If this is true? Then we're about to see the end of quality third-party products for D&D. The terms this man describes are downright tyrannical, and no sane businessperson would agree to them. It may well not be true, leaked documents aren't always legit. But if it's true, then the thriving third-party ecosystem that has been a huge driver in making 5e what it is today is about to die a very abrupt death, with no chance of recovery.
Please don't, Wizards. Third party companies are NOT "competitors" to D&D. They're your allies. Don't **** them over like this.
Thank you for sharing this. Everyone should take the time to read it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Useful information for understanding the terms used in all of this. I do wish it was written with more objectivity, but it was just a blog post, and hopefully it was only meant to provide friendly advice. I don't know the writer, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for linking it.
I would caution that the (presumed) leak is still a draft and subject to change. If the final terms match it, then it's definitely worth any creator seriously considering whether they want to sign it or not. I do hope that more people don't start canceling subscriptions and selling their stuff yet though until that potential point. It will only hurt you if it all ends up overblown. And I don't want any of our fellow players hurt over speculation. But everyone will have to follow their heads and hearts.
Is this true? I mean, that's hard to gage. So far no one has leaked an actual copy of this supposed "draft" of the OGL 1.1, so what's actually in there is hard to say. There is an article in which the journalist gives a narrative in 2,000 words on what is in the supposed 9,000 word document. Though the lawyer in question claims to be working from the leaked draft, nothing in their analysis pulls out any details or uses any language that was not in the gizmodo article, so I have my doubts about if they are actually working from the draft.
As for what this means for third-party products, I would say it would be far from the end. The OGL extends to using content that Wizard's claims as their IP. The D20 system is not copyrightable, as it is a "system".
The Copyright Office’s factsheet on games makes this explicit:
Copyright law does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
You could come up with a game system called Prisons and Griffons with the exact same ruleset, and as long as they are not expressed in the same way (described using the same "fluff" language, etc) then there's really nothing WoTC could do about it. The OGL basically allows you to use stuff in the SRD. Nothing Griffon's Saddlebag publishes probably needs the OGL. They make cool magic items that could honestly be used in other game systems. Settings that people create probably wouldn't either, as they are separate from things that WoTC has copyrighted and trademarked.
What the OGL really does is allow publishers to publish 3rd party content without the fear of litigation if their setting/characters/etc fall too close to WoTC copyrights. Many 3rd party works could be published that are setting agnostic and don't include anything about "Waterdeep" or the specific backstory for Elves as used by WoTC, and it would be totally fine to be published. The problem mostly comes from company lawyers suing to protect their copyright, and so works with similarities to the Forgotten Realms or Spelljammer or things like the Spellplague or whatever could have that developer sued, and while the developer would probably win against WoTC/Hasbro, it would take money and time, and so the OGL really mostly allows for people to make supplements for the D20 system without fear of getting sued.
Honestly I kind of went on a ramble and was doing research in the middle of this, so I think I lost where I was going.
At any rate, for more information on the OGL and copyright issues, check out:
Greed will kill the game 3rd party content will die under the new terms. Players will turn to alternative games and there greed will actually turn to profit loss.
Journalists have been wrong before. This is concerning news, but these "leaks" about the OGL potentially being revoked are also unconfirmed; So I wouldn't recommend panicking just yet.
Also, different lawyers have different views and ways to interpret things. None of them are infallible, so going of what person says is typically not the best idea.
If that breakdown is accurate, and Hasbro/WOTC haven't altered it since December...I think it's going to have very bad long term effect on the game.
As everyone here knows and encourages, third party creators have been a huge part of the game's success. The draconian terms of the new gaming license - which does not appear to be OPEN in either a legal or ethical sense - are going to effectively shut it down.
That WOTC is looking to curtail competitors on the VTT level doesn't surprise me; we've long speculated that they're going to want a big piece of that pie to themselves. Which, fine. But the changes to the agreement are far more sweeping and radical than simply locking down rights to an evolving/updating site like D&D Beyond or a VTT.
If this is true? Then we're about to see the end of quality third-party products for D&D. The terms this man describes are downright tyrannical, and no sane businessperson would agree to them. It may well not be true, leaked documents aren't always legit. But if it's true, then the thriving third-party ecosystem that has been a huge driver in making 5e what it is today is about to die a very abrupt death, with no chance of recovery.
Please don't, Wizards. Third party companies are NOT "competitors" to D&D. They're your allies. Don't **** them over like this.
As a general rule, one should be skeptical of any analysis--particularly contract analysis which can be extremely dependent on the specific language--from someone who does not bother to say "I have/have not seen the document". That is a rather important piece of information that probably should have been included in the article.
We also do not know at what stage in the process the leaked draft was. I know when I draft contracts on behalf of my clients, the first versions are often laughable--they're something I know the other side would never actually accept and where the other side's attorney is going to give me a call after with a "just between you and me, I know you did that to make your client happy, but surely you knew that position was never going to be accepted, right?" Sometimes they are even something that is a message to my client of "you asked for the best case situation, here is what it would be", and the client takes one look at it and says "oh, wow, that is too crazy for even me, let's tone this down some." This could be a final draft, or it could be an early draft that was an initial draft to start negotiations, or it could be an internal draft written by lawyers and sent to the PR folks who responded "what the hell, this is a PR disaster... why would you draft this?"
That's the problem with the hubbub - there just is not enough information for any real analysis of what is in 1.1--and you should not trust anyone who does not acknowledge that their own analysis is based on faulty and lacking information. Right now, this is a bit of a Schrodinger's cat situation. We have not even opened the proverbial box, just x-rayed it--we know the hypothetical cat is lying down, which very easily could mean it is dead or dying--but it could also mean that the cat is asleep and we are looking at the completely wrong data for coming to a valid conclusion.
WOTC and Hasbro will do everything in their power to run DnD into the ground for a quick dollar without any consideration for the long-term success for the hobby. I will still be playing with homebrew content on pen and paper if I have to long after WOTC puts the hobby into an early grave.
Kickstarter games tweeted about their royalty negotiation with WotC to get the royalty amount decreases from 25% of Gross to 20%. This seems to lend credibility to the leak. The fact that it is 10 tomes longer than the OGL leads me to think it is not a fraud (though someone could have acquired the actual document and made clever alterations to make it look bad).
If WotC did write this and leak it to see how badly people are going to react to it, that seems a pretty low blow to the community. This kind of dirty dealings are enough to make me stop supporting a company. Even if they walk it back this is making me think I may want to stop my subscription here and shake the dust off my feet.
There are lots of awesome RPG's I played for years. I mostly returned to DnD during the pandemic for the grand kids. Of course now I have a ton of money invested here (including every source book except the Dragonlance one) and am hating the thought of walking away from it.
That's the problem with the hubbub - there just is not enough information for any real analysis of what is in 1.1
I don't see why that's a problem here. We have the information we do and we can make judgements based on it. If that information ends up changing down the line, we can re-evaluate based on that new information. Better to make these opinions clear before the final version is published, than after. At worst, nothing changes, or the draft ends up being incorrect and we get a better deal. At best, Hasbro might change course based on outside pressure and moderate what they were doing.
Like what's the upside to self-censoring or giving Hasbro the benefit of the doubt here? How does it benefit consumers?
Like what's the upside to self-censoring or giving Hasbro the benefit of the doubt here? How does it benefit consumers?
I am not advocating for either, nor am I saying there should not be legitimate conversation. But legitimate conversation requires acknowledgment of the unreliability of the information relied upon. Posts like that linked in this thread, which fail to disclose the underlying issues of their data, are little more than rabble-rousing. That kind of speculation is not helpful and undermines any actually helpful conversations that might move the needle in a positive direction.
The thing that angers me the most (other than just the underlying greed which is the only motivation for WotC doing this in the first place), is this part, which I'm quoting from the gizmodo article on OGL1.1:
"WotC also gets the right to use any content that licensees create, whether commercial or non-commercial. Although this is couched in language to protect Wizards’ products from infringing on creators’ copyright, the document states that for any content created under the updated OGL, regardless of whether or not it is owned by the creator, Wizards will have a 'nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.'"
I'm currently working on an RPG which uses 5e rules for combat and Ability Scores - but that's it. It isn't based on a world at all similar to anything "D&D" related, not in culture, design, geography, language, etc. I use words like "Dwarf" and "Elf" and "Dragon" - but the last I checked, neither Hasbro or WotC own the rights to those words any more than they own the rights to the words "Dice" or "Score" or "Role-Playing"
However, if I read the above correctly, their new OGL 1.1 will flat-out STEAL any original character I create, just because I make reference to 5e rules - regardless of how commercially successful my thing is, IF it's commercially successful at all.
I'll be damned if I let WotC do to me what Universal did to Walt Disney when they stole his Oswald the Lucky Rabbit from him. I may still move forward, make my game, print my books - but I won't sell my soul to Hasbro just because there's a dollar or two out there they want in their pocket. I'll see them in court first
The thing that angers me the most (other than just the underlying greed which is the only motivation for WotC doing this in the first place), is this part, which I'm quoting from the gizmodo article on OGL1.1:
"WotC also gets the right to use any content that licensees create, whether commercial or non-commercial. Although this is couched in language to protect Wizards’ products from infringing on creators’ copyright, the document states that for any content created under the updated OGL, regardless of whether or not it is owned by the creator, Wizards will have a 'nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.'"
I'm currently working on an RPG which uses 5e rules for combat and Ability Scores - but that's it. It isn't based on a world at all similar to anything "D&D" related, not in culture, design, geography, language, etc. I use words like "Dwarf" and "Elf" and "Dragon" - but the last I checked, neither Hasbro or WotC own the rights to those words any more than they own the rights to the words "Dice" or "Score" or "Role-Playing"
However, if I read the above correctly, their new OGL 1.1 will flat-out STEAL any original character I create, just because I make reference to 5e rules - regardless of how commercially successful my thing is, IF it's commercially successful at all.
I'll be damned if I let WotC do to me what Universal did to Walt Disney when they stole his Oswald the Lucky Rabbit from him. I may still move forward, make my game, print my books - but I won't sell my soul to Hasbro just because there's a dollar or two out there they want in their pocket. I'll see them in court first
First, don't create it under the new OGL. That's a license you have to opt into willingly. You probably don't need to do that at all from what you have said. Then you should figure out what parts of your game are borderline questionable and consider reworking them. Remove anything explicitly owned by WotC. I suspect we will all have a much clearer idea of what is fair to use and what isn't by the time this is over. I wish you the best luck moving forward with your project.
WOTC and Hasbro will do everything in their power to run DnD into the ground for a quick dollar without any consideration for the long-term success for the hobby. I will still be playing with homebrew content on pen and paper if I have to long after WOTC puts the hobby into an early grave.
People have been saying that since '97.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If WotC did write this and leak it to see how badly people are going to react to it, that seems a pretty low blow to the community. This kind of dirty dealings are enough to make me stop supporting a company. Even if they walk it back this is making me think I may want to stop my subscription here and shake the dust off my feet.
There are plenty of less nefarious reasons to leak it if it was purposefully done. Maybe they're "playtesting" the idea and have been totally willing to trash the idea if backlash was too strong. Or maybe they leaked a really strict version to soften the blow when a more reasonable document is released. Not exactly honest, but well within the limits of what most self-identifying "good" D&D parties would do.
I don't know. I don't really have a great feeling about all this, but we really should hold our judgement and wait to see what shakes out. Getting this worked up over speculation and rumors is just not productive in any sense of the word. Clearly the public response to the leak has been overwhelmingly negative, and they have to be aware of that. Ball's in their court now.
Anything is possible. But I think a scenario more likely than a deliberate leak would be either - an individual in the company saw it, copied it, and leaked it to try to get the word out. Or a creator that signed the NDA to be in the initial talks leaked it. We might never know.
Having seen a lot of this and how bad it really is for 3rd party folks, I am also wondering if this "leak" is in fact a clever ploy to feel out the D&D base. Throw out a document that is a cash cow meat grinder, screwing 3rd party creators and see what the response is. Then adjust the document, based on the most objectionable bits according to this informal poll (oops we LEAKED something that you aren't supposed to see, what do you think?)
It certainly wouldn't be the first time a document was leaked simply to net responses from a community without going through the bother of a formal poll and such. Of course this may well be wishful thinking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I tried to make it clear I wasn't citing this as gospel, yeah. That said, most of the ruckus currently being raised comes from the mouths of YouTube influencers with negative-three background in legal...anything, really. I figured it might be worthwhile to see what someone who at least claims a legal background - and has the lengthy "THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE" disclaimer to go with it - was saying. Just to see a different take, or at least see if the influencers are talking out their exhaust ports again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm aware there's a dozen threads on the subject already, but I wanted to make sure people saw this particular link.
An article from a legal professional in the field spelling out the ramifications of the leaked OGL 1.1 in short, easy terms.
If this is true? Then we're about to see the end of quality third-party products for D&D. The terms this man describes are downright tyrannical, and no sane businessperson would agree to them. It may well not be true, leaked documents aren't always legit. But if it's true, then the thriving third-party ecosystem that has been a huge driver in making 5e what it is today is about to die a very abrupt death, with no chance of recovery.
Please don't, Wizards. Third party companies are NOT "competitors" to D&D. They're your allies. Don't **** them over like this.
Please do not contact or message me.
Thank you for sharing this. Everyone should take the time to read it.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Useful information for understanding the terms used in all of this. I do wish it was written with more objectivity, but it was just a blog post, and hopefully it was only meant to provide friendly advice. I don't know the writer, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for linking it.
I would caution that the (presumed) leak is still a draft and subject to change. If the final terms match it, then it's definitely worth any creator seriously considering whether they want to sign it or not. I do hope that more people don't start canceling subscriptions and selling their stuff yet though until that potential point. It will only hurt you if it all ends up overblown. And I don't want any of our fellow players hurt over speculation. But everyone will have to follow their heads and hearts.
Is this true? I mean, that's hard to gage. So far no one has leaked an actual copy of this supposed "draft" of the OGL 1.1, so what's actually in there is hard to say. There is an article in which the journalist gives a narrative in 2,000 words on what is in the supposed 9,000 word document. Though the lawyer in question claims to be working from the leaked draft, nothing in their analysis pulls out any details or uses any language that was not in the gizmodo article, so I have my doubts about if they are actually working from the draft.
As for what this means for third-party products, I would say it would be far from the end. The OGL extends to using content that Wizard's claims as their IP. The D20 system is not copyrightable, as it is a "system".
The Copyright Office’s factsheet on games makes this explicit:
Copyright law does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
You could come up with a game system called Prisons and Griffons with the exact same ruleset, and as long as they are not expressed in the same way (described using the same "fluff" language, etc) then there's really nothing WoTC could do about it. The OGL basically allows you to use stuff in the SRD. Nothing Griffon's Saddlebag publishes probably needs the OGL. They make cool magic items that could honestly be used in other game systems. Settings that people create probably wouldn't either, as they are separate from things that WoTC has copyrighted and trademarked.
What the OGL really does is allow publishers to publish 3rd party content without the fear of litigation if their setting/characters/etc fall too close to WoTC copyrights. Many 3rd party works could be published that are setting agnostic and don't include anything about "Waterdeep" or the specific backstory for Elves as used by WoTC, and it would be totally fine to be published. The problem mostly comes from company lawyers suing to protect their copyright, and so works with similarities to the Forgotten Realms or Spelljammer or things like the Spellplague or whatever could have that developer sued, and while the developer would probably win against WoTC/Hasbro, it would take money and time, and so the OGL really mostly allows for people to make supplements for the D20 system without fear of getting sued.
Honestly I kind of went on a ramble and was doing research in the middle of this, so I think I lost where I was going.
At any rate, for more information on the OGL and copyright issues, check out:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48781/roleplaying-games/do-i-need-to-use-the-open-gaming-license
https://www.thearcanelibrary.com/blogs/news/how-to-use-the-open-game-license
Greed will kill the game 3rd party content will die under the new terms. Players will turn to alternative games and there greed will actually turn to profit loss.
Journalists have been wrong before. This is concerning news, but these "leaks" about the OGL potentially being revoked are also unconfirmed; So I wouldn't recommend panicking just yet.
Also, different lawyers have different views and ways to interpret things. None of them are infallible, so going of what person says is typically not the best idea.
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.If that breakdown is accurate, and Hasbro/WOTC haven't altered it since December...I think it's going to have very bad long term effect on the game.
As everyone here knows and encourages, third party creators have been a huge part of the game's success. The draconian terms of the new gaming license - which does not appear to be OPEN in either a legal or ethical sense - are going to effectively shut it down.
That WOTC is looking to curtail competitors on the VTT level doesn't surprise me; we've long speculated that they're going to want a big piece of that pie to themselves. Which, fine. But the changes to the agreement are far more sweeping and radical than simply locking down rights to an evolving/updating site like D&D Beyond or a VTT.
Here, here!! I fully agree to this statement.
I uses to be dndlover_2.
As a general rule, one should be skeptical of any analysis--particularly contract analysis which can be extremely dependent on the specific language--from someone who does not bother to say "I have/have not seen the document". That is a rather important piece of information that probably should have been included in the article.
We also do not know at what stage in the process the leaked draft was. I know when I draft contracts on behalf of my clients, the first versions are often laughable--they're something I know the other side would never actually accept and where the other side's attorney is going to give me a call after with a "just between you and me, I know you did that to make your client happy, but surely you knew that position was never going to be accepted, right?" Sometimes they are even something that is a message to my client of "you asked for the best case situation, here is what it would be", and the client takes one look at it and says "oh, wow, that is too crazy for even me, let's tone this down some." This could be a final draft, or it could be an early draft that was an initial draft to start negotiations, or it could be an internal draft written by lawyers and sent to the PR folks who responded "what the hell, this is a PR disaster... why would you draft this?"
That's the problem with the hubbub - there just is not enough information for any real analysis of what is in 1.1--and you should not trust anyone who does not acknowledge that their own analysis is based on faulty and lacking information. Right now, this is a bit of a Schrodinger's cat situation. We have not even opened the proverbial box, just x-rayed it--we know the hypothetical cat is lying down, which very easily could mean it is dead or dying--but it could also mean that the cat is asleep and we are looking at the completely wrong data for coming to a valid conclusion.
WOTC and Hasbro will do everything in their power to run DnD into the ground for a quick dollar without any consideration for the long-term success for the hobby. I will still be playing with homebrew content on pen and paper if I have to long after WOTC puts the hobby into an early grave.
Kickstarter games tweeted about their royalty negotiation with WotC to get the royalty amount decreases from 25% of Gross to 20%. This seems to lend credibility to the leak. The fact that it is 10 tomes longer than the OGL leads me to think it is not a fraud (though someone could have acquired the actual document and made clever alterations to make it look bad).
If WotC did write this and leak it to see how badly people are going to react to it, that seems a pretty low blow to the community. This kind of dirty dealings are enough to make me stop supporting a company. Even if they walk it back this is making me think I may want to stop my subscription here and shake the dust off my feet.
There are lots of awesome RPG's I played for years. I mostly returned to DnD during the pandemic for the grand kids. Of course now I have a ton of money invested here (including every source book except the Dragonlance one) and am hating the thought of walking away from it.
I don't see why that's a problem here. We have the information we do and we can make judgements based on it. If that information ends up changing down the line, we can re-evaluate based on that new information. Better to make these opinions clear before the final version is published, than after. At worst, nothing changes, or the draft ends up being incorrect and we get a better deal. At best, Hasbro might change course based on outside pressure and moderate what they were doing.
Like what's the upside to self-censoring or giving Hasbro the benefit of the doubt here? How does it benefit consumers?
I am not advocating for either, nor am I saying there should not be legitimate conversation. But legitimate conversation requires acknowledgment of the unreliability of the information relied upon. Posts like that linked in this thread, which fail to disclose the underlying issues of their data, are little more than rabble-rousing. That kind of speculation is not helpful and undermines any actually helpful conversations that might move the needle in a positive direction.
The thing that angers me the most (other than just the underlying greed which is the only motivation for WotC doing this in the first place), is this part, which I'm quoting from the gizmodo article on OGL1.1:
"WotC also gets the right to use any content that licensees create, whether commercial or non-commercial. Although this is couched in language to protect Wizards’ products from infringing on creators’ copyright, the document states that for any content created under the updated OGL, regardless of whether or not it is owned by the creator, Wizards will have a 'nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.'"
I'm currently working on an RPG which uses 5e rules for combat and Ability Scores - but that's it. It isn't based on a world at all similar to anything "D&D" related, not in culture, design, geography, language, etc. I use words like "Dwarf" and "Elf" and "Dragon" - but the last I checked, neither Hasbro or WotC own the rights to those words any more than they own the rights to the words "Dice" or "Score" or "Role-Playing"
However, if I read the above correctly, their new OGL 1.1 will flat-out STEAL any original character I create, just because I make reference to 5e rules - regardless of how commercially successful my thing is, IF it's commercially successful at all.
I'll be damned if I let WotC do to me what Universal did to Walt Disney when they stole his Oswald the Lucky Rabbit from him. I may still move forward, make my game, print my books - but I won't sell my soul to Hasbro just because there's a dollar or two out there they want in their pocket. I'll see them in court first
First, don't create it under the new OGL. That's a license you have to opt into willingly. You probably don't need to do that at all from what you have said. Then you should figure out what parts of your game are borderline questionable and consider reworking them. Remove anything explicitly owned by WotC. I suspect we will all have a much clearer idea of what is fair to use and what isn't by the time this is over. I wish you the best luck moving forward with your project.
People have been saying that since '97.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There are plenty of less nefarious reasons to leak it if it was purposefully done. Maybe they're "playtesting" the idea and have been totally willing to trash the idea if backlash was too strong. Or maybe they leaked a really strict version to soften the blow when a more reasonable document is released. Not exactly honest, but well within the limits of what most self-identifying "good" D&D parties would do.
I don't know. I don't really have a great feeling about all this, but we really should hold our judgement and wait to see what shakes out. Getting this worked up over speculation and rumors is just not productive in any sense of the word. Clearly the public response to the leak has been overwhelmingly negative, and they have to be aware of that. Ball's in their court now.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Anything is possible. But I think a scenario more likely than a deliberate leak would be either - an individual in the company saw it, copied it, and leaked it to try to get the word out. Or a creator that signed the NDA to be in the initial talks leaked it. We might never know.
Having seen a lot of this and how bad it really is for 3rd party folks, I am also wondering if this "leak" is in fact a clever ploy to feel out the D&D base. Throw out a document that is a cash cow meat grinder, screwing 3rd party creators and see what the response is. Then adjust the document, based on the most objectionable bits according to this informal poll (oops we LEAKED something that you aren't supposed to see, what do you think?)
It certainly wouldn't be the first time a document was leaked simply to net responses from a community without going through the bother of a formal poll and such. Of course this may well be wishful thinking.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I tried to make it clear I wasn't citing this as gospel, yeah. That said, most of the ruckus currently being raised comes from the mouths of YouTube influencers with negative-three background in legal...anything, really. I figured it might be worthwhile to see what someone who at least claims a legal background - and has the lengthy "THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE" disclaimer to go with it - was saying. Just to see a different take, or at least see if the influencers are talking out their exhaust ports again.
Please do not contact or message me.