5e, because the OGL allowed them to legally do it. Now if 1dnd comes out with no updated OGL for 2 years that’s 2 years content creators couldn't legally make things for 1dnd. They could continue to make stuff for 5e under the current OGL and hope it’s compatible enough people would still purchase it. No classes would be because 1dnd class progression is changing. Without a new OGL they couldn’t sell classes based on the new format legally.
Thankfully WotC have now been more transparent with their future plans with the OGL. Mainly because of outcry.
In the same post, you say that no one was asking for haste and then write a paragraph about why haste is necessary. Anyways, if all Wizards says nothing, it probably does indicate that there won't be any major changes. When companies want to do something that would make a large portion of their fan-base super angry and panicky and maybe even quit the game, then they would typically say something about it to see how it might go over with their fans. So yes, silence from the company in question typically indicates that the status quo remains because big business decisions are typically announced or discussed.
And yeah, we know that forcing royalties on every 3PP publisher would be bad... But there is also no way you can effectively do that and it would be such a stupid move that the likelihood of it actually happening is near 0. You say you are happy for the transparency Wizards of the Coast is giving you on this, yet you still choose to attack them over hypothetical situations that they literally told you will not occur.
PS. More transparency is given in a FAQ the moderator team shared HERE.
What fantasy world do you live in. I’ve seen companies make changes that their consumers hate all the time. They don’t always make announcements and do proper market research. Someone at the top says this is for the best and they do it. I’m happy WotC responded to the outcry. The outcry wouldn’t have happened if the transparency was there from the start. Also I think you confuse haste with transparency. Those are different. Haste would be them release the 1dnd OGL while still playtesting it. Transparency is telling people what the plan is for one 1dnd. Or are you talking about the fact that a 1dnd OGL is expected to released on a faster timeline than the 5e OGL? If that’s what you mean that’s not haste. Unlike with the 5e release there was no knowledge of a need of an OGL. This time there is clear knowledge of the need. As long as they are transparent about a time for the 1dnd OGL they have as long as they need. They are expected to do it on a faster timeline than 5e OGL because 1dnd as of now is more of a 5.5 than a true 6th edition, so they already have a foundation for the document. The 4e version of the OGL was apparently trash and coupled with 4e being an edition many didn’t like they needed time to decide if and how to write the 5e OGL. Considering how well 5e is doing I would say the 5e OGL worked well. I also understand them saying they left too much money on the table and wanting a cut off people making money off their ip. I’m okay with it. The only problem there was is that information came out they were looking for ways to make more money off the ip, and common sense thinks that one method of doing that is to remove 3rd party content that doesn’t give you a cut. So everyone started asking. The WotC responded by saying they would continue to support 3rd party content, but failed to explain what they meant by that. Its like they gave a very political answer. Then everyone freaked out, because while the worst case scenario was off the table (no 3rd party content) the 2nd worst possible scenario was still possible (only people/companies partnered with WotC could create content). Thankfully after everyone freaked out WotC stated their plan and it’s not the second worst case scenario either.
The 4E version you're referring to was called the GSL (Game System License), and it was a mixed bag. Participants had limited access to WotC trademarks, but there was no SRD and the terms of the licenses could be updated at any time by WotC. In the event a licensed produce fell out of compatibility, the legal costs for any dispute would be handled by the licensee. And the third-parties were split on it; with some companies continuing to write D&D content. Though I think some of them got a little too big for their britches. Chris Pramas (Green Ronin Games) didn't think the GSL did enough to treat these companies as values partners. And that's not the case unless they had a Custom Agreement, which the OGL and GSL didn't cover. Regardless of your opinions on him, their company, or the general quality of third-party 4E content...that was not a serious statement.
As for 1.0a, we didn't have that when 5th edition launched. It came years later, and it will still be largely compatible with One D&D content. So, even if there was no new license, we wouldn't actually lose that much in the absence of an immediate update. Adventures are fully compatible. New monsters and magic items can be, too. We've been over this. I know I have. Several times, in fact.
You can interpret silence in only one logical way: the company doesn't have anything to say at this time. If for no other reason than because they don't want to rock any boats. Any further interpretation says more about you than the company. You can make wild, cynical accusations and play Chicken Little. (Seriously, Nerd Immersion titled their video on the revocation of the OGL. And that wasn't happening without another OGL, because that's how the current one is written. Does nobody read anymore?) Or you can assume the company's leadership has learned its lesson from previous mistakes and wants to do right by everyone. Because a robust third-party community of writers, artists, and publishers is good for them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Not that they actually need an OLG for robust support. DM's Guild doesn't use the OGL, it has its own arrangement because of OneBookShelf. And it is possible to write around the OGL, thus protecting your intellectual property. Do you think the blood hunter and Taldorei Reborn are OGL?
Well they rocked the boat at the investors meeting. Also the thing that really rocked it was the politician like answer of “We will continue to support third party content?” When the question was will you be updating the OGL.
Biggest proof you have no clue what you are talking about are your mentions of taldorei reborn and blood hunter in the same sentence. Taldorei Reborn is a OGL book. It uses references that are allowed by WotC under the OGL. Blood Hunter is a class that the IP is now technically owned by WotC. Why, because Matt decided to release it on DMs Guild. When you release stuff on DMs guild you give up your ownership rights and give WotC a portion of the profits. This is why the blood hunter isn’t in the Taldorei books. This also includes the why it didn’t appear in the WotC Wildmount book. Being on the DMs Guild has put Blood Hunter in a weird place IP wise. The only way to write around the OGL is to never mention anything in the SRD. The lack of an SRD with the 4e GSL is one of the major reasons 3rd party Developers didn’t like it. I’m honestly over this debate with you. I’m not even a 3rd party developer. I just understand their concern and it’s easy to see that WotC misstepped by not acknowledging that what was stated at the investors meeting might start some rumblings. I’m glad they responded to those rumblings, but that only happened after a large community outcry.
Well they rocked the boat at the investors meeting. Also the thing that really rocked it was the politician like answer of “We will continue to support third party content?” When the question was will you be updating the OGL.
Biggest proof you have no clue what you are talking about are your mentions of taldorei reborn and blood hunter in the same sentence. Taldorei Reborn is a OGL book. It uses references that are allowed by WotC under the OGL. Blood Hunter is a class that the IP is now technically owned by WotC. Why, because Matt decided to release it on DMs Guild. When you release stuff on DMs guild you give up your ownership rights and give WotC a portion of the profits. This is why the blood hunter isn’t in the Taldorei books. This also includes the why it didn’t appear in the WotC Wildmount book. Being on the DMs Guild has put Blood Hunter in a weird place IP wise. The only way to write around the OGL is to never mention anything in the SRD. The lack of an SRD with the 4e GSL is one of the major reasons 3rd party Developers didn’t like it. I’m honestly over this debate with you. I’m not even a 3rd party developer. I just understand their concern and it’s easy to see that WotC misstepped by not acknowledging that what was stated at the investors meeting might start some rumblings. I’m glad they responded to those rumblings, but that only happened after a large community outcry.
You accuse me of having no clue what I'm talking about, and you come at me with this dribble?
All OGL publication must include the license somewhere in the publication. That's part of the terms of the license. Typically, this would be up front with all the other legal stuff; like copyright information. I cannot find the license in my copy of Tal'dorei Reborn, so if you can provide me with a page number I missed I'll be happy to eat a little crow. As for everything with DM's Guild, that's owned by OneBookShelf. OneBookShelf, across its many subsidiaries, sells all kinds of games. Chaosium, Fantasy Flight, Pinnacle, White Wolf...all those companies deal business with them. And OBS is merging with Roll20. I'l like to think if WotC was picking up Roll20 they'd have told us, instead of insisting that was a custom agreement. In short, DM's Guild is not WotC. They have a custom agreement with WotC, and when you publish on DM's Guild you aren't actually participating in the OGL. Contributors there have their own rules they must follow. So publishing the Blood Hunter on DM's Guild does not mean Mercer gave it away to WotC or anyone else.
Matt Mercer/Critical Role still owns Exandria. Tal'dorei, Marquet, even Wildemount...none of that is owned by WotC. The two books published for that setting are the results of two custom agreements. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's clearly incorrect.
All that bloody well happened was one YouTuber playing a bogus video for clicks, a bunch more parroting that bogus information, and the company releasing a statement saying, and I quote...
We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time.
You accuse me of having no clue what I'm talking about, and you come at me with this dribble?
All OGL publication must include the license somewhere in the publication. That's part of the terms of the license. Typically, this would be up front with all the other legal stuff; like copyright information. I cannot find the license in my copy of Tal'dorei Reborn, so if you can provide me with a page number I missed I'll be happy to eat a little crow. As for everything with DM's Guild, that's owned by OneBookShelf. OneBookShelf, across its many subsidiaries, sells all kinds of games. Chaosium, Fantasy Flight, Pinnacle, White Wolf...all those companies deal business with them. And OBS is merging with Roll20. I'l like to think if WotC was picking up Roll20 they'd have told us, instead of insisting that was a custom agreement. In short, DM's Guild is not WotC. They have a custom agreement with WotC, and when you publish on DM's Guild you aren't actually participating in the OGL. Contributors there have their own rules they must follow. So publishing the Blood Hunter on DM's Guild does not mean Mercer gave it away to WotC or anyone else.
Matt Mercer/Critical Role still owns Exandria. Tal'dorei, Marquet, even Wildemount...none of that is owned by WotC. The two books published for that setting are the results of two custom agreements. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's clearly incorrect.
All that bloody well happened was one YouTuber playing a bogus video for clicks, a bunch more parroting that bogus information, and the company releasing a statement saying, and I quote...
We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time.
That's it. And you think that's some big miracle.
Give us a break.
All this conversation has done is prove neither of us knows what we are talking about. I didn’t know that Wildmount was made under a special agreement. Nor do I own Taldorei Reborn. What I do know is that if you publish on the DMs guild you give up rights to your ip. Or rather you allow WotC and any author on DMs guild use of your ip.
I know that if Taldorei Reborn references anything in the SRD it is only allowed to do so under the OGL. If it doesn’t that’s amazing, because the first book definitely did.
I know I never said WotC owns the DMs guild. If you publish on the DMs guild they do get a portion of the profits of your sales.
I know Blood Hunter didn’t appear in the Wildmount books and I’m pretty sure it’s not in Taldorei reborn, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. The reason being it’s on DMs guild and because of that Matt no longer has full control of the Blood Hunter IP.
I know the reason that subclasses from the original Taldorei book didn’t make it to the Wildmount book is because they couldn’t. The publishing rights for those subclasses belong to the publisher of Taldorei and Taldorei Reborn. Matt said this himself.
I know that information from an investors meeting got out and it caused a stir in the 3rd party content creator community. It wasn’t just some YouTuber. WotC first response didn’t answer the major question which caused more rumblings and then their second response did.
I also know this is really become a pointless debate. The outcry already happened. WotC already responded to the outcry. I guess we are debating the legitimacy of the outcry, but this is similar to the Jordan, Lebron, Kareem debate. It’s 100% based on perspective. Again I’m not a 3rd party content creator and I understand why they needed an answer about the future OGL after that investors meeting. If you refuse to see it from their point of view that’s your choice.
What caused a stir in the investor meeting was the statement that D&D was "Under Monetized". This did cause quite the stir, but if you look for context about this quote, you will find that nearly every article that mentions it explains that this comment was about selling things to players. It really wasn't related to the Open Game License at all, and anyone concerned about the Open Game License going away based off that quote likely heard it out of context and that's why they were using it to speculate about things it is barely related to.
Wizards' response wasn't really that vague; As you said yourself, the biggest concern was that they would not extend the OGL and stop third-party publishers. Their original statement explained that those concerns were overblown and that they would continue supporting third-party publishers. When people were still concerned, they revealed private business information and their future plans in an attempt to be transparent and ease their consumers worries.
Wizards of the Coast handled this situation well and the concerns were overblown. But at this point, you are right that most of this is in the past and there is little reason to keep discussing it. You guys can keep arguing if you really want to, but I'm out.
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.
All this conversation has done is prove neither of us knows what we are talking about. I didn’t know that Wildmount was made under a special agreement. Nor do I own Taldorei Reborn. What I do know is that if you publish on the DMs guild you give up rights to your ip. Or rather you allow WotC and any author on DMs guild use of your ip.
I know that if Taldorei Reborn references anything in the SRD it is only allowed to do so under the OGL. If it doesn’t that’s amazing, because the first book definitely did.
I know I never said WotC owns the DMs guild. If you publish on the DMs guild they do get a portion of the profits of your sales.
I know Blood Hunter didn’t appear in the Wildmount books and I’m pretty sure it’s not in Taldorei reborn, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. The reason being it’s on DMs guild and because of that Matt no longer has full control of the Blood Hunter IP.
I know the reason that subclasses from the original Taldorei book didn’t make it to the Wildmount book is because they couldn’t. The publishing rights for those subclasses belong to the publisher of Taldorei and Taldorei Reborn. Matt said this himself.
I know that information from an investors meeting got out and it caused a stir in the 3rd party content creator community. It wasn’t just some YouTuber. WotC first response didn’t answer the major question which caused more rumblings and then their second response did.
I also know this is really become a pointless debate. The outcry already happened. WotC already responded to the outcry. I guess we are debating the legitimacy of the outcry, but this is similar to the Jordan, Lebron, Kareem debate. It’s 100% based on perspective. Again I’m not a 3rd party content creator and I understand why they needed an answer about the future OGL after that investors meeting. If you refuse to see it from their point of view that’s your choice.
Wow. I don't know what I was expecting, but it wasn't this. Against my better judgement, I'm going to walk you through this, line-by-line, and then we're done.
If you don't know something, then you can't speak with authority on it. The best you can do is inference. That said, if you look at the bottom of the legal page for Call of the Netherdeep, you'll find a paragraph below the QR code. That paragraph, which I cannot duplicate here for copyright reasons, states who owns what about the book. It acknowledges Product Identity of Critical Role, and it clearly states both WotC and CR, LLC. share copyright for the book. That makes it a custom agreement. This is a legal term that you may not be familiar with, and I suggest you brush up on it before commenting further on the topic.
Publishing on DM's Guild does not mean forfeiting your rights to the IP. In exchange for access to the Product Identity of Dungeons & Dragons, you grant a license to other creators on DM's Guild to use your material published there. They must still credit you, and if WotC wishes to add your contribution to the canon of D&D they must still deal with you directly. As the creator, you still own the copyright. (https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217520927-Ownership-and-License-OGL-Questions)
Do you know why Tal'dorei Campaign Setting included the OGL on page 143. That page actually lists which content was Open Game and where it could be found. It gave specific page numbers and chapters. Tal'dorei Reborn does not include a similar paragraph, but it does contain an addendum to the license. (Yes, it does use the OGL. I wanted to see if you could logic your way through this.) It's a catch-all that also establishes and protects Product Identity for CR. The license is there because mechanics are still used. There are monster stat blocks, spells, and suggested Divine Domains for clerics of setting deities. It's on page 280.
You are correct in that you technically did not say that WotC owns DM's Guild. You are incorrect in stating that Mercer gave up ownership. There's still a copyright. And while WotC takes a share of revenue (if there is any, because Blood Hunter 2.1 is free), they are not the only ones. OneBookShelf owns the platform and takes half. WotC gets 1/4, and so does the creator. But it's the creator who sets the price point.
While there is no official class, the blood hunter does canonically exist. The class is currently locked to the DM's Guild, per the Community Content Agreement, and cannot be reprinted elsewhere─or refined─without a custom agreement.
The subclasses are complicated. Green Ronin owns the copyright to the Tal'dorei Campaign Setting, yet the Way of the Cobalt Soul is here on D&D Beyond. And all four of the subclasses from TDCS made their way into TDR; the copyright for which is owned by Darrington Press, LLC.─a subsidiary of Critical Role. That said, there is a first edition credit to Green Ronin. The "why" of certain things not appearing could be a quagmire. And, honestly, wanting to focus their design team on exploring dunamancy makes more sense. The third-party book is already there for folks who want it.
Per this article from ComicBook.com, it would appear the YouTuber Indestructoboy is responsible for starting this whole mess. If you have other information, corroborated and that supports a counter-narrative, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'll default to the people who have staked their reputation on it.
You're half-right on the pointlessness of this. Because I am seeing this from a creator's perspective. I can say that because I am one. I'm published on DM's Guild. I make money off my stuff. It's not a lot, I'm not some big name creator, but it's something. And I'm not worried. WotC says they'll continue supporting third-party content. That's great. Third parties mean the OGL. It's not going away. For crying out loud, it can't even be amended without another license. WotC would have to issue a new OGL to invalidate any previous version. And that's not worth it to them. People who make money creating videos for YT made clickbait. They might have understood it, and I'll bet dollars to donuts they were counting on their audience not understanding it. Because fear and outrage sells. What I'm trying to do is educate.
There have been some leaks so grain of salt on their validity. But if accurate I'd say while in practice it may work out like the old license they seem to have given them a lot more room to totally screw people over if they want to. My instinct is they'd likely almost never act on those clauses, but who knows. Whether it would all hold up, no idea. But when its a indie going up a giant corp I usually just say good luck.
Nerd Immersion gets a lot wrong and I wouldn't trust him with anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Again grain of salt as its a leak. But more people are reporting on it.
So far it seems.
1. Old OGL is going away entirely and that means for 3.0/5/0 etc as well. What that means for Paizo etc who knows.
2. You have to ask for permission before you make with a game plan.
3. They will deny/revoke if they deem your stuff bigoted in some way.(which is one of the few things I get, you don;t want your brand associated with that).
4. They can revoke your rights for any reason as long as they give 30 days notice.
5. They can steal your work in its entirety and you get nothing for it.
6. The royalty thing over 750K, even if you manage to go into the red you still owe them money. How you will with 750K plus in sales on kickstarter I don't know but I have never published. Apparently its 20% if on kickstarter 25% on other platforms.
How much of that would get acted on vs just being a leave as many options open I have no idea, but like I said up above I suspect most of it like the stealing of product would not be. Or it would be like they use some of your imagery to sell standard D&D while letting consumers know its a open field of products that can be used with the core books. It does look like they are trying to make paizo style companies impossible to come into existence again. So make a one d&D supplement sure, use OGL to make a one d&d alternative, no.
Again grain of salt as its a leak. But more people are reporting on it.
So far it seems.
1. Old OGL is going away entirely and that means for 3.0/5/0 etc as well. What that means for Paizo etc who knows.
2. You have to ask for permission before you make with a game plan.
3. They will deny/revoke if they deem your stuff bigoted in some way.(which is one of the few things I get, you don;t want your brand associated with that).
4. They can revoke your rights for any reason as long as they give 30 days notice.
5. They can steal your work in its entirety and you get nothing for it.
6. The royalty thing over 750K, even if you manage to go into the red you still owe them money. How you will with 750K plus in sales on kickstarter I don't know but I have never published. Apparently its 20% if on kickstarter 25% on other platforms.
How much of that would get acted on vs just being a leave as many options open I have no idea, but like I said up above I suspect most of it like the stealing of product would not be. Or it would be like they use some of your imagery to sell standard D&D while letting consumers know its a open field of products that can be used with the core books. It does look like they are trying to make paizo style companies impossible to come into existence again. So make a one d&D supplement sure, use OGL to make a one d&d alternative, no.
This "More and more" reporting on it seems to be by small channels looking for growth via common search terms. Quantity of reporting is not quality of reporting.
The old ogl exists and will continue to cover a company if used for poducts solely based on previous ogl rules.
Considering that same document claims that the OGL 1.1 would be released on the 4th (and we see that isn't true) I think it is best to avoid giving the document credit for the rest until the OGL 1.1 IS released for the public to see.
Again grain of salt as its a leak. But more people are reporting on it.
So far it seems.
1. Old OGL is going away entirely and that means for 3.0/5/0 etc as well. What that means for Paizo etc who knows.
2. You have to ask for permission before you make with a game plan.
3. They will deny/revoke if they deem your stuff bigoted in some way.(which is one of the few things I get, you don;t want your brand associated with that).
4. They can revoke your rights for any reason as long as they give 30 days notice.
5. They can steal your work in its entirety and you get nothing for it.
6. The royalty thing over 750K, even if you manage to go into the red you still owe them money. How you will with 750K plus in sales on kickstarter I don't know but I have never published. Apparently its 20% if on kickstarter 25% on other platforms.
How much of that would get acted on vs just being a leave as many options open I have no idea, but like I said up above I suspect most of it like the stealing of product would not be. Or it would be like they use some of your imagery to sell standard D&D while letting consumers know its a open field of products that can be used with the core books. It does look like they are trying to make paizo style companies impossible to come into existence again. So make a one d&D supplement sure, use OGL to make a one d&d alternative, no.
I spot a few misconceptions, so I'll clear those up as best I can.
It means a no longer being able to print under the old license, if this leaked draft is an accurate reflection of the eventual license
This isn't as big a deal as people are making this out to be. You had to agree to the license before, no matter what. The only things that have changed is how you opt-in and the self-reporting. This does actually have one noticeable benefit. Since licensees must report gross income of $50K or more, and the creators of a given work are known (because they're listed on the application), it's effectively market research. WotC can use this information to know which kinds of products sell, and which creators are worth keeping an eye on. This can open up employment opportunities with the company directly; likely on a contractual basis. (I'm looking for the silver lining, so take that how you will.)
I think we can all agree this is an absolute win.
It's not that they can terminate one specific license with 30 days notice. It's a 30 day notice for a completely new license for everyone to agree to. If they want to abandon 1.1 in favor or something else, like 1.1a or 1.2, everyone has 30 days to get in compliance. How they get in compliance is up to them at the time.
Wizards of the Coast cannot steal your work. What you create you still own the copyright to. If your work includes your Product Identity, you own that. They cannot take that from you. What they have is a license to anything not Product Identity. A subclass, for example, is not Product Identity. A monster might not be Product Identity. A named NPC for your custom setting, and the setting itself, is Product Identity. You can declare all of this in the document; and are in fact required to label any Open Game content. What they have is boilerplate protection. If a project of theirs contains something which bears similarity to yours, there's no infringement. Matt Mercer isn't losing Tal'dorei if he makes another book with 1.1.
This is a problem; more so than I think the exec who dreamed this up realizes. Let's crunch some numbers so we're all on the same page. Kickstarter takes anywhere from 8%-10% in fees and processing, so we'll split the difference at 9%, and WotC takes 20% off anything more than $750K. If you raise $2M, Kickstarter takes 9% of that for $180K. WotC only gets a cut of 1,250,000, but 20% of that is $250K. All together, that's almost a quarter ($430K) of the $2M raised. It's also way above the standard 2%-15% for royalties, and this proposal would change the crowdfunding landscape overnight. I don't think it'll shutter projects, but expect stretch goals to change. And Kickstarter had to fight for this reduced rate.
As bad as this looks from our perspective, I'm hesitant to call this greed. Hasbro went from being worth $14B a year ago to $8.5B today. It's been on a downward trend all of 2022, and the last few years have been volatile. Over the past five years, it peaked at $15.6B and fell to as low as $6.3B. It wants stable income, and it thinks monetizing the brand will help with that. Finding a way to take a little off the top of future 3PP works is not the worst idea, as much as that might sting to day, but it could backfire. If 3PP abandon WotC and D&D, well...the hobby shrunk by as much as 25% when 4E and the GSL came out in '08.
Every single one of those works owes its success, in part, to WotC. And every one of those creators knows it. Someone over at Hasbro is counting on that. I know the board has at least one former WotC head, but I don't know if they're overestimating the brand or are getting drowned out by other voices.
Again grain of salt as its a leak. But more people are reporting on it.
So far it seems.
1. Old OGL is going away entirely and that means for 3.0/5/0 etc as well. What that means for Paizo etc who knows.
2. You have to ask for permission before you make with a game plan.
3. They will deny/revoke if they deem your stuff bigoted in some way.(which is one of the few things I get, you don;t want your brand associated with that).
4. They can revoke your rights for any reason as long as they give 30 days notice.
5. They can steal your work in its entirety and you get nothing for it.
6. The royalty thing over 750K, even if you manage to go into the red you still owe them money. How you will with 750K plus in sales on kickstarter I don't know but I have never published. Apparently its 20% if on kickstarter 25% on other platforms.
How much of that would get acted on vs just being a leave as many options open I have no idea, but like I said up above I suspect most of it like the stealing of product would not be. Or it would be like they use some of your imagery to sell standard D&D while letting consumers know its a open field of products that can be used with the core books. It does look like they are trying to make paizo style companies impossible to come into existence again. So make a one d&D supplement sure, use OGL to make a one d&d alternative, no.
I spot a few misconceptions, so I'll clear those up as best I can.
It means a no longer being able to print under the old license, if this leaked draft is an accurate reflection of the eventual license
This isn't as big a deal as people are making this out to be. You had to agree to the license before, no matter what. The only things that have changed is how you opt-in and the self-reporting. This does actually have one noticeable benefit. Since licensees must report gross income of $50K or more, and the creators of a given work are known (because they're listed on the application), it's effectively market research. WotC can use this information to know which kinds of products sell, and which creators are worth keeping an eye on. This can open up employment opportunities with the company directly; likely on a contractual basis. (I'm looking for the silver lining, so take that how you will.)
I think we can all agree this is an absolute win.
It's not that they can terminate one specific license with 30 days notice. It's a 30 day notice for a completely new license for everyone to agree to. If they want to abandon 1.1 in favor or something else, like 1.1a or 1.2, everyone has 30 days to get in compliance. How they get in compliance is up to them at the time.
Wizards of the Coast cannot steal your work. What you create you still own the copyright to. If your work includes your Product Identity, you own that. They cannot take that from you. What they have is a license to anything not Product Identity. A subclass, for example, is not Product Identity. A monster might not be Product Identity. A named NPC for your custom setting, and the setting itself, is Product Identity. You can declare all of this in the document; and are in fact required to label any Open Game content. What they have is boilerplate protection. If a project of theirs contains something which bears similarity to yours, there's no infringement. Matt Mercer isn't losing Tal'dorei if he makes another book with 1.1.
This is a problem; more so than I think the exec who dreamed this up realizes. Let's crunch some numbers so we're all on the same page. Kickstarter takes anywhere from 8%-10% in fees and processing, so we'll split the difference at 9%, and WotC takes 20% off anything more than $750K. If you raise $2M, Kickstarter takes 9% of that for $180K. WotC only gets a cut of 1,250,000, but 20% of that is $250K. All together, that's almost a quarter ($430K) of the $2M raised. It's also way above the standard 2%-15% for royalties, and this proposal would change the crowdfunding landscape overnight. I don't think it'll shutter projects, but expect stretch goals to change. And Kickstarter had to fight for this reduced rate.
As bad as this looks from our perspective, I'm hesitant to call this greed. Hasbro went from being worth $14B a year ago to $8.5B today. It's been on a downward trend all of 2022, and the last few years have been volatile. Over the past five years, it peaked at $15.6B and fell to as low as $6.3B. It wants stable income, and it thinks monetizing the brand will help with that. Finding a way to take a little off the top of future 3PP works is not the worst idea, as much as that might sting to day, but it could backfire. If 3PP abandon WotC and D&D, well...the hobby shrunk by as much as 25% when 4E and the GSL came out in '08.
Every single one of those works owes its success, in part, to WotC. And every one of those creators knows it. Someone over at Hasbro is counting on that. I know the board has at least one former WotC head, but I don't know if they're overestimating the brand or are getting drowned out by other voices.
1, Okay it totally sucks for Paizo etc.
2. Maybe, but I suspect it will be a massive hurdle for small fries.
3. Sure.
4. Yes and no. Its very easy to rewrite the license to freeze people out.
5. Yes they can, “nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”. That means they can just take your product whole cloth repackage it and sell it without giving you anything. I suspect they almost never would, the goodwill loss would not be worth it. I suspect its for leaving in marketing options, use other peoples work especially ones they are receiving 20% from as adverting to show their systems depth with 3rd party publishers. But they can just take your stuff by the working of it.
6. It may be. Depending on margins in this field this vary well may be a way to effectively remove any real competition on its own. 20-25% is a lot to lose. Like in the stuff I invest in you may have net 6% as a norm. 25% would be a death knell. Kickstarter releasing that the they had to fight for that reduced rate at least confirms part of the leak. Doesn't make the whole leak confirmed but it makes it more likely.
5. Yes they can, “nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”. That means they can just take your product whole cloth repackage it and sell it without giving you anything. I suspect they almost never would, the goodwill loss would not be worth it. I suspect its for leaving in marketing options, use other peoples work especially ones they are receiving 20% from as adverting to show their systems depth with 3rd party publishers. But they can just take your stuff by the working of it.
No, they really can't. It's boilerplate wording to so neither party can sue each other for some similar Open Game content. Because making content is tricky when nobody is actively talking to one another, and coincidences can happen. And that's not just me saying it. That's the author of the gizmodo article, and the lawyers she ran it by. If you publish anything under 1.1, anything you designate your Product Identity is yours. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. WotC cannot take that from you. They cannot use that without your permission. They cannot repackage for sale or sublicensing. Product Identity falls outside the terms of the license.
And you can still use your own Open Game content however you want. Again, you don't lose it. If it helps, think of legal ownership as, "What am I allowed to do with this thing?"
This is consistent with 1.0a, for those wondering. Share-alike content that wasn't Product Identity was usable by basically anyone else who accepted the license.
One thing to keep in mind is that this was still just a draft. (Just assuming the leak is all real for simplicity sake) These things go through tons of drafts. Everyone adds clauses they want, then someone points out the problems with them, and they continue to rework them. It can take months of revisions for even small changes to a contract. And this is no small contract.
It's no surprise that Kickstarter negotiated terms. We already knew that WotC was going to take a cut. This wasn't anything we weren't expecting. The only thing new is learning what that percentage looks like.
Maybe the final license will be very close to this leak. Maybe it will be completely different. No one here really knows. So until we see the end results, I'm not going to start throwing books away.
I do not want to be too conspiratorial because I am more of a (possibly unfounded) optimist on how 1DnD and any new OGL will turn out in practice, but might it be possible that WotC is allowing really bad-sounding leaks to come out just so the final document seems better for the community by comparison while still allowing the company more control and revenue?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your idea of what is logical and what others think is logical seems to vary. Every since the 1st OGL they have changed their OGL process each edition, and somewhat dramatically. Assuming it would this time be different and basically be the same would not be logical or reasonable to many. Especially when they are vague and have a interview filled with corporate evasions.
The basic point is people look at sets of facts differently. Different ways of looking at things does not make them illogical nor unreasonable.
I'll bite. What "dramatic" changes were made between 1.0 and 1.0a?
What fantasy world do you live in. I’ve seen companies make changes that their consumers hate all the time. They don’t always make announcements and do proper market research. Someone at the top says this is for the best and they do it. I’m happy WotC responded to the outcry. The outcry wouldn’t have happened if the transparency was there from the start. Also I think you confuse haste with transparency. Those are different. Haste would be them release the 1dnd OGL while still playtesting it. Transparency is telling people what the plan is for one 1dnd. Or are you talking about the fact that a 1dnd OGL is expected to released on a faster timeline than the 5e OGL? If that’s what you mean that’s not haste. Unlike with the 5e release there was no knowledge of a need of an OGL. This time there is clear knowledge of the need. As long as they are transparent about a time for the 1dnd OGL they have as long as they need. They are expected to do it on a faster timeline than 5e OGL because 1dnd as of now is more of a 5.5 than a true 6th edition, so they already have a foundation for the document. The 4e version of the OGL was apparently trash and coupled with 4e being an edition many didn’t like they needed time to decide if and how to write the 5e OGL. Considering how well 5e is doing I would say the 5e OGL worked well. I also understand them saying they left too much money on the table and wanting a cut off people making money off their ip. I’m okay with it. The only problem there was is that information came out they were looking for ways to make more money off the ip, and common sense thinks that one method of doing that is to remove 3rd party content that doesn’t give you a cut. So everyone started asking. The WotC responded by saying they would continue to support 3rd party content, but failed to explain what they meant by that. Its like they gave a very political answer. Then everyone freaked out, because while the worst case scenario was off the table (no 3rd party content) the 2nd worst possible scenario was still possible (only people/companies partnered with WotC could create content). Thankfully after everyone freaked out WotC stated their plan and it’s not the second worst case scenario either.
The 4E version you're referring to was called the GSL (Game System License), and it was a mixed bag. Participants had limited access to WotC trademarks, but there was no SRD and the terms of the licenses could be updated at any time by WotC. In the event a licensed produce fell out of compatibility, the legal costs for any dispute would be handled by the licensee. And the third-parties were split on it; with some companies continuing to write D&D content. Though I think some of them got a little too big for their britches. Chris Pramas (Green Ronin Games) didn't think the GSL did enough to treat these companies as values partners. And that's not the case unless they had a Custom Agreement, which the OGL and GSL didn't cover. Regardless of your opinions on him, their company, or the general quality of third-party 4E content...that was not a serious statement.
As for 1.0a, we didn't have that when 5th edition launched. It came years later, and it will still be largely compatible with One D&D content. So, even if there was no new license, we wouldn't actually lose that much in the absence of an immediate update. Adventures are fully compatible. New monsters and magic items can be, too. We've been over this. I know I have. Several times, in fact.
You can interpret silence in only one logical way: the company doesn't have anything to say at this time. If for no other reason than because they don't want to rock any boats. Any further interpretation says more about you than the company. You can make wild, cynical accusations and play Chicken Little. (Seriously, Nerd Immersion titled their video on the revocation of the OGL. And that wasn't happening without another OGL, because that's how the current one is written. Does nobody read anymore?) Or you can assume the company's leadership has learned its lesson from previous mistakes and wants to do right by everyone. Because a robust third-party community of writers, artists, and publishers is good for them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Not that they actually need an OLG for robust support. DM's Guild doesn't use the OGL, it has its own arrangement because of OneBookShelf. And it is possible to write around the OGL, thus protecting your intellectual property. Do you think the blood hunter and Taldorei Reborn are OGL?
Well they rocked the boat at the investors meeting. Also the thing that really rocked it was the politician like answer of “We will continue to support third party content?” When the question was will you be updating the OGL.
Biggest proof you have no clue what you are talking about are your mentions of taldorei reborn and blood hunter in the same sentence. Taldorei Reborn is a OGL book. It uses references that are allowed by WotC under the OGL. Blood Hunter is a class that the IP is now technically owned by WotC. Why, because Matt decided to release it on DMs Guild. When you release stuff on DMs guild you give up your ownership rights and give WotC a portion of the profits. This is why the blood hunter isn’t in the Taldorei books. This also includes the why it didn’t appear in the WotC Wildmount book. Being on the DMs Guild has put Blood Hunter in a weird place IP wise. The only way to write around the OGL is to never mention anything in the SRD. The lack of an SRD with the 4e GSL is one of the major reasons 3rd party Developers didn’t like it. I’m honestly over this debate with you. I’m not even a 3rd party developer. I just understand their concern and it’s easy to see that WotC misstepped by not acknowledging that what was stated at the investors meeting might start some rumblings. I’m glad they responded to those rumblings, but that only happened after a large community outcry.
You accuse me of having no clue what I'm talking about, and you come at me with this dribble?
All OGL publication must include the license somewhere in the publication. That's part of the terms of the license. Typically, this would be up front with all the other legal stuff; like copyright information. I cannot find the license in my copy of Tal'dorei Reborn, so if you can provide me with a page number I missed I'll be happy to eat a little crow. As for everything with DM's Guild, that's owned by OneBookShelf. OneBookShelf, across its many subsidiaries, sells all kinds of games. Chaosium, Fantasy Flight, Pinnacle, White Wolf...all those companies deal business with them. And OBS is merging with Roll20. I'l like to think if WotC was picking up Roll20 they'd have told us, instead of insisting that was a custom agreement. In short, DM's Guild is not WotC. They have a custom agreement with WotC, and when you publish on DM's Guild you aren't actually participating in the OGL. Contributors there have their own rules they must follow. So publishing the Blood Hunter on DM's Guild does not mean Mercer gave it away to WotC or anyone else.
Matt Mercer/Critical Role still owns Exandria. Tal'dorei, Marquet, even Wildemount...none of that is owned by WotC. The two books published for that setting are the results of two custom agreements. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's clearly incorrect.
All that bloody well happened was one YouTuber playing a bogus video for clicks, a bunch more parroting that bogus information, and the company releasing a statement saying, and I quote...
That's it. And you think that's some big miracle.
Give us a break.
All this conversation has done is prove neither of us knows what we are talking about. I didn’t know that Wildmount was made under a special agreement. Nor do I own Taldorei Reborn.
What I do know is that if you publish on the DMs guild you give up rights to your ip. Or rather you allow WotC and any author on DMs guild use of your ip.
I know that if Taldorei Reborn references anything in the SRD it is only allowed to do so under the OGL. If it doesn’t that’s amazing, because the first book definitely did.
I know I never said WotC owns the DMs guild. If you publish on the DMs guild they do get a portion of the profits of your sales.
I know Blood Hunter didn’t appear in the Wildmount books and I’m pretty sure it’s not in Taldorei reborn, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. The reason being it’s on DMs guild and because of that Matt no longer has full control of the Blood Hunter IP.
I know the reason that subclasses from the original Taldorei book didn’t make it to the Wildmount book is because they couldn’t. The publishing rights for those subclasses belong to the publisher of Taldorei and Taldorei Reborn. Matt said this himself.
I know that information from an investors meeting got out and it caused a stir in the 3rd party content creator community. It wasn’t just some YouTuber. WotC first response didn’t answer the major question which caused more rumblings and then their second response did.
I also know this is really become a pointless debate. The outcry already happened. WotC already responded to the outcry. I guess we are debating the legitimacy of the outcry, but this is similar to the Jordan, Lebron, Kareem debate. It’s 100% based on perspective. Again I’m not a 3rd party content creator and I understand why they needed an answer about the future OGL after that investors meeting. If you refuse to see it from their point of view that’s your choice.
@Ain-Undos
What caused a stir in the investor meeting was the statement that D&D was "Under Monetized". This did cause quite the stir, but if you look for context about this quote, you will find that nearly every article that mentions it explains that this comment was about selling things to players. It really wasn't related to the Open Game License at all, and anyone concerned about the Open Game License going away based off that quote likely heard it out of context and that's why they were using it to speculate about things it is barely related to.
Wizards' response wasn't really that vague; As you said yourself, the biggest concern was that they would not extend the OGL and stop third-party publishers. Their original statement explained that those concerns were overblown and that they would continue supporting third-party publishers. When people were still concerned, they revealed private business information and their future plans in an attempt to be transparent and ease their consumers worries.
Wizards of the Coast handled this situation well and the concerns were overblown. But at this point, you are right that most of this is in the past and there is little reason to keep discussing it. You guys can keep arguing if you really want to, but I'm out.
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.Wow. I don't know what I was expecting, but it wasn't this. Against my better judgement, I'm going to walk you through this, line-by-line, and then we're done.
There have been some leaks so grain of salt on their validity. But if accurate I'd say while in practice it may work out like the old license they seem to have given them a lot more room to totally screw people over if they want to. My instinct is they'd likely almost never act on those clauses, but who knows. Whether it would all hold up, no idea. But when its a indie going up a giant corp I usually just say good luck.
Nerd Immersion gets a lot wrong and I wouldn't trust him with anything.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Again grain of salt as its a leak. But more people are reporting on it.
So far it seems.
1. Old OGL is going away entirely and that means for 3.0/5/0 etc as well. What that means for Paizo etc who knows.
2. You have to ask for permission before you make with a game plan.
3. They will deny/revoke if they deem your stuff bigoted in some way.(which is one of the few things I get, you don;t want your brand associated with that).
4. They can revoke your rights for any reason as long as they give 30 days notice.
5. They can steal your work in its entirety and you get nothing for it.
6. The royalty thing over 750K, even if you manage to go into the red you still owe them money. How you will with 750K plus in sales on kickstarter I don't know but I have never published. Apparently its 20% if on kickstarter 25% on other platforms.
How much of that would get acted on vs just being a leave as many options open I have no idea, but like I said up above I suspect most of it like the stealing of product would not be. Or it would be like they use some of your imagery to sell standard D&D while letting consumers know its a open field of products that can be used with the core books. It does look like they are trying to make paizo style companies impossible to come into existence again. So make a one d&D supplement sure, use OGL to make a one d&d alternative, no.
This "More and more" reporting on it seems to be by small channels looking for growth via common search terms. Quantity of reporting is not quality of reporting.
The old ogl exists and will continue to cover a company if used for poducts solely based on previous ogl rules.
I'm not sure gizmodo is a small channel.
Considering that same document claims that the OGL 1.1 would be released on the 4th (and we see that isn't true) I think it is best to avoid giving the document credit for the rest until the OGL 1.1 IS released for the public to see.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I spot a few misconceptions, so I'll clear those up as best I can.
As bad as this looks from our perspective, I'm hesitant to call this greed. Hasbro went from being worth $14B a year ago to $8.5B today. It's been on a downward trend all of 2022, and the last few years have been volatile. Over the past five years, it peaked at $15.6B and fell to as low as $6.3B. It wants stable income, and it thinks monetizing the brand will help with that. Finding a way to take a little off the top of future 3PP works is not the worst idea, as much as that might sting to day, but it could backfire. If 3PP abandon WotC and D&D, well...the hobby shrunk by as much as 25% when 4E and the GSL came out in '08.
Every single one of those works owes its success, in part, to WotC. And every one of those creators knows it. Someone over at Hasbro is counting on that. I know the board has at least one former WotC head, but I don't know if they're overestimating the brand or are getting drowned out by other voices.
1, Okay it totally sucks for Paizo etc.
2. Maybe, but I suspect it will be a massive hurdle for small fries.
3. Sure.
4. Yes and no. Its very easy to rewrite the license to freeze people out.
5. Yes they can, “nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”. That means they can just take your product whole cloth repackage it and sell it without giving you anything. I suspect they almost never would, the goodwill loss would not be worth it. I suspect its for leaving in marketing options, use other peoples work especially ones they are receiving 20% from as adverting to show their systems depth with 3rd party publishers. But they can just take your stuff by the working of it.
6. It may be. Depending on margins in this field this vary well may be a way to effectively remove any real competition on its own. 20-25% is a lot to lose. Like in the stuff I invest in you may have net 6% as a norm. 25% would be a death knell. Kickstarter releasing that the they had to fight for that reduced rate at least confirms part of the leak. Doesn't make the whole leak confirmed but it makes it more likely.
No, they really can't. It's boilerplate wording to so neither party can sue each other for some similar Open Game content. Because making content is tricky when nobody is actively talking to one another, and coincidences can happen. And that's not just me saying it. That's the author of the gizmodo article, and the lawyers she ran it by. If you publish anything under 1.1, anything you designate your Product Identity is yours. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. WotC cannot take that from you. They cannot use that without your permission. They cannot repackage for sale or sublicensing. Product Identity falls outside the terms of the license.
And you can still use your own Open Game content however you want. Again, you don't lose it. If it helps, think of legal ownership as, "What am I allowed to do with this thing?"
This is consistent with 1.0a, for those wondering. Share-alike content that wasn't Product Identity was usable by basically anyone else who accepted the license.
One thing to keep in mind is that this was still just a draft. (Just assuming the leak is all real for simplicity sake) These things go through tons of drafts. Everyone adds clauses they want, then someone points out the problems with them, and they continue to rework them. It can take months of revisions for even small changes to a contract. And this is no small contract.
It's no surprise that Kickstarter negotiated terms. We already knew that WotC was going to take a cut. This wasn't anything we weren't expecting. The only thing new is learning what that percentage looks like.
Maybe the final license will be very close to this leak. Maybe it will be completely different. No one here really knows. So until we see the end results, I'm not going to start throwing books away.
I do not want to be too conspiratorial because I am more of a (possibly unfounded) optimist on how 1DnD and any new OGL will turn out in practice, but might it be possible that WotC is allowing really bad-sounding leaks to come out just so the final document seems better for the community by comparison while still allowing the company more control and revenue?